A Majority of Americans Think ObamaCare's Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional

What do most Americans think about the constitutionality of ObamaCare's individual mandate to purchase health insurance? According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey released this morning, a majority believe that it's unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to overturn the provision later this year. Kaiser reports that 54 percent of respondents said that in their own opinion, the requirement to purchase insurance or pay a fine was unconstitutional, while just 17 percent said they thought it was constitutional; 29 percent said they didn't know. A similar number, 55 percent, said they expected the Supreme Court to rule against the provision. 

This obviously doesn't tell us whether or not the provision is or isn't constitutional. But by highlighting the continuing widespread skepticism of the mandate, it tells us plenty about how the public thinks of the requirement.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The idea that the mandate is unconstitutional is absurd and so far out of the mainstream as to be laughable.

  • Mike M.||

    Some of the federal judges who have ruled on it don't seem to agree with you.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I thought the "so far out of the mainstream" part on an article showing a majority of people think it is would make it obvious.

  • ||

    Nice. Better practice saying that, as that's what the administration is chanting now until the SCOTUS just barely strikes down the mandate.

    My prediction, by the way, is that it does get struck down, but some nice dicta will be written explaining how to do it right.

  • ||

    Most Americans think "unconstitutional" is a shmancy way of saying "I don't like it", so I don't think this really tells us anything new.

  • nobody||

    Yeah, I doubt that even 1% of Americans have a working knowledge of the Constitution (as in, have read or studied it since middle school, or could give reasonable explanations of more than a handful of amendments).

  • Tim||

    Knowing (or thinking you know) a lot about the Constitution gets you on a point on Homeland Security's terror watch list.

  • ||

    Most Americans know the 1A (parts of it anyhow) and the 2A (parts of it anyhow).

    Oh, and they know only natural-born citizens can be president, although many choose to ignore it.

    That's it. Except for some of them thinking abortion is in there somewhere.

  • Almanian||

    What RC said

  • ||

    Most Americans think "unconstitutional" is a shmancy way of saying "I don't like it", so I don't think this really tells us anything new.

    Whatever works.

  • ||

    Unfortunately, the corrollary is that most Americans think "Constitutional" is a shmancy way of saying "I like it."

  • ||

    R C Buzzkill? Is that your name?

  • ||

    Call me MCRC, yo.

  • ||

    Here's what I don't understand - why don't the opponents of Obamacare argue that the bill is not just flawed for requiring citizens to purchase insurance, but also because it originated in the Senate? The Constitution clearly says that all spending bills must originate in the House.

  • Sonia Sotomayor||

    majority believe that it's unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to overturn

    I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

  • Gojira||

    Her vicious defense of privacy, exceeding the other justices, has bought her a little slack with me. Until the next decision, which I'm sure she'll be terrible on.

  • Tim||

    If only the Founders had written the Constitution in clear, easily understood language.

  • Rather||

    Binary code?

  • Ezra Klein||

    What do you expect? The Constitution is like, over 100 years old.

  • ||

    And it's not even in ENGLISH!

  • Alack||

    And if it were, that would just be Othering all of the non-English speakers in our great nation, further proving the racist underpinnings of a document we need to leave in the past.

  • ||

    Or do you mean it's at higher than 8th grade level English?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    And it's not even in ENGLISH!

    It diftrefses me to hear you say thif.

  • ||

    Those weren't f's. It's just the way s's were drawn in certain parts of a word.

    It was like the French 7 or something.

  • Mr. Soul||

    as Bender says "Massacheffets? more like Taxachuffets!"

  • Sean Healy||

    Of course, everyone who disagrees with your interpretation of it also thinks it was written in clear, easily understood language, which is why other parts of the Constitution provided for a branch of government that would adjudicate on its meaning.

  • Almanian Obama||

    Let me be clear. That would be the Executive Branch, which wields Superhuman Octo-Power.

    There are those who disagree with me, and believe that the Courts "adjudicate on its meaning." and to those people I say, 'Wait till you meet the new "Implementation Czar,, Hugo Chavez", for whom I have made a recess-Lite appointment to said position.

    Me an' Hugo ain't waitin' for SHIT!

    We can't wait for the do-nothing Court and a Know Nothing population any longer! We are the change we have waited for! Speak truth to power! God bless me!

    That is all.

  • Gojira||

    Octo-power? So Obama can squirt ink at his enemies as a diversion while he flees?

  • Sparky||

  • cynical||

    You're assuming that they're disagreeing in good faith. If they can't understand "shall pass no law regarding", or that dropping bombs on a foreign nation's military constitutes, at a minimum, "hostilities", then a reasonable person may expect that no "interpretation" can be considered to be offered in good faith.

  • Sam||

    It's not like they wrote essays trying to sell the constitution to states explaining exactly what they wrote and intended.

    I bet if they did, they'd call them "The Federalist Papers"

    Too bad they didn't. Then we'd have a much better understanding of the meaning of what they wrote.

  • Sam||

    It's not like they wrote essays trying to sell the constitution to states explaining exactly what they wrote and intended.

    I bet if they did, they'd call them "The Federalist Papers"

    Too bad they didn't. Then we'd have a much better understanding of the meaning of what they wrote.

  • ||

    Two too bad.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Polls like this make me glad we've got enlightened people like Nancy Pelosi around to decide not only what we ought and ought not to do, but also what we do and don't need to know.

  • ||

    Who gives a shit how many people think it's unconstitutional? What matters is what the Supreme Court thinks, and well...they're unpredictable to say the least, and they sure have some deference for abusing the Commerce Clause, so it's basically a crap shoot.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    Agree to an extent, except that there's some evidence that the Court does occasionally factor public opinion into making its decision.

  • ||

    Which is part of what makes them unpredictable.

  • ||

    True. But don't kid yourself Epi, they are not some monastic order. They are all political animals or they wouldn't be there. Don't think they didn't notice the 2010 elections and don't notice polls like this. They are loath to really go that much against public opinion.

  • ||

    If the mandate doesn't stick Medicare for All is coming.

    Pick your poison.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I prefer Medicaid for all.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    Kennedy might care how many people think it's unconstitutional.

  • Gojira||

    I honestly think this is a set-up to go single payer. Much as it disgusts me, I can see that being more constitutional than the mandate, because it's just straight up taxation to provide a service, as opposed to an order to engage in private commerce.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Oh, Godzilla, I never got a chance to reply to your earlier comment from another thread:

    Gojira|1.26.12 @ 1:32PM|#
    I'm married. Attractive women are dead to me. Just a cruel reminder of what might have been. I'd rather they all be fat and ugly.

    You need to remind your wife that the The White Tigeress Tradition is a honored and respected part of her ethnic and cultural heritage.

    I shall keep my fingers crossed for you, my Green Dragon brother.

    Seriously, the White Tigress Tradition calls the dudes "Green Dragons". See? Even more evidence on your side!

  • Gojira||

    That website is blocked for me here at work, but I'll check it out later tonight.

    To paraphrase Happy Gilmore, "white dragon, green dragon, who gives a shit?"

    Though we are going to Hong Kong for a couple of weeks in March, so I'll make sure and get this argument perfected by the time we're there so that I'll really have a chance to use it effectively.

  • ||

    I am sure it is. But we are broke. Single payer is unthinkable now. If there is a silver lining to TARP and the Porkulus it is that it made single payer impossible.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    We've been broke for a while and it hasn't stopped them yet. Maybe they'll enact single payer and it will be the straw that broke the dollar's back.

  • Masturbatin' Pete||

    If Medicare is constitutional, then expanding Medicare down to cover neonates is constitutional. And yes, this is obviously a step towards single-payer. You have to remember Masturbatin' Pete's First Law of Regulation:

    "Any problems in a regulated industry will be successfully blamed on the unregulated portion."

    So when Obamacare fails, the failure will be pinned on greedy private insurance companies, not on the huge, hyper-regulated portion of the health sector. Government is never the problem.

  • ||

    That's a good law, but it's gonna be unpleasant the first time I have to cite you in a City Council meeting or something.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    "Mastur Pete's First Law of Regulation" is also acceptable.

  • Paul||

    I am sure it is. But we are broke. Single payer is unthinkable now.

    You need to learn to think with the subtlety of the left. This is the best time to introduce single-payer. Because with all the efficiencies and cost-savings which will come from a command-and-control system, it's win-win-win.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Nothing is impossible for Biden... just look at his hair.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    He insulted Indians today. Maybe his hair made him do it...

  • Sean Healy||

    Ireland is broker but we're heading towards de facto single payer as thousands drop their increasingly unaffordable private insurance to avail of the (pretty dire) public health system. Political discourse is basically about two things now: 1) why can't we just default and get it over with? and 2) the minutiae of the health service. This is your future, America.

  • Gojira||

    This is your future, America.

    Can we at least get picturesque castles and charming accents to go with it, then?

  • ||

    Or Van Morrison?

    Ireland is a fucking disaster despite their low 12.5% corporate tax rate.

  • annonymous commenter some guy||

    I'm sure their profligate spending has nothing to do with it...

  • ||

    The debt to GDP ratio was 27% before the government made the decision to guarantee the banks' debt. A political decision, and not a rational one. As we say in Ireland, that has sweet fuck all to do with the corporate tax rate.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Stiff Little Fingers. What we need is an Alternative Ulster!

  • ||

    Don't forget the striking redheads in their emerald green fisherman's sweaters.

  • ||

    And don't forget bonnie lasses with red hair, blue eyes, and fantastic tits.

  • Mike M.||

    Yep, the main goal of Obamacare was always to try to force Single Payer in through the back door by driving the insurance companies out of business.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • Gus||

    "The real Black Caesar was a bad-ass:"

    So was this one:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069792/

  • ||

    a majority believe that it's unconstitutional and expect the Supreme Court to overturn the provision later this year

    Fucking Peasants, how do they work?!

  • ||

    Hoi polloi need to shut the fuck up and let the top men in Washington decide the IMPORTANT issues!

  • THE FUCKING COMMERCE CLAUSE||

    COMMERCE CLAUSE RAPE AMERICA! SQUEAL LIKE 300 MILLION PIGS BOY! ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!

  • ||

    Not as much as I'm digging AdBlocker+.

  • Tim||

    Married? Best wishes.

  • ||

    Not as much as I'm digging AdBlocker+.

  • Tim||

    Married? Best wishes.

  • Rather||

    Weird time travel glitch

  • Lurker||

    I'm digging this Ron Paul action figure ad that's started showing up.

  • ||

    I bet you could make money by collecting wierd political action figures and bobble-head dolls and sell them as a collection some day.

  • Paul||

    Get enough of them together, you'd have a functional government!

  • Almanian||

    I'm pretty sure most of the Congrefstards are bobbleheads

  • Pudgeboy||

    I'm sure the evil Koch brothers paid off a majority of Americans... no other explanation is possible.

  • Hugh Akston||

    +1

  • ||

    Try the BBC mini series of I Claudius. Graves took some dramatic liberty. There is no direct evidence Livia poisoned all the contenders to the throne to get Tiberius in. But the book got the big facts correct. And the miniseries follows the book. It doesn't have a lot of scenery and such. It is like watching a filmed stage play. But that acting and story are great.

  • ||

    That's fair, and it was decent, but the Livia stuff was nonsense.

  • ||

    We really don't know. I wouldn't call the Livia stuff nonsense. Augustus wouldn't be the first great man henpecked by a devious wife. Livia in I Claudius isn't much different than Theodora in the Secret Histories. And that is a real history, although Theodora probably got unfairly portrayed.

  • ||

    There's too much good stuff on Livia--I mean, that she was this nice lady, all Roman matron and all--for that to be true. Virtually everything on that period is scandal-ridden, so not having much bad on you means you weren't bad.

    There was a little on her maybe poisoning someone, but it's not considered credible, and everyone and his mother was accused of poisoning at some point. People died naturally all the time back then at younger ages, so poisoning accusations were usually just gossip.

    Later on, of course, they just killed and killed and killed when they were loony or paranoid enough.

  • ||

    Even Graves portrays her as a very competent administrator who was not corrupt. She just did in Germanicus and everyone else who stood in the way of her son.

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't buy that, either. Rome was extremely patriarchal.

  • Paul||

    Augustus wouldn't be the first great man henpecked by a devious wife.

    *looks around nervously*

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    CORPARAHUNZ AR NOT PEEPLE!

  • ||

    Alt Headline: Majority of Americans Finally Right About Something

  • ||

    Hey, if we can all agree on anything, it should be a lack of coercion.

  • Mark Twain||

    Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform.

  • ||

    You know, could we get just one film that was even close to historically accurate on classical Roman times? Just one.

  • ||

    Caligula?

  • Paul||

    A Majority of Americans Think ObamaCare's Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional

    Even in Canada?

  • Paul||

    Are the squirrels on strike?

  • ||

    That was too fucking accurate.

  • ||

    [crosses fingers]
    Was this in response to me?

  • ||

    Yes.

  • ||

    woo-hoo!

  • ||

    Wait, was that yes in response to my question as to whether or not your first response was in response to me naming Caligula?

    Nevermind. I'm getting a headache.

  • ||

    Caligula--that was too fucking accurate.

