…are poor, constitutionally speaking. And the great thing is that because the idiots couldn’t find room in a two-thousand-page bill for a severability clause, the entire atrocity will be struck down.
As Somin points out, if this stands, there is essentially no limit to what the federal government can impose on an individual. This was amply illustrated by the back and forth between Elena Kagan and Tom Coburn, when she essentially (and unwittingly) admitted as much. In fact, she got it exactly backwards. A law requiring all Americans to eat a minimum amount of fruits and vegetables a day might actually be a smart, not a stupid one, but it would be unconstitutional. Which is one of many reasons why she should not have been confirmed, and will be a disaster for limited government for decades.
Rand, can’t state and local governments already impose a mandatory 7 servings of fruit and vegetables? I’m not familiar with all 50 states of course, but looking at the Texas and Virginia constitutions as examples, I don’t see how that sort of law is limited. I’m not taking a position on limiting the Federal government in this comment – I’m just asking: hasn’t the same kind of disaster for limited government you are warning of been existing since each state’s constitution was written?
Damn, did someone say “Republic, Republic, Republic!”?
I’m not taking a position on limiting the Federal government in this comment…
“…because it’s too early in the morning for me to grow a new head.”
Yes, I’m a Democrat. But I’m taking Rand’s concerns seriously. I like this blog. I like (many of) Rand’s concerns. If liberty is important to you, why bother with all the ad hominim arguments and rudeness toward me? Can’t we just seriously discuss the topic?
Not to sound ungrateful (I’ll take what I can get in this world), but Coburn’s analogy always bugs me because it’s not exactly right, and The Kagan, sharp as a tack, exploited it. He should have asked her if the Feds had the power to require people to buy fruits and vegetables, not consume them. (Consuming them would be the failed John Edwards approach: “We will make them go to the doctor!”) That would have made the issue crystal clear for everyone.
Just to elaborate on my first comment briefly: nearly all (or all) US states have mandatory auto insurance.
“I’m trying to have a reasoned discussion here but you’re all mean and stupid!” Ladies and Gentlemen, Bob-1 is a Democrat.
Some might argue that people don’t have to drive, so they don’t have to buy auto insurance, but the power of state governments are using now to make drivers buy auto insurance could also be used to make everyone buy health insurance, or buy vegetables. Right?
Bob, that’s the fundamental point of a republic as opposed to a straight democracy. If somewhere coughCalicough makes insane laws, people have the right to vote with their feet and move. Looks like a place that has the climate of paradise is going to lose a seat this time around.
If, on the other hand, the Feds do it you’re looking for a new country.
I’d also think I actual have several odd-but-real methods of thwarting this via the Bill of Rights. First, your choice of fruits and nuts violates the tenets of my religion. It’s also cruel and unusual. And I wasn’t given due process before being sentenced to this durance vile. The search-and-seizure clause should mean difficulty in enforcing the actual ‘eating’ part. And your body is “your property” for consideration under eminent domain, I wasn’t adequately compensated for acts performed under the order of the government.
Edit: the power state governments are using now could be also be used…
States have general police powers, which allow them more leeway in what they can do, subject to the limits of their constitutions and, of course, the federal Constitution.
The federal government, on the other hand, expressly does not have general police powers and is a government of limited, enumerated powers. Granted, the expansion of federal power makes this doctrine less true in practice than it once was, but it’s still the law. The Court has stated flat out that the Commerce Clause was not intended and still is not a grant of general police power to the federal government.
I think there’s no way the law stands with the mandate.
Bob…grow a thick skin if you’re gonna comment around here. I’ve had some really uh…interesting…things said about me. All hilariously and wildly inaccurate, of course, but it does give you a crystal-clear picture of the stereotypes the “kind folks” here hold about those of us who lean a little left.
Bob, you have the right to not participate in the whole auto thing. Autos are a privilege – not a right. Life, on the other hand, is a right.
The requirement to have auto insurance is a condition of having a driver’s license. It is for the protection of *other* people, and it is imposed by most states…but not by the Fed, which has no power to do so. The Fed has absolutely no power, even implied, to compel people to do “what’s best” for themselves.
The scotus will rip it apart like a pack of wild dogs.
