Obamacare would require each and every one of us buy private health insurance unless we are covered by our employers. That sure seems unconstitutional to me. While the Feds certainly have the power to regulate commerce among the states, I don’t think they have the power to require it.
Laws with suspect provisions generally result in litigation. (We lawyers always win.) Such a legal challenge is now certain if Obamacare passes. Idaho just enacted a law requiring its attorney general to sue to invalidate the must-purchase provision. If that happens, Obamacare collapses of its own weight. From the story:
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul…Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend. With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition. Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say. “The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”
Sometimes federal law supersedes state law, but not if it is unconstitutional. And Gov. Otter is right: If most of the states sue to kill this bill–and the Virginia Legislature has passed a similar measure already–I believe it will ultimately kill the bill even if it is enacted.
What a debacle. If the bill passes, the public fury will grow more intense, not go away as Pelosi/Obama/Reid hope. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. All of us would be better off if they put Obamacare aside and tried a more balanced approach to needed health care reform.
March 17th, 2010 | 7:55 pm
Mr. Smith: Whenever there are conflicts between the states, and the federal government, unless what the federal gov. is trying to establish is unconstitutional, the federal gov. wins. This itself is established constitutionally. I suppose one could argue that one could utilize the tenth amendment in favor of states having the right to refuse, but its doubtful. If something or someone regulates something or someone else, it’s reasonable, in order to effectively regulate, they must REQUIRE certain things.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 18th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Bret. That’s what I said.
March 17th, 2010 | 9:23 pm
Thank God, I knew I couldn’t be the only one.
March 18th, 2010 | 12:00 am
We must not give up the fight. Obama tricks us every time into believing he’s giving up “Hope” but he keeps bringing the Health Care Deformed bill back up. As both sides ready for a fight, Obama is already scheming to get his liberal agenda passed: amnesty for illegal aliens and terrorists, government takeover of schools, etc. And when his bills fall flat, he’ll say “Look… the Republicans are undercutting the needs of the American people.”
March 18th, 2010 | 4:18 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by CO2HOG: SHS: Obamacare: Idaho Law Now Requires the Attorney General to Sue http://bit.ly/9AJxBO #tcot…
March 18th, 2010 | 11:26 am
I was REQUIRED to sign up for the draft at my local post office when I was 18. I loved the fact that my “country” was more than willing to put a rifle in my hand and demand I face bullets for bizarre causes at its whim, yet did nothing to protect me as a kid should a health condition arise, until its too late.
I know, I know, all those lazy kids should get jobs to pay for their health care. Hey, the seatshops weren’t hiring then.
Jehovah (who doesn’t exist) bless the U$A!!!
College Goyl – interesting that you would thank something that doesn’t exist and is nothing more than a psychological delusion of evolution.
March 18th, 2010 | 11:50 am
The point at which I personally became very worried about the current proposal was when Nancy Pelosi was asked at a press conference what Constitutional argument would be used to support the legality of the individual mandate, and she didn’t have one.
The individual mandate is key to the whole proposal, as the only benny insurers get to compensate for additional costs borne via the introduction of community rating, guaranteed issue, etc. Without it the whole thing goes off the rails, and I for one can not see it surviving a Constitutional challenge, which will now be a certainty. It just suggests that basic preparatory and planning work was not done on this bill – and that’s scary.
March 18th, 2010 | 4:28 pm
[...] Widgets « Previous |Home| Obamacare: Virginia [...]
March 18th, 2010 | 6:24 pm
Supreme Court guys. It’s the states line of defense against the federal government. Of course the federal government supersedes the states, but when the states take the law to the court and it gets overturned the states in fact get their way over the federal government.
March 19th, 2010 | 9:02 am
[...] and Virginia pass legislation to opt-out of Obamacare First, Idaho. (H/T Secondhand Smoke via [...]
March 19th, 2010 | 3:17 pm
I love it… If this is really as unpopular as conservatives keep saying it is, then surely all that needs to happen is for November to roll around, Republicans will control both houses with veto proof majorities, and on the first day of the new congress this bill is repealed. No problem… unless of course HCR joins social security, medicare, Civil Rights Act of ’64, and FMLA on the list of things conservatives bemoaned at the time as signs of the apocalypse that are now untouchable.
March 20th, 2010 | 1:29 pm
Jesse:
When was the last time an entitlement program was rolled back? Once established, they immediately create constituencies – comprised of those receiving the benefits and the bureaucrats who manage then – which fight tooth and nail to retain and expand them.
Stopping this bill before it is passed is the best bet to avoid it. Otherwise we’ll roll into bankruptcy that much faster with one more untouchable, unaffordable entitlement.
March 22nd, 2010 | 1:43 am
And maybe my state will stop requiring motorists to purchase car insurance.
Fat chance.
March 22nd, 2010 | 12:40 pm
Jesse:
It was the Republican’s that pen, and passed, the Civil Rights Act of ‘64. The Democrat’s, lead by the likes of Ted Kennedy, were the one’s that voted against it.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:17 pm
I doubt Ted Kennedy voted against Civil Rigths Bill. Al Gore’s father did, though.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact