I hope you are just delusional and don't know what you are talking about. I was surprised our country lasted eight years under W, I think our country is too frail to last four years under any of these Republican candidates.

Even if one of the current crop is able to win the White House (a doubtful proposition), there is still a little matter of separation of powers to consider. Presidents cannot repeal laws on their own; they need Congress to do so. And given the filibuster threshold, they would need an overwhelming majority to get past the Senate, and you can better believe that even if the Republicans took the Senate, the Dems would not be willing to work with whomever wound up with the power, and the shoe would be on the other foot.

The most that a president can do on his own would be to issue executive orders, which would slow down the implementation of Obama's health care plan.

Step by step, kids:

The commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the insurance and the health care industry.

Yes or no? (If you say no, please inform the insurance and health care industry. I am sure they would love to hear your argument as to why so they could avoid all of the current regulations in the future.)

And since we have established (hopefully) that the commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate the health care industry let's move on to the necessary and proper clause.

The courts have found that they necessary and proper clause gives congress the power to enforce a statute, "we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power." --John Roberts (see below).

So let's go slowly . . . . .

Does the necessary an proper clause give congress the power to enforce this statue (the individual mandate)?

Let's see.

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to a constitutionally enumerated power? Let's examine...

What is the constitutionally enumerated power? The Commerce Clause.

What does this clause give congress the power to do in this situation? Regulate the insurance and health care industry.

What is one of the purposes of the individual mandate? (i.e. Why would congress want to regulate the insurance and health care industry?) To improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system.

Filling in the blanks.........

Is the individual mandate a means that is rationally related to regulating the insurance and health care industry in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

Or.....we could look at the opinion by Scalia in Gonzales v. Reich:

'The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power.'

Is the individual mandate a means that is "reasonably adapted" to regulating the insurance and health care industry (under the commerce power) in order to improve access to health care and attempt to fix the growing problems in our health care system (the legitimate end)?

YES or NO?

I think the answer is clearly yes. (If you disagree, please explain.)

===============================================

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

The opinions Scalia and Roberts would contridict if they ruled against the mandate:

Scalia in Gonzalas v. Raich (2005):

As we implicitly acknowledged in Lopez, however, Congress’s authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws directed against economic activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Though the conduct in Lopez was not economic, the Court nevertheless recognized that it could be regulated as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” 514 U.S., at 561. This statement referred to those cases permitting the regulation of intrastate activities “which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the exercise of the granted power.” Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U.S., at 119; see also United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118—119 (1941); Shreveport Rate Cases, 234 U.S., at 353. As the Court put it in Wrightwood Dairy, where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, “it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.” 315 U.S., at 118—119.

Although this power “to make … regulation effective” commonly overlaps with the authority to regulate economic activities that substantially affect interstate commerce,2 and may in some cases have been confused with that authority, the two are distinct. The regulation of an intrastate activity may be essential to a comprehensive regulation of interstate commerce even though the intrastate activity does not itself “substantially affect” interstate commerce. Moreover, as the passage from Lopez quoted above suggests, Congress may regulate even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce. See Lopez, supra, at 561. The relevant question is simply whether the means chosen are “reasonably adapted” to the attainment of a legitimate end under the commerce power. See Darby, supra, at 121.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1454.ZC.html

Cheif Justice Roberts in U.S. vs Comstock (2010):

We have since made clear that, in determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/comstock2010.html

A unhonorable political act from the republican leadership from the git go. Purely political. No honor or common sense invloved. Health care has needed reform for decades. Will need more as time goes by. The bulk of the reforms will stand if not all. As republicans continue to polarize the country, I publicly will let it be known... you all can go to hell.

Have you noticed that the charge of voter fraud is always in republican led states? Wow. Guess the GOP doesn't know how to hold an election.

Is that an opinion or fact?

Here's my question Amy, why are people waiting until the same day to register to vote?

Is that the offical title of the AG in Maine, The Republican Attorney General? But wasn't that awesome that he did his job and investigated those charges and found nothing?

I can't believe a poster from Florida is lecturing Maine on protecting the integrity of the voting system.

Paul, the point is, Maine is a largely rural state, and it can be difficult getting to the clerk's office during normal business hours, especially when people work more than one job. Same day registration has allowed us to have one of the highest voter turnouts in the nation, which is the point of making it convenient for people to register and vote on the same week day. Obviously, younger people also find it convenient as they are less apt to be established voters. Which is the only reason the Republicans repealed same day voting - to suppress votes for Democrats.

Paul, 5th amendment Rick is trying real hard to disenfranchise voters here in Florida. Guess he has looked at his own poll numbers

Paul, it's common sense to allow voters to register the same day.

Americans work hard to provide for their family. When they are not at work, they want to spend time with their family.

Requiring them to stand in lines multiple days is what the Soviets did. Not what Americans believe in.

I wonder what George Washington would have said if he was told he would have to leave his fields to register to be able to vote a month later?

It's just like in Wisconsin. Republicans have been trying to change the recall laws to make it nearly impossible to recall them. Fortunately, one brave Wisconsin Republican Senator has publicly said the changes do not make any sense and he's voted against Walker and the Fitzgerald family agenda.