  • ||

    Try the BBC mini series of I Claudius. Graves took some dramatic liberty. There is no direct evidence Livia poisoned all the contenders to the throne to get Tiberius in. But the book got the big facts correct. And the miniseries follows the book. It doesn't have a lot of scenery and such. It is like watching a filmed stage play. But that acting and story are great.

  • ||

    That's fair, and it was decent, but the Livia stuff was nonsense.

    What the hell is wrong with the threads? Besides their very existence, that is.

  • ||

    We really don't know. I wouldn't call the Livia stuff nonsense. Augustus wouldn't be the first great man henpecked by a devious wife. Livia in I Claudius isn't much different than Theodora in the Secret Histories. And that is a real history, although Theodora probably got unfairly portrayed.

    Damned threaded comments.

  • Tim||

    Married? Best wishes.

  • ||

    It may or may not have been nonsense (Suetonius alludes to a bunch of stuff that they had Livia do), but Sian Phillips was fucking awesome in the role.

  • ||

    Suetonius was the National Enquirer. If he's the only source for something, it's likely bullshit.

  • ||

    He's all we have for a lot of stuff. What are you going to do?

  • ||

    You are dead to me Pro. Dead.

  • ||

    Not at all. There's Tacitus, Sallust, Livy, Dio Cassius, and others.

  • ||

    I didn't say I didn't like Suetonius--I do. I'm just saying he liked his scandals, whether they happened or not.

    Tacitus is easy to fall in with, but he had a very anti-imperial viewpoint. Which I'm naturally sympathetic to.

  • ||

    Tacitus is my favorite historian. He sets Rome on its ear. My only issue with him is his hard on for Germanicus. Considering his offspring was Caligula, I have a hard time believing Germanicus was all love and Republicanism.

  • ||

    There's a some evidence--nothing conclusive, of course--that Gaius Caesar went nuts after a nearly fatal illness. And his dad died while he was pretty young.

    I think Germanicus was probably like Kennedy is for some now--people pinned hopes on him, he died young, therefore, he was great.

  • ||

    Kennedy is a good analogy. At some point Tacitus hate for Tiberius and his love of Germanicus goes a bit over the top.

  • ||

    Tacitus is my favorite, too.

  • ||

    Considering his offspring was Caligula, I have a hard time believing Germanicus was all love and Republicanism.

    So you would condemn Alois Schicklegruber or Stanley Ann Dunham for the sins of their children?

  • ||

    Pro,

    I would also point to Ben Hur. The novel was written in the 1880s. And the author was a first class amateur classicist. He did a lot of research to make sure the book followed the right geography and was as close to what Roman life was thought to be like as possible.

  • ||

    Slaves on warships? Nope, not back then. Big error right there.

  • ||

    Ben Hur wasn't a slave. He was a criminal. He was accused of attacking the Roman counsel and sent to the galleys.

  • ||

    Galleys were rowed by Roman soldiers, not slaves, criminals, children, or the help.

  • Almanian||

    YOU LIE! Or not. I don't know - I just wanted to say that.

  • ||

    Don't recall the movie, but was he rowing a warship, or a trading galley?

  • ||

    A warship.

  • ||

    That is not what i have read Pro. Galley rowers have always been criminals and POWs. You would never use a highly trained soldier for such a job.

  • Paul||

    That is not what i have read Pro. Galley rowers have always been criminals and POWs. You would never use a highly trained soldier for such a job.

    That was my understanding. You rowed and stayed at your position, no matter what. And like a stoic Greek sea captain, went down with the ship.

  • ||

    This is totally wrong. The rowers not only were soldiers, but they also were expected, under some circumstances, to fight.

    Galley slaves did become common much later on.

  • ||

    The Marines fought pro. The rowers had to row. I disagree.

  • Paul||

    Meh, in this day and age of interents, should be easy enough to verify.

  • ||

    I don't care whether you agree or not, they weren't using slaves or criminals to row their ships [Stomps foot].

    I suppose it's possible that slaves were used on commercial ships, but they definitely weren't on warships. This is fairly commonly knowledge in the scholarship--just do a Google search on the topic.

  • ||

    You are right pro. But, the novel explains this away by saying that the pirates in the area had created an emergency requiring the use of slaves on galleys. So the author was apparently aware that Romans did not use slaves on Galleys except in emergencies and thus created an emergency as a plot device.

    So yes you are right. But no, the author was not wrong.

  • ||

    Well, I'm okay with fictional liberties when the author knows he's taking them, for the most part.

