Video: Could the feds require Americans to purchase GM cars?
posted at 8:41 pm on March 29, 2010 by Allahpundit
A fun new entry in CNS News’s “let’s ask Congress an uncomfortable question about ObamaCare” series. I’m not losing any sleep over the GM scenario and neither is Burgess (I think), but it’s a tasty hypothetical given the left’s basically correct assertion that Commerce Clause jurisprudence lets them do anything their hearts desire. Any legal eagles care to weigh in? If it’s constitutional to impose an insurance mandate, i.e. “you must purchase a product from this industry,” why would it be unconstitutional to refine that to “you must purchase our product from this industry”? In fact, assuming that the feds gave you a choice between not buying a car at all and having to buy GM if you did choose to buy one, the GM hypothetical would operate more like auto-insurance laws — which are, of course, fully constitutional — than the true mandate that’s found in ObamaCare. There’s no question, either, that the feds can monopolize certain industries, although in the past I believe it’s taken a specific constitutional grant of authority to enable that. What we’re talking about here is a free-floating monopoly power under the Commerce Clause. If the car hypothetical is too goofy for you, instead try, let’s say, education. Anything stopping the feds from saying, “You’re using our product from now on”? My poli sci is rusty, but nothing springs to mind.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
If we follow the logic of the libs, the only answer can be yes.
My God… we are so f*cked.
Chaz706 on March 29, 2010 at 8:44 PM
I can’t wait for the federal mandate forcing us all to watch “Marmaduke”
podank on March 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
I think food is the better example.
Why is the food pyramid not mandatory? If you follow it, you practically guarantee that you’ll keep healthcare costs low for everyone, right?
Who’s up for some federal government deal-a-meals ?
lorien1973 on March 29, 2010 at 8:46 PM
IF the Health Care mandate stands up in court, yes they can.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 8:47 PM
Like hell I would. They can drag my arse off to prison if they want, but I am sick and tired of this crap, and if they go further than they have….I hope they can read sign language.
capejasmine on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
I’ll use harsh, harsh language (and nothing more than that) if the Feds try and force me to buy one of the new Camaros; nice on the outside but Yugo-cheap interior. What a waste.
Bishop on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
GM would be the public option…
ninjapirate on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
As a constitutional scholar that supports the individual mandate once said,
“It is not your fundamental right to not buy GM.”
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Sounds like slavery huh. Buy such and such product or go to jail.
jhffmn on March 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Ummmm, nope. That dog ain’t huntin’ roun’ heah.
Do these donks really think, that in America, where there is one whole effing aisle in the supermarket devoted to a singular breakfast item—cereal, that they’ll be able to convince this populace that we’re better off eating their stale ass cornflakes from here to eternity? And, no choices to the contrary.???
You can make that argument 150 ways from tomorrow and it all ends up the same. In America, if you don’t like Mickie D’s, you drive 600 ft to a Burger King and get it “your way.” I doubt ol’ Fidel’s got that same setup down there in Havana, no matta what Sean Penn thinks of it–he sure ain’t living la vida loca Castro-style.
Choices.
ted c on March 29, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Actually, no. That’s wrong. Research what happened when the food pyramid came out and the rise in overweight people thereafter. I believe it’s because of the drastic reliance on breads. 6-11 servings? Seriously? With only 3-5 servings of vegetables?
Who came up with this thing, the Pillsbury Doughboy?
UnderstandingisPower on March 29, 2010 at 8:50 PM
Are we talking about John Roberts-style constitutional law, or “Wise Latina”-style constitutional law?
Cicero43 on March 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
But, here is the rub. If the Court then rules that an individual GM Mandate violates Equal Protection clause, then everyone will be required to buy a car from Dodge, Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, Toyota, Kia, Subaru, Suzuki, Hyundai, and any other car manufacturer in America.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Well, the United States Constitution used to perform the function of stopping them.
But who reads that dead white male tissue of lies these days, eh?
Good Lt on March 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
What is the ‘buy’ of which you speak?
If the government wants to keep the United Auto Workers employed, the government will have to give me a car, because I am entitled to it. There is no mass transit where I live, and I need transportation. It is my right as an American to travel freely about the country, and to shop at WalMart.
And since we are speaking of rights, I need food. So get those teamster drivers in the big trucks and start delivering.
Skandia Recluse on March 29, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Did somebody say the Feds are subsidizing my new Camaro?
BKeyser on March 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Life in the Age of Obama:
malclave on March 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM
Better question: Can the Democrats require Americans to purchase GM cars?
I’m pretty sure the Republicans can’t.
Scott H on March 29, 2010 at 8:53 PM
yeah, those jackasses better be droppin’ turkey’s like Al Sharpton before Thanksgiving and bringin’ it Hot n’ Fast like Dominoes or there’s gonna be hellz to pay up at the congressman’s office tomorrow.
Entitlements.
ted c on March 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM
The new ford mustang looks a ton better.
lorien1973 on March 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM
And they could use O-care to mandate what food you can purchase. Remember San Fran Nan….”It’s not about diabetes, it’s about diet.” They already snuck through the mandate (per Ed’s post) that restaurants with greater than 20 stores must display nutritional information such as calorie count. What’s not to say that they declare obesity a national pandemic? And to control costs, they mandate heavy taxes on “junk” food to pay for O-care. Buh buy, Big Mac. Hello, arugula.
Hypothetically speaking, that is………
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 29, 2010 at 8:54 PM
You folks sound like dangerous militia members.
/
faraway on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM
….”If you build it, they will come”. [From Field of Dreams]
retiredeagle on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM
Other questions…
Can the government regulate abortions – when, who, where, if?
Can the government force members of other nations to buy products in the US?
Just some other “Commerce Clause” arguments to think about…
MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2010 at 8:55 PM
And you will be allowed to purchase the mustang but you will have to pay the cadillac tax.
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM
The government can do whatever they please, irrespective of whether it is constitutional or not, since there is no power on earth more powerful than that of the federal US government. So all this talk is just fodder for fools. Nothing can be done one way or the other. What are you going to do, call on France to help?
We need to be thankful it is nothing more than this. Obama could force you all to eat a salt-free diet and drive hybrids, and there is nothing you could do to about it. Constitutions don’t mean much if the powers that be don’t respect them. Who’s going to police the police?
keep the change on March 29, 2010 at 8:56 PM
Since a fairly significant portion of the population doens’t care about the constitution and just wants everything handed to them I’d say they can do whatever they feel like.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 8:57 PM
The entire reason for the second amendment.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM
God and his children.
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM
No strippers either. Everyone will have to comply with the federal Minimum Required Trim Package (MRTP) which includes leather or simulated leather seating surfaces, chrome alloy wheels or their equivalent, a remote trunk release and a two-year subscription to OnStar.
Cicero43 on March 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM
I hope the Visitors just hurry up and get here for real.
SouthernGent on March 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM
I have been using the GM example for a while now…if the government can mandate we all buy insurance, why not mandate we all buy a government motors car??
evie on March 29, 2010 at 9:00 PM
I’m surprised Obama didn’t give everyone a Hummer
faraway on March 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM
ahhhh, a true ‘peoples car’
Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM
There’s nothing hypothetical about it. There are already local governments that are regulating cooking oil and are now after salt. Colorado is taxing candy and some desserts because of the sugar content. It’s all in motion.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM
So would that make Obamacare the new “Kansas-Nebraska Act” ?
Democrats thought that was constitutional too.
tetriskid on March 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM
In the Soviet Socialist States of Amerika, car drives you.
Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:02 PM
While correct, that is technically sedition and is ban hammer worthy.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM
… The Second Amendment?
Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2010 at 9:03 PM
Instead he is giving all of us a free prostate exam. The bad news is both his hands are on your shoulders.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM
I never thought “Privatize GM” and “Privatize health care” would be campaign issues…
silverfox on March 29, 2010 at 9:04 PM
What’s that? The thing Obama wipes himself with?
MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2010 at 9:05 PM
Indentured taxpayers/
ericdijon on March 29, 2010 at 9:07 PM
Larry Sinclair could not be reached for comment
thomasaur on March 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 8:59 PM
*Legal counsel for Bishop E. Bishop would like to advise the HA administrators, owners, and advertisers that Mr. Bishop categorically denounces, disavows, and pretends not to notice the above comment due to its potential to cause irreparable harm to the United States of America and completely ruin the spirit of dialogue and debate.*
Bishop on March 29, 2010 at 9:08 PM
pretty much summed it up there C
cmsinaz on March 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Related parody: Democrats Claim Congress Has Authority to Make Everyone Buy Snuggies and Jupiter Jacks http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/03/democrats-claim-congress-has-authority.html
Mervis Winter on March 29, 2010 at 9:09 PM
Then:
1928 Presidential Campaign Slogans
A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage – Herbert Hoover
Claims that the everyone will be prosperous under a Hoover presidency
Now:
A free-range chicken in every pot and a GM car in every garage.
“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” – The One
GrannyDee on March 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM
good luck with that, the way they’re going no one will be able to buy a new car of any make.
thomasaur on March 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Hay, I am willing to be an indentured taxpayer if my taxes could be subsided…..on second thought…I just want to be free.
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 9:10 PM
Well, under the current social situation I suppose it could be. However, many would disagree. We had just fought a war against a tyrannical government when that was penned and the founding fathers wanted to make certain that if things within our government got bad the people would have recourse.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM
Must learn how to spell. Second on my list.
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 9:11 PM
You actually believe that arrogant a%s wipes his own backside…?
…Not only does he have an army of wipers, I am sure he has lickers as well.
Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Meh. I’m still looking for the provision in the Constitution that allows the federal government to discriminate on the basis of race.
Labamigo on March 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM
In all previous commerce clause cases there was some activity that was regulated — the most expansive of which permitted the regulation of growing crops such as wheat or marijuana, even for personal consumption. But even there, there was an activity that was voluntary — growing crops. You could avoid the regulation by not engaging in the regulated activity — not growing crops or growing other crops. However, the mandate seeks to regulate no other activity other than breathing. Merely existing makes you subject to the mandate which under no circumstances can be avoided — other than by dying.
So, the mandate does open the door to anything. If you can be regulated for merely existing, Congress has unlimited police power to do anything not prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Since none of the ten amendments prohibit a state controlled monopoly in any industry, nothing would prevent a state controlled monopoly in all industries. Central planning here we come.
On the other hand, the cases are clear that the commerce clause has limits. The mandate should be ruled to be unconstitutional and the damage should be by minimized by the SCOTUS until order can be restored by the electorate.
tommylotto on March 29, 2010 at 9:12 PM
LOL
It amazes me how things have gone so far that people can’t even talk about portions of the constitution and debate the intentions of the founding fathers when they wrote it.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:14 PM
Psh, and next you’ll tell me that the government would abuse their powers to hassle one of GM’s competitors. You racefans live in a fantasy world!
/s
Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 9:14 PM
A feminine product used by Nancy Pelosi?
malclave on March 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM
FIFY
/s
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on March 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Chris Matthews.
MeatHeadinCA on March 29, 2010 at 9:15 PM
Well, if you consider the “good and welfare clause” (heh) I can’t see how you could mandate a brand of car, but I can certainly see them mandating a type of car, i.e. a hybrid. They could also establish mandatory exercise programs like you see in Korea. Entire company staffs run out into the courtyard for an hour of fitness regime.
redshirt on March 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM
I was thinkin’ of starting a tanning saloon but I want all to sign up and pay their yearly dues. Unfortunately there may be a group of people that won’t sign up and hurt my commerce. Is there something I can do about that?