Same day registration is a necessity in this country. Why? Because we are a very transient society. We constantly move city to city, state to state. More movement in our country than any other. Why should I not be allowed to vote just because I moved last month or last week or yesterday? Just asking. Voter fraud is always associated with the pollsters or campaign operatives. I don't know of a single case were someone not authorized to vote did. But if someone knows of any convicted case of a person voting even though they had lost or no right to do so please post the legal decision for me. I'm just curious how "wide spread" this is. Remember I want the legal decision, not hype.

Amy,

Ok, I'm a person, not a State and how do you confuse my question with a lecture? Your AG did his job-right? You put the title in from of AG, not me.

So what you're saying is true about same day registration, wouldn't that also effect Republicans too? Or are you saying only Republicans register before the day of an election? See, your arguement would effect everyone, not just Democrats. So you're telling me it takes 2-4 years to find time to go register to vote?

Phine,

How so, I live in Florida, inform me? One thing I like what Scott did, drug test the people that get State Aid.

Dan,

Soviets didn't vote, they waited for food which was controlled and regulated by their Government. See, look at Wisconsin, it took a Republican to tell another Republican that he/she was wrong. Now give me a good example of a Democrat telling another Democrat the same and then I'll buy your arguement.

Ana,

I understand what you're saying and I know in certain States you must register within a certain time period. I believe Florida it's 30 days, no sure though, but there's a time period. Let's use your example of moving "just yesterday", now how would the district that you're voting know that you're not voting in another district? The paperwork can't be done in one day. I would bet you it's been tried or done on just the example I gave you.

Paul,

How can you be OK with a politician claiming voter fraud is widespread among a certain group of voters, when it is not? And using that lie to change public policy, not to protect the sytstem, but to decrease the number of people voting, on the theory that less established voters (students, poor people) are more likely to vote Democratic?

I suppose we should be "glad" the attorney general didn't fabricate instances of fraud, but I think that's setting the bar pretty low, for what is expected of a public official. I would say, sending letters to college students warning of the consequences of voter fraud, when you have just determined that fraud is non-extistent, is tantamont to voter suppression. What Republicans are doing is trying any means is to discourage folks from voting, in hopes of winning more elections. My question is, why aren't they trying to win the old fashioned way: by putting forth better arguments, running qualified candidates, and performing well once they are in office? That's the point.

Most election fraud is done at the level of those counting the votes, or, as we saw back in 2000 and '04, right at where the votes are being collected (can you say Diebold anyone?) In the far past it has been both sides that manipulate elections, however, for the past 12-15 years it has been primarily the Republicans who have been blatantly guilty of this sort of manipulation and yet it is they who are complaining the most. Perhaps it is the FACT that we are on to their games and shenanigans and have, in most states, outlawed the unverifiable, paper-trailless voting machines and so the Repubs are having to resort to other methods in order to skew the elections. Perhaps if the Repubs were to actually start representing ALL of their constituencies (instead of the 1% that seems to control them absolutely) then they would not HAVE to resort to cheating to win.

However Cheating, Obstruction, Lies, Denial, Distortion and Ignoring the True Wants and Needs of the Public are what truly defines the Republican/TPers party today....And The Public Knows That..which is why the Right HAS to rely on cheating in order to win!

Exactly Amy!

Amy.

Where are you seeing that I'm saying it's OK for anything? So what you're saying is that students shouldn't know the punishment for voting fraud for just information sake? Here's my point, someone brought up voting fraud, the AG looked into it and found nothing, thus doing his/her job-right? So in-turn why can't the AG also say, "If fraud is commited, this will be your penalty". I can see it being a general announcement for everyone, not just one political party.

B.Honest,

Really? So I guess the voting fraud in Indiana in October didn't happen eh? Don't be so ignorant and blind.

Paul, do you mean the Voter REGISTRATION Fraud in '08 during the Democratic Primary that had fewer than 100 convictions that Faux Neus made such a big deal over while ignoring the REAL Frauds posed by the Repubs? There is a MAJOR difference between that and the (at least) Hundreds of Thousands to Millions of votes that were switched, 'lost' or plain not counted via Diebold during the National Elections in 2000 and'04?

No Comparison

Keep your blinders on B.Honest, just pull that one lever that as a picture of a donkey on it. Amazing........

Look up USNews and the author Peter Roff and you might learn something. It's a good article and you might learn something.

Now why would anyone with common sense wish to pull the tail of a donkey during this next election? The real downfall of the economy was caused by the a$$e$ from this group.

Spend funds you don't have and spend your way to prosperity. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.

The GOP kind of reminds me of a 2 year old's temper tantrum. Unfortunately, their tantrums hurt the country.

Desi... I'd agree w/ most of what u say. But not the part about a 3rd Party. That would just require 30% more money in the race. It would divide the vote making it easier for one of the majors to win. If a 2 party race has any virtue, its that the winner is mathmatically assured of majority victory. The problem is not the number of parties, it is the money. Give each candidate an equal amount and put them in jail if caught taking a cent from private sources. The very best indicator of fiscal management and strategy as Pres. might be which got the most bang for the same bucks. At the least, we'd know nobody bought the soul of our gov't by financing an obscenely expensive campaign.

Well Pony,

What will the liberals say when it does go down? Will they blame it on Bush, or the Republican SCOTUS?

I don't feel this law is Constitutional, but even if supported, funding can be prevented from happening. Perhaps we can see something more interesting presented from the newly elected President.