# Health Care Lawsuits Survive Dismissal in FL, VA **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 15, 2010, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244 "2010-10-15T14:35:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/41 "2010-10-16T00:19:05Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > …If your body breaks down, emergency rooms are **required** to treat you even if you can’t pay for it. Only if it’s life threatening. If it’s not, they can send you away, or just treat the symptom. For instance, if you have an asthma attack, and go to the hospital, you’ll get a puff of an inhaler, but not necessarily a prescription for an inhaler. They just tell you to see a doctor. Of course you can’t afford it, so your back in the ER in a few days and the cycle continues. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/42 "2010-10-16T00:19:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > > [@yorick73](#): > > > > Boy, that’s quite a stretch. You are getting into civil rights issues there…not economic inactivity. A better example would be a business that is going out of business but is forced to remain open by the government. > > I hate to break it to you, but Civil Rights legislation often relied on the Commerce Clause. That’s neither here nor there, so don’t feel so bad about breaking it to me. Now, if one race were required to get insurance but not another, then maybe your comment would have some meaning. Civil rights legislation, regardless of what it is based on, has nothing to do with the individual mandate. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/43 "2010-10-16T00:25:55Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Indeed. > > And from the Michigan case rejecting the challenge: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ home-grown marijuana was “entirely separated from the market”); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce” and “may forestall resort to the market”); **Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal).** Similarly, plaintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate. > > Think what you want of that reasoning, but clearly the connection to the justification for civil rights laws will be an important one as these cases climb the appellate ladder. That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/44 "2010-10-16T01:00:56Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all. First, the point isn’t what you think, but what the federal judiciary thinks, and this judge didn’t think it was ridiculous. Second, you’re vastly overstating your case. You point to a possible way to distinguish the private accommodation regulations: that the business owners choose to run a business and so therefore you can make them engage in certain transactions against their will. But in order to get there you’re forced to admit that the Commerce Clause can be used to force economic activity, and you’re now just attempting to limit it to people who do something voluntarily in order to be subject to that burden. That makes the argument far less persuasive, as you can no longer claim that regulation of inactivity is unprecedented. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/45 "2010-10-16T01:05:46Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Boy, that’s quite a stretch. You are getting into civil rights issues there…not economic inactivity. A better example would be a business that is going out of business but is forced to remain open by the government. > [@yorick73](#): > > That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all. Not engaging in commerce at all? If you make enough income to come under the mandate, I submit that you are already engaged in commerce (selling your labor to an employer, and using that money to buy things). If you chose not to work at all, to be a bum on the street, you will suffer no penalty for doing so. Those who are low enough income, or who have religious objections are not subject to the penalty. Just like a restaurant owner: He’s not **forced** to open a restauraunt. But if he chooses to open a restaurant in addition to serving people of the race he prefers, he has to serve people of other races as well. If you are engaged in the commercial transactions of having a job or running a business and thus making income, some of your transactions are expected to pay for health insurance. It seems like a valid comparison to me. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/46 "2010-10-16T02:30:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > > [@yorick73](#): > > > > That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all. > > First, the point isn’t what you think, but what the federal judiciary thinks, and this judge didn’t think it was ridiculous. > > Second, you’re vastly overstating your case. You point to a possible way to distinguish the private accommodation regulations: that the business owners choose to run a business and so therefore you can make them engage in certain transactions against their will. But in order to get there you’re forced to admit that the Commerce Clause can be used to force economic activity, and you’re now just attempting to limit it to people who do something voluntarily in order to be subject to that burden. That makes the argument far less persuasive, as you can no longer claim that regulation of inactivity is unprecedented. You are wrong on at least two points. First, the company in question was engaged in commerce but chose not to serve a particular race. That falls under civil rights and the reason the Feds had any say was due to interstate commerce. The company could very well choose not to do business with anybody and would be well within their rights. They just cannot choose to exclude a particular race. Second, you are thinking in the wrong direction. In the case cited a company involved in commerce was not allowed to discriminate. Contrast that with an individual who chooses not to do business with a company for whatever reason…it happens every day. The federal government cannot compel me to engage in commerce with any company or fine me for not engaging in commerce. **Mr Smashy** said it best when he said that the government cannot force you to purchase a car from any car company. