# Liberals: defend the mandate! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2012, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661 "2012-06-29T04:45:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/41 "2012-06-29T19:54:24Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think most people are very well aware that this is a compromise and have decided that if you want more people to get health care, a compromise that gets health care to millions of additional people is significantly better than nothing even if it’s far from perfect. It should be obvious that most of the better options were simply not going to happen. Honestly, I find this attitude disappointing. If you (plural) can’t have you want by the correct methods, fuck it, you’ll take what you can get by any methods. I think it’s woefully shortsighted. Process matters. The Constitution matters. I’d be much more comfortable with a mechanism where taxes were simply raised to improve healthcare. Don’t have the votes, too bad, that’s the downside to living in a democracy. But you can eventually get the votes. And if you can’t, again, you live in a democracy. You don’t always get what you want. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/42 "2012-06-29T19:59:24Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > So, after two and a half years of litigation, the Supreme Court says the mandate is within Congress’ powers. The next day… we are asked to defend the mandate as an “overreach of government power.” > > What the flying fuck? Well, “the mandate” was found to be unconstitutional. But Roberts went a rewrote the law basically, calling it a tax, which he then found a way to justify. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/43 "2012-06-29T20:01:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Honestly, I find this attitude disappointing. If you (plural) can’t have you want by the correct methods, fuck it, you’ll take what you can get by any methods. I find your misinterpretation of my post disappointing. I was talking about accepting a compromise on the health care issue when other options like single-payer or UHC were not feasible. I wasn’t saying “I don’t care if it’s unconstitutional, I’m glad it happened.” > [@magellan01](#): > > Well, “the mandate” was found to be unconstitutional. But Roberts went a rewrote the law basically, calling it a tax, which he then found a way to justify. Every part of this post is completely wrong. Roberts said the mandate is Constitutional for the same reason taxes are Constitutional. Part of the Medicare expansion was struck down, which would seem to come much closer to “rewriting the law,” but I don’t think I’d say that rewrites the law. ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/44 "2012-06-29T20:04:47Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Well, “the mandate” was found to be unconstitutional. But Roberts went a rewrote the law basically, calling it a tax, which he then found a way to justify. Or to put it more precisely, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/45 "2012-06-29T20:07:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I find your misinterpretation of my post disappointing. I was talking about accepting a compromise on the health care issue when other options like single-payer or UHC were not feasible. I wasn’t saying “I don’t care if it’s unconstitutional, I’m glad it happened.” I thought I understood you were saying, which is why in my response I said “you (plural)”. I chose to respond to you because the think is very similar and I took it that you were of the opinion , as many are, that they’d be happy to have Obamacare in place regardless if was ruled constitutional or not. From your response here, I’m not seeing where I’m off, when you consider that the compromise is the thing I was pointing to. What’s the difference? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/46 "2012-06-29T20:09:00Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > Or to put it more precisely, the Supreme Court said it was constitutional. Cite where they said “the mandate” was constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/47 "2012-06-29T20:09:55Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Honestly, I find this attitude disappointing. If you (plural) can’t have you want by the correct methods, fuck it, you’ll take what you can get by any methods. I think it’s woefully shortsighted. **Process matters. The Constitution matters**. I’d be much more comfortable with a mechanism where taxes were simply raised to improve healthcare. Don’t have the votes, too bad, that’s the downside to living in a democracy. But you can eventually get the votes. And if you can’t, again, you live in a democracy. You don’t always get what you want. Well, the Democrats did have the votes for the ACA. So, the process was legitimate. The Supreme Court upheld the law, so the Constitution is intact. Like you, I’d rather a real UHC system. Unlike you, it appears, I think what we have is better than not having it. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/48 "2012-06-29T20:10:34Z")
It’s not Congress’ job to specify how it has the Constitutional authority to pass a particular law. That’s the courts’ job, and they did it here: They decided that it matched up with one of the powers that Congress has, and so it’s legal. It’s completely irrelevant that they put it under a different congressional power than the one that Congress was talking about: What’s important is whether it fell under _any_ congressional power, and it did. **magellan01** , Roberts didn’t rewrite any law here. The law remains exactly the same as it was before. He’s interpreting the law in a different way from how some interpret it, but again, that’s his job. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/49 "2012-06-29T20:10:59Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite where they said “the mandate” was constitutional. It is presumed to be Constitutional unless held to be otherwise by the court. Did you see the Justices throw out the “Mandate” yesterday? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/50 "2012-06-29T20:14:35Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite where they said “the mandate” was constitutional. This should do it: > [@](#): > > "CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may beupheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33–44. > (a) The Affordable Care Act describes the “[s]hared responsibilitypayment” as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. It does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Congress’s power to tax. In answering that constitutional question, this Court follows a functional approach,“[d]isregarding the designation of the exaction, and viewing its substance and application.” ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/51 "2012-06-29T20:14:45Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Cite where they said “the mandate” was constitutional. Oh, apparently you hadn’t heard. Yeah, they came through with a 5-4 decision yesterday upholding the mandate as constitutional. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/52 "2012-06-29T20:30:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > This should do it: That’s my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine) > [@](#): > > **The most straightforward reading of the individual mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance. But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative ar- gument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to “lay and collect Taxes.”** Art. I, §8, cl. 1. In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the man- date as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Be- cause “every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality,” Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657, the question is whether it is “fairly possible” to inter- > 4 > NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS > Syllabus > pret the mandate as imposing such a tax, Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62. Pp. 31–32. > 4. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, **concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.** Pp. 33– ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/53 "2012-06-29T20:31:19Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Honestly, I find this attitude disappointing. If you (plural) can’t have you want by the correct methods, fuck it, you’ll take what you can get by any methods. I think it’s woefully shortsighted. Process matters. The Constitution matters. I’d be much more comfortable with a mechanism where taxes were simply raised to improve healthcare. Don’t have the votes, too bad, that’s the downside to living in a democracy. But you can eventually get the votes. And if you can’t, again, you live in a democracy. You don’t always get what you want. I trust then that you think right to lifers should concentrate on an amendment outlawing abortion, and stop making it difficult for women to get one by various other means. You care about the Constitution, right, and as of now it seems to say abortion is legal. If you don’t have the votes for an amendment, too bad. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/54 "2012-06-29T20:31:25Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I thought I understood you were saying, which is why in my response I said “you (plural)”. I chose to respond to you because the think is very similar and I took it that you were of the opinion , as many are, that they’d be happy to have Obamacare in place regardless if was ruled constitutional or not. I was not commenting on the Constitutionality of the law. I was talking about the process of getting a piece of legislation passed: a lot of people on the left would have preferred single payer or something else that got closer to universal health coverage, but politically, it was not going to happen. It took a ton of compromises and grinding to get this law passed, so it goes without saying that something like single payer was not going to get through Congress in 2009-10. > [@](#): > > What’s the difference? The difference is that we were talking about different things. It sounds like you’re discussing the Constitutionality of the law and I was discussing compromise as part of the political process. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/55 "2012-06-29T20:33:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I trust then that you think right to lifers should concentrate on an amendment outlawing abortion, and stop making it difficult for women to get one by various other means. You care about the Constitution, right, and as of now it seems to say abortion is legal. If you don’t have the votes for an amendment, too bad. Actually, I do think that. And I also hope said amendment would fail. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/56 "2012-06-29T20:37:22Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I was not commenting on the Constitutionality of the law. I was talking about the process of getting a piece of legislation passed: a lot of people on the left would have preferred single payer or something else that got closer to universal health coverage, but politically, it was not going to happen. It took a ton of compromises and grinding to get this law passed, so it goes without saying that something like single payer was not going to get through Congress in 2009-10. > > The difference is that we were talking about different things. It sounds like you’re discussing the Constitutionality of the law and I was discussing compromise as part of the political process. I’m not so sure. What I was objecting to (though I’m not longer sure you’re of this mind) is the notion that since they couldn’t get something ideal and had to compromise, that pretty much the hell with the right way of doing things. Are you of that mind? My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can’t be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/57 "2012-06-29T20:42:15Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine) The mandate was upheld. It was not upheld under the Commerce Clause, but it was upheld under the Taxing Clause. Meaning it was upheld. It is constitutional. You’re desperately searching for a loophole that isn’t there. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/58 "2012-06-29T20:42:54Z")
> [@mister\_nyx](#): > > :rolleyes: In what possible way did the justices vote “based on party lines” today? > > If you’re actually a liberal, then throw out whatever the hell media sources you read today, because they apparently told you that John Roberts is a liberal, which is a straight-up lie. And then apologize and ask that this thread be shut down, since it was started on an obviously fallacious basis. I certainly don’t think Roberts is a liberal. What I do think is that, just as many a conservative member of the court has done in recent years, he crossed over to the other side. From my extremely casual observation of the SCOTUS, I think the conservative justices have crossed over a lot more than the liberal ones have. After all, even Clarence Thomas dissented in favor of [Raich](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raich_v._Ashcroft), who was convicted for growing medical MJ for his own use. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/59 "2012-06-29T20:43:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not so sure. What I was objecting to (though I’m not longer sure you’re of this mind) is the notion that since they couldn’t get something ideal and had to compromise, that pretty much the hell with the right way of doing things. > > Are you of that mind? A lot of the time, compromise is the right way to do things. That’s the legislative process at work. I was talking about compromising on the components of the law, not compromising the Constitution or something. > [@](#): > > My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can’t be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn’t be done. I agree with that, but I don’t think anything improper was done here. I wish the law covered more people, but the law that was passed was more or less the full extent of what was possible at the time. > [@magellan01](#): > > That’s my point. The mandate to purchase insurance was not held up. He turned it int a tax: (emphases mine) He did not and cannot “turn it into” anything. The mandate is Constitutional, and Roberts’ exact words were “the individual mandate may be upheld.” You are misunderstanding this, and you’re kind of doing what CNN and Fox did when they said the Court had thrown out the mandate. Roberts says the mandate cannot be justified on the basis of the interstate commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause, but that it _is_ Constitutional if it’s considered an exercise of Congress’ taxation powers. That does not turn the mandate into anything else. It is the basis for a legal justification, not a change to the law. The bit about “every reasonable construction” makes this clear. The mandate was upheld, period. It was not turned into a tax. It was upheld on the basis that it can be thought of as a tax. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661/60 "2012-06-29T20:53:42Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > My opinion is that Proposal X may be the most wonderful thing in world, but if it can’t be done through the proper procedures, it shouldn’t be done. Well, wonderful or not, the ACA is done, and through proper procedures. Unless you’re claiming SCOTUS doesn’t know how to apply procedures, in which case I’d like to know what Tier-1 university you’ve taught Constitutional Law at for 20 years, because something along those lines would be bare minimum as establishing you had authority on this issue even remotely comparable to SCOTUS. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-defend-the-mandate/626661.md?page=4)