Gallup: Dems say Obamacare’s unconstitutional, want to keep it anyway
Interesting results from a recent Gallup poll, as reported by Politico:
Gallup found that 47 percent of Americans want a GOP president to repeal the law, while 44 percent oppose that.
However, 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate in the health care reform package is unconstitutional, while 20 percent believe it is constitutional.
Along party lines, a majority of Democrats — 56 percent — believe the health care mandate is unconstitutional and 37 percent defend it as constitutional. Among Republicans, 94 percent view that part of the law as unconstitutional.
Meanwhile, a USA Today/Gallup poll of swing states shows that a majority of crucial swing state voters oppose the law. In fact, 53 percent of swing state voters see the health care reforms as a “bad thing,” while 38 percent see it as a “good thing.”
The two key takeaways for me: 1) a clear majority of self-identified Democrats say Obamacare is unconstitutional, and 2) the health reform is unpopular in swing states by a clear majority.
Regarding the first point: Gallup also reported that Democrats oppose repealing the law, 14-77, while Republicans support repeal 87-9. So, while Republicans’ views of the laws’ constitutionality more or less track their opinion of whether it should remain law, Democrats are more likely than not to acknowledge Obamacare violates the Constitution and yet believe it should remain law anyway.
I don’t think we can divine much from this about whether Republicans would support a law they believed to be unlawful, since they opposed Obamacare from the get-go. It’s clear, however, that many Democrats have no problem supporting an unlawful law. Which would seem to track well with their broader apathy (at best) about what the nation’s founding document does or doesn’t say or allow.
Second, I wonder how much Obamacare’s apparent unpopularity in swing states has to do with the stronger support Rick Santorum has in many of them compared to Mitt Romney, according to a couple of recent polls. It’s true that Santorum, as the last GOP candidate to get a full vetting in this race, may be only temporarily held in higher esteem by these voters. But it’s also true that Romney has not been able to create daylight between Obamacare and his reform in Massachusetts in voters’ minds — which is one big reason he’s been able to close the deal with GOP voters in this primary, at least so far. If the latter is the larger factor, Romney’s “electability” argument is seriously damaged.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
103 comments Add your comment
Linda
February 27th, 2012
4:00 pm
Wish these polls included the Supreme Court judges.
Jimmy62
February 27th, 2012
4:04 pm
The Constitution is often dismissed when it doesn’t allow what people want. That’s when you see peoples’ true deep-down love for authoritarianism come out.
MarkV
February 27th, 2012
4:25 pm
The opinion of the Democrats as well as of the Republicans regarding the constitutionality of the health care law has just about as much value as the opinion of those on this blog – zero. It is only the Supreme Court’s opinion that will count.
Finn McCool
February 27th, 2012
4:26 pm
It’s going to change over time but there is no way it is all going away. They’ve been implementing since they day after the ACA was signed. In fact, some have speculated that implementation has already reached the point that it would be MORE expensive to dismantle what has been set up than to just keep on going in this direction.
Is it legal? That’s above my pay grade.
Stephenson Billings
February 27th, 2012
4:30 pm
Liberals have always had a problem with our constitution because it’s a LIMITING document in that it limits the government’s power; it tells the government what it can’t do, not what it can do and is the biggest obstacle they have to achieving their goals. The Constitution is a document that empowers citizens. It empowers the individual over the state, and that is despised by people like Obama. That’s despised by most Democrats. It is the state, many doofuses believe an altruistic state, which is to have dominion over citizens. Citizens are a bloc of nameless, faceless robotic parts to be collectively controlled and manipulated and shaped and formed by the altruistic state.
The Constitution has proscriptions against government. The Bill of Rights tells government what it cannot do. Obama and his buddies have a name for this. They say the Constitution is a set, if you will, of negative liberties, negative liberties from the point of view of the government. If you believe government should be all powerful, the Constitution’s your enemy, it’s an impediment. And that’s why Obama, whenever he can, is just ignoring it.
MarkV
February 27th, 2012
4:36 pm
There is no doubt that Romney has a problem with the Republican base because of the Massachusetts health care reform. No matter how he and his supporters try to argue that it is ok for a state to have an individual mandate but it is not ok on a federal level, he and they have failed to present a rational argument in support of that contention.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
4:41 pm
It’s clear, however, that many Democrats have no problem supporting an unlawful law.
———————-
Many Democrats went to public schools. Their ability to think starts out at a retarded condition, and their politics, however they acquired them, merely reinforce their disdain for the Constitution and real freedom.