    Graves, for instance, probably thought no such thing about Livia--he was just playing with an interesting narrative idea, which helped tie together the looniness that was the Julio-Claudians. And it worked, because the two books are great literature and not bad history (the second book made Herod insanely too important and powerful, incidentally, but Graves was just trying to create an interesting conflict for the Emperor Claudius).

  • ||

    I liked Herod as the lazy court playboy in the first book.

  • ||

    Hug it out, boys.

  • ||

    As long as my classical supremacy is acknowledged, I'm good [straightens toga].

  • Pudgeboy||

    Does, The Passion of the Christ, count as classical Roman times? I hear Jesus told Mel exactly what happened. Unless Jesus was lying, or Mel misunderstood, I mean misunderestimated him.

  • ||

    The problem with the Passion was Mel did the same thing most people do which is portray Jesus as this really nice hippy dude. Jesus was a scary ass dude. There was nothing cute and cuddly about him. He was God's living embodiment on earth. And that as they say is some serious shit. The Gospel of Mark has that famous description of his apostles following him to Jerusalem "amazed and afraid". Whatever he was, he was nothing like the nice long haired dude in the movies.

  • ||

    If we want to go down the Mel road, Wel Brooks' History of the World: Part I is pretty accurate.

    The eunechs!

  • ||

    Well, there's Life of Brian. That's practically a documentary of Roman times, at least in the eastern part of the Empire.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Eh. Accuracy is for historians (and even they aren't very good at it). You put a film in theaters about how Rome really was (mostly sitting around talking about stuff) next to a three-hour epic about incest, horse sex, and anal fisting, and I guarantee people will flock to the latter.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

  • Paul||

    , and anal fisting, and I guarantee people will flock to the latter.

    Speak for yourself!

  • ||

    'Gladiator', mother-fuckers!

  • Brett L||

    You want to put a Greek historical piece up against a Roman one?

  • ||

    Wasn't HBO's Rome miniseries supposed to be pretty accurate?

  • ||

    Lord, no. I even liked it okay, but that was only after inhaling car fumes to make me forget how far off they were.

  • Paul||

    I found it a bit dull and hard to get into.

    Serious question: People are so used to Roman dramas being played by British actors, will we ever be able to watch them any other way?

  • ||

    Atia as some sex-crazed Livia was absolutely nuts. The historical mother of Augustus was supposed to be a very proper and prim matron-type. Even more than Livia. A lot more.

    I liked the actress, though. She was on Caprica, too.

  • Paul||

    Serious question, Pro L: What do you find to tbe the best and most authentic portrayal, book, movie or both?

  • H man||

    My two cents. The most accurate historical fiction is The Masters of Rome series by Colleen McCullough. The first book is The First Man in Rome.

  • ||

    Haven't read those.

  • H man||

    Highly recommended for someone with an interest in late Republic history. The series goes from 110 B.C. to 27 B.C. Like I said very accurate as far as historical fiction is concerned.

  • ||

    Okay, I just reserved the first one at the library. I'll give her a shot.

  • ||

    Egad. I suppose I, Claudius for TV. No movies have seemed very accurate to me.

    Book-wise, I'm not sure. I, Claudius and Claudius the God are good enough, but they're really just based on the popular Roman historians' accounts (with some liberties like Evil God Witch Livia). I like Julian, which is set in the later empire, but I don't know how accurate it is.

  • ||

    Julian is supposed to be fairly accurate. And Julian the Apostate a very interesting and smart guy.

  • ||

    Yes, I can't recommend that book enough. I bet a lot of people hereabouts would tend to avoid it, as they were written by known crazy-person Gore Vidal, but two of my favorite books are Julian and Creation.

  • ||

    Vidal is a great writer. Miserable rotten stinking bastard who should have died years ago. But the guy can write.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You guys are ruining my TV viewing. Now I've got to question whether or not Cesare Borgia's first son was spirited away by God and his sister's fever cured at the exact moment her father becomes Pope. Dammit.

  • ||

    Nerfherder,

    There is a great new book coming out next month called 1493. It is about the Borgia popes and the Spanish and Portuguese dividing up the world for colonization. It looks quite good.

    I also like Robert Massey's A World Lit Only By Fire. That book gives the Borgias in all their sinful glory. It is generally hated by medievalists. But most of them are guilty self hating English school boys with some kind of a weird affection for the medieval church as a way to dislike their upbringing even more.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    That would be interesting stuff. I'm currently reading the Wingrove's Chung Kuo.