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/47 "2010-10-16T02:34:29Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > > [@yorick73](#): > > > > Boy, that’s quite a stretch. You are getting into civil rights issues there…not economic inactivity. A better example would be a business that is going out of business but is forced to remain open by the government. > > > [@yorick73](#): > > > > That’s ridiculous. The company highlighted was actively engaged in commerce but chose not to deal with certain people. That is quite different from not engaging in commerce at all. > > Not engaging in commerce at all? If you make enough income to come under the mandate, I submit that you are already engaged in commerce (selling your labor to an employer, and using that money to buy things). If you chose not to work at all, to be a bum on the street, you will suffer no penalty for doing so. Those who are low enough income, or who have religious objections are not subject to the penalty. > > Just like a restaurant owner: He’s not **forced** to open a restauraunt. But if he chooses to open a restaurant in addition to serving people of the race he prefers, he has to serve people of other races as well. If you are engaged in the commercial transactions of having a job or running a business and thus making income, some of your transactions are expected to pay for health insurance. It seems like a valid comparison to me. There is no comparison. By not engaging in commerce I meant that an individual chooses not to purchase an insurance policy. The restaurant owner in your example is actively engaging in commerce but does not want to serve a particular race. As I stated in the last post, the owner can choose not to do business with anyone and go out of business if he really doesn’t want to serve a particular race. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/48 "2010-10-16T03:20:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > > [@jtgain](#): > > > > So what is the argument that it is unconstitutional? Exceeds authority under the commerce clause? I think that would be a tough sell. > > > > The only other argument is that the government cannot “force” people to buy a product. While I may agree with that, I can’t see the clause in the Constitution that would prohibit it. What is the summary argument that this law is unconstitutional? > > It works the other way around. Congress doesn’t get to do anything it wants as long as the Constitution doesn’t forbid it. Congress can only act on authority give to it by the Constitution. It works both ways. There are things Congress CANNOT do, they cannot establish a religion or do any of the things the constitutions says it cannot do. There are also some things Congress can do and two of the things it can do is impose taxes on income and pass laws under the commerce clause. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/49 "2010-10-16T12:57:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > As for [Raich](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich), that was about growing illegal drugs, so I’m not sure that decision makes sense in this context. > > Um… the question was whether Congress can make the drugs illegal, even if they never enter interstate commerce. This is your response to post 19? You picked the least relevant statement to the conversation… Do you understand the argument made in the rest of the post wrt Wickard? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/50 "2010-10-16T12:58:47Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > If it was a tax then it violates the Direct Tax issues (apportionment). > > > > It’s still unconstitutional though - if you sign off on this power of the Commerce Clause, then in effect there’s nothing that Congress can’t do. > > :rolleyes: It still can’t establish a state church, or extend present Congressmen’s terms indefinitely. > > The Constitution isn’t supposed to anticipate every law that someone might need to pass & give explicit permission for it. It’s a basic operating system. > > Honestly, putting “rights reserved to the people” in the text was probably a mistake, because now most Yanks think the Constitution is some kind of moral law instead of an organizing framework for an effective government. But in any case, the Bill of Rights doesn’t say, “Congress can only do X, Y, & Z.” It says, “Congress can’t do A, B, & C.” See the difference? Actually, the 10th amendment says exactly “Congress can only do X, Y, & Z.” as you put it. The rest of the Bill of rights was about “Congress can’t do A, B, & C.” ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/51 "2010-10-16T13:00:08Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Indeed. > > And from the Michigan case rejecting the challenge: > > > [@](#): > > > > The Supreme Court has consistently rejected claims that individuals who choose not to engage in commerce thereby place themselves beyond the reach of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Raich, 545 U.S. at 30 (rejecting the argument that plaintiffs’ home-grown marijuana was “entirely separated from the market”); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 127, 128 (home-grown wheat “competes with wheat in commerce” and “may forestall resort to the market”); **Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate decisions not to engage in transactions with persons with whom plaintiff did not wish to deal).** Similarly, plaintiffs in this case are participants in the health care services market. They are not outside the market. While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate. > > Think what you want of that reasoning, but clearly the connection to the justification for civil rights laws will be an important one as these cases climb the appellate ladder. The reasoning of a Clinton-appointed lawyer parroting the Administration’s talking points. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/52 "2010-10-16T13:03:58Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Just like a restaurant owner: He’s not **forced** to open a restauraunt. But if he chooses to open a restaurant in addition to serving people of the race he prefers, he has to serve people of other races as well. If you are engaged in the commercial transactions of having a job or running a business and thus making income, some of your transactions are expected to pay for health insurance. It seems like a valid comparison to me. Since you are a liberal clearly in favor of this law, let me ask you a question: Would you think it constitutional if Congress passed a law requiring every citizen in the country to be forced to open a restaurant? Could they mandate that commerce under the now stretched-thin-as-taffy authority to ‘regulate’ interstate commerce? Or, to use my earlier example, which I notice nobody has commented on (due to a lack of a good argument?)… is it constitutional to Congress to require everyone to buy a car, on the theory that it’s good for the economy? If not, why not? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/53 "2010-10-16T13:04:28Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > The reasoning of a Clinton-appointed lawyer parroting the Administration’s talking points. And, of course, the President who appointed the FL judge is irrelevant in your little world. Isn’t blind partisanship fun! ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/54 "2010-10-16T13:06:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > The reasoning of a Clinton-appointed lawyer parroting the Administration’s talking points. > > And, of course, the President who appointed the FL judge is irrelevant in your little world. Isn’t blind partisanship fun! My point is, the arguments laid out in a decision by a liberal judge are (coincidently I’m sure!) align with the administration’s arguments. I wouldn’t put much stock in them. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/55 "2010-10-16T13:22:01Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > My point is, the arguments laid out in a decision by a liberal judge are (coincidently I’m sure!) align with the administration’s arguments. I wouldn’t put much stock in them. That’s slightly more defensible than just rejecting his opinion based on who appointed him. But it’s still problematic. First, district court judges often do not reflect the ideology of their presidential appointment. Other factors, like the Senators from that state, often predominate. It is not at all safe to assume that a Clinton-appointee is a liberal. This judge was a prosecutor before being a judge and was appointed in 1997, suggesting he was a safe moderate choice. Second, the civil rights argument isn’t one of the administration’s talking points. I read a lot of political coverage, and the only place I’ve ever seen it come up is on legal blogs. And third, even if this were a biased judge parroting talking points, it still brings the analogy out of the realm of frivolousness. It may yet be wrong, but I’ll bet you the argument gets serious consideration by the Supreme Court if this ever makes it there. My original point was simply that rejecting the poster’s analogy out of hand is to not understand that it will play a role in every judicial opinion on this topic that reaches the merits. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/56 "2010-10-16T13:41:58Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > My point is, the arguments laid out in a decision by a liberal judge are (coincidently I’m sure!) align with the administration’s arguments. I wouldn’t put much stock in them. > > That’s slightly more defensible than just rejecting his opinion based on who appointed him. But it’s still problematic. > > First, district court judges often do not reflect the ideology of their presidential appointment. Other factors, like the Senators from that state, often predominate. It is not at all safe to assume that a Clinton-appointee is a liberal. This judge was a prosecutor before being a judge and was appointed in 1997, suggesting he was a safe moderate choice. > > Second, the civil rights argument isn’t