Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Politics

87 Percent of Americans Agree With Conservative Supreme Court Justices on Broccoli Mandate

Emily Ekins | 3.27.2012 2:09 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

The Associated Press reports:  

Conservative justices on Tuesday sharply questioned whether the government can force Americans to buy health insurance. In oral arguments over the new health care law passed by Congress in 2010, justices wondered if the law could set precedent allowing Congress to require Americans to buy other products, such as cell phones, burial insurance, gym memberships and broccoli.

"If the government can do that, what else can it do?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.

The recent national Reason-Rupe poll of 1200 adults released yesterday shows 87 percent of Americans believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to mandate that you buy broccoli. Eight percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy vegetables.

A lower percent, but still a clear majority (62 percent) believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance, and a 51 percent do not  believe Congress should require individuals to buy health insurance.

 

Proponents of the law disagree vegetable mandates logically follow from a health insurance mandate. The Obama administration's lawyer Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Scalia: "No, that's quite different" because participation in vegetable market is not unpredictable and involuntary.

Full poll results found here.

Nationwide telephone poll conducted March 10th-20th of both mobile and landline phones, 1200 adults, margin of error +/- 3 percent. Columns may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Full methodology can be found here. 

Emily Ekins is the director of polling for Reason Foundation where she leads the Reason-Rupe public opinion research project, launched in 2011. Follow her on Twitter @emilyekins.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: 87 Percent of Americans Agree With Conservative Supreme Court Justices on Broccoli Mandate

Emily Ekins is a research fellow and director of polling at the Cato Institute.

PoliticsNanny StatePolicyAntonin ScaliaBroccoliIndividual mandateSupreme CourtHealth Care
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (72)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Anyway   13 years ago

    Is it OK or not to threaten people in this chat room? To wit:

    John|3.27.12 @ 10:31AM|#
    I know your name and address Mary...

    Are implied threats of violence kosher?

    Thx.

    1. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

      I think he just wanted to have coffee with you.

    2. Night Elf Mohawk   13 years ago

      Everyone who read the thread knows your name and address. Hell, I probably know which grocery stores you go to. I don't know whether you choose the CVS or Walgreens on Hulen, though.

      Is that a threat?

      1. TELLMOFF   13 years ago

        No, that is not a threat because no harm is threatened.

        1. Suki   13 years ago

          I think you mean "threaded".

    3. Suki   13 years ago

      Would you rather live in Texas or Gaza?

      1. Anyway   13 years ago

        So implied threats are OK then?
        Good to know. Thx.

      2. Anyway   13 years ago

        PS
        I know where you live, Mary.

  2. o3   13 years ago

    "If the government can do that, what else can it do?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.
    _
    spurious since one may grow it.

    1. Doctor Whom   13 years ago

      Yes, and Roscoe Filburn could grow wheat, so what's your point?

      1. o3   13 years ago

        I have no point, I'm a fucking retard.

      2. teh rael o3   13 years ago

        A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
        _
        you left out the ag dept quota was exceeded (established by farmer plebiscite) despite being advised before planting.

        ergo,i believe this to be a false analogy.

        1. Bill   13 years ago

          That is ok, because the gov.'t wanted to do it.

          It makes perfect sense to drive up prices when people are going hungry. You know, in the name of the greater good.

          This shit is unbelievable.

          1. teh rael o3   13 years ago

            not on point, tho ag price supports mainly effects red states so have at it.
            >the point is one may grow, hunt, or fish for food unlike healthcare so there is no analogy.

            1. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

              You can't refuse health care? You can't die quickly and not need it? You can't believe in home remedies? You can't be a doctor and heal thyself?

              Try harder.

              1. WTF   13 years ago

                Try harder.

                That's as good as it gets - orrin is an idiot.

            2. Wheee   13 years ago

              35,000 people die in car accidents every year. They won't be needing health insurance.

              1. smartass   13 years ago

                Better tax 'em quick.

          2. TELLMOFF   13 years ago

            Now, I feel les threated by an over-powerful government. Our government can only limit our purchases of health insurance.

    2. Sevo   13 years ago

      "spurious since one may grow it."

      Uh, yeah, and why is purple?
      Did you actually think there was a logical connection between the quote and your response?

      1. teh rael o3   13 years ago

        ^sure is
        see above
        >it tries moar harderz

    3. sasob   13 years ago

      "If the government can do that, what else can it do?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia, referring to the individual mandate portion of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. He then questioned whether Congress could also require individuals to buy vegetables, such as broccoli.