MarkV
February 27th, 2012
4:42 pm
Stephenson Billings @4:30 pm: “Liberals have always had a problem with our constitution because it’s a LIMITING document in that it limits the government’s power; it tells the government what it can’t do, not what it can do …”
That is an interesting formulation. According to it, there should be no constitutional problem with Obamacare. Does the Constitution say that the Congress CANNOT pass this law? Where? (Don’t the conservatives always argue “if it is NOT in the Constitution …”?).
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
4:46 pm
The Constitution says the federal government can’t do anything not specified (”enumerated”) in the Constitution.
Obozocare: Unconstitutional.
The Anti-Wooten
February 27th, 2012
4:58 pm
I’m among those Democrats that feel that ACA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. I would also have liked to see the legislation go much further than it did.
But the key here is that ACA is not going to be a very large electoral issue come November.
Ayn Rant
February 27th, 2012
5:01 pm
Again, what’s the problem with health care for all Americans? It costs less, it reduces the federal deficit, and it serves a basic human need.
Are the Republicans who oppose the affordable health care act constitutional lawyers like President Obama? Aren’t those Republicans the very ones who try to impede the constitutional rights of women to choose abortion?
Are there some Americans who do not “deserve” health care? Who are they? Should people without health care insurance be required to pay a small premium for their access to emergency care, or should they be denied emergency care?
Please stop the ignorant “Obamacare” and “Romneycare” designations. Those healthcare plans address the way we pay for health care, not actual health care. Health care is left up to the same private practitioners that Medicare, Medicaid, TRICOR, and private health insurance providers use now.
No one has proposed any government health care, only better and cheaper ways to pay those who provide health care.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
5:04 pm
what’s the problem with health care for all Americans?
——————-
None whatsoever. How much did you contribute to charity last year to make that a reality?
Didn’t think so.
Hypocrite.
Stephenson Billings
February 27th, 2012
5:09 pm
‘ It costs less, it reduces the federal deficit, and it serves a basic human need.”
Not intended to be a factual statement.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
5:11 pm
Per person cost of federal high-risk medical plan doubles
Medical costs for enrollees in the health-care law’s high-risk insurance pools are expected to more than double initial predictions, the Obama administration said Thursday in a report on the new program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/per-person-cost-of-federal-high-risk-medical-plan-doubles/2012/02/23/gIQAX3xVWR_story.html?tid=pm_national_pop
————————–
A “better and cheaper way to pay those who provide health care” my a$$.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
5:12 pm
Well, there’s a member of Kyle’s Kavalcade of Konservative Kooks and Krazies in Alaska that thinks a “mulatto” president is unconstitutional.
Go figure
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 27th, 2012
5:14 pm
Romney’s biggest “problem” is being Plastic Lib Man.
And dummycrats could care less about the Constitution when they see a way to grab up other people’s money.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
5:16 pm
Fifty years ago most good Georgians thought blacks voting was unconstitutional.
Go figure!
murph
February 27th, 2012
5:20 pm
“Many Democrats went to public schools. Their ability to think starts out at a retarded condition”
Please explain what you mean by “retarded condition”. Many people of both political persuasions find the word “retarded” insensitive and unacceptable. How did you mean to use it, here?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:23 pm
“Again, what’s the problem with health care for all Americans? It costs less, it reduces the federal deficit, and it serves a basic human need. ”
No, it doesn’t, at least in the first two instances.
In the third, food fills a basic human need, but do you want to government to provide THAT to you as well? Don’t bother answering that. Of course you do. You want cradle to grave support for your entire life, don’t you, Ayn?
“Are there some Americans who do not “deserve” health care?”
No one is talking about what is deserving, Ayn. Just what people should do to get and pay for it.
Health care is NOT a right.
Do what??????
February 27th, 2012
5:24 pm
Well yeah, he had to buy votes from his own party. Most of them were voted out of office in 2010.
Do what??????
February 27th, 2012
5:25 pm
“Well, there’s a member of Kyle’s Kavalcade of Konservative Kooks and Krazies in Alaska that thinks a “mulatto” president is unconstitutional.
And here is Trash the super star dumb @$$ making racist comments.
Do what??????
February 27th, 2012
5:25 pm
“Not intended to be a factual statement.
Someone’s been hanging around Kookman’s blog.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
5:25 pm
When do we get to vote on the Constitution? Never, you say?
Well, never mind then.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:26 pm
And really, Kyle. An article on Democrats wishing to ignore the Constitution?
