Video: Guess who predicted the ObamaCare ruling?

posted at 12:55 pm on February 1, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I’ll give you a couple of hints. First, he’s a famous Constitutional scholar.  Second, he’s rumored to be the smartest elected official evah.  Third, he, er, obviously doesn’t take his own advice.  Gretchen Carlson from Fox & Friends introduces this clip that shows Barack Obama almost eerily framing the very argument that Judge Robert Vinson used to overturn Obama’s signature legislation, from an appearance in February 2008 on Ellen DeGeneres’ daytime talk show (via Greg Hengler, h/t Vayapaso):

Obama was specifically rebutting the individual mandate in Hillary Clinton’s health-care proposal:

She’s have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance.  It’s that they can’t afford it …

Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness.  It doesn’t.

CNS has a longer clip, in case the one above is a little dodgy. It also contains his entire answer, although that shows the edit on the first to be fair:

Nor was that the only time Obama made that argument.  Earlier that same month, he told CNN the same thing:

OBAMA: Let’s break down what she really means by a mandate. What’s meant by a mandate is that the government is forcing people to buy health insurance and so she’s suggesting a parent is not going to buy health insurance for themselves if they can afford it. Now, my belief is that most parents will choose to get health care for themselves and we make it affordable.

Here’s the concern. If you haven’t made it affordable, how are you going to enforce a mandate. I mean, if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house. The reason they don’t buy a house is they don’t have the money. And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Judge Vinson actually references the latter example in a footnote in his opinion overturning ObamaCare, warning against an overbroad reading of the Commerce Clause:

The problem with this legal rationale, however, is it would essentially have unlimited application. There is quite literally no decision that, in the natural course of events, does not have an economic impact of some sort. The decisions of whether and when (or not) to buy a house, a car, a television, a dinner, or even a morning cup of coffee also have a financial impact that — when aggregated with similar economic decisions — affect the price of that particular product or service and have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. To be sure, it is not difficult to identify an economic decision that has a cumulatively substantial effect on interstate commerce; rather, the difficult task is to find a decision that does not.23

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

*Oops,apologies to blink,sorry,I got Bifidis,mixed up
with you,sorry:)

Bishop:I misread,disregard!:)
===================================

“Bifidis” in Japanese means “Woman who has never had a date”.

Bishop on February 1, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Bishop:Bifidis must be a Community Organizer,(it)is covering
all its bases,from Jordan Next Thread!
============================================

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

canopfor, no offense, but I often don’t read your comments because it takes me too long to understand what you’re trying to convey.

You often have ======’s and *******’s and headlines, etc., and I don’t know what to focus on. If it confuses me, then it might confuse others, too.

The formatting styles used by other commenters on here seem much more intuitive.

blink on February 1, 2011 at 1:43 PM

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 1:59 PM

canopfor on February 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Wrong. Choosing not to participate in commerce is not covered in this clause.

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

How can a well researched opinion based on the founding documents be either activist or out of the mainstream?

duff65 on February 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Can congress mandate that I buy brocolli? Can congress mandate that I join a health club? Can congress mandate that I buy from GM?

No? Why one and not the other?

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

You can wait in vain. Logic and liberals are not one.

Pity crr6′s clients, already.

Schadenfreude on February 1, 2011 at 2:11 PM

Can congress mandate that I buy brocolli? Can congress mandate that I join a health club? Can congress mandate that I buy from GM?

No? Why one and not the other?

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 1:54 PM

I think you’re making a few rather odd assumptions (or more accurately, errors) when you ask those questions.

The first is that you assume simply because having a power would enable Congress to do something bad or objectionable, Congress must necessarily not have that power. As I said above, virtually no one debates that Congress could create a single-payer systmem through taxation, or tax people at 100% of their income, or declare war on Canada tomorrow for no good reason. Does that mean that Congress doesn’t or can’t have the power to do those things? No, it means we rely on other constitutional checks (namely, democratic ones) to ensure that those things don’t happen.

The second mistake you make is that you’re employing the typical “slippery slope” or “parade of horribles” fallacy. Those are very effective rhetorical arguments (because they scare the cr*p out of people), but they’re not very strong logical arguments, because the only way this decision matters is if it increases actually increases the liklelihood that any of your “nightmare” examples will actually happen. If there isn’t any real likelihood, then there is no danger and your argument doesn’t have any logical weight. That is to say, what is the (real world) likelihood that nay of your hypothericals could happen? What incentives (in the real world) could lead to those laws being passed? And how does this decision make the enactment of those laws more likely?

