# Majority of States Now Challenging Health Care Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 14, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588 "2011-01-14T14:01:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/81 "2011-01-20T17:32:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, seems to me you got a contradiction brewing there. If you say the “plain language of the Constitution suffices”, how can you then turn around and say “…The Democrats in Congress did not, I’m sure, consider that this legislation might be constitutionally infirm…”? > > Were they unaware of the “plain language of the Constitution”? They assumed, quite reasonably, that it was not “the plain language of the Constitution,” but rather the applicable case law, that would control. In other words, the gripe here happened sixty years ago, with Wickard and his wheat. THAT was the point at which the plain language of the Constitution was being overlooked. Today’s Democrats assumed, very reasonably, that Wickard’s rule would govern this legislation. The challengers are saying, in effect, let’s go BACK to the plain language of the Constitution, before Wickard hosed everything up. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/82 "2011-01-20T17:33:31Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I think you might be right. I think that is a horrible legal distinction to make, but it will allow them to make this as minimalist as possible. No one in the Court (I guess) is willing to strike down pretty much the entirety of Civil Rights legislation. > > See - this is what happens when one utterly dumbass decision (_The Slaughterhouse Cases_) is allowed to stand and people have to design their way around it. Things get more and more twisted and the law gets uglier and uglier! Agreed completely. ---
**Author:** ![China\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@China\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/China_Guy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/83 "2011-01-20T18:18:52Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > They assumed, quite reasonably, that it was not “the plain language of the Constitution,” but rather the applicable case law, that would control. > > In other words, the gripe here happened sixty years ago, with Wickard and his wheat. THAT was the point at which the plain language of the Constitution was being overlooked. > > Today’s Democrats assumed, very reasonably, that Wickard’s rule would govern this legislation. The challengers are saying, in effect, let’s go BACK to the plain language of the Constitution, before Wickard hosed everything up. That makes sense. thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/84 "2011-01-20T20:59:09Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > They so often have been, so this shouldn’t surprise either of us. So Republicans have a gift for interpreting the Constitution that Democrats lack? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/85 "2011-01-20T21:31:56Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I certainly hope that these states are successful. I don’t see how the federal government, or a state for that matter, can force someone to buy something. I’m surprised 99% of the country isn’t against this. Because once they can force you to buy one thing, that genie is out of the bottle. And the argument I hear, about car insurance, is not relevant—I can choose to own a car or not. This mandate hits you just for breathing. Yes, its completely unreasonable to ask people, the vast majority who will be healthcare consumers at some point in their life, to actually pay something for it. I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone who already pays for insurance would oppose this, because the reality is that our premiums subsidize the uninsured, who are cost leaders for the hospitals and clinics that are obligated to provide a certain level of care. My view: if you don’t want to pay for insurance or can’t pay directly out of pocket for it, you don’t deserve access to our health care system. Let’s talk about fairness from that perspective. It really bothers me that many of the people who oppose this bill don’t have insurance, and rather than take advantage of heavily subsidized premiums to obtain insurance at a low cost, they’d rather continue to be parasites on the system. Please explain to me how this correlates with conservative “principles.” ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/86 "2011-01-20T21:35:21Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > No, it is a GREAT departure. With auto insurance, you opt-in. Don’t want to buy auto insurance? Easy, do buy a car. Not so with Obamacare, as it is now. You are forced to buy something—or pay a penalty for not doing so—simply because you are alive and in the U.S. > > Auto insurance and what we’re talking about here are universes apart. BUt it is telling that that is the example always offered up. It’s telling because there is NO example of the government ever doing this before. Unless you know of one. I’d love to hear it if you do. My state requires auto insurance in order to have a drivers license. The AG of this state is also leading the charge that the federal govt can’t do the same with healthcare. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/87 "2011-01-20T21:40:59Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > So Republicans have a gift for interpreting the Constitution that Democrats lack? :dubious: I don’t know about that. It seems to me lately that legislators and regulators from both parties regularly violate their oaths of office and knowingly pass laws they know or suspect to be unconstitutional. They do this cynically believing or hoping that the courts will strip out the worst provisions of the law and leave them off the hook. Campaign finance reform (a la McCain-Feingold) was a prime example of this, IMHO. ---
**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:** [January 20, 2011, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/88 "2011-01-20T21:43:29Z")
Let me guess: The Republicans in your state are probably also trying to put in a requirement that you need a drivers’ license in order to vote, right? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/89 "2011-01-20T21:56:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I was wrong, though, and I suspect the solution will be to distinguish Wickard (regulating economic activity) from health care (regulating economic inactivity.) Wouldn’t that put a lot of regulations prohibiting racial discrimination in interstate commerce in jeopardy? Let’s say I’m a racist restaurant owner, and I see a black person walk in. My reaction: To do absolutely nothing. I don’t serve him. I let him sit there until closing time. I ignore his requests for service, as if he didn’t even exist. If I get penalized for that, how is that not being penalized for an “inactivity”? ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/90 "2011-01-20T22:13:44Z")
> [@joemama24\_98](#): > > My state requires auto insurance in order to have a drivers license. The AG of this state is also leading the charge that the federal govt can’t do the same with healthcare. I’ve never heard of this before. What state is this? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/91 "2011-01-20T22:30:02Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I completely agree. Which is why linking the number of states in the lawsuits to a possible Constitutional Convention is ridiculous. Then how about this. We are discussing Gov vs AG’s in terms of persuing the lawsuit but a Constitutional Convention is called for by the respective legislatures. How many states have legislatures that are both (or for Neb leave out “both”) Republican? My count is 26. Is there any chance that if the lawsuit fails that there could be 34 legislatures that call for a CC to get rid of Obamacare? Remember the threat of a CC is how the states got popular election of Senators. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2011, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/92 "2011-01-20T22:31:52Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Is there any chance that if the lawsuit fails that there could be 34 legislatures that call for a CC to get rid of Obamacare? Absolutely and completely none. Zero. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/93 "2011-01-21T00:09:57Z")
> [@joemama24\_98](#): > > My state requires auto insurance in order to have a drivers license. The AG of this state is also leading the charge that the federal govt can’t do the same with healthcare. Yes. Because the STATE can do anything. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has only the specific powers given to it. I thought that point was made already in this thread. Did you miss it? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/94 "2011-01-21T00:18:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > Because the STATE can do anything. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has only the specific powers given to it. > > I thought that point was made already in this thread. Did you miss it? I could be wrong, but I took his post as an offering of _support_ of what you/I had said. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/95 "2011-01-21T00:59:26Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Wouldn’t that put a lot of regulations prohibiting racial discrimination in interstate commerce in jeopardy? > > Let’s say I’m a racist restaurant owner, and I see a black person walk in. My reaction: To do absolutely nothing. I don’t serve him. I let him sit there until closing time. I ignore his requests for service, as if he didn’t even exist. If I get penalized for that, how is that not being penalized for an “inactivity”? The Commerce Clause can’t force the restaurant owner to stay in business. He can shutter his doors and take up fishing. What he can’t do is _selectively_, on the basis of race, refuse service. That’s not the same kind of non-activity being contemplated here. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/96 "2011-01-21T02:57:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > For precisely that reason. He knew what he was getting into. His friend the governor made no secret of his plans; Phillips’ acceptance of the job was with the knowledge that this is what it entailed. Yes, he knew what he was getting into. I’m pretty sure that his options were join the suit or not get the job he was being offered. I guess it boils down to how you define “forced.” I only noted it as you brought up his political persuasion, which had no bearing on why he joined the suit, as it wasn’t a situation where one could say “Look, even Democrats think this is unconstitutional”, but was instead one where you could at best say “Look, even the Republican bosses of certain Democrats are telling their subordinates to enter this lawsuit.” ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/97 "2011-01-21T03:45:40Z")
> [@MemoryLeak](#): > > I’ve never heard of this before. What state is this? Florida. And I misspoke. You need insurance to obtain (and maintain) a license plate and tag, not a drivers license. But the effect on most people is the same - no insurance, no ability to drive your own car (legally) ---
**Author:** ![joemama24\_98](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ce7236/32.png) [@joemama24\_98](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joemama24_98)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/98 "2011-01-21T03:49:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. > > Because the STATE can do anything. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has only the specific powers given to it. > > I thought that point was made already in this thread. Did you miss it? I saw it and understand it. But my argument is more on the merits. So sure, challenge the legality of the federal mandate - maybe there is a case there. But I don’t believe any of the AGs or states challenging this really give a crap about state rights - its nothing more than a political statement. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/99 "2011-01-21T04:10:33Z")
> [@joemama24\_98](#): > > I saw it and understand it. But my argument is more on the merits. So sure, challenge the legality of the federal mandate - maybe there is a case there. But I don’t believe any of the AGs or states challenging this really give a crap about state rights - its nothing more than a political statement. You don’t believe that any of them are concerned that the federal government is exceeding what the constitution allows them to do? You don’t think that any of them are concerned that IF the feds can make you purchase Product X, that that then sets a precedent for them to do more of the same? Or make you “do” something else? Do you really believe that all of them are merely posturing for political advantage? Do you not share _any_ of their “supposed” concerns? ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Downtown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Mr\_Downtown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Downtown)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2011, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588/100 "2011-01-21T04:14:17Z")
> [@joemama24\_98](#): > > I don’t believe any of the AGs or states challenging this really give a crap about state rights - its nothing more than a political statement. So what? If politically motivated litigants don’t have a case, then it doesn’t matter what their motivation was. If the law is unconstitutional, then it doesn’t matter who sued. Everyone involved knew this would be challenged on constitutional grounds. The bill’s drafters think they’ve cleverly engineered the mandate as a tax credit. The bill’s opponents think the broad rule of _Wickard_ and the later civil rights cases has been limited by the constraints laid down more recently in [_Perez v. United States_](http://supreme.justia.com/us/402/146/) (1971), and [_U.S. v. Lopez_](http://supreme.justia.com/us/514/549/) (1995). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/majority-of-states-now-challenging-health-care-law/567588.md?page=6)