      1. sasob   13 years ago

        I meant to say (before I was so rudely interrupted by this blankety-blank keyboard and squirrelly website): Wasn't that question pretty much answered about a hundred years ago when SCOTUS decided the government could force some individuals to go out and risk life and limb to defend other individuals - even to defend individuals of another country?

  3. BC   13 years ago

    The Obama administration's lawyer Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Scalia: "No, that's quite different" because participation in vegetable market is not unpredictable and involuntary.

    Ah, yes, the preposterously stupid "but healthcare is different" defense, which relies on drawing the relevant market broadly (i.e., "healthcare") when it's convenient for the government, but narrowly (i.e., "vegetables", or "broccoli", rather than "food") when it's inconvenient for the government.

    1. SRH   13 years ago

      Exactly.

    2. Suki   13 years ago

      +1

  4. gaijin   13 years ago

    ...a clear majority (62 percent) believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance...51 percent do not believe Congress should require individuals to buy health insurance.

    Assuming a subset in the results, who are the 11% who think it is unconstitutional but ok if congress demands it?

    1. Joe M   13 years ago

      Damn, I was just gonna say that! It must be the same pinkos who support ObamaCare even if it means rationed care.

      1. affenkopf   13 years ago

        All care is rationed (not that that's an argument for Obama care).

        1. Joe M   13 years ago

          Market mechanisms, sure, but we're talking about a more narrow definition here.

    2. Sheep   13 years ago

      We are the 11%!

    3. Just Dropping By   13 years ago

      I have always wished that pollsters would ask follow-up questions about stuff like that. I've noticed a similar thing when people are asked about random warrantless street searches or similar things -- the percentage of people who say they support the policy is 10% to 20% higher than the percentage of people who say they think the policy is "effective" at stopping crime/terrorism. So there is some noticeable fraction of the public that supports the policy even though they don't think it works. Why?!?

      1. Joe M   13 years ago

        me not thik 2 gud - wut question?

    4. o3   13 years ago

      who are the 11% who think it is unconstitutional but ok if congress demands it?

      present!

  5. Tish Modrenwurld   13 years ago

    Eight percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy vegetables.

    Four percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy meat.

    Two percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy pornography.

    One percent think Congress can constitutionally force you to buy the Moon.

    1. Bill   13 years ago

      The moon would be a good place to gambol.

      And we would all be partners since no one owns it but everyone owns it. Ideal really.

      Except for the lack of water and oxygen.

  6. Masturbatin' Pete   13 years ago

    A lower percent, but still a clear majority (62 percent) believe it is unconstitutional for Congress to require Americans to buy health insurance, and a 51 percent do not believe Congress should require individuals to buy health insurance.

    So that means that 11% of Americans think that it's unconstitutional for Congress to compel purchases of health insurance, but should do it anyway?

    1. David   13 years ago

      Yes.

  7. Solar Panel Manufacturers   13 years ago

    We anxiously await the Solar Panel Mandate.

    You know, for global warming.

  8. Ska   13 years ago

    The Cocksucker Proxy?

    1. Wu   13 years ago

      COCKSUCKA!!

  9. Nathan   13 years ago

    So let's get rid of the Supreme Court and go with public opinion polls.

    1. Socialistic Individual Sparky   13 years ago

      When you can pretty much guarantee that the justices will side with whichever team put them in their seat regardless of the issue, you almost might as well get rid of them. Let's just go to pulling court decisions from a hat.

      1. Suthenboy   13 years ago

        Actually SIS, I have been pleasantly shocked at how many 9-0 decisions have come down against teamobama, and that is with two of his appointees on the bench.

        We may (pleasepleaseplease) be similarly surprised at how this vote comes out.

        1. David   13 years ago

          I doubt we'll you'll see Sotomayor vote against the mandate. That's pretty much a given.

    2. TELLMOFF   13 years ago

      People started out without any type of supreme court. Today, that is called "common law".

  10. Restoras   13 years ago

    I think the government should force everyone to buy a gun. Think of the jobs and the precipitous drop in crime that would follow. THINKOFTHECHILDREN!

    1. The Preamble to You Know What   13 years ago

      "provide for the common defense"

    2. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

      Or wait until President Santorum makes everyone in America buy a bible and a copy of an approved American history book.

      Knowledge of the bible and American history are vital to civic life.

      1. Karl Hungus   13 years ago

        Or wait until President Santorum makes everyone in America buy a bible and a copy of an approved American history book.

        And at the same time knockin down all them deep-space observatories. You know, cuz the earth is flat and there ain't no dadgum moon critters out there, cuz the Bible don't say nuthin about no moon critters.