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 9:16 PM
didn’t we see this in coming to america?
cmsinaz on March 29, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Shhhhhh..the Eye sees all….and sends emails.
It’s too late for me, but you can still save yourself. Just walk away.
Bishop on March 29, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Life is a crime…unless you pay your dues to society, then your debt is forgiven.
Electrongod on March 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM
That explains the spittle…
Seven Percent Solution on March 29, 2010 at 9:18 PM
That sort of talk is verboten, comrade. That sure is a nice screen name you’ve got. Would be a shame if sumptin were to happen to it…
Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 9:19 PM
U.S. v. Lopez (Supreme Court 1995) (emphasis added, other citations omitted).
At the outset, it looks like the Wirtz decision discussed above would squarely prohibt use of the Commerce Clause to regulate an individual’s private activity of determining whether to buy health insurance or what type of car to buy or what type of deodorant to use, etc. The fact that both Jones & Laughlin Steel and Wirtz were discussed with approval in a decision as recent as 1995 is encouraging to me.
OneVision on March 29, 2010 at 9:20 PM
You can’t for the simple reason that the Founding Fathers would be beyond polite political debate.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:20 PM
That’s weird. A dark car with guvmint plates just pulled into my drive.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:20 PM
I have had some ruff but kinda cool cars 60 impala convertible, I was 17 – ran it hard – went in the navy in 71 – picked up a bondo upped but cool 64 Galaxy 500xl – had a 72Mustang 351 Cleveland – a Chevette and many others now a 345hp Escalade – I just hope I can drive it when fuel goes up – worked hard all my life what a shame when GovCo takes it away – we will vote to try to stop then in Nov .
wheels on March 29, 2010 at 9:21 PM
To Allah:
If the court sets precedent with Mandates, then there would be less good precedent to stop this. Right now the government can not act in an economically discriminatory way in their regulation. But who knows for sure what the court will approve of.
Squid Shark on March 29, 2010 at 9:22 PM
Well, I can’t figure out what’s polite about the government convincing people that they are entitled to a significant portion of my paycheck. I tremble at the thought of what is coming to our country.
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM
John has a long mustache. I repeat, John has a Long Mustache.
There is fire at the travel agency.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:25 PM
“As goes GM, so goes America.” Proof that everyone must buy a GM product. Quit whining, you are Americans, right?
It’s hard to argue with Constitutional logic like that.
GnuBreed on March 29, 2010 at 9:26 PM
This all depends on the structure of the arrangement. HCR – from what I’ve read – is structured like a tax, so let’s say it operates as a massive tax hike, and then you get a credit for having health insurance. Govt is incentivizing behavior they like.
Anything wrong with that? Anything unconstitutional about that? Nope.
If you prefer to look at the case from a Commerce Clause perspective: If you make money, you have to pay into Social Security. If you don’t make any money, you don’t pay. You get social security benefits whether you want them or not, and you get it from a government source.
HCR operates in a similar way – you pay into a program whether you like it or not, and you get a service whether you like it or not. Now, social security has never been successfully challenged in a Court, and the sole distinction that I see in terms of the Commerce Clause is that HCR doesn’t specify where you get your insurance from, whereas SS does. So HCR is actually less restrictive than social security.
The only signficant difference that I see is that HCR provides a good that is not fungible, whereas SS gives you money, with which you can do whatever you want. That just doesn’t seem like a significant enough difference to me to distinguish why SS is constitutional and HCR is not.
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:26 PM
ROFL Look out everyone it’s that there militia talk!
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:27 PM
The way this poor sick Republic is going they’ll probably tell you what toothpaste to buy before too long.
rplat on March 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM
Klatu Barata Nikto.
Holger on March 29, 2010 at 9:28 PM
It’s bedtime tomorrow will be a long day.