All of that aside, the DOJ does a good job of distinguishing health care from the examples you provided on 3 major grounds, and the judge isn’t really able to rebut it. If you’ve read the opinion, I’m sure you’ve seen that.

But they didn’t do it under the tax authority, even if they could have. It never would have passed that way so they tried to bootstrap it in another way

That’s correct, actually.

and FAILED.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM

Well, no. They succeeded and it passed.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Whose turn is it to change and powder crr6?

Chuck Schick on February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance pursuant to the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).

Obviously not!

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Obviously not!

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:13 PM

I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Two federal judges have said Congress may, two have said they may not.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

No, it means we rely on other constitutional checks (namely, democratic ones) to ensure that those things don’t happen.

Yes! It’s working. The Judicial branch interprets the law and the law has been correctly interpreted as unconstitutional.

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Obama’s claim:

And so, our focus has been on reducing costs, making it available. I am confident if people have a chance to buy high-quality health care that is affordable, they will do so. That’s what our plan does and nobody disputes that.

Result:

Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals

Insurer says the increases result from fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws. The move comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39%.

January 05, 2011|By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times

Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it’s Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1.

Blue Shield’s action comes less than a year after Anthem Blue Cross tried and failed to raise rates as much as 39% for about 700,000 California customers.

LA Timse

Chuck Schick on February 1, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Yes! It’s working. The Judicial branch interprets the law and the law has been correctly interpreted as unconstitutional.

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:17 PM

You’re a bit slow, aren’t you Vince?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM

I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Two federal judges have said Congress may, two have said they may not.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

Only two of these are correct and the judges who have ruled against you and the Obama administration are correct. It’s obvious!

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

The Battle of the Liberal Lawyers.

Now, all Mr. Constitutional Scholar has to solve is the problem of making something expensive affordable without the mandate. There’s only one way — to nationalize healthcare and to charge less than the going rate for services in exchange for tax dollars.

But, given that we want to ensure everybody, including those who don’t pay taxes, we have the scenario in which healthcare is free for certain people. As is pointed out by the RAND Corporation study performed by Joseph P. Newhouse — detained in the book “Free for All?”, healthcare expenditures average 30% higher for the individual who does not have to pay vs. the individual who pays at least part of their own care, with no discernable difference in medical outcome.

unclesmrgol on February 1, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Congress can mandate the purchase of health insurance pursuant to the Commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).
crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

This is your opinion. Others do not hold it.
In fact, as you go on to say:

Alternatively (and virtually no one disputes this) pursuant to the Tax and Spending clause (Article , Seciton 8, clause 1) Congress could tax citizens at a higher rate in order to fund and create its own social insurance program that it administers itself (basically, Medicare for everyone). The effect would be the same as a mandate except people would pay for government administered insurance through taxes rather than being mandated to purchase it themselves.crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Obamacare is a poory veiled tax.

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be
uniform throughout the United States;

So I am sure you have no problem justifying a huge tax like Obamacare on the citizens of the US as for the ‘general welfare’ of the United States.
However, that is not what the ‘general welfare’ statement here is getting at.
‘Common defence AND general welfare’. Ok-it is talking about the defence of the United States & the General Welfare: of the Untied States. Not individuals.
Of course progressives think it means the individual bcs it is another way for the federal monster to acquire more power.
This is the argument to have.
Do we agree the FEDS have a right to lay yet another tax upon us that is so onerous it boggles the mind, while destroying the economy & the medical industry.?
That’s what we should be arguing about.

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 2:22 PM

You’re a bit slow, aren’t you Vince?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:19 PM

How do you mean? I am correct and you aren’t so it seems that you are extremely slow in regards to comprehension of the Constitution.

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM

ABSOLUTELY EMBARRAKSING……..uhhh ..Embarrassing

Lock and load Tea Party….Fire Obama’s words back at him…see if he can Dodge his own words. (Sorry about the L&L VITRIOL )

JayTee on February 1, 2011 at 2:24 PM

What needs to be done is get rid of Medicare altogether.
But too many people refuse to negotiate or get rid of their entitlements, so the rest of us suffer.

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 2:26 PM

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Your response boiled down to “oh, that would never happen, so I’m not going to deal with it.”

In other words, you put your faith in the benevolence of “our rulers” to be nice and never do what you would consider objectionable.

But the constitution is not built upon the benevolence of men; quite the opposite. The Founding Fathers assumed the corruptability of power which is why they parceled it out, set up checks and balances, and assumed that sovereignity resides, by default, with the people and not the government.

This is not a slippier slope argument: with the government claiming the power that I buy health insurance (and not just any policy but one that “they” approve of), I’ve already slid down the slope, crashed through the guardrail and am plunging into the canyon.

