looking for a clear answer to the constitutionality of a health insurance mandate…

[nutsnberries]

got one?

[Jamastiene]

1. Considering the fact that The Patriot Act has replaced the Constitution and the Bill of Rights,

there really is no choice, nor will there be much REAL fight. We don't have rights any more.

I'm against the mandate, but I honestly don't see any chance to fight it, unfortunately.

[The Northerner]

2. I concur

[nutsnberries]

3. a Libertarian friend of mine is going nuts on this...

I think it's really just her best argument that she can throw at me for siding with the republicans in scrapping health insurance reform.
I heard PresObama say that initially he was opposed to it but has been convinced it's the only way to make it work. I've heard Dean say it's not necessary so get rid of it.
I'm curious, how IS it constitutional in Pres.Obama's mind?

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Right here...

...from Jack Balkin.

[nutsnberries]

5. that's the most clear and concise article I've read on the topic -

thank you very much! :)

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. Prof. Balkin's law blog...

...Balkinization is a must-read for privacy and torture-related topics.

[nutsnberries]

7. I've gotten lost in reading and am back to say

thanks for that link too!

You know, my original question has been asked here before and I'm sure it will again in coming weeks. That article is a must-read for those struggling with the constitutionality question.

[coti]

8. That's an interesting example of a pro-mandate constitutional argument

but I wouldn't call it objective. He focuses on the affirmative taxing powers of Congress. However, those against the mandate have much stronger arguments to make under the general premise that such a tax violates individuals' rights. He should address the equal protection arguments.

[shimmergal]

9. My reaction also.

Having a law degree and a bent for constructing arguments enables one to "prove" a lot of measures constitutional regardless of strong reasons that they shouldn't be.


What about "no involuntary servitude"?


And what about the precedent the mandate will set, of forcing Americans to buy some product for their own, and/or "society's" good? Lots of other industries would love to get in on that gravy train.


But I'm wondering, while I agree the present Supreme Court probably wouldn't rule the mandate illegal
(unless the Tea Party movement takes off beyond our wildest fears), should progressives who believe the mandate illegal JOIN in RW suits against it?