Ken Cuccinelli: Health Care Mandate Like Forcing People to Buy Guns

President Obama's health care overhaul faced an important setback Monday, when Judge Henry Hudson ruled that a key provision in the bill, known as the individual mandate, is unconstitutional. The ruling was a victory for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who, many believed, faced a certain defeat in the courts.

He joined CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer on Tuesday's Washington Unplugged and explained why the individual mandate is detrimental to the Constitution. He compared it to the federal government forcing Americans to buy guns for the sake of national security.

"Never before in our history has the federal government ordered Americans to buy a product under the guise of regulating commerce," he said. "Imagine if this bill were that in order to protect our communities and homeland security, every American had to buy a gun. Can you image the reaction across the country to that?"

Watch his comments above. Tuesday's Washington Unplugged also featured No Label's Kiki McClean and a tribute to the late Richard Holbrook from CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. Washington Unplugged airs every weekday at 12:30 p.m. ET on CBSNews.com.

[Void-Master]

@ AugustusRex & JackCarterUSA:

This is interesting. We learn something new every day.

Yes, the Militia Act of 1792 (and later variants) essentially required every "able bodied ... male" to serve in the state militia and presented a list of firearms, one of which he was required to report to duty with. By effect, this would require said males to buy or otherwise acquire a gun.

I rather suspect that AG Cuccinelli reflexively settled upon a comparison with firearms because of the predictable knee-jerk reaction he could expect from the self-labeled liberals who are so quick to support the individual mandate. Just as I suspect that was the same logic used by the two posters I am addressing -- just in reverse. Fair enough.

However, this does not render the AG's premise wrong. Rather it merely reveals that he made a poor choice of comparisons. I preferred my automobile comparison anyway. It seemed more relevant.

The fact is, the U. S. Constitution grants the President significant authority over state militias -- a power that became more or less irrelevant with the Militia Act of 1903 wherein the federal government stopped dealing with state militias and began working with "national guards."

Though the power still exists, it is granted to the President (not to Congress) by the U. S. Constitution, Article Two, Section 2, Clause 1. By contrast, Congress claims the authority to force us to buy insurance via powers granted to them under Article One, Section 8, Clause 3 (the notorious "commerce clause"). Therefore, there is no comparison.

Finally I rather suspect that Congress' ever-widening power play via the commerce clause is about to get shut down big time. People -- include many on the U. S. Supreme Court -- have grown tired of it.

[JackCarterUSA]

Actually, a law was passed back in 1792 requiring all citizens to buy a gun. You'd think Cuccinelli would know this, being Attorney General and all, but hey, ignorance is hard work.

[choiceshaveconsequences]

I am so glad to hear that the federal government does not have the right to force an individual to purchase a product. I want all the money I was forced to have deducted from my paychecks in order to receive Social Security refunded, with interest, forthwith, without delay and without further discussion.

[AugustusRex]

Dear Attorney General:

Not only can I "imagine that," I can read about how George Washington as President signed a bill requiring citizens to buy guns.

See http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I wonder if the writer of this post (the journalist) checked to see whether such an act of Congress had ever been passed.

Now that you know that yes, George Washington signed exactly the kind of bill the AG can't imagine, will we get a reaction from the AG admitting his entire premise is wrong?

[levelheadedtoo]

In our society times are changing quickly. One illness means bankruptcy for many families. Recently a friend died from cancer. Fortunately, he didn't linger too long with his illness. He lost his job about a year ago, couldn't afford insurance. He knew he was ill but didn't want to go to a doctor because it would cost him. He was a proud man. He had a great family. When he finally want to a doctor his disease was too far along for treatment. He suffered for a few months, all the time refusing treatment because it would leave his family in debt. This isn't an isolated story. It doesn't need to be this way here in America. All of you that have your jobs and think this can't happen to you, think again. When you want to direct your hate somewhere, look to those that would deny you life saving treatment not those that will need it.

[Void-Master]

by forsanity1 December 14, 2010 4:23 PM EST

Upbroker, the government forces you to buy car insurance, pay for a drivers license, car tag etc.

Sure that is State government -- but they would never get away with it if it violated the US Constitution.

Most gun laws are also State mandated.

Do you think you can drive on the left just because you can't be "forced" to do anything?

The Constitution makes absolutely NO claim for individual rights in the USA -- all freedoms and liberties are given to the collective population.

It's "we the people", not "me, the person".

***

Let's see, which of your errors do I start with.

To begin with, states do not require you to pay for a driver's license unless you chose to drive (note: chose). States do not require you to pay for car tags unless you chose to register a car (that "c" word again). Oh and auto insurance, only if you CHOSE to drive on public roadways.

But wait! Now the Federal government wants to force us to pay for health insurance -- not as a condition of anything, but simply because we exist. I don't think so. Even if it passes the Supreme Court, I still will not comply. Further, I think you'll actually see armed uprisings should it come to that. But that's for the future.

Finally, you apparently have never heard of the Sovereignty of the Individual. You can look it up if you want details. For now, here's the core principle.

Only an individual is a sentient being. A group is not sentient. By definition, only a sentient being can possess rights. Individuals have rights. Groups do not.

[Void-Master]

by jimbom121 December 14, 2010 4:23 PM EST

And I have a moral objection towards paying more for healthcare to support those who chose not to buy insurance.

Who do you think pays when you go to the hospital?

***

I find unconscionable the notion that one is perceived as having the right to refuse medical treatment, but not medical insurance.

Why do you think I should be obliged to spend my money so that you don't have to? If you chose to purchase health insurance and agree to pay what they tell you to pay, that is your choice. At least you have a choice; something you seem to have no problem denying me.

I will not pay for a product that I find objectionable just to bring your premiums down.

[Void-Master]

by jimbom121 December 14, 2010 4:23 PM EST

Who do you think pays when you go to the hospital?

***

Me.

[Void-Master]

It's actually a perfectly valid analogy. I personally have as big a moral objection to paying for insurance as many of you would have toward the notion of paying for semi-auto rifle. If you don't like the gun analogy then replace "gun" with "automobile." Either way, the Federal government has no authority to tell any of us that we have to buy anything.

[jimbom121]

And I have a moral objection towards paying more for healthcare to support those who chose not to buy insurance.

Who do you think pays when you go to the hospital?

[jimbom121]

Noy sure what this guy is smoking.