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.
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.”
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 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.
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”?
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.
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.”
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)
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?
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 (1971), and U.S. v. Lopez (1995).