Remeber everyone, work harder, millions on government handouts are depending on you!
boomer on March 29, 2010 at 9:30 PM
That doesn’t seem to square w/Katzenbach v. McClung
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:30 PM
The new Government GM – the American Yugo.
We’ll all be driving them in a few years.
neuquenguy on March 29, 2010 at 9:30 PM
The government is incentivizing behavior they like?
Yeah, there’s a lot wrong with that. That defeats the very notion of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If buying people insurance makes you happy, go for it. Leave me out of it.
darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:35 PM
The most frightening aspect of all of it is that such a state would never come to pass through any rational set of policy decisions. We would stumble blindly into it, like a pinball through a maze of unintended consequences.
spmat on March 29, 2010 at 9:36 PM
Our family was pretty much a GM family (after the used Studebaker in 1960 and a Chevy Belair wagon in 1964, we were GM all through the 00′s). Between my parents, my brothers and myself, maybe two dozen vehicles over the years.
Wanna know how many GMs will be purchased in the future? Zip, zero, nada.
disa on March 29, 2010 at 9:37 PM
It doesn’t square with the intent of the Constitution, which was to limit federal power, not expand it. That’s the real standard to apply it against, not some case law.
darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Poor analogy. SS is set up like an annuity. You are forced to pay in, then you collect a payment at a later date. It is a federally enforced ‘savings plan’.
Medicare is a ‘tax’ but you are not required to utilize the system, nor do you get a tax credit if you, e.g. no incentive.
Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where does it say what the intent of the Constitution is?
Where does it say in the Constitution that we’re not adopting common law jurisprudence?
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:39 PM
Get the ragtop! You deserve it!
jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:40 PM
Never watched schoolhouse rock did you?
Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:42 PM
Yes, I pointed that out. The question then becomes, why is the annuity payment permissible under the Commerce Clause, but the insurance mandate not permissible? Where does the constitutional violation occur?
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:43 PM
With the current crop of Dems in office, you should consider yourself lucky if they’ll even let you buy a GM car. If Ray LaHood has anything to say about the government’s next mandate for our bright, bright future, it will be to buy a government made Schwinn.
Dusty on March 29, 2010 at 9:44 PM
Sweet, so the government will start subsidizing more behavior that they like?
A tex credit if you cut down on salt and trans-fat intake? Tax credits for how often/how much you recycle, how green your house is, the car you drive, how often you drive it?
Gee, this couldn’t possibly go wrong!
Good Solid B-Plus on March 29, 2010 at 9:45 PM
Do I really have to state the basis of the foundation of this country? Do you really think that after fighting a bloody war of rebellion the founders would write a document that would allow the very thing they just fought a war to free themselves of?
Why are federal powers enumerated? So they could be expanded at a whim?
So you don’t think the Constitution is a valid standard to apply this case against?
darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:46 PM
As far as I am concerned SS is a violation, however in this case a violation occurs by forcing a specific transaction for goods and services not just a withholding of funds. It compels trade rather than regulates it.
Fighton03 on March 29, 2010 at 9:46 PM
Why does Chris Matthews come to mind?
jimmy2shoes on March 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM
I can’t tell if you’re being really, really funny or you’re really, really stupid, but either way, I really enjoyed this comment. Thanks.
http://www.hybridcars.com/federal-incentives.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/garden/09greenhome.html
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:47 PM
Owning a GM auto is a basic civil right.
/s
TN Mom on March 29, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Social Security is unconstituional … all entitlement programs are at the federal level. The intent of the commerce clause was to regulate trade among the states … not provide a loophole for disingenuous judges to give politicians false authority to expand their power and steal.
darwin on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM
That’s where I stopped reading. Whether you like the laws or not, you have to play by the same rules as everyone else. If you think HCR is unconstitutional, you have to use the laws as we understand them today. You can’t remake nearly 75 years of commerce clause jurisprudence because you don’t like Obama or whatever your problem is.
Proud Rino on March 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »