You are taxed a variety of ways. Those taxes pay for a great many things including things you may not use. I pay property taxes, a great deal of which goes to schools. I do not have kids. By your take I should be able to opt out. If I had kids you could call that an opt-in. (And everyone pays property taxes unless they live under a bridge in a box).
See? If it were single-payer (or even public option) they wouldn’t have to do this…
Besides, the mandate is a Republican idea. McCain was the one in the 2008 campaign who wanted mandates. Romney’s the one who set it up in Massachusetts to require mandates. The whole “Obamacare” bill is a Republican plan that was introduced as an alternative to “Hillarycare” back in 1993. I swear, St. Ronny himself would be too far to the left for the modern GOP…
Ok, since your location field shows that you don’t live in Ohio, I will point out to you that HCR lawsuits were not a major part of DeWine’s campaign. The vast majority of his television advertising did not mention it. His campaign ran mostly on cleaning up some sort of unspecified corruption in the state crime lab and his being Republican in an election in which being Republican was enough to get one elected.
To say that DeWine won his position based on his position with regards to this lawsuit is a stretch at best and is probably closer to an outright falsehood.
No really its not - having a car is pretty close to an absolute essential for many people. But I’m in a somewhat odd position because part of me hopes the bill is declared unconstitutional, and health care is then provided paid out of taxation. It’ll take a while, but happen eventually.
AG DeWine was formerly Ohio US Senator DeWine, who was defeated (I mean, “thumped”, 56%-43%) in the 2006 election for US Senate by Sherrod Brown, who was expressly in favor of health care reform.
My first read of the argument was simply, “This exceeds Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause.” While I agreed with the sentiment, it seemed a ship that had sailed with Wickard, a quixotic approach at best.
As refined, I see the distinction that I initially missed: this is compelling someone to engage in economic activity, as opposed to regulating economic activity that they chose to start.
I still think it’s a non-starter, but it’s not as crazy as I first thought.
Doesn’t Kelo require an individual to engage in economic activity with a private company?
maybe a hijack and maybe not
Eight more states and the lawsuit will have the same number of states needed to call for a Constitutional Convention. Is this similar to the movement to have Senators popularly elected which might have resulted in a Constitutional Convention if the 17th Amendment was not passed?
Or Wickard requiring the farmer to buy wheat on the market rather than produce solely his own. And, unlike wheat, everybody is going to use health care at some point.
Any states that don’t have Republican Governors involved yet?
I didn’t see any obvious ones in the OP’s article.
The majority of the states were fine with it before the last election. Now the Repubs are running things and they are pushing an anti Obama agenda. What does that have to do with the legality? Is there some reason to think Obama did not have a lot of lawyers involved in crafting the legislation? Do you suspect the admin just decided to push it through without considering the legal ramifications?
Perhaps the law should be voted upon. That would throw a monkey wrench into the legal system.
There might be a few blatantly unconstitutional things that would pass muster under popular voting. Like outlawing flag burning. Or requiring school prayer. Or eliminating the right of counsel for accused child abusers.
Yes. But not in the same way. Kelo’s requirement is much more attenuated; the entity forcing the economic activity is a state or local government, on a case-by-case basis, and not a blanket command to all citizens.
There’s definitely a difference, but it’s clear that the government requiring people to take part in economic activity is not without precedent.
And while it is more attenuated is some ways, it is more direct in others. “You must sell your house to company X” is a more direct imposition than “you have to buy health insurance.”
Comparing this map (which only shows 21 of the states) with this one, it looks like Washington and Colorado have Democratic governors, and are involved in the lawsuit. Both states do have Republican attorney generals, though.
Sure. Off the top of my head, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Washington all have Democratic governors.
Wiki’s map shows Pennsylvania as red, but unless Ed Rendell has some explosive news that’s wrong.
They’re probably projecting a bit…Tom Corbett will be inaugurated next Tuesday.
Like I noted before, though, in states where the AG is separately elected, I’m not really sure how much power the governor has over the position.
It is unfortunate we do not have a Supreme Court that can depended on to render a judgement based on the rule of law, instead of popular opinion.
In that case, AG Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana is a Democrat, as is Jim Hood of Mississippi and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada.
And although the current Arizona is AG is Republican Tom Horne, the lawsuit was started when Democrat Terry Goddard was the AG of Arizona. Same situation with Thurbert Baker of Georgia, who initiated the lawsuit before losing the job to Republican Sam Olens.
So five of the AGs (all separately elected) that joined the multi-state lawsuit were Democrats.