The auto insurance mandate is not a good analogy for the mandate in ObamaCare. The auto insurance mandate is to protect others from your actions that result in collision. The equivalent in health care would be a mandate that everyone get high-deductible “catastrophic” health insurance, which is entirely reasonable. The criminality of ObamaCare is not the requirement that you insure yourself against health risks. Its the government itself deciding what constitutes “acceptable” health insurance, which is far beyond a “catastrophic” health insurance. I know what my risks are. They are 1) any kind of accident, 2) cardiovascular (stroke and heart attack), and 3) cancer. I want insurance that will cover these three things and nothing else. The criminality of ObamaCare is in forcing me to buy insurance to cover things I have no risk of.
Even in CA I can opt out of the insurance if I post a financial responsibility bond to cover my potential liability.
The health care mandate is like requireing everyone to buy comprehensive coverage.
I’ve owned cars where three years comprehensive coverage is more than the car is worth, I’ll take that bet.
As Paul Breed just noted, the requirement in most states isn’t to have liability insurance. Rather, the requirement is that you have financial responsbility for any damages you may cause.
Many opponents of Obamacare argued against it because the mandate didn’t include such provisions.
Besides, states aren’t feds. No, really, its true. They’re easier to move in and out of, easier to move capital in and out of, the disastrous effects of their policies are more confined, and their politics aren’t as rigid and resistant to fixing mistakes.
Unless limited by their own constitutions, the states have traditionally been held as having greater authority over their citizens behaviour than the Federal government; thus, the various states are the enforcers of morality through the power of the police, but not the Federal governament (an exception being Prohibition, which required its own constitutional amendment). It took the adoption of the 14th Amendment to make explecit the enforcement of the first ten amendments against the states. Though the plaintiffs in the Slaughter-House cases of 1873 argued for the right of the of the individual to persue his own economic interest, the Supreme Court affirmed the right of the states to grant a monopoly for the public good, in this case, public health. So, today, Massachusetts can force you to buy health insurance (even though emperical evidence would argue that it should not) but there is no evident grant of such power to the federal leval.
The difference between the requirement for auto insurance and the ObamaCare health care mandate is that, in the case of auto insurance, you are insurance against your own actions. In the case of the ObamaCare mandate, you are paying into an insurance pool that effectively includes the entire country.
The only mandate that is legitimate is a high-deductible “catastrophic” insurance only.
I have no faith in the courts, hopefully 2012 will be a good year to repeal.
Autos are a privilege – not a right
A privilege is something given. I have the right to wear a hat or not. I have the right to wear a particular shirt or not. I have the right to do anything I imagine that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others (life, liberty and property.) I have the right to invent a horseless carriage and drive it before anybody ever thought of issuing drivers licenses. It is not a privilege the government granted.
Now we confuse the issue. Cars are dangerous and especially in the hands of some can and do kill (violating others right to life and property.)
So states have enacted laws. These laws restrict rights but at no point turn rights into a privilege granted by the state. This is a false conclusion (but generally accepted as true.) I can still, by right, drive without a license. If caught I will be penalized by law. This does not (in itself) make the law proper or even necessary (although we all recognize that traffic laws contribute to our safety.)
Every time we assume the government grants us privileges we move further away from the truth and make it harder to teach a new generation. This has lead us to the state we are in of accepting the government as our nanny.
“Proof of financial responsibility” is an example of the lies we make into laws. Am I not liable and financially responsible if I have no insurance? Of course not (sorry for the double negative. It just worked out that way.)
It’s the same issue with HC. Which is why you see the same false argument. Obviously if we force people that don’t want insurance to buy it you increase the size of the pool. So how does that make it right to force people to do it? It is justified. It is not right. That distinction should never be lost.
Another point… the reason we are a republic is so some people can specialize on certain issues and the rest of us don’t need to.
she should not have been confirmed
The fact that this isn’t obvious to 100 of 100 senators is indescribably vile.
she got it exactly backwards
This is a test. Our senators failed it by confirming her.
One cannot hold the position that a person owns their own body and can make the medical decisions for herself, and at the same time forcing her to buy medical insurance whether she wants it or not. It is simply impossible to hold both positions at once – they are completely contradictory.
Yeah, man, but like, is it insurance, insurance?
As opposed to the kinda insurance they sell you, but it isn’t really insurance . . .
Besides, does Justice Kagan look like the kind of person, say, who eats a lot of vegetables?
@Paul, oh snap!
@Ed, indeed, and IIRC, that point was made (or touched on) in the VA MTD ruling: if we take Roe v. Wade and consent to treatment laws seriously (Dems take those seriously, right?) then declining to buy pre-paid medical care is not purely economic activity.