You see, it’s NOT my job to prove why the government shouldn’t have the power to control my economic choices, it’s yours. You have to prove why the government should treat me like a subject to be told what to buy and when. The burden of proof is on you, bucko.

And quite frankly, your pathetic response shows that you’re not up to it.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM

comprehension of the Constitution.

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:23 PM

Legal precedent. Doesn’t matter if anything passes or doesn’t pass the Const muster.
They live & breath precedent.
Going off of somebody’s rotten decision.
And when they do have to look at the Constituionality of something, they feel fine with engaging in mental gymnastics to get what they desire.
It should not take a lawyer or judge to ‘interpret’ everything.
Some stuff is very obvious. It was meant to be.
But people like curr6 feel perfectly fine in twisting meanings to mean anything under the sun bcs all the other lawyers do it to make a buck.

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 2:30 PM

I don’t think it’s obvious at all. Two federal judges have said Congress may, two have said they may not.
crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

If you want to give the government that much power, your position should be a bit stronger than “some say yes, some say no.”

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM

And quite frankly, your pathetic response shows that you’re not up to it.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM

I beg to differ.
curr6 is brilliant & we just do not understand this bcs we are not schooled in law.
She has told us that she is brilliant & people are beating down her door to get to her bcs she’s so great./

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 2:31 PM

virtually no one debates that Congress could create a single-payer system through taxation, or tax people at 100% of their income

Maybe so, but I’d doubt that anyone sincerely believes our government was ever intended to have that kind of power. We’d have no protections from our government if it had complete power over our finances. If Congress decided to do that or declare war on Canada tomorrow for no good reason, even if we decided they were within their Constitutional rights, we’d simply amend our Constitution.

Esthier on February 1, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Petard meet petardee

J_Crater on February 1, 2011 at 2:33 PM

Whose turn is it to change and powder crr6?

Chuck Schick on February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

My real LOL for the day. You gotta admire crr6, she is not afraid of attacks or snark as she posts her opinions and points of view.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

And quite frankly, your pathetic response shows that you’re not up to it.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Actually I thought it was a pretty fair and lengthy response and I’m a little disappointed you didn’t bother addressing it. I guess I was wasting my time.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

sorry about the quote block not functioning properly, I thought I closed quoted. Sigh, it must be pre-blizzard brain farts :)

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:36 PM

PackerBronco is demolishing our wittle waw student.

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM

and FAILED.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:53 PM
Well, no. They succeeded and it passed.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Well, yes. They passed a law that is unconstitutional and is void ab initio. The only thing that remains is the 3rd Branch of our government reining them in. Unfortunately for liberals, this is not Venezuela just yet.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Actually I thought it was a pretty fair and lengthy response and I’m a little disappointed you didn’t bother addressing it. I guess I was wasting my time.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

Actually he did address it. Reading fail?

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

crr6, I read your stuff, I think you offer a different perspective. I would like to know you when you turn 40 because a lot of where you are coming from is still the 20 something naive optimism we all experience. I hope you use your law degree and license and make a positive difference. Just remember our founding fathers never intended for use to be a socialist country.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

I’m sorry I resorted to juvenile resposes to crr666 but the fact that it just ignores logic and resorts to mental gymnastics to make things come out it’s way is insulting to our intelligence.

Now I know that crr666 believes that it is a superior being, and the rest of us are “slow” but the fact that crr666 has to resort to calling me a version of r*tard prooves that we are winning this battle.

Vince on February 1, 2011 at 2:41 PM

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You’re talking to someone who believes in “social justice” and that the hard working should work for those who don’t.

darwin on February 1, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Actually he did address it. Reading fail?

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

No he summarized a pretty lengthy and detailed post by creating a strawman, knocked that strawman down, and then ended with an insult.

crr6, I read your stuff, I think you offer a different perspective. I would like to know you when you turn 40 because a lot of where you are coming from is still the 20 something naive optimism we all experience. I hope you use your law degree and license and make a positive difference. Just remember our founding fathers never intended for use to be a socialist country.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Thanks, I suppose.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:47 PM

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

Please, she is not in law school, she may want to be, or maybe she is a para-legal, but trust me…she is not in law school. I have caught her making far to many errors, she didn’t even understand the basic tier 1, tier 2, system of law schools, something that every law student (and the parent paying their way) fully understand.
Even Obama, as miserable as his education was, showed that he understood that these mandates were not constitutional.
She argues basically like any other poster without an inkling of the law…you give her way to much credit, she’s just a kid who wants to be someone.