Not exactly earth-shattering, my friend . . .
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:30 pm
“I’m among those Democrats that feel that ACA is constitutional under the Commerce Clause. I would also have liked to see the legislation go much further than it did.”
Is there any wonder why conservatives feel that liberals don’t think?
How can your desire for legislation “go much further” when you clearly believe the lesser bill is un-Constitutional?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:31 pm
“When do we get to vote on the Constitution? Never, you say? ”
Anytime a Constitutional Convention is called, Trash.
And I’d hate to see that happen. Too many grotesquely stupid people out there who can vote.
On BOTH sides.
Puck
February 27th, 2012
5:33 pm
I wonder why the republicans are not lining up to repeal EMTALA, you know the law that says a hospital emergency room has to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. Clearly requiring someone to provide a service without reimbursement is unconstitutional.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:34 pm
Stephenson@4:30, Well said.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:39 pm
I wonder why Puck can’t stay on topic; you know, the one where there is an actual legal challenge in front of the U.S. Supreme Court?
Oy . . .
Bernie
February 27th, 2012
5:40 pm
Funny how we all must be riminded that President Obama expertise is Constitutional Law. Surely a Man of his stature would insure that all elements of his healthcare bill fall within the legal framework of the Constitution. Unlike, the “PATRIOT ACT”, passed and signed by George W Bush & The Republicans on a Sunday night after midnight in a state of fear, without debating or allowing anyone to view the law until after it was signed into LAW! Now some please explain, how Consittutional that law and process is.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:40 pm
“No matter how he and his supporters try to argue that it is ok for a state to have an individual mandate but it is not ok on a federal level, he and they have failed to present a rational argument in support of that contention.”
Present a rational argument? Yes, they have.
Have it internalized by an unthinking electorate? No.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:42 pm
Ah, more deflection by Bernie.
When you can’t speak to the topic at hand, move onto something else that you can complain about.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:44 pm
Ayn@5:01, Gets my reward for the most lies in one comment, i.e. every sentence, every partial sentence.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:46 pm
Bernie@5:40, You are so funny! You mean that old Patriot Act Obama extended?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
5:50 pm
Just because Obama extended it doesn’t mean that it’s Constitutional, Linda.
Bernie has valid point, it is just not on topic.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:56 pm
Let’s give the Democrats a little slack. It’s not primarily the Democrats. It’s the progressives who want to trash (no disrespect intended, Mr. Trash) the constitution. Half the Democrats have no idea who the progressives are, what their goals are & what they are up to (which says a lot about Democrats, in general).
Sure, both parties have passed laws that were unconstitutional, but this is the first time in history one party has passed an unconstitutional law that nationalized over 20% of our economy.
And Bernie compares it to the Patriot Act!
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:56 pm
You, as a Citizen of America has the constitutional right make choices on your morality and religious belief, unless you are relgious and the Left does not agree with the policy. At that point, the Constitution is not important to anybody — because the left know how to run your life and morality better than you do or God does. The overstep in Government is unreal. It is policies like that which will lead us to failure. Indeed, a sad day in our Nation when the HHS was madated and shoved down our throats.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
6:04 pm
Waivers for health care — but mandated following for religious affiliations. In other words, the government is targeting religion and mandating policies based on beliefs.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
6:06 pm
Great, Tiberius! Can’t wait for the next constitutional convention. Oh wait, the last one was in 1787.
Never mind.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
6:08 pm
And there have been rumblings to call for one for years, Trash.
Sorry to burst your ignorant bubble.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
6:14 pm
Doo, just reporting the facts. One of you racist Obama-haters filed a lawsuit in Alaska saying Obama is not qualified to be president because he’s a ‘mulatto’.
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
6:17 pm
The rumblings of tea-bagging fools. Like dogs to their vomit they return to their tired tirades and grumbling. Sure, the last few years a black president has added to their impotent ire, but don’t hold your breath waiting for a constitutional convention, fool.
md
February 27th, 2012
6:22 pm
No, Bernie does not have a valid point…….not in context with his post he doesn’t. He wants to have his cake and eat it too…..
Yes, the point is valid…..but not in the manor Bernie presented it, which really makes him look silly.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
6:23 pm
Kyle, Someone is using my name @ 5:56 & 6:04.
retiredds
February 27th, 2012
6:23 pm
Well, Kyle, and others that’s what the US Supreme Court is for. If the SC deems it unconstitutional then it will be. If they don’t then the R’s can cry about an activist SC. We’ll find out soon enough as the Court will decide in a few months. In the mean time, we’ll have to listen to all the arm chair constitutional scholars from the right and the left opine their views.
