The voters in four states have now had a chance to weigh in on Obamacare’s individual insurance purchase mandate. MO was first, and voted to outlaw the mandate in the Show Me State. Now, AZ and OK have overwhelmingly joined Big MO. From the story:
Voters in Oklahoma and Arizona resoundingly supported ballot initiatives to opt-out of the federal health reform law, while Colorado voters appeared headed to rejecting a similar measure. Strong support for the anti-health reform ballot initiatives, which push back against the health law’s mandated purchase of insurance, echoed a national swing in favor of the Republicans, who reclaimed the House and picked up at least a half dozen Senate seats Tuesday night. Oklahoma approved an opt-out ballot initiative by a 2-to-1 margin. Proposition 106 in Arizona gained 55 percent of the vote while Colorado’s Amendment 63 was trailing early Wednesday morning. Missouri voters approved a similar measure, Proposition C, with 71 percent support on a primary ballot in August.
Supporters of Obamacare correctly note that if the Supreme Court upholds the mandate, state laws to the contrary will fall. But, I believe that the odds are good the Supreme Court will rule that this part of Obamacare exceeds the constitutional authority of the federal government under the Commerce Clause. If so, Obamacare—if it has not already been fundamentally undermined legislatively—will collapse.
So, if the Supreme Court will ultimately decide, why bother with state laws? Two reasons: First, it permits states to have a stronger case in court if their laws outlaw what the Feds want to do. Second, as the old saying goes in lawyerland, the Supreme Court often follows the election returns. If that is true—and from what I have seen in my 35 or so years as a lawyer, there is a degree of validity to the maxim—the more states that outlaw the mandate, the easier it will be for the justices to overturn the law.
Three out of four states now voting the mandate down doesn’t hurt. And the more states that follow VA’s lead by legislating similarly, the better.
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