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM

I think Crr6 is just a young law student who is still very naive about real life. At least she is trying to apply what she is learning.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM

I think Crr6 is just a young law student who is still very naive about real life. At least she is trying to apply what she is learning.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM

LOL, nice.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:50 PM

is the 3rd Branch of our government reining them in.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You meant senators, congressmen, or the president?

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM

I have caught her making far to many errors,

Like what?

she didn’t even understand the basic tier 1, tier 2, system of law schools,

When did I do that?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

No he summarized a pretty lengthy and detailed post by creating a strawman, knocked that strawman down, and then ended with an insult.

Actually no. I got the essence right. You wrote two paragraphs, but there was only one sentence worth of ideas.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:53 PM

Actually no. I got the essence right.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 2:53 PM

No, you couldn’t hang so you gave a feeble-minded, simplistic response which didn’t address anything I said. You’ll be ignored in the future.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:51 PM

Ha!

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM

is the 3rd Branch of our government reining them in.
txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:38 PM

You meant senators, congressmen, or the president?

LOL! You beat me to it!

crushliberalism on February 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM

When did I do that?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Several weeks ago, it was quite entertaining…it confused you as you were bragging about going to one of the prestigious law schools, and having a guaranteed job at one of the top firms. I forget the term you used…I really don’t keep accurate notes on your errors, and braggadocios posts. I just register them as “There she goes again”, and have a good laugh…like most of the liberal posters, when you get caught, you keep digging.

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM

LOL! You beat me to it!

crushliberalism on February 1, 2011 at 2:57 PM

You have to move fast, I knew there were ten waiting to post the same…not original, just fun to get it in first.

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:59 PM

maybe we can collectively help crr6 understand that “social justice” is just a mask to confiscate hard earned individual wealth by power hungry politicians. We will ALWAYS have poor people, so matter what. Some people just make really bad choices in their lives that negatively impact their economic status.

My cousin is a perfect example. Of my 55 first cousins (yeah, my grandparents on both sides banged out a lot of babies, which is funny as we are not catholic or mormon), we have one welfare queen. First and Third child have the same baby daddy. 2nd one was some random guy. Then her last 2, twins, were from a dude at church after she found religion. None married her.

She only has to finish TWO college classes to get her full teaching license, but she has failed to do so. She is now in her late 50′s and still sponging off relatives and the state. She smokes, and lives in Taxachusettes, so presume she pays $5 or $6 per pack. So she had kids she could not afford to support on her own, picked baby daddies who were completely socially irresponsible about supporting their sperm donations, and has failed to finish her teaching degree so she could get more than substitute teaching gigs.

So what kind of “social justice” does she “deserve”? Her entire economic status as an adult were due to her individual choices that she made. Her dad made 10 times the money my dad made, she had the ability to go to the elite schools and get way ahead in life, but threw it away with bad choices.

I grew up in a very poor family, found my scholarships, worked my ass off in engineering college because I knew I could find a good paying job as an engineer, didn’t irresponsibly pro-create, and supported myself as an adult. How much “social justice” do I owe her?

Just some thought there for Crr6 to understand LIFE!!! This is what liberals fail to acknowledge or even understand because they have their heads so firmly planted up the ass of some unicorn rainbow farting utopia that is not REAL.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM

Just some thought there for Crr6 to understand LIFE!!! This is what liberals fail to acknowledge or even understand because they have their heads so firmly planted up the ass of some unicorn rainbow farting utopia that is not REAL.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM

That is a reality that is way beyond her thought process…she would consider what you stated an aberration, and not the standard.
Save your posts…

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM

No, you couldn’t hang so you gave a feeble-minded, simplistic response which didn’t address anything I said. You’ll be ignored in the future.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So, you resort to name calling (the first sign that you’ve lost the argument), and now after whining like a little biatch about PB not responding to your posts, you pledge to ignore him?

The mask comes off…

fossten on February 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Who was that guy in the video, and why can’t the president be more like him?

Johnny 100 Pesos on February 1, 2011 at 3:14 PM

AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, Obama and the rest of the traitors do not care that the mandate is is entirely unconstitutional.

Obama just doesn’t care. So any suggestion that he was a constitutional scholar for a brief moment was clearly an accidental position on his part.

You know, the old broken clock/blind squirrel analogies.

csdeven on February 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM

No, you couldn’t hang so you gave a feeble-minded, simplistic response which didn’t address anything I said. You’ll be ignored in the future.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:55 PM

Why should anyone bother giving a detailed response to your incessant, idiotic “Congress can do anything but they won’t” argument? It’s the only trick you have in that pathetic little bag of yours. Well, that and the fantastic “reductio ad somalia” from a few months back.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM

Just some thought there for Crr6 to understand LIFE!!! This is what liberals fail to acknowledge or even understand because they have their heads so firmly planted up the ass of some unicorn rainbow farting utopia that is not REAL.

karenhasfreedom on February 1, 2011 at 3:00 PM

But you see, none of the popular boys would take crr to the prom, so she needs some epic social justice to rectify that.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Who was that guy in the video, and why can’t the president be more like him?