    I've tried watching the Borgia series on Netflix only to find that with my complete ignorance of the period, I still find it ridiculous and incomprehensible. Besides, the acting is from hell. Nevertheless, I'm now interested in that period.

  • ||

    Another book I like about that period is A Distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman. Another book that is taken to task sometimes. But I like it a lot. It is primarily about the 100 years war and the 14th century as seen through the life of a French noble named De Coucy. But it talks a lot about the split Popes and the damage it did to the church and really set the stage for the Reformation.

  • H man||

    Took me forever and a day to get through that. It was interesting to see all the relations between the French and English nobles. And yes the question of who was the Pope as well.

  • ||

    It is a long book. But I remember a lot about it, which some books like that I read and forget two days after finishing it. For some reason that book stuck with me. It is very entertaining and about a part of history you never hear about.

  • H man||

    I hear you. My favorite line in the book was her description of De Coucy as a paragon of his age but he didn't transcend it.

  • ||

    Is that Robert Massey, the historical writer? I really enjoyed his Peter the Great: His Life and World.

  • ||

    Yes it is. And Massey has a new book out on Catherine the Great that my father is reading. He tells me it is great. Massey has written a lot of good books. Two of my favorites are Dreadnaught and its sort of sequel Castles of Steel. Dreadnaught is like the family story of the English Royal family and its branch in Germany. It gives a great account of how Kaiser Wilhelm's father died young and he grew to be dominated by his old line Prussian grandfather instead of his English mother and always felt like neglected grand child at family events in England. It also gives a great description of the Naval arms race between Britain and Germany. Castles of Steel is a straight up naval history of the First World War.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Thanks for the suggestions, going on my list.

  • ||

    Well, they sexed it up a lot, but you can't expect them to get every detail including what Augustuses mother was like accurate. I was thinking in terms of the broad historical facts. The politics of Rome at the time, the events leading up to Julius Ceasar's assasination and so on.
    They stuck in their fictional subplots with minor characters, but they stayed relatively close to the historical record on the big picture.

    I mean, compared with other films out there, anyway.

  • ||

    Well, yes, Caesar ran Rome for a while, Antony and Octavian vied for control for a while, those things are all true.

  • ||

    I don't want to trash the series too much, as I thought the acting excellent and the look was pretty good, too.

  • H man||

    Wait you mean to tell me that the TV series Spartacus is not accurate.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Impossible

  • ||

    Caption contest: Even The Hairlip Gets It!

  • Oso Politico||

    Guess what part of my anatomy I just pulled this out from.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Biden to massage America's Anus with his Thumb!

  • PR||

    SCOTUS can't count on Obama to stand between them and the pitchforks on this one.

  • Alack||

    SCOTUS can't count on Obama to stand between them and the pitchforks on this one

    See? Even hipster music blogs oppose Obamacare!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Hey, anybody seen I Claudius? No one brought it up yet, did they?

  • Almanian||

    ME! ME! ME! PICK ME!

    *stretches hand high*

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Anybody? Bueller?

  • ||

    What is that, some sort of kids book?

  • ||

    A majority of Americans can't name three of the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

  • Paul||

    One, two and three. How hard was that?

  • Yanky Doodal||

    Americans truly are the smartest people on the planet.

  • Almanian Yank eDude all||

    God is an American....I'm afraid fo Americans...

  • Abdul||

    I'd name them Huey, Louis, and Dewey.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Sure they can. First amendment, second amendment, third amendment...

  • Pudgeboy||

    Did you ever check out Luther on the BBC?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Sure did, I watched the first season on Netflix and it was very good. Episode 5, wow, did NOT see any of that coming.

  • Pudgeboy||

    Agreed, not your typical series; I didn't expect him to let that guy fall to his death in the opening scene, either... nice set-up for the rest of the series...second season was very good, as well. I've been watching Cracker, again, since I got the box set as a gift. If you haven't had a chance to watch it, I think it's worth checking out. Best show I've seen, only wish there were more episodes.

  • Brett L||

    1) Corporations can have their speech abridged at any time because they aren't people
    2) Only state branches of the National Guard has a right to keep and bear arms
    3) Something about troops living in people's houses

  • ||

    I'll wager that 9 in 10 respondents to this survey had no friggin' clue if the mandate was constitutional or not. They just knew they did/didn't like it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    In fairness, only nine people "know" if this thing is unconstitutional, so they may well be right, and for the right reasons.

    People forget that all too often, judges (and Justices) make their decisions based on their emotions and gut feelings, and then dress up those impulses in 50-page opinions.

