Americans, incl. large majority of Democrats, think mandate unconstitutional.

[tpfkaw]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx

[Lief 🗽]

Americans, including large majority of Democrats, don't really know anything about constitutional law.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Fortunately, the vast majority of judges know that this isn't the case.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

[Lief 🗽]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

Remember when a super-majority of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9/11?

[angus]

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

I wondered about that too, although that angle doesn't get much publicity.  Still, in my layman's understanding states can, via the tenth amendment, make an argument against it.  Just because the court upheld it last year doesn't mean it will always.  Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned after a decade or so, and this can be as well.  Hopefully, it won't come to that.  South Dakota has already passed a nullification act.  Maybe other states will follow suit. 

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

Remember when a super-majority of Americans thought Iraq was behind 9/11?

Ah, a different scenario.  Back then, the presidential administration and all its media allies spent several months attempting to convince the body politic that Iraq was behind 9/11.  Now, the presidential administraton and all its (more substantial) media allies have spent several years attempting to convince the body politic that the mandate is constitutional, managing to get the number who believe that to 20%, probably the same result as if they had devoted their energies to convincing the body politic that the Pope isn't Catholic.

[Alcon]

I also think it's hilarious that only 8% of Americans are undecided or unsure.

[Insula Dei]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?

[FloridaRepublican]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

I'm pretty sure if gay marriage had 72% approval, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

[tpfkaw]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?

Polls better than socialism.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

I wondered about that too, although that angle doesn't get much publicity.  Still, in my layman's understanding states can, via the tenth amendment, make an argument against it.  Just because the court upheld it last year doesn't mean it will always.  Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned after a decade or so, and this can be as well.  Hopefully, it won't come to that.  South Dakota has already passed a nullification act.  Maybe other states will follow suit. 

Fifty-seven years is not a decade, and nullification, unlike this mandate, is known to be unconstitutional.

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

I find it funny that people on this forum believe they are experts on what's constitutional and what's not.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Americans, including large majority of Democrats, don't really know anything about constitutional law.

Funny; I was just about to post that.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

I'm pretty sure if gay marriage had 72% approval, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was unaware that gay marriage is a statement that is either true or false.

[k-onmmunist]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't operate on the basis of opinion polls.

This is more one of those "is the Pope Catholic?" questions, as can be seen from the lopsided majority.

So if 72% of people believe something, it must be true. Got it.

Is this a tacit admission by wormy that libertarianism is, in fact, idiotic?

Polls better than socialism.

Only in America. The libertarian movement here aren't even worth mentioning.

[angus]

Fifty-seven years is not a decade,

Indeed.  It's somewhere between a decade and a century, I'd say, and it's probably why I said "a decade or so."  On a logarithmic scale it falls closer to a decade than a century, but this is certainly far beyond the scope of the thread and we needn't let it distract us.

and nullification, unlike this mandate, is known to be unconstitutional.

by whom?  by 72% of US voters polled randomly?  I doubt that.  But that's not a point I'm going to argue with you because I don't have the data to back that up.  What we do know is that The People recognize that they're being forced to do something by the government.  They don't like it.  They have a right not to like it, and although they might not all be lawyers, they have an inkling of idea that this bill is very, very wrong.  I'm not a lawyer either, and I could be wrong about this, but it really stinks.  And I am not alone.  Moreover, it doesn't necessarily depend upon the supreme court to do its job.  If we can install a GOP congress and president--and there's a chance, however slim, that we may be able to do this--then it won't come to that.  But if it does come to it, I"m not so sure that you can predict that the federal court can't be convinced that it is unconstitutional.  For example, many lawyers are already on the record saying that it violates the commerce clause.  I don't think that at least one wealthy opponent to the law will have trouble contracting at least one of those lawyers.  Big Brother, of course, will have its own highly-paid lawyers, but that's not always a guarantee of their success, fortunately.

[tpfkaw]

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?

[angus]

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?

POssibly, but I'll admit that I was thinking that Brown was in the 50s and Plessy was in the 20s, but I wasn't quite sure of the dates so I said "a decade or so..."  Turns out that Plessy was, like, Eighteen Ninety-something, so tit's a good thing I said "or so."

The point still stands.  

And I really don't think we should get distracted by this minutiae.  I'd bet that we are all, Republicans, Democrats, LIbertarians, and Socialists, willing to stipulate that there have been some bone-headed decisions in the past, and that there will probably be some in the future.

But as far as the thread topic:  I'm not a legal expert, but to me it seems a fairly simple matter:  this law violates at least two clauses in the constitution.  Moreover, there are actually people who have graduated from law school who have said that as well.  

Even more important than any of that is the point that consigliere jmfcst made:  Let us exploit any bone-headed decision the supreme court makes regarding this case.  I'm pretty stoked about that, although it means selling ourselves out (at least a little) for a cause.  You know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  But in this case the cause seems worthy.

Let's see if that 72% have balls enough to step up and take one for the team.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

the Dems' worse nightmare is to have Obamacare upheld by the SCOTUS.

The country's worst nightmare would be a partial overturning.  Must carry combined with the elimination of the personal mandate would destroy the individual insurance market, and yet would be so popular initially that it could not get repealed until said market was destroyed, with all the consequences thereof.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Weren't there several decisions that overturned parts of Plessy prior to Brown?

Depends on what you mean.  There were several cases prior to Brown that showed that particular examples of "separate" were not in fact "equal" and hence not constitutional under Plessy.  It wasn't until Brown that the court found that "separate but equal" was shown by practical experience to be inherently impossible to achieve and tossed out de jure segregation.

[Beet]

The issue is the phrase 'to buy health insurance'. To 'buy' implies something voluntary. An unconditional requirement to buy is not voluntary, so there's some cognitive dissonance, I think, people are unsure of how to conceive it. But the intent is the same as a tax. A tax takes money out of your pocket and puts it into a common pool which is then used to provide you with services out of that pool. This does the same thing. The only difference? In a tax, the government determines where the money goes precisely, whereas here, you have a great deal of freedom to determine where it goes, within the restriction that it be spent on health insurance. The government only mandates that it goes generally for a particular purpose, but not to who exactly.  Hence it is like a tax, but less intrusive.

I would urge the justices to look at the genesis / history of the individual mandate proposal to understand what it is. Originally, various proposals were put forward which would have funded health care through direct taxation. The individual mandate was proposed as a less intrusive substitution that would achieve the same ends. In other words, the genesis of the individual mandate was a tax proposal. The Gallup wording 'buy' or 'purchase' is inherently misleading because it does not fully describe what is going on here.