Johnny 100 Pesos on February 1, 2011 at 3:14 PM

That was the species Sayanything Getelectus. It went extinct sometime in January of 2009, I believe.

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM

crr6 on any month, any day, any year at any time

Time for you to change the feedbag under your chin. It is overflowing with the balls of progressive $hit that roll out of your mouth.

csdeven on February 1, 2011 at 3:25 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 3:24 PM

Popular misconception. They don’t go extinct. They merely go dormant for a short period. They are like cockroaches, you never really get rid of all of them.

Duncan Khuver on February 1, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Actually I thought it was a pretty fair and lengthy response and I’m a little disappointed you didn’t bother addressing it. I guess I was wasting my time.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM

You’ve still not answered the question of what else the government could mandate if a health insurance mandate were constitutional.

Why shouldn’t they mandate exercise and proper nutrition? After all, that’s the root cause of most of our health issues.

And even easier, exercise doesn’t cost anyone anything but 30 minutes a day. Just get up, and walk several miles a day, do some basic calisthenics, and you’ll be fit in no time. Who could possibly be against that right.

it means we rely on other constitutional checks (namely, democratic ones) to ensure that those things don’t happen.

You mean like the Courts declaring a law unconstitutional?

That’s hardly democratic.

Or do you mean like the Executive branch writing a finding that says it’s not going to enforce a law because it thinks it’s unconstitutional?

That is to say, what is the (real world) likelihood that any of your hypotheticals could happen? What incentives (in the real world) could lead to those laws being passed? And how does this decision make the enactment of those laws more likely?

The government mandating health insurance used to be a hypothetical that couldn’t possibly happen, and only “hysterics” warned of it.

This decision doesn’t make it any more or less likely that the Congress and President could pass an unconstitutional law.

One would hope it would give them pause when they start thinking they can regulate EVERYTHING under the sun because of the Commerce Clause.

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Several weeks ago, it was quite entertaining…it confused you as you were bragging about going to one of the prestigious law schools, and having a guaranteed job at one of the top firms. I forget the term you used

Ah ok. So you can’t remember what I said, nor can you link to it?

…I really don’t keep accurate notes on your errors, and braggadocios posts. I just register them as “There she goes again”, and have a good laugh…like most of the liberal posters, when you get caught, you keep digging.

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Gotcha. So no specifics then? Alrighty.

By the way, I remember a few weeks back, you mentioned that both of your sons worked for one of the “5 most prestigious law firms” in America, and then when I asked you which one you skittered away. I’m guessing you were referring to the Vault rankings? If so, which firm(s) did your sons work at, Davis Polk, CSM, Wachtell Lipton, S&C or Skadden? Or were you just making that up?

Why should anyone bother giving a detailed response to your incessant, idiotic “Congress can do anything but they won’t” argument?

Good Solid B-Plus on February 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM

That’s a strawman too. You’re boring.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:52 PM

You’ve still not answered the question of what else the government could mandate if a health insurance mandate were constitutional.

Why shouldn’t they mandate exercise and proper nutrition? After all, that’s the root cause of most of our health issues.

And even easier, exercise doesn’t cost anyone anything but 30 minutes a day. Just get up, and walk several miles a day, do some basic calisthenics, and you’ll be fit in no time. Who could possibly be against that right.

I addressed this in my original post. You’re using an impressive array of logical fallacies.

it means we rely on other constitutional checks (namely, democratic ones) to ensure that those things don’t happen.

You mean like the Courts declaring a law unconstitutional?

No. I meant like people voting out their reps if those reps enact absurd or controversial laws (like the ones in your hypos). That’s a constitutional check as well, it’s just democratically enforced rather than judicially enforced.

The government mandating health insurance used to be a hypothetical that couldn’t possibly happen, and only “hysterics” warned of it.

