How is the constitutionality of the "individual mandate" even a remotely close question?

[BzaDem]

Last I checked, the Constitution gives the power to Congress to tax. The "individual mandate" is simply a tax incentive for purchasing health insurance. Those who have health insurance will pay less in taxes than those who don't. While Obama and others might not have wanted to use the word "tax" for purposes of upholding various campaign promises, that is completely irrelevant to the constitutional question. It is a tax, and it is collected by the IRS.

How is having a tax differential for having health insurance any different (from a constitutional perspective) than having a tax differential for having children (the child tax credit)? What am I missing? It seems that all of this talk about the commerce clause is besides the point.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. It's not a close question

[Gravel Democrat]

14. Conyers said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority for mandates

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said the “good and welfare clause” gives Congress the authority to require individuals to buy health insurance as mandated in the health care bill.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63182
audio/video clip available at link

"During an interview Capitol Hill Friday, CNSNews.com asked Rep. Conyers, “The individual mandate in the bill requires individuals to purchase health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government required any one to purchase any good or service. What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”

Conyers said: “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others. All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know -- I’m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know -- they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”

The word "good" only appears once in the Constitution, in Article 3, Section 1, which deals with the Judicial Branch..."

Much much more including audio/video clip at link

Keep in mind this is the "House Judiciary Committee Chairman"

[mcctatas]

2. God I wish you would have been around a few days ago

I was in an argument with a Republican friend on facebook and I did not do nearly as good of a job with the rebuttal to that argument as you did! :applause:

[BlooInBloo]

3. It's not. A lot of people just say something's unconstitutional when they simply don't like it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. I don't like mandated anything. But, I'd have to answer your question with a question...

Is it your opinion that the Attorneys General who plan to or already have challenged the constitutionality of health insurance mandates are stupid?

Okay okay, I understand that they're rethugs (except for one I believe), which qualifies them for stupid on the face of things. But would you say that they are challenging the constitutionality of this because they are ignorant of the law?

[moobu2]

5. I’m sure they’re challenging the law for political reasons.

More likely to keep the tea baggers energized after such a solid defeat when they lost on HC etc...

[TexasObserver]

6. The GOP Attorney Generals are suing because they're politically motivated.

They're not stupid. They're shilling for their GOP constituency. They're politicians. They don't give a damn about the state of the law in America, except as it impacts their political futures.

With a federal judiciary ruled largely by GOP appointees who tilt harshly rightward, all the way to the top, they're not stupid to challenge and to couch their challenge in constitutional terms.

The Supreme Court - particularly the five troglodytes who vote as a unit for GOP issues - don't care about precedent. They'll find a precedent to support their position, if they have to leap frog other precedents all the way back past McCullough v. Maryland. Ultimately, constitutionality is whatever the five justices say it is.

[sandnsea]

7. You think they care??

They don't care if they have a case or not. They'll say anything and do anything to serve their ideology because after all, god is on their side so they have to be right, even if there's no law to say so.

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. Only if they hope to have a legal or political career after being shown to be fools for opposing it

in the first place. Then I think they'd care. They'd be giving up any credibility they might have had in the first place by fighting on idealogical grounds rather than legal ones.

I couldn't see challenging the constitutionality of something so momentous as "health care reform" (which is NOT health care reform and doesn't guarantee ANYONE care) by challenging such a small part of a large bill knowing I had no chance of winning. I'd be a fool, a fool with major league baggage, and couldn't reasonably expect any legal firm in the country to solicit my addition to their rolls as a litigator.

[sandnsea]

13. What has given you the impression they suffer

The more idiotic they are, the quicker they rise in the Republican Party. Half the country will believe anything they say. I'm sure states like Kansas and Arkansas support their AGs challenging this law, whether they're Dem or Repub. What's the political down side?

[stopbush]

8. One of them said he was suing but he didn't know what the grounds were for suing.

That alone proves political motivation. A SMART AG would examine the case law and see if he had grounds for a suit before even threatening a suit, let alone saying he was filing a suit.

[leftstreet]

11. It's largely symbolic BUT the issue will definitely end up in courts

It'll be at least a year before a court hears it, and who knows if/how long before it reaches the Supremes.

It's not stupid to challenge it though. The Commerce Clause is designed to regulate behavior, but a mandate compels citizens to engage in behavior. So there's that. Plus, Congress traditionally uses its regulatory tools, not its fiscal ones, to avoid constitutional challenges - they could have put the burden on the states to compel the behavior under threat of withholding federal funds. So this is kinda balls out and likely a motivation for states vs feds battle.

Could be interesting, but it will take a long time

[ROakes1019]

9. mandate

The concept of the constitutionality of a mandate could be moot. All that would have to be done is to require anyone without insurance to sign a waiver not to avail themselves of any "free" medical care. I realize that we're a humane society and really can't refuse treatment to those needing it; but it really isn't fair that people think they won't be needing medical care because they're young and healthy; they don't anticipate an accident or suddenly contracting a contagious disease. People who choose not have insurance because they're so rich they think they can pay for any medical treatment they might need. They could certainly sign a waiver not to seek "free" medical care. I sincerely doubt any one is rich enough to foot the expenses of a catastrophic illness but let them be deluded, as long as they don't seek "free" care.

I do agree that the mandate amounts to a tax. Just as everyone pays taxes to maintain the common good--schools, roads, police, fire departments, etc.--everyone should be required, or taxed, to maintain the common good. The legislative branch is charged to effect laws for the common good. It's amazing that the people who scream loudest against taxes and government entitlements are already benefiting from federal programs.

[laughingliberal]

10. I doubt seriously the bill will be found unconstitutional

I see nothing in the Constitution which says the government can't require us to spend way more than necessary for a service that delivers way less than we need from it. Perfectly legal. Moral? Not so much. I've also seen nothing in the Constitution which says the government is not allowed to act, with our tax dollars, as the collection agency for a for private, for profit industry known to engage in negligent homicide to increase it's profit margins. It's ugly as hell but perfectly legal and, very likely, to become the new model for how people will obtain all the necessities of life.