one of the administration’s talking points. I read a lot of political coverage, and the only place I’ve ever seen it come up is on legal blogs. > > And third, even if this were a biased judge parroting talking points, it still brings the analogy out of the realm of frivolousness. It may yet be wrong, but I’ll bet you the argument gets serious consideration by the Supreme Court if this ever makes it there. My original point was simply that rejecting the poster’s analogy out of hand is to not understand that it will play a role in every judicial opinion on this topic that reaches the merits. A thoughtful response, **Rich** , but I don’t use the word parrot lightly. Here’s [Cato’s](http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/michigan-court-wrong-on-obamacare-even-exceeds-its-own-powers/) take on the matter: > [@](#): > > And the novel conclusion we gain from this curt disposition is that Congress can now regulate people’s “economic decisions,” as well as do anything that is part of a “broader regulatory scheme.” If the Supreme Court eventually upholds the kind of reasoning Judge Steeh used here, nobody would ever be able to claim plausibly that the Constitution limits federal power. Finding the individual mandate constitutional would be the first interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit the regulation of inactivity — requiring an individual to engage in economic activity. > > (snip) > > under Judge Steeh’s “economic decisions” theory, Congress could tell people what to study in school or what job to take. That may be the unfortunate state of the law in a few years — once the Supreme Court has weighed in, and I doubt it would ever go so far in any event — but it is not up to district courts to extend constitutional doctrine on their own. Obviously Cato isn’t crazy for Obamacare given their libertarian nature, but that doesn’t make them wrong (except maybe on a liberal-dominated message board…) ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/57 "2010-10-16T14:03:07Z")
Judge Steeh’s decision was limited to inactivity in health care decisions. His argument, like it or not, was that the decision not to buy health insurance is simply a decision to try to pay for your inevitable health care needs out of pocket. That might be a slippery slope to government-mandated pre-purchase of funeral plots if you plan to bury yourself, but it doesn’t exactly follow that the Government can therefore regulate any decision not to buy a product. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/58 "2010-10-16T15:41:38Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > Would you think it constitutional if Congress passed a law requiring every citizen in the country to be forced to open a restaurant? Could they mandate that commerce under the now stretched-thin-as-taffy authority to ‘regulate’ interstate commerce? That would be involuntary servitude (against the 13th amendment). But as I’ve pointed out before, nobody is truly forced to buy health insurance. If you don’t want to buy health insurance, you have three options: 1. Earn less than the minimum income to fall under the requirements. 2. Voice a religious objection. 3. Pay a nominal fee (a maximum of 2.5% of total income). You are free to dislike this law as much as you like, but it’s constitutional. The proper remedy is through the ballot box, not through seeking a judicially activist court to strike it down. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/59 "2010-10-17T15:46:51Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > > [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > > > Would you think it constitutional if Congress passed a law requiring every citizen in the country to be forced to open a restaurant? Could they mandate that commerce under the now stretched-thin-as-taffy authority to ‘regulate’ interstate commerce? > > That would be involuntary servitude (against the 13th amendment). But as I’ve pointed out before, nobody is truly forced to buy health insurance. > > If you don’t want to buy health insurance, you have three options: > > 1. Earn less than the minimum income to fall under the requirements. > 2. Voice a religious objection. > 3. Pay a nominal fee (a maximum of 2.5% of total income). > > You are free to dislike this law as much as you like, but it’s constitutional. The proper remedy is through the ballot box, not through seeking a judicially activist court to strike it down. No offense, but you’ve made no case that it’s constitutional. I get your thing about involuntary servitude, so let’s go back to my original question (which NOBODY has addressed, due to the inconvenient imposition to the pro-Obamacare crowd). Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate car purchases by all Americans? Why or why not? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2010, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244/60 "2010-10-17T16:00:03Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > No offense, but you’ve made no case that it’s constitutional. I get your thing about involuntary servitude, so let’s go back to my original question (which NOBODY has addressed, due to the inconvenient imposition to the pro-Obamacare crowd). > > Would it be constitutional for Congress to mandate car purchases by all Americans? Why or why not? See post #57. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/health-care-lawsuits-survive-dismissal-in-fl-va/557244.md?page=4)