As Brett said to Scarlet, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”
P.S. Thank God for the founding fathers (brothers) who created the system we have today of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. I am convinced that in today’s world this could never happen. There just are not enough well educated and statesmanlike politicians who understand the value of compromise and being willing to meet and talk with your opponent and make policy for the better of the nation. From my perspective the system is crumbling from within and that is what usually happens to republics and other forms of government that are on the decline.
md
February 27th, 2012
6:25 pm
And if we are going to travel down the “commerce clause” slippery slope, folks need to understand that would be all encompassing……Uncle Sugar can then dictate much of what we do in the name of healthcare and commerce. No more Mickey D’s, Twinkies, Beer, Wine, cigarettes, etc etc…..all of it is bad for us and makes our gov’t provided healthcare too expensive…….
carlosgvv
February 27th, 2012
6:26 pm
Two things for all of you to remember:
1. The Supreme Court will settle this, not you.
2. The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.
The Pitiful GOP field
February 27th, 2012
6:34 pm
Somehow I feel that the brilliant men who wrote our constitution around 250 years ago could not have expected the world to change in the ways it has. I do not believe they could have imagined the internet, air travel or even the industrial revolution. So how can we expect a document forged in the 1800th century to not be fluid and change as America and the world changes around us? That would be where amendments come in people. So the “unconstitutionality” to provide affordable healthcare is ludicrous. How can someone say any American does NOT have the right to get basic health care? Clearly the system we have now is not sustainable. We have the most expensive healthcare in the world and yet our life expectancy is way down on the list. The right in America makes up lies and exaggerations to protect vested interests rather than reform the system in favor of the people. So why are the European countries such as Sweden or Switzerland deemed “socialist” by the GOP idiot candidates doing so much better than America is in education and life expectancy. Sweden, which still has a very generous welfare state, is currently a star performer, with economic growth faster than that of any other wealthy nation.
jconservative
February 27th, 2012
6:44 pm
“The Constitution is a document that empowers citizens. … It empowers the individual over the state,…”
If that were true there would be no chance of anyone getting between an woman’s right to choose and the state.
However,the SCOTUS has on many occasions held that at times the State has an overriding reason to lay aside individual rights for the perceived good of the whole.
Personally I am a 9th Amendment guy. Most things are none of the government’s business.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
6:50 pm
“So how can we expect a document forged in the 1800th century to not be fluid and change as America and the world changes around us?”
Because “rights” are not fluid. Technology changes.but “rights” do not. That concept apparently escapes you, Pitiful (and a great moniker you’ve chosen for yourself in THAT regard).
“That would be where amendments come in people. So the “unconstitutionality” to provide affordable healthcare is ludicrous.”
Really? Making ANYTHING affordable is the role of government? Is is a right to make cars affordable? What about a house you deem to be large enough for you and your family now that you’ve deemed housing a “right”? Does the government have the responsibility to make expensive housing affordable?
“How can someone say any American does NOT have the right to get basic health care?”
Easy. Health care requires that someone besides yourself provide a service to you whether they want to or not. In other words, to make health care a “right” you must enslave at least a doctor to do your bidding. That is why health care can never be a right, Pitiful.
“Clearly the system we have now is not sustainable.”
The first thing you’ve been right about.
“We have the most expensive healthcare in the world and yet our life expectancy is way down on the list.”
Remind me to school you in the difference between statistical analysis when using differing value systems and differing levels of freedom sometime, Pitiful. In addition, I’ll let you in on a little secret. Doctors have already admitted why healthcare costs are so high here. It is due to the extra and unnecessary tests they perform in order to avoid malpractice lawsuits. Their own estimates show that the cost of health care in this country would go down by 30% with tort reform across the nation.
MarkV
February 27th, 2012
6:52 pm
The Pitiful GOP field @6:34 pm
The US is falling behind countries like Sweden in these matters, but it is only a matter of time. There are people, however, who do not recognize what is inevitable and spend time and effort fighting to keep things as they are, no matter how bad they are.
getalife
February 27th, 2012
7:03 pm
“Drug Testing Bill Targets Florida State Workers, Excludes Lawmakers” Aol.
Just sick thinking they are above the law again.
