|BOBWARREN; By BOBBY WARREN|
"We're going to vote for a full repeal (in the
"I'm really disappointed in the ruling," Gibbs said. "They kind of punted. The mandate is unconstitutional (through the commerce clause), but
"It needs to be repealed."
Gibbs said he has voted 30 times to either repeal the entire law or parts of it. He said the law adds costs to employers, especially small businesses