  • Almanian||

    No, no, say it no true! It's logic and study and...logic.

    Oh, and "penumbra and emanations"....never mind...

  • ||

    There's two ways of looking at this issue:

    Is the individual mandate a regulation of interstate commerce?

    Of course it isn't.

    Is the individual mandate within the scope of federal authority as discussed in previous SCOTUS opinions?

    That's a tough one.

  • ||

    In response to number two, can the Court use a justification not given by the government? The government seems to be hanging its hat on the commerce clause. Can the Court just make up its own justification?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Depends on the certified question. If the question is "Is it constitutional?", then I think the Court can go outside of the pleadings. If the question is "Is it within the powers of the Commerce Clause?", then probably not.

  • ||

    Congress went out of its way to say that this was all Commerce Clause, so's they could say they weren't raising taxes. I think the Court will take them at their word.

    I'm pretty sure that the question of whether OCare would be Constitutional as a tax isn't before the Court, but I can't be bothered to pick through the filings. The petition that was granted on this refers only to the Commerce Clause, although the feds argued that it would be Constitutional as a tax.

  • ||

    I think I see what's going on. They will lose the Commerce Clause fight, then raise taxes claiming it's SCOTUS's fault. ;-)

  • sarcasmic||

    "General Welfare... regulate commerce... necessary and proper"

    Seems constitutional to me.

  • HERCULE ||

    THE CULT OF CATS – The ASPCA - Humane Society – Feral Cat Society

    The Cult of Cats

    Now, cults and the deification of animals as Gods is nothing new and in fact pre-dates the dawn of history what has really taken our interest is that in a modern so called society the American – Israeli Military Industrial Complex – [THE EMPIRE] that such a cult would have gained such a huge foothold politically, and economically in such a so called advanced society but this is in fact what has happened, the rights of cats supersede that of all members of this society. The [ASPCA] The American Society for the Protection of Cruelty against Animals – The Humane Society – and Feral Cat Society have established such a Cult of Cats they even have [TV] Television Show broadcast [Animal Cops], across the entire national media, showing the legitimate power they and their members ship exercises, and make no mistake the power they bring to bear is scary to say the least, one can only read their websites and a chill runs down your back. These organizations have taken their Cult Religion and the Worship of Cats to the point that the natural balance, economy and the national security of its own national [EMPIRE] are at risk.

    The Natural Balance, Economy

    The Cult of Cats in The Republic of California, the County of San Diego, has destroyed the natural balance of nature, with a [1/2M] One-Half Million population of unchecked Cat population over running and destroying natures balance, endangered species, and the flora and fauna, of that community, the economy is suffering under the unchecked control of the Cat population caused by the Cult of Cats, land owners, home owners, hotel owners all suffer under the thug enforcement by the Cult of Cats and its Animal Cops, in San Diego County a hotel was put under the gun by the Cult of Cats for steps it may or may not have been taking to end the Cat Scourge, to its economic interests, may humans suffer allergic reactions to cats which effected the hotels occupancy rates, and therefore its economic bottom line, and that of the tourist industry as a whole. In one community in that County of the Republic of California a landowners property is over run with cats, one elderly woman in her eighties came out of her abode tripped over a cat not hers, fell and broke her hip, which resulted in a hip replacement and many months of suffering and pain, another elderly woman with terminal cancer requested the member of that communities Cat Cult to please help by not allowing their cats to urinate relieve themselves around her loggings, do the adverse effects caused to her in her last days upon her returning home after radiation and chemo therapy treatments which were causing her to vomit under normal circumstances alone but the cats only increased her distress, but was meet with a letter of threat letter being placed in her mail, combined with threatening phone calls, to the point were she finally left the community to end her days in a less hostile environment. The landowner himself a financial supporter of the Cult of Cats himself has made numerous to come to some sort of rapprochement, as his property also runs along side of a school and one of his residents grandson came down with Ringworm a disease which can only be treated but never cured was only separated from the school by a chain link fence, only to be rebuffed, and has come to the point were he prays that cats can be found with distemper within his community which would force a removal of all cats from his business and property.