Pizzaman
February 27th, 2012
7:10 pm
A President can not repeal a law. Only Congress can do that by passing a bill repealing a current law. The President can sign it or veto it. And NO the President can’t use a signing statement. Signing statements are not constitutional no matter how many times Bush, Jr used them..
The Pitiful GOP field
February 27th, 2012
7:13 pm
Blah, blah blah…..the “socialist” nations agree that part of government’s role is to assure basic healthcare, as a right to live instead of die due to lack of insurance. The reason healthcare is so expensive is in part due to no real tort reform but is far more related to healthcare being a for profit industry. Hospitals and doctors are paid to preform more procedures and big insurance companies make billions of dollars a year administering or providing coverage. It is very simple……..more people paying into the system will lower the costs for everyone by dispersing those cost. And it does not hurt that big pharma and such can influence our government by buying congressmen to vote in their favor, charging triple to Americans because they can. Illness should not be a profit business model. Look at Germany, their system is far better than ours. Bono had back surgery in Germany, not here, because their results were better than ours.
The Pitiful GOP field
February 27th, 2012
7:18 pm
And as to moniker……..hey, you picked them not me. Even Jeb Bush has remarked on the lack of substance with the 4 left over fools. I repeat…..Jeb Bush. not exactly a Mensa member himself. Have fun holding your nose in the ballot box.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
7:21 pm
There are people, however, who do not recognize what is inevitable and spend time and effort fighting to keep things as they are, no matter how bad they are.
———————–
Annual $1.5 trillion deficits, for example.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
7:32 pm
Obozo to Cut Health Care for Troops
The Obozo administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched.
http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2012/02/27/pres-obama-cut-health-care-troops#ixzz1ndFFnIPC
———————-
Obozo: America-hating troop loather.
ragnar danneskjold
February 27th, 2012
7:35 pm
Amusing essay, indictment of democrat “logic.” Democrats don’t “think,” they “feel.” Knowing that makes it easier to understand, “Democrats are more likely than not to acknowledge Obamacare violates the Constitution and yet believe it should remain law anyway.” Just as they will agree that individuals binding together should not lose their right of free speech, but affirm that corporations ought not be allowed to advertise in political campaigns. If you are looking for consistency, go watch a Warner Brothers cartoon instead – far more credible than a leftist.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
7:39 pm
Pitiful, if you look at the cost differences in healthcare between so-called “socialist” nations and the U.S., you’ll find that the 30% figure that doctors are generating in order to protect their butts is about the same as the difference between our costs and theirs.
So your misguided and uninformed deflection about health care being for profit is just a load of crap.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
7:43 pm
Pizzaman, a President can use an Executive Order to do all sorts of things. Many times, the Executive Order use is abused. However, since the process to approve this “reform” act was so abused in the first place, I have no issue with any future President killing it through a series of Executive Orders and daring Congress to re-institute it.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
7:43 pm
“Linda”@5:56 & 6:04, Did you think I would not report you to Kyle for using my name? Best I have it is that Kyle’s punishment for such an offense is community service at a morgue for a week.
The Pitiful GOP field
February 27th, 2012
7:46 pm
T… please do not propose to lecture me on healthcare since I have worked in it for 33 years. You sir are the misguided one and know nothing of which you choose to pontificate on. The BUSINESS of illness is in BUSINESS to make MONEY like all businesses. Until the business is taken out of healthcare we will continue to pay 3 times the amount “socialist” countries like Japan, England, France, Sweden, Germany………..I could go on… pay. There is a good reason no other country emulates our “healthcare” payment model.
The Pitiful GOP field
February 27th, 2012
7:48 pm
Geez Linda……go cry to your mommy….Linda is not a real unusual name you know.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
7:49 pm
And Pitiful, I haven’t picked anybody yet.
In case you missed it, Georgia’s primary isn’t until Super Tuesday.
I’ll probably be voting for Romney, however. He’s forgotten more about business and leadership than the other three candidates combined ever had. And I’ll include the current Disaster-in-Chief in that mix as well, as he knows nothing about business and leadership.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
7:51 pm
Pitiful, you apparently NEED to be lectured about the business of health care, as you didn’t even know what doctor themselves admitted.
What do you do, clean bed pans?
Michael H. Smith
February 27th, 2012
7:59 pm
It’s clear… Democrats have no problem supporting an unlawful law.
Since the days of Woodrow Wilson, for well over 100 years this has been the case Kyle. Not only do these Progressives support unlawful laws, unconstitutional laws, they shred the very principles of the Declaration and Constitution wherever they can justify such ill-fated actions, as they view those who disagree with them as the offenders.
Worst part in all of this has been the obvious lack of restraint on “federal government powers” to limit the unseemly theft of liberty, and in too many cases this lack became a welcome surrender of individual rights in exchange for the false promise of security based on Utopian idealism, while making all of us the victims of a enslaved dependence on government.
The one saving virtue Romney has in his favor now and forever on Massachusetts healthcare plan is in the fact that he followed the constitution. Like many when I saw the Massachusetts plan I didn’t like it(the mandates) but at least Massachusetts and Romney acted well within States Rights. It is the State governments who have the rights, powers and responsibilities to try novel ideas under the authority of the U.S. Constitution. While we can argue the merits, success and failures of the Massachusetts healthcare plan, what is inarguable is the lawfulness of the law’s solid constitutionality.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
8:01 pm
The Pitiful GOP field: please do not propose to lecture me on healthcare since I have worked in it for 33 years. The BUSINESS of illness is in BUSINESS to make MONEY like all businesses.
———————–
Can we assume you are in it for the very same reason? Let me guess, you’re the one guy who spent a few hundred thousand to become an MD and then immediately took a vow of poverty in the name of providing free health care for all.
Hypocrite.
Bart Abel
February 27th, 2012
8:11 pm
majority of Democrats–56 percent–believe the health care mandate is unconstitutional…Democrats oppose repealing the law, 14-77…Democrats are more likely than not to acknowledge Obamacare violates the Constitution and yet believe it should remain law anyway.
I know that conservatives are anti-nuance, so Kyle is unlikely to be able to absorb this truth, but for the record, repealing the entire law and repealing the mandate are two different things.
Michael H. Smith
February 27th, 2012
8:11 pm
The business of illness is exactly like all other businesses, it has a sometimes silent but now more than ever a very vocal unwelcome partner.
The Federal GUB’MENT is enough to make anyone or thing terminally SICK!
Michael H. Smith
February 27th, 2012
8:14 pm
Oh well Kyle, the answer to the question, What part of illegal don’t they get remains the same – all of it!
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
8:15 pm
Well, Bart, considering that, in their haste, Democrats forgot to put in any severability clause in the ACA, it is likely that the entire law will be repealed if the mandate is found un-Constitutional.
Ooops!
Bart Abel
February 27th, 2012
8:29 pm
One more thing. The reason that the majority of Americans believe that the health care mandate is unconstitutional is that the “liberal” media has led them to believe that the majority of court decisions have found that the health care mandate is unconstitutional.
There were five major lower-court rulings that evaluated the constitutionality of ObamaCare on the merits, three sided with the Obama administration and two sided with the mandate’s opponents. Rulings in support of the law generally received scant attention from the Washington Post, New York Times, Politico, and the Associated Press, while rulings against the law were literally treated as front-page news. It hasn’t even been close. In every instance, conservative rulings received more coverage, longer articles, and better placement. Same with broadcast news coverage. Regular reader’s of Kyle’s column got the same “fair and balanced” coverage.
Now we have three federal appeals courts that have considered cases on the merits: two sided with the Obama administration and upheld the mandate, one sided with the mandates opponents. Overall, that’s five federal courts that sided with Obama and three that decided against.
Federal court decisions upholding the mandate: 5. Federal court decisions against: 3
Keep in mind, the final appeals court ruling even offered an added hook: not only was this ruling seen as a precursor to the U.S. Supreme Court, but it also featured one of the federal judiciary’s most far-right judges siding with the Obama administration.
The key takeaway for me: Kyle Wingfield is more interested in offering spin than information.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
8:35 pm
The key takeaway for me (two actually): Democrats believe the end justifies the means. And there is no part of “From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs” with which they disagree.
md
February 27th, 2012
8:38 pm
“but for the record, repealing the entire law and repealing the mandate are two different things.”
Except one just happens to be the funding mechanism for the other, otherwise no, there is no connection…..if the SC deems the mandate unconstitutional, it’s all done as the numbers are no longer there to ram another package through.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
8:42 pm
The key takeaway for me is that Bart Abel doesn’t understand that it doesn’t matter how many court rulings are for or against a law before coming to the Supreme Court, nor which judges sided with said rulings.
There is a solid 4-4-1 makeup on the SCOTUS, and the “1″ swing justice (Kennedy) is going to decide it all.
That’s all anyone needs to know.
Linda
February 27th, 2012
8:42 pm
Pitiful@7:48, My name, Linda, might not be a really unusual name, but I, Linda, am a really unique person. Maybe you would understand if you were not so pitiful.
And, BTW, my mother is deceased.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
8:45 pm
“The reason that the majority of Americans believe that the health care mandate is unconstitutional is that the “liberal” media has led them to believe that the majority of court decisions have found that the health care mandate is unconstitutional.’
Or maybe the reason they believe the mandate is un-Constitutional is that they actually have read the U.S. Constitution at some time in their lives.
I find it hard to believe that the American public is so swayed by the media in any regard, especially since the stories have been equally reported, despite what Bart contends.
JKL2
February 27th, 2012
9:07 pm
Vote obama Free money for everyone!
@@
February 27th, 2012
9:14 pm
Democrats are more likely than not to acknowledge Obamacare violates the Constitution and yet believe it should remain law anyway.
What’s to be said except Democrats obviously have a weak constitution.
baaaaaaa
LeeH1
February 27th, 2012
9:15 pm
What part of “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” don’t you understand? What part of ObamaCare doesn’t promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility?
Or don’t you belive in our constitution?
@@
February 27th, 2012
9:24 pm
James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, clarified the authority of the federal government in the Federalist Papers #45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 27th, 2012
9:26 pm
LeeH1- If you libs would wash up every once in awhile and refrain from having sex with farm animals, it would go along way towards “promoting the general welfare,” just sayin….
md
February 27th, 2012
9:29 pm
“What part of ObamaCare doesn’t promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility?”
For starters, subsidies for folks making up to 88k a year………hardly insuring domestic tranquility when the guy making 90k has to subsidize his neighbor making a few thousand less…..one gets a boat while the other pays for the injuries from the boating accident.
We choose everything we do, so where does that fit into the discussion when “we” decide who gets to pay for others?
1/3 choose to drop out of school, which is itself an assistance program, and put themselves on the hard road of life which more often than not requires more assistance……..from others that more than likely chose NOT to drop out of assistance program number 1………….
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 27th, 2012
9:33 pm
LeeH1: What part of ObozoCare doesn’t promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility? Or don’t you belive in our constitution?
————————
That’s cute. Immature and puerile, but cute. Unfortunately for your so-called “argument”, the powers at the disposal of the government to promote the general welfard and insure domestic tranquility are enumerated in the Constitution, and they don’t include forcing citizens to purchase products.
You went to public schools, right?
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
10:09 pm
“What part of ObamaCare doesn’t promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility?”
LeeH1, you need to go back to English 101, son.
“Promote” the general Welfare, does not mean “PROVIDE the general Welfare.
Note they SPECIFICALLY stated “provide for the common Defence” (an agreed upon role of government), but merely stated “promote” when it came to general Welfare.
pro·vide/prəˈvīd/
Verb: Make available for use; supply.
pro·mote/prəˈmōt/
Verb: Further the progress of (something, esp. a cause, venture, or aim); support or actively encourage.
See the difference, LeeH1?
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
10:14 pm
Now, now.
Just because the half-wits and kkkretins that make up Kyle’s Kavalcade of Konservative Kooks and Krazies think “Obamacare” is unconstitutional hardly makes it so. Heck, they think Obama was born in Kenya and ‘mullatos’ can’t be president!
Johnathon
February 27th, 2012
10:14 pm
Linda
February 27th, 2012
5:56 pm
Sure, both parties have passed laws that were unconstitutional, but this is the first time in history one party has passed an unconstitutional law that nationalized over 20% of our economy.
Linda, as with most GOPers, obviously does not know what “nationalize” means (same with socialism and marxism). Either that, or she simply has no idea what the Affordale Care Act covers. (Hint: It doesn’t nationalize healthcare).
Conoco Phillip
February 27th, 2012
10:22 pm
Tiberius – Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
6:50 pm
“Really? Making ANYTHING affordable is the role of government? Is is a right to make cars affordable?”
Why all the outrage on Fox News about gas prices? Puzzling…..
Peter
February 27th, 2012
10:34 pm
From what I see, democrats tend toward being a lawless bunch. Just compare the tea party movement to the occupy Wallstreet movement. This may partially be due to the fact that republicans tend to support tradition while democrats support change labeled as being progressive. Preserving the constitution is not progressive but is more of a traditional quality. Thus, among democrats their is a tug towards chaos rather than decency and order. Conservatives civily work within the law such as when prop 8 was proposed and passed while those who oppose it seek harm to those they esteem as their enemies.