        1. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

          Would that be any worse than tearing down all of the coal power plants because some guy in a lab coat said they caused global warming?

        2. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

          Would that be any worse than tearing down all of the coal power plants because some guy in a lab coat said they caused global warming?

          1. Karl Hungus   13 years ago

            Would that be any worse than tearing down all of the coal power plants because some guy in a lab coat said they caused global warming

            It would be slightly less bad. Scientific curiosity about the origins of the universe - important though it is - isn't as pressing a need as providing energy. At least to me. Ask a particle theorist, and you might get a different answer.

        3. Suki   13 years ago

          The Flat Earth Society are AGW advocates too. You people are so funny.

          1. Karl Hungus   13 years ago

            The Flat Earth Society are AGW advocates too. You people are so funny

            Flat-earthers believing in something called global warming . . . not sure what to make of that.

    3. The Preamble to You Know What   13 years ago

      "provide for the common defense"

      1. Charlotte Corday   13 years ago

        Article I, create an army and navy. Necessary and proper clause bitches.

  11. R C Dean   13 years ago

    "If the government can do that, what else can it do?"

    A question better asked by the Wickard Court.

    But, better late than never.

    The Obama administration's lawyer Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Scalia: "No, that's quite different" because participation in vegetable market is not unpredictable and involuntary.

    So weak. I wasn't aware there was an "unpredictable and involuntary" sub-clause to the Commerce Clause.

    And, of course, wrong on the facts: much participation in the health care market is, in fact, quite voluntary and predictable.

    1. Wheee   13 years ago

      In my younger days I went a decade without health insurance and never once needed it.

      1. Joe M   13 years ago

        Didn't get health insurance until I was almost 33. Never had any problems.

        1. Wheee   13 years ago

          It occurs to me that 100% of Americans are going to die (sorry, "participate in the death care industry".) So why isn't the government mandating we all purchase burial/cremation insurance? Is the mortuary lobby not big enough?

          1. Lord Humungus   13 years ago

            with the death panels, their influence can only grow.

          2. sasob   13 years ago

            Hey, don't give them anymore ideas!

      2. Copernicus   13 years ago

        I'm in my 50's with no insurance.

        Who are these people that feel the need to try to live forever? Death is mandatory, and that's all that should be mandatory.

        Anybody obsessed with cheating death should be killed, as an example to us all.

    2. David   13 years ago

      There are definitely vegetables where my participation in the market is unpredictable and involuntary...take brussels sprouts, for example.

      1. Suki   13 years ago

        Hello Newman.

    3. BC   13 years ago

      If you define "healthcare" broadly enough, then he's right -- virtually everyone at some point in their lives will consume some form of "healthcare", be it ever so mundane as buying a bottle of aspirin or a box of bandaids at the pharmacy.

      But Obamacare doesn't presume to regulate the market for healthcare at that level. It regulates the market for health insurance, consumption of which is absolutely voluntary and predictable.

  12. Romulus Augustus   13 years ago

    "We the People give the federal government the right to do anything necessary and proper to promote the general welfare."

    Now where in the Constitution does it forbid mandating brocolli consumption, brushing one's teeth three times a day,
    and outlawing salty, sugary or otherwise tasty foods????

  13. Jim Bob   13 years ago

    Maybe I'm missing something, but I can grasp the gov't opinion that the vegetable market is different, since it appears Scalia posited as a stand alone issue. A better analogy would be that unhealthy eating disproportionately affects healthcare premiums and THEN mandating the purchase of broccoli to offset the public impact.

    Hell - they've already used a similar argument to toss out birth control candy and the potential is limitless...smog = buy a volt, mandatory running, etc

  14. Tulpa   13 years ago

    8% of Americans think the government can force feed you broccoli?

  15. shrike   13 years ago

    Are you thinking what we're thinking?

  16. Anton Sherwood   13 years ago

    I wonder why the last paragraph uses "+/-" rather than "?".

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Nevada Becomes the 21st State To Strengthen Donor Privacy Protections

Autumn Billings | 6.2.2025 5:30 PM

Harvard International Student With a Private Instagram? You Might Not Get a Visa.

Emma Camp | 6.2.2025 4:57 PM

J.D. Vance Wants a Free Market for Crypto. What About Everything Else?

Eric Boehm | 6.2.2025 4:40 PM

Trump's Attack on the Federalist Society Is a Bad Omen for Originalism

Damon Root | 6.2.2025 3:12 PM

How Palantir Is Expanding the Surveillance State

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 6.2.2025 12:00 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!