When was that? The individual mandate was actually first proposed by Republicans during the health care debate in the 90′s.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

There is no contradiction… He was previously against any mandate to buy Hilarycare. The current mandate is to buy Obamacare. Apples/Oranges . Only simple minded, selfish racists are against Obamacare.
/

AverageJoe on February 1, 2011 at 3:58 PM

Alternatively (and virtually no one disputes this) pursuant to the Tax and Spending clause (Article , Seciton 8, clause 1) Congress could tax citizens at a higher rate in order to fund and create its own social insurance program that it administers itself (basically, Medicare for everyone). The effect would be the same as a mandate except people would pay for government administered insurance through taxes rather than being mandated to purchase it themselves.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:51 PM

Congress could indeed have raised taxes to fund and create an insurance program that it administers itself, and yet it chose not to. Furthermore, the distinction between government raising taxes to fund a government program and forcing citizens to purchase a product in a private market is necessarily great. It is a great distinction for a host of reasons, but primarily because the first method is Constitutionally allowed whereas the second is not.

holygoat on February 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM

right2bright on February 1, 2011 at 2:49 PM

Y’know, I’ve wondered about that.
1. She acts like a wannabe, arguing finer points to exhaustion to create an impression of expertise.
2. My daughter is an attorney, and I don’t recall her ever having time in law school to hang out on blogs.
Something is fishy.

a capella on February 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Furthermore, the distinction between government raising taxes to fund a government program and forcing citizens to purchase a product in a private market is necessarily great.

And yet some people are unable to tell the difference, or at least profess to be unable. We’ve been round and round on it. Same with the tax penalty for not doing something = tax credit for doing something argument.

Missy on February 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

combine this with his statements against raising the debt ceiling during the Bush era, and we see that Bill Clinton was right when he called his candidacy a fairy tale.

Daemonocracy on February 1, 2011 at 4:31 PM

I addressed this in my original post. You’re using an impressive array of logical fallacies.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

You do not actually address it anywhere, other then saying it’s unlikely.

So, what is beyond what they could mandate under the Commerce Clause?

Just answer the question.

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 4:37 PM

By the way, I remember a few weeks back, you mentioned that both of your sons worked for one of the “5 most prestigious law firms” in America, and then when I asked you which one you skittered away. I’m guessing you were referring to the Vault rankings? If so, which firm(s) did your sons work at, Davis Polk, CSM, Wachtell Lipton, S&C or Skadden? Or were you just making that up?

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Wait, don’t you claim to go to one of the 5 most prestigious Law Schools in the country? Did you ever answer which one?

Daemonocracy on February 1, 2011 at 4:40 PM

yep. When Rush leaves, something develops. Every time.

johnnyU on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Davis Polk, CSM, Wachtell Lipton, S&C or Skadden

A veritable murderers row of firms that dinged me at OCI.

Proud Rino on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

that was yesterday and today is today….

ted c on February 1, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I addressed this in my original post. You’re using an impressive array of logical fallacies.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

take it from someone who knows fallacies.

ted c on February 1, 2011 at 4:50 PM

1. There is no way that Obamacare would have passed if it was presented as a new tax. No way. Even many Libs agree that it could not have passed. Obama said he will not raise taxes, etc.

2. The Obama administration “linchpin” argument in court is that Obamacare is a new tax.

3. See #1 above.

visions on February 1, 2011 at 4:51 PM

2. My daughter is an attorney, and I don’t recall her ever having time in law school to hang out on blogs.
Something is fishy.

a capella on February 1, 2011 at 4:10 PM

A while back, crr6 was actually telling us she was posting here during classes.

BTW, Limbaugh made a good point today-if this Judge was in reality an “activist Judge”, why didn’t he simply rewrite the law? He didn’t.

True activist Judges do that-see the all Democrat Florida Supreme Court in 2000, which re-wrote Florida election law after the election had already taken place. SCOTUS slapped them back to the equator 9-0. They tried again, and SCOTUS slapped them back 7-2.

Del Dolemonte on February 1, 2011 at 4:52 PM

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 1:38 PM

You should stick to blogs in your own country. You obviously aren’t from the US.

The judge understand that an AMENDMENT was required to PROHIBIT the making and use of a product and nothing short of that can compel a citizen to purchase one.

Both Thomas Jefferson AND James Madison agree with the judge by the way. Read the Fed papers and their other writings.

Seems you attend a very poor school. ODumbAss’s comments from 2008 are also correct. It must really burn for him to have his nose rubbed in his own poop.

dogsoldier on February 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM

visions on February 1, 2011 at 4:51 PM

That cannot fly, because the bill specifically refers to it as a penalty. Words matter. So sayeth a different judge, who was also correct.

dogsoldier on February 1, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Where in the world were these clips when this bill was being debated? I remember Obama slamming Hillary over the individual mandate during the campaign.

This is more proof that the health care bill was Nancy Pelosi’s bill, it was never Obama’s. But he was so desperate to sign anything so he could take credit for doing something “historic” that no President had done before him, that he welshed on pretty much every promise he made on the issue in the campaign.

