Is The Health Care Individual Mandate Unconstitutional?

WASHINGTON -- As congressional Democrats try to iron out differences in the House and Senate health-care bills, Republicans are attacking the legal premise of the legislation, saying Congress has no power to make people carry health insurance or pay a penalty or tax.

Constitutional-law scholars say that if the health-care overhaul becomes law, it could give courts an opportunity to test the limits of congressional authority in areas that haven't been examined since the New Deal era. However, courts usually defer to lawmakers, and Democrats could smooth the way further by using language in the final version that clearly asserts Congress's power under the Constitution to levy taxes -- which the House bill already does.

But the court has never considered a federal program structured like the health overhaul, which would require people without insurance to buy it or face a tax or penalty. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in July that it was a "challenging question" whether the commerce power extends that far.

Democrats and their allies say that despite its novelty, the insurance mandate falls within the definition of interstate commerce. The Senate bill cites data to show the importance of the health-care industry to the national economy and the damage caused by leaving millions of Americans uninsured.

---

Continue reading at the WSJ (no sub required)  >>

Comments

[James H]

What about high-deductible plans? Are they "acceptable" to our masters? Either way, expect those to be long gone by the time mandates kick in. This only means more money for the insurance companies. And big, big penalties on the young and healthy.

I could beat every one of the proponents of this plan to a bloody pulp.

If the Tea Party-ers don't tear shit up over this one, then we're pretty much doomed. It's time to fight.

Just a thought, but some big-ass bonfires in the streets would look pretty cool and send the right message.

I also recommend spitting in your congress critter's face if he or she votes for this monstrosity.

Oh, and the SEC won't require AIG to release material pertaining to the bailout until...2018?!

It's time to get nasty. And angry. We don't have to just sit and take this crap.

[James H]

I really am angry and the post above is pretty disjointed, but it all hinges on a complete disregard for the people, for democratic rule, and for our natural unalienable rights.

Remember that (neo-connish) marine who told his critter to piss off? He's got the right idea.

[DailyBail]

i think in the senate version, the individual mandate doesn't kick in until 2014...which means no one will get angry until 2014...that's a problem...

[James H]

Exactly. I had forgotten that part. The sad thing is that we almost expect our "leaders" to try to trick us, fool us, hide things from us (AIG). Where's CSPAN, by the way? Candidate Obama was opposed to any mandate, anyway.

Ugh. I'm rambling. It's all just too much.