« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Gallup Poll Results: 72% of All Americans Believe Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional

By: lineholder (Diary)  |  February 27th, 2012 at 03:34 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Aaaannnndddd, we have ourselves a majority, folks!

This is the best news I’ve heard in a while.  Check it out:

Question:

As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine.  Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional?

Results:

All Americans         20% say Constitutional while 72% say Unconstitutional

Democrats              37% say Constitutional while 56% say Unconstitutional

Independents         21% say Constitutional while 70% say Unconstitutional

Republicans              6% say Constitutional while 94% say Unconstitutional

Oh, yeah, I like those results!!!

But wait, want to hear what one of the Democrat Representatives of House, Kathy Hochul (NY), had to say pertaining to the issue of Constitutional versus Unconstitional as it applies to O-care?

 

Yes, the general gist of Rep. Hochul’s comments are directly in response to questions posed to her about contraception.  However, her response does display the general attitude that Dems have had all along, i.e. that there’s no reason for them to consider that “old, outdated” Constitution when making their decisions.

They are a law unto themselves, don’t you know???

November, come quickly!!!

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Repair_Man_Jack

    hold a similar opinion.

    • lineholder

      Talk about a sticky-wicket that this admin has put them in. I daresay that the Dems believed that after a period of time, the fuss would die down, people would come around to their point of view, etc. etc. Remember all that talk they did about “better communication about what’s in the bill”?

      But it’s been two years, and public opinion against the individual mandate is still remarkably high. What’s more, this could also be interpreted as support to stay to the side of Constitutional law in the decision that is made by SCOTUS.

      I’d love to hear them trying to talk their way through this one. And we can count on it that they are, even now, before the hearings have started.

      Oh, I think if there’s ever a time when we’re going to push the issue of having Kagan recuse herself, this is it. They may just take us up on it, RMJ.

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        Very rarely do these justices forget the political ramifications of their decisions.

        • lineholder

          This decision in particular could have massive political ramifications for many years to come.

          72%!!! I still can’t take it in. This is excellent news!!

          • Viet71

            Tenure for life, though not perfect, was one of the best decisions the Founders made.

          • Viet71

            You are a Dem infilgratrol.

          • lineholder

            It looks like you’re responding to yourself, telling yourself to “go away”. If, OTOH, this was intended to be a “kowalski” and you’re responding to me, telling me to go away and calling me a “Dem infilgratrol”….you’re wrong.

            Neither RMJ or I have stated anything about wanting to change tenure for members of SCOTUS. What we’ve said is that the decision made by SCOTUS on this issue has political ramifications, which is very much so true…it does.

            It’s about recognizing political potential, Viet71.

            Question: What kind of potential do you see in this situation, not only in the poll numbers presented in the diary, but also in various possible outcomes of a decision made by SCOTUS for or against the mandate?

          • lineholder

            I’ll go ahead and state some of the potential that I see in the situation now.

            With public opinion pertaining to the issue of constitutional versus unconstitutional status of individual mandate being this high, Republicans have an excellent opportunity to present themselves as attempting to protect and preserve the integrity of the Constitution by repealing O-care. That’s one element of potential that I see.

            Another one…if SCOTUS rules for the mandate, and if that ruling is provided prior to the election in Nov., Republicans could strengthen their case and quite possibly appeal to very wide spectrum of voters by drawing attention to the reality that based on the precedent set by this ruling, the government has the power to tell us what we do and/or do not have to purchase, and that for this reason, we need a Republican in office to repeal O-care.

            Another one…if SCOTUS rules against the mandate but allows the remainder of the legislation to stand, Repubs have an open door to plead their case that, without the mandate, the public exchange becomes a moot point and is not entirely necessary…neither are many other regulatory measures included in the law…that this is a badly constructed piece of legislation…point out how this legislation has suppressed our economy for the past two years…and draw the corelation of how electing a Repub as President will allow us to address those points.

            That’s three potential scenarios that I see. I daresay there are quite a few more.

          • Viet71

            Leftys who hate the mandate (e.g., everyone at FDL) will submit an amicus brief tearing apart the mandate but keeping silent on the rest of the ACA.

            Many here loathe the ACLU, but it’s very good on civil liberties (Bill of Rights) issues. My guess: ACLU will oppose the mandate.

          • Viet71

            got to my computer.

        • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

          …but they are well reputed to follow the election returns. Let’s see if they delay the decision past November 6th.

  • Viet71

    many Americans, I suspect, will begin to look for another place to live.

    The mandate is the most important issue ever to come before the Court, IMO.

    The Court did a pretty good job of taking power away from the states in the last half of the 20th century and turning that power largely over to the federal government.

    Recently, in the Kelo case (new Haven, CT eminent domain case), the Court let a city squash a landowner like a bug.

    The mandate poses this question: shall the federal government have the power to squash its citizens like bugs?

    Hope the Court learned from Kelo.

    • Ausonius

      Such is the brutal political mathematics of democracies everywhere.

      If more than 50% of Americans are truly “conservative,” and do not accept a leftist agenda, then how precisely can one explain the entrenchment and growth of leftist power?

      The answers are a hydra, but among the many heads are things like a public disconnected from reality, a public uneducated about basic government, a public blinded by the MSM, a public that has cast curses on both parties and has stopped paying attention.

      • Viet71

        Really intelligent. Really verbal. Tell me more.

        • Ausonius

          Many thanks for the compliments!

          If you want more, try this:

          See:

          http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

          The old saw: If you don’t vote, don’t complain.

  • westcoastpatriette

    is that even 56% of Dems think the individual mandate is unconstitutional. Amazing. Shows just how little respect they have for the document or our liberties that it was created to secure.

  • sulmak

    nt

  • quill67

    I know this is not likely, but for too long Congress has believed there were no limits on their powers—that they could manipulate the law in such a way to pass constitutional muster (with the 5 judges) while ignoring the most important part of our constitution:

    It was designed to create a limited government.

    Any decisions that extend the power of the government are contrary to the founders clear and absolute intentions.

  • tetrisd85

    Romney backed the individual mandate in Massachusetts. Even though Romney claims its a “state right”, that argument holds no water because the constitutional issue is not about federal power but about civil liberties. I.e., whether the federal government can force you to use money to purchase a certain health insurance plan. Since Romney’s plan did just that he would be a terrible RINO to put up against Obama in the fall. We need a candidate who can distinguish himself.

    • JSobieski

      Nothing in the US Constitution prohibits an insurance mandate by a state.

      Talking in generalities about rights and civil liberties may sound good, but they aren’t based on anything under the law.

      I don’t know what the Mass. Constitution says on this issue, but a state mandate is not unconstitutional under the US Constitution

      • tetrisd85

        No — when the founding fathers wrote the bill of rights they intended that we have the right over our liberty and property not to be compelled to buy health insurance. Obamacare takes away a fundamental civil liberty by compelling Americans to spend their property to buy health care against their will.

  • Pingback: continue