Let’s review everything Obama promised, and what really happened:

***Premiums will fall by around $2-3000 a family. Actual result: premiums rising by 10-40% this year alone.

***If you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Actual result: thousands losing coverage due to higher costs, while 750+ organizations and companies had to get waivers to keep their employees covered.

***I will not sign anything that increases our deficit. Actual result: Hahahahahahahahaha

***All negotiations will be on C-SPAN. Actual result: total backroom deal, no Republicans allowed in negotiations much less the general public, Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, midnight votes.

***No deals for special interests. Actual result: huge deals for Big Pharma and the health insurance companies, including the individual mandate which was included specifically to buy off the insurance companies.

***No individual requirement to buy health insurance, we will make it affordable so everyone will be able to buy it. Actual result: mandate included.

What I want to know is why crr6 and the other Obama trolls here are actually proud of this President, after he abandoned pretty much every promise he made in the campaign on health care and signed a bill that is going to be thrown out.

rockmom on February 1, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Well now I see the usual Liberal rhetoric is in use here.
I oppose Obama Care, if that makes me a Raciest in your mind I can not do anything about it, even if I am not.
You consider the Judge finding Obama Care unconstitutional is an activist Judge but you never congratulate Judges that back your unconstitutional laws. Can you spell “HYPOCRITE”
It is amazing that the Liberal mind continues to function, it is damaged every time it is faced with facts. The head spins round and round and the eyes start to spin in their sockets and if forced to see to many facts their eyes pop right out of their heads. In 2012 we all need to be wearing earplugs because when the Liberals lose the White House and the Senate and do not get the Congress back the eyes popping out of their sockets will damage the ears because it is going to be deafening.

old war horse on February 1, 2011 at 5:04 PM

wonderful, tingles going to talk about judicial activism…

cmsinaz on February 1, 2011 at 5:06 PM

James Madison, writing in The Federalist No. 51 was quted by Judge Vinson:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

An out-of-control Government? Yep. That describes America’s situation to a tee.

kingsjester on February 1, 2011 at 5:23 PM

How can a well researched opinion based on the founding documents be either activist or out of the mainstream? – duff65 on February 1, 2011 at 2:10 PM

The White House needs to keep its mouth shut. The Florida judge’s ruling is on solid ground…………and, I don’t claim to be a lawyer.

SC.Charlie on February 1, 2011 at 5:27 PM

Anyone else watching the debate in the Senate of the Repeal Amendment? Pretty interesting. Thune and Barrasso did a good job.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM

“So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.” –Ed

As if evah.

maverick muse on February 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM

A veritable murderers row of firms that dinged me at OCI.

Proud Rino on February 1, 2011 at 4:47 PM

haha yeah, CS&M dinged me like 4 hours after my screening interview. Pretty brutal.

Wait, don’t you claim to go to one of the 5 most prestigious Law Schools in the country? Did you ever answer which one?

Daemonocracy on February 1, 2011 at 4:40 PM

I don’t think I’ve ever been more specific than top 10, actually. And no, I’m not telling you where I go to school.

So, what is beyond what they could mandate under the Commerce Clause?

Just answer the question.

Keith_Indy on February 1, 2011 at 4:37 PM

There’s all sorts of stuff, mainly because a lot of mandates would create substantive due process problems. Outside of that, an obvious example I can think of would be a mandate to purchase a Bible. That’d violate the Establishment clause.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 5:42 PM

You should stick to blogs in your own country. You obviously aren’t from the US.

dogsoldier on February 1, 2011 at 4:56 PM

In Soviet Russia, blogs troll you.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Ha. Rockefeller is talking and says he wants unanimous consent to continue debating the FAA bill and oops no quorum. Embarassing.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Rush Limbaugh’s single point of interest today regards Judge Vinson’s Federal Court Decision halting the ObamaCare all together for the time until the SCOTUS make a determination. This morning’s guest on Laura Ingraham stated that the SCOTUS decision would likely be completed Feb.2012, just one year’s time.

Meanwhile, none of the taxing/financing that ObamaCAre initiated immediately can be continued on course. It’s illegal for Congress to collect for ObamaCare since ObamaCare is unconstitutional — completely unconstitutional today. But corruption being the name of Congressional gaming, who will stop the collection of taxfunds/fines/fees set into gear when Obama signed ObamaCare into law?

maverick muse on February 1, 2011 at 5:50 PM

When was that? The individual mandate was actually first proposed by Republicans during the health care debate in the 90′s.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Sheesh talk about straw men.