Don't Tread
February 27th, 2012
10:42 pm
“It’s clear, however, that many Democrats have no problem supporting an unlawful law.”
One wonders how far thay will take that. Government seizing people’s 401(k)s to redistribute into Social Security? Abolishing private ownership of property? The President having his own private army that answers only to him? Revoking a citizen’s right to trial by jury? Outlawing private ownership of firearms? Abolishing the right of free speech?
Some of these have already happened and others have been discussed…you guess which is which. These are some of the reasons I’ll never vote Democrat.
MarkV
February 27th, 2012
10:43 pm
Johnathon @10:14 pm
Johnathon,
I hate to tell you, but to tell some people on this blog that the terms they were using, such as socialism, Marxism or nationalization, meant something else than they thought, is a hopeless effort. I know, I have tried. You might then read that you were using “outdated definitions.”
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
11:05 pm
“Why all the outrage on Fox News about gas prices? Puzzling…..”
Not so puzzling when you realize that GOVERNMENT is part of the reason why gas prices are so high. Market forces are part as well, but if the government would get out of the way, gas would probably be about $1.00 cheaper right now, Conoco.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 27th, 2012
11:09 pm
Strange, Trash, but I believe that the mandate is un-Constitutional, yet I don’t “think Obama was born in Kenya” nor that “‘mullatos’ can’t be president”, yet here I am on Kyle’s blog.
And is there any wonder that painting with a broad brush usually makes a big mess . . .
GodHatesTrash, Superstar
February 27th, 2012
11:33 pm
Let’s face it, hate, you’re no constitutional scholar.
So who cares what you think about the “mandate”, fool?
Normal
February 28th, 2012
7:35 am
Bottom line, America needs a healthcare system to take care of those Americans who cannot otherwise afford it. It is the right thing to do.
You want to fund it? Let the defense budget pay for it, after all the good health of our people should be a national defense issue.
Just saying..
February 28th, 2012
8:58 am
GOP Election 2012: Still searching for something, anything, that works…
Voice of Reason
February 28th, 2012
9:19 am
Typical liberal logic.
Do what??????
February 28th, 2012
9:39 am
“America needs a healthcare system to take care of those Americans who cannot otherwise afford it.”
Or perhaps the lazy losers like you could get a job and buy your own healthcare. It’s not our problem that you’re not smart.
Tiberius - Your lightning rod of hate!
February 28th, 2012
11:10 am
Dumbest post of the day @ 7:35.
There are many things that are “right” to do.
Many of them do not, and should not, involve government intervention. That is why we are governed by the Constitution, not by feelings.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward)
February 28th, 2012
5:06 pm
Obozo and Democrats to U.S. Constitution: Eff You.
independent thinker
February 29th, 2012
11:21 pm
And how many people think the socialist program passed by Reagan called EMTALA is constitutional. That’s the one the GOP candidates will not talk about that requires hospitals to treat any living person who shows up in the emergency room even if they cannot pay. Tje insured and the wealthy pay for the shortfall. I guess Kyle thinks that is more fair and constitutional than requiring people to pay for their own medical care through insurance.
Dumb and Dumber
March 1st, 2012
11:00 am
Hmmm, a pedantic poster upstairs posted:
“Because “rights” are not fluid. Technology changes.but “rights” do not. That concept apparently escapes you….” (sic)
and then went on the usualy diatribe of questioning the intellect of anyone who disagreed with his viewpoint that unless its in the Constitution, its not a “right”. Reminds me of that epic moment when GOP Rep Westmoreland could not even name the 10 Commandments that he wants posted in every public building. Well…perhaps the Constitutional Scholars on this blog should read the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Sounds like the framers knew there were rights not addressed in the constitution and they wanted it clear that, just because they were not mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean they don’t exist. But I guess if we can read the Second Amendment without using basic grammar and understanding of subordinate clauses, ignoring the Ninth Amendment completely is not so much of a stretch.
DK
March 1st, 2012
4:48 pm
I think the courts can use the elasticity clause “anything necessary and proper.” to declare the law constitutional. You could with pretty much any law. However, I don’t think it would be applicable under the commerce clause because the commerce clause gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce, not to take part in it. I think the supporters of it could win, but, I don’t think that they should, and probably won’t if the litigators who opposite know what they are doing. It, like many other acts including: NDAA, Patriot Act, etc, broaden the scope of the federal government way too much, and move us even more towards cooperative federalism and loose constructionalism, when, clearly, dual federalism is a much better system.