# Is the individual mandate to purchase health insurance constitutional? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 22, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349 "2010-03-22T16:14:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![halfliquid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a88e57/32.png) [@halfliquid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/halfliquid)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/241 "2010-03-26T16:41:51Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Those without coverage pay a tax penalty…Exemptions will be granted for…religious objections… Seriously, I’ll start forming the **Church of Our Lady Gaga** now! ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/242 "2010-03-26T16:47:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Liberals simply have a more expansive view of how the law, and especially the judiciary, should be used as an instrument of social change. They certainly follow “the law,” they just believe that the meaning of the law changes over time, even if the words of the law do not. > > True? Or not true? It’s not a true or not true question, because it depends on the wording of the law. Don’t stick a fork into someone’s neck or you will be prosecuted: - that means the same as when it was written as it does now. Cruel and unusual punishment: - that clearly doesn’t. It deliberately includes variable language in it. Whoever wrote it was not so stupid that they could not use more precise language, but instead chose to use terms that by there very definition would change over time. Seeking to strike unconstitutional laws isn’t “expansive.” Allowing the legislature to racially descriminate, for example, is trully expansive - it is allows the legislature to use powers to the detriment of the population, when the legislature never had those powers. It’s just not accurate to look at actions by the court system as being expansive to the exclusion of non-actions. Refusing to strike an unconstitutional law is **just** as activist, and **just** as expansionary as striking a law that isn’t unconstitutional. Now, if I am willing to accept that conservatives and textualists aren’t seeking to expand the realm of government power by deliberately permitting unconstitutional laws, and maybe they just have a different view of what is constitutional, can you at least credit that liberals and those who believe in an evolutionary constitution aren’t seeking to expand the realm of government power by deliberately striking constitutional laws, and maybe just have a different view of what is constitutional? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/243 "2010-03-26T17:01:57Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Really? That escaped your attention? > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/opinion/17dowd.html) > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/theodore-olson-and-david-\_n\_208450.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/theodore-olson-and-david-_n_208450.html) > > [http://www.bsfllp.com/news/in\_the\_news/000123](http://www.bsfllp.com/news/in_the_news/000123) > > [Ted Olson and David Boies' gay marriage suit.](http://www.slate.com/id/2219252/) These are Constitutional challenges, so no… ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/244 "2010-03-26T17:02:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Liberals simply have a more expansive view of how the law, and especially the judiciary, should be used as an instrument of social change. The law IS an instrument of social change. It sets out policy, it dictates what is “right” and “wrong” and it has a profound influence on our lives. And the conservatives are more than willing to utilize it as such. Whether it is enacting the Jim Crow laws to force segregation through legal enforcement or to advocating the overturning of decades of precedent to get rid of privacy rights. The only difference is the rhetoric used to employ it. > [@Bricker](#): > > They certainly follow “the law,” they just believe that the meaning of the law changes over time, even if the words of the law do not. And again with the inane rhetorical flourishes. Liberals don’t follow the law, they follow “the law”. It’s same old tired Bricker. Well said, villa. ---
**Author:** ![kingbighair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kingbighair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kingbighair)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/245 "2010-03-26T17:04:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No. Liberals simply have a more expansive view of how the law, and especially the judiciary, should be used as an instrument of social change. They certainly follow “the law,” they just believe that the meaning of the law changes over time, even if the words of the law do not. > > True? Or not true? Views are one thing. Actions are another. Conservatives will do the same thing when given the chance and the ends suit their wishes. All decisions are political. You may be correct in that liberals follow this practice more often, but that is due to the context of society being more conservative than liberal in most matters. That does not make the practice endemic to liberals. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2010, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349/246 "2010-03-26T17:59:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I believe you. Liberals seem to think that judges should strive to do what they think is right, to use the law to shape good public policy. > > And this is why liberals and conservatives have very different views of the role of a judge. > > I completely disfavor this initiative. It’s poor public policy. > > But as a judge, my only question to confront would be, “Is it constitutional?” The answer being yes, I would uphold it. I might well give in to the temptation to write a separate opinion so I could drop a sentence in about how unwise I personally found it, but that would be the extent of how my feeling of what good public policy is would drive my decision on what the law is. No, it has nothing to do with feelings. The States (in the brief) are banging their cherry red rattle against the crib because they’re being forced to cough up dough to expand Medicare and implement UHC. Florida claims the most injury by stating that it simply doesn’t have room in the budget for these programs. I agree with all of these points. If the citizens and/or the represented official of these States don’t want UHC - it shouldn’t be stuffed down their throat. The best way to solve the problem is to allow UHC in states that want it and allow states (Michigan, Georgia, Florida, etc) to come up with an State-sponsored alternative or none at all. Problem solved. If forcing people to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, I’m hoping someone will help me file a lawsuit so I can get out of paying car insurance (which I really don’t want or need and is too fucking (can we say _fucking_ here?) expensive). Or at the very least force the States to subsidize the cost or give me low-cost federal car insurance that’s based on my income. But paying $600 dollars for one car, every 6 months, is absurd when I’ve never been at-fault in an accident or called for a tow truck. And again, I REALLY DONT WANT CAR INSURANCE!!!1111oneone. I’m being forced to purchase an intangible product through the threat revocation of my driver’s license (regardless of my driving history). - Honesty [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-individual-mandate-to-purchase-health-insurance-constitutional/533349.md?page=12)