    The [EMPIRE'S] National Security Threat

    Now, the Cult of Cats, has created a valid National Security Threat to its own [EMPIRE], in that cats are the perfect biological agent median, they are protected by the Cult of Cats to the point there are no limits to the access that cats have to any and all areas within Republic of California, the County of San Diego, a major Military Complex of the Military Industrial Complex of the [EMPIRE]. We know that biological warfare agents can be transferred between species, as can be proven by the transfer of Syphilis from a monkey species of South America to the Spanish population of Europe, the Black Plague from rats to same population, and the modern day transfer of Ebola to various African Tribes, and cats transfer as has been previously stated Ring Worm, and beyond that cat scratch fever, rabbis, and the list goes on. But what [IF] these diseases were made into Super Strains or even better Super Strains of Biological Agents of other types transferable to the human population of the San Diego County Military Industrial Complex, which would spread across the entire [EMPIRE] not only unchecked by even aided by the Cat Cult of the [EMPIRE]. Cats prove the perfect agent for the introduction of such a Biological Warfare Agent, think about it a huge protected unchecked population, the perfect stealth fighter, with full access to all property, and human contact the members of the [EMPIRE] military industrial complex personnel, inject a few dozen cats on one side of the Mexican boarder and placed them over the fence line of the [EMPIRE] and wait. It would never happen, maybe, maybe not but we have learned that one should beware of never, saying never to One half million possible biological agents.

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Herc! You are [BACK]! This also reminds me that I haven't seen Johnny [LONGTORSO] recently.

  • ||

    HERC! HERC! HERC!

  • ||

    Glad your back Herc. But Warty will never forgive you for this.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    The prodigal son has returned

  • Old Mexican||

    You seem not to like cats very much....

  • Shorter HERCULE||

    I'm not really a cat person.

  • Brett L||

    Awesome, I'm in a cult. And an agent of Empire. Its like Skyrim IRL.

  • ||

    Biden fucks up again and lets his racism slip.

    This guy's pure gold.

  • ||

  • ||

  • Old Mexican||

    A Majority of Americans Think ObamaCare's Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional


    It's a good thing the US has a group of robed notables to interpret for us rubes exactly what a document written in plaing fucking English really means.

  • sarcasmic||

    It was written by rich white slave owners.
    'nuff said

  • Pip||

    That's nothing. The bible was written by JOOOOOOZ!

  • Teh rael MNG||

    Indeed, my good Pip. Indeed.

  • sarcasmic||

    A Majority of Americans Think ObamaCare's Individual Mandate is Unconstitutional Don't Know What's Good for Them

    ftfy

  • Jennifer Krieger||

    I don't believe in the individual mandate either, because I don't believe in health insurance. I believe in health care.

  • ||

    I believe in insurance. I hope to be able to contract it with the firm of my choice in the future.

  • NoVAHockey||

    that's quite the dream you have.

  • ||

    I believe in body work, but I also believe in having the car insurance to pay for it.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Health care, administered by the Loving Hand of Government that brought you torture and war. You liberals are really a trip, Jennifer.

  • T||

    You might be the first Obama supporter capable of understanding the distinction between the two. Congratulations.

  • ||

    Jennifer, I can assure you, health insurance is real.

  • ||

    I could fund the space program with what I pay in premiums.

    Really, if it's all about healthcare, then let's enslave doctors and be done with it.

  • sasob||

    I could fund the space program with what I pay in premiums.

    How long before people have to take out an insurance policy in order to afford the health insurance premiums?

  • ||

    What will become of Bushcare's mandatory drug program if Obamacare is shot down?

    Not sarcastic, but if SCOTUS shoots down the mandate, how does that affect the mandate on Medicare part D?

  • ||

    You can opt out by not signing up for Medicare. So, not the same.

  • ||

    I thought once you were 65 you had to be on medicare. That is what my parents told me. I had to listen to a 20 minute rant about how pissed off they were that the government ordered them to go on the dole.

  • ||

    my limited understanding is that IF you sign up for social security benefits (which, after all, is your money you put in), you MUST sign up for medicare part A. ).

    that sounds pretty close to mandatory. iow, they can't make you sign up, but you can't get YOUR money if you don't.

  • sasob||

    Not only can you not get your money, but you will still be liable for any additional income taxes you might have owed had you signed up for it.

  • ||

    there have been some great articles, and rich chock full o' legal principles debating on this very topic over at volokh.com

    my summary, in brief, some of the smartest legal minds agree there is AT LEAST a good argument to be made that it is unconstitutional.

    even those who think it's constitutional generally agree that it's a difficult legal question

    and just because somebody is FOR or AGAINST the mandate doesn't inform their belief as to whether it's constitutional. that's how fair minded process analysis works, after all (vs. ideological analysis)

    what's ironic is that there is little doubt a full blown single payer system iow true socialized medicine a la most of europe WOULD be constitutional, but THIS craptastic obama program, not so much...

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement