Those are threads about the individual mandate, which is not really a violation of state rights. The issue there is the power of the government to tax people into doing something.
What Napolitano is talking about is the Federal government conditioning federal funds on States creating certain health care regulations. As pointed out, this practice has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court.
Like, for instance, medicare reimbursement. Yes.
Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, who has been covering the SCOTUS since forever, and who knows the justices very well, says there’s very little chance the health care law will be overturned by them, in thispiece.
And for what it’s worth, I’m a conservative who would love to see this law go down in flames, and an invenerate court-watcher to boot.
I think the chances of this law being overturned on ANY grounds - states rights’, taxation power, or other -is vanishingly tiny.
I recall the same arguments being made over the national 55 mph speed limit, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a number of other federal programs, many of which have come with unfunded mandates for the states. None of them have succeeded. I don’t know why this would be any different.
This one contains no mandates for the states anyway.
No landmark SCOTUS decision has ever been based on the Tenth Amendment and this ain’t gonna be the first.
Unless this Napolitano dude is currently one of the nine justices on the Supreme Court, I don’t really give a shit what he thinks about the law.
US v New York, Printz v US.
Schechter v US fits as a landmark decision.