CWforFreedom on February 1, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Coburn just finished speaking in support of repeal. Incredible. I wasn’t aware that he was a 7 year metastatic colon cancer survivor.

txmomof6 on February 1, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Two federal judges have said Congress may, two have said they may not.
crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM

And the two that have cover 54% of ALL 50 states.
And there are 12 more states suing.

Roughly 54% of the states have won
4% of the states have have lost
24% are still waiting for there turn in court.

Crr6, I know math and logic are not your forte in life so let me help.
54 + 4 + 24= 82%

82% of the States say “Blank this ObamaCare” we want out.

Even the most dense among us must realize the people do not want ObamaCare.
Heath care reform, yes. ObamaCare NO.

Still not clear to you? Okay

Over  730 politically connected Companies, groups, entities have been “granted” waivers by Obama, this number changes daily but in only one direction, up.

(Humm, I wonder how much of a “donation” one has to give to get a “waiver”?)

Obviously waivers being granted means the need for the “mandate” is false.

There is no real, logical, sane defense of ObamaCare. If Obama were smart he would dump ObamaCare and start over with ALL parties involved, kinda sorta the American way.

DSchoen on February 1, 2011 at 6:58 PM

When was that? The individual mandate was actually first proposed by Republicans during the health care debate in the 90′s.
crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 3:56 PM

Proving once again “a bad idea, is a bad idea no matter who proposes it”.

If this is the best ya got it’s time to concede.

DSchoen on February 1, 2011 at 7:04 PM

So it turns out that Obama actually is a Constitutional scholar … or, rather, he was.

Except nowhere in the excerpts you cite does Obama claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He claims that it’s not feasible because not everyone would be able to afford it — which Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

And the two that have cover 54% of ALL 50 states.
And there are 12 more states suing.

Roughly 54% of the states have won
4% of the states have have lost
24% are still waiting for there turn in court.

Crr6, I know math and logic are not your forte in life so let me help.
54 + 4 + 24= 82%

82% of the States say “Blank this ObamaCare” we want out.

DSchoen on February 1, 2011 at 6:58 PM

I think you’re just factually incorrect here, DSschoen. It’s 28 states total, who are suing, right? 26 in the FLA suit, and then 2 on their own (Wisconsin and Wyoming). There certainly aren’t 41 suing, as you seem to contend.

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Obama was only referring to 7 out of the 57 states. For the other 50, the mandate is 100% Kosher with him.

angryed on February 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM

The thing with the individual mandate is that not only does it mandate that I buy health insurance it also has the power to determine what is a qualifying plan. For example, let’s say Person X only wants to buy a catastrophic coverage plan. He’s 25; he doesn’t want to pay for yearly check-ups. He’ll pay all of the other medical expenses out of his pocket. Is he “allowed” to do that?

Now read that sentence again, “Is he ALLOWED to do that?” If that doesn’t worry you, if that doesn’t say “off the slippery slope and down the canyon”, if your immediate reaction is not “WTF?”, then you are completely hopeless. You have become a serf, a child masquerading as an adult.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM

crr6 on February 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM

Plus 7 states who are going to nullify O-Care. 35 and counting.

I know math is hard for libs but that’s 70% of the states.

angryed on February 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM

You have become a serf, a child masquerading as an adult.

PackerBronco on February 1, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Willingly…sad.

Also….strange how are trolls go nowhere near the waiver issue. Such toadies.

CWforFreedom on February 1, 2011 at 7:30 PM

As someone stated earlier the key to repealing this madness is waivers. / Of course you got to be connected. /

CWforFreedom on February 1, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

This is a band-aid for a sucking chest wound.
The reason health care services are expensive in the 1st place is bcs….wait for it… GOVT SETS THE PRICE!
We could also get some tort reform.
Those 2 things along cause healthcare to skyrocket in price.

So Obamacare is another corn cob up the a$$ for us bcs it does not address the cause of the problem.
If someone is causing a bad thing to happen, why would they be the ones responsible for making it better?

Badger40 on February 1, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Except nowhere in the excerpts you cite does Obama claim that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He claims that it’s not feasible because not everyone would be able to afford it — which Obamacare addresses by allowing people who can’t afford it not to purchase healthcare.

Tom_Shipley on February 1, 2011 at 7:14 PM

The individual mandate – you don’t really understand how that works, do you?

manofaiki on February 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM

This guy is so slippery: he is saying that he is not against the mandate, just “affordability.” In other words, he is not being honest.

AshleyTKing on February 1, 2011 at 8:42 PM

I think Obama the Canidate just destroyed Obama’s the President’s chances of getting ObamaCare approved by the Supreme Court.

You know that quote will be mentioned in the Supreme Court decision some where.

Conservative Samizdat on February 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3