Sure, Obamacare has been passed and will likely be signed into law. We’ve seen some of the conservative responses, but there is still some recourse to strike the bill down, and there will be a massive backlash against the progressive Democrats for this. Legal challenges to the constitutionality of Obamacare — mostly against the individual mandate — are already underway. I can also see a November election cycle where Republicans win (easily) on a “repeal the bill” platform. Either way, it is highly likely that those who supported and voted for this bill will face dire political consequences.
So, some commentary on possible recourse and resistance to Obamacare.
[T]his isn’t the end of the fight. To the contrary, these socialists in the House have awakened a sleeping giant in this country and we’re going to make them pay and pay and pay for what they’ve done. Yes, they’re going to have a happy March. But, we’re going to have a happy November and we’re going fight tooth and nail to protect the future of this country from the loathsome gang of con men, pathological liars, and Marxists that now make up almost the entirety of the Democratic elite in this country. Yesterday, they put their boot on America’s neck. Today, we start the effort to throw it off.
Some on the right are pessimistic about the ability of the Republicans to do away with Obasocialist Care because it can be very hard to get rid of entitlement programs. Well, good news! Most do not kick in for years. But, the taxes do. Let’s take a look at the timeline, via my horrible Dem House member’s (Brad Miller NC-13) website. In 2010 we get quite a bit of action, most being taxes and infrastructure…
Martin Knight at Red State calls for an all-out effort to repeal the bill, with no support at all for any Republican that does not work aggressively toward this goal:
Every single Republican must pledge to vote for repeal, year in and year out. And like the Democrats in passing it; by any means necessary. If it takes using reconciliation, DemonPass, etc. it would be repealed. Simple and short. No attempts to fix it, reform it, improve it or some other milquetoast language. Let the left-wing activists calling themselves journalists in the establishment media call it an unconscionable “litmus test” showing the GOP’s supposed “extremism”, lack of “tolerance” or “inclusiveness” or some other stupidity. Let them scream that it is hypocritical to use the same tactics they supported when they were being used by the other side.
Luckily (or unluckily) 2006 and 2008 purged the GOP of the compromise caucus (Johnson, Leach, Chaffee, etc.) that would have made this vote “bipartisan”, yet somehow, the GOP is winning Independents over at 2:1 rates in swing districts all over the contrary. According to another bit of Beltway conventional (un)wisdom, this was also supposed to be impossible.
So there should be no tolerance for any Republican, even if he or she has a 100% ACU career rating, who equivocates or attempts to sit on the fence with a finger in the air – all (Ayotte, Norton, Castle, etc.) must come out full-fledged for repeal. We need to make it clear to Michael Steele or whoever it is at the RNC that no Republican who is in any way conflicted about whether this should be repealed should receive a cent of GOP donor money.
Democrats are worried about holding their members together on a GOP motion that could kill the healthcare bill.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill.
The concern is based on the fear of GOP attack ads painting Democrats who vote against a motion to recommit that includes Stupak’s favored language on abortion as “flip-floppers” on the issue.
Stacy Cline at American Spectator reviews some possibilities for a legal challenge of Obamacare:
A challenge to the “individual mandate” is perhaps the best legal option available. The health care bill requires certain individuals to purchase health insurance on a government run exchange, a requirement many legal scholars have argued is an unconstitutional expansion of federal power. It not only imposes a duty on individuals to purchase insurance, but it heavily regulates the available options, requiring individuals to engage in economic activity to subsidize an industry on which Congress has conferred special benefits. Imagine the outrage if, in order to promote general economic stability, individuals were required to buy American cars or purchase stock in one of the government’s preferred financial institutions.
Despite this patent overreach by Congress, the Supreme Court’s flawed jurisprudence on this issue probably permits it. The government will argue that it has the authority to impose the individual mandate under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which permits Congress “to regulate Commerce … among the several States.” Supreme Court precedent has interpreted the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate and prohibit all sorts of economic activities that in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce.
Michelle Malkin also mentions potential legal action against Obamacare, listing them by state:
In January, I blogged about the first line of defense against Demcare by the states: Opt-out initiatives.
The backlash continued over the last several weeks with state attorneys general signaling plans to sue the feds. Idaho’s governor signed an order last week.
Tomorrow, several AGs will unveil their official efforts
Even the New York Times picks up on the building legal momentum:
The next chapter in the health care fight will play out not only in the midterm elections, but also in the courts. Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance.
In an interview Sunday, the Virginia attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, said he intended to base his challenge on two grounds: that the federal bill conflicts with a newly passed state law that says no Virginian may be compelled to buy insurance and that Congress does not have authority to impose the mandate under its powers to regulate interstate commerce, as Democrats contend.
“This is such an incredible federal overreach,” Mr. Cuccinelli said, but added that he did not plan to ask the courts for an order that would prevent the bill from going into effect because the individual mandate does not take effect until 2013. “On our basis for a constitutional challenge, there’s no rush,” he said.
I’m not sure how successful trying to revisit the abortion issue in the Senate will be, and quite honestly, although I don’t really want my tax dollars paying for other people’s abortions, I wish there was a more solid (as in less partisan and less likely to appear to the extremists) issue to build upon. I’m not confident in legal challenges based upon state exemption laws, but I’m hopeful that a constitutional challenge against the individual mandate will prove fruitful. (Unfortunately, even a win on that issue could lead to fail, since the court may just invalidate that provision.)
The best bet is a complete move to repeal. Most of the provisions don’t kick in for several years, and there should be plenty of momentum against the Democrats come election time. I just hope that while building a movement around a repeal effort, the Republicans don’t get too single-issue focused, and lose sight of other issues. If they run solely on repealing Obamacare, they won’t do nearly as well as if they present a more general platform. Adopting the more libertarian attitudes that we’ve seen at the Tea Party will go a long way.