According To DNC Chair Howard Dean …

… the individual mandate will die. That’s right, the far-left liberal former governor of the only state that elected a self-declared Socialist (Bernie Sanders) to the US Senate, one Howard Dean, declared the individual mandate in ObamaCare will either die because the people reject it or because the Courts reject it.

Dean: The American people are not going to put up with a mandate. I have made this prediction before and I am going to make it again. By the time this thing goes into effect in 2014, I think this mandate will be gone–either through the courts or because it’s unpopular.

You don’t need it. There will be two or three percent of the people who cheat, that’s not enough to bring the system to a halt and people don’t like to be told what to do publicly…

Question: So, you expect them to drop the mandate?

Dean: Well, the courts may rule it unconstitutional.

My question: If even the DNC head says the Courts could easily call individual mandates unconstitutional, and the Oath of Office for Congress states that everyone will defend the Constitution against any and every person assailing it, why have so many Democrats in office declared it is not their duty to determine whether what they want is constitutional or not?

9 Comments

  1. The mandate was a Republican invention, and it’s the worst thing about the health plan. Dean had a better plan than the 2k-page bill: Medicare for all.

    Love me some Sanders, too. If Obama’s secret socialist agenda is so scary, perhaps we should elect Sanders in 2012. I’d vote for Sanders/Dean. Or Grayson/Weiner. Or any combination from that mix.

  2. “why have so many Democrats in office declared it is not their duty to determine whether what they want is constitutional or not?”

    The simple answer is that “so many Democrats” already in office got themselves caught up in the Obama frenzy, (and Pelosi’s House), believing they could pursue their ambitions of restructuring the government by embracing the Marxist Socialist ideology. Their fatal mistake is this remarkable arrogance of completely ignoring the Constitution, as if the document had no binding restraints on their agenda. In the “progressive” liberal’s feeble mind, Neanderthals’ like Franklin, Jefferson, and James Madison are considered obstacles of no historic value. In this momentous period from 2007 to present, and with the total control of two branches of the government, (legislative and executive), the liberal progressives sought to make formidable changes—seeding unprecedented powers to a central government—designed to weaken the powers, (inherited by the Constitution), of the general public; also known as “We the People”.

    With the fragile checks and balances written into our Constitution to protect all of us from any two other overbearing branches of government, “We the People” must insist that the ultimate laws in our Constitution be adhered to and stand firm. When legislation is written that ignores these principles, (mandating health care insurance be purchased with the threat of fines or imprisonment), it is imperative that our legislature is put in check.

    “Legislators have their authority measured by the Constitution, they are chosen to do what it permits, and NOTHING MORE, and they take solemn oath to obey and support it. . . To pass an act when they are in doubt whether it does or does not violate the Constitution is to treat as of no force the most imperative obligations any person can assume.” — Judge Thomas M. Cooley

    Even a liberal must understand these principles were not written into the Constitution to protect any certain party, ambition, or agenda. Indeed, they were written to protect all of us from any power structure that does not adhere to the restrictions laid down by our founding fathers to protect “We the People” from any overbearing government.

    “Progressive Liberals” have chosen to ignore these simple facts, and will, by their own indifference, be thrown out of office. Nothing in this great nation of ours is more critical to our survival as a Republic than to amend the intentional assault on our Constitutional Rights. And the Democratic Party will ignore this at their own peril.

    (for those who “choose” to not understand, (or question the truth or validity), of this “simple answer”, please step to the rear of the line. We have an “enlightened position” for you as a community organizer.)

  3. Nangleator says:

    The mandate was a Republican invention

    And Obama says this “Republican invention” is now a TAX. And now this tax will be on people making under $200k. Can you also enlighten us how this is also Republican invention or is it just a natural trait that liberals are so damned proficient at deferring their responsibilities?

  4. It certainly is not a tax; clearly it is a health insurance premium!

    On Dean’s position, he has not supplied enough information here for me to understand what he means.

  5. It certainly is not a tax; clearly it is a health insurance premium!

    I guess the fact that part of the governments official argument that includes their ability to TAX (under the Commerce Clause, the Tax Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause) “certainly” makes Perry’s statement subject to debate.

    The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose it under the Commerce Clause, the Tax Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. All three arguments have serious flaws.

    The Tax Clause gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” The government argues that the mandate counts as a “tax” because it imposes a financial penalty. link

    WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

    And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce……

    In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

    Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce. link

    And, for the sake of argument, there’s a law professor who argues that because the government uses the tax only as a “small portion” of the government’s case, it should not be seen as a primary point, therefore we should just ignore it:

    “The administration has consistently defended the mandate in court first as an exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause power and only (far) second as an exercise of its taxing power under the General Welfare Clause. Take, for example, the Justice Department’s brief in Virginia v. Sebelius, the case in the Eastern District of Virginia. In that brief, the government devotes 15 pages to its thorough and aggressive argument under the Commerce Clause–its primary substantive argument–and a mere 4 pages for its near-after-thought argument on taxation. Yet the Times article quotes a portion from the tax argument in that very brief as evidence that the administration has changed its stance.” link

    Perry, (and our dear law professor), would have you purchase a health insurance policy under the guise that if you refuse, the mandated penalty is “clearly” not a tax. It’s just a “near-after-thought”.

    [released from moderation - pH]

  6. Rovin:

    OK, I will agree that it is fair to call it either a tax or a health insurance premium.

    Frankly, I am not able to do anything more than rely on Obama and his Justice Department that the mandate is constitutional. There is little doubt in my mind that this issue will end up before SCOTUS, because it is that important. In the meantime, we will see what the VA lawsuit outcome will be.

  7. There is little doubt in my mind that this issue will end up before SCOTUS, because it is that important

    Agreed. But the importance is that the SC rules this mandate invalid. What I don’t think you realize is that IF this precedent is ruled constitutional, we, (the people) have seeded far more dangerous powers to the central government. How will you like it when conservatives are back running congress and they legislate/require that you purchase a gun? Failure to own one will result in a penalty and possible jail time.

    The federal government claims that Congress has the power to impose it under the Commerce Clause, the Tax Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. All three arguments have serious flaws.

    The Tax Clause gives Congress the power to impose taxes to “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” The government argues that the mandate counts as a “tax” because it imposes a financial penalty.

    Remember, when you/we argue that to mandate the purchase of health care for EVERY AMERICAN, and it passes muster with the SC, (meaning it’s constitutional under these guidelines above, there will be FEW restraints on the legislature or the government to FORCE YOU TO BUY THINGS YOU MIGHT NOT THINK IS NECESSARY. This is not a slippery slope Perry, it will be totalitarian. If you think the government should have this kind of power over your individual choice, perhaps Cuba or Venezuela would interest you.

  8. And, from my understanding, that little clause that says “If the big bad courts throw part of this law out, the rest is fine and dandy” that’s in every law… isn’t in this particular law. So that means, if I understand correctly, the throwing out of one single clause in the 2400 page bill could cause the entire bill to be thrown out due to a lack of “due diligence” on the part of the power-grabbers.

    Yeah, SCOTUS doesn’t toss out the individual mandate and may as well throw the Constitution out the window; it won’t be worth the parchment it’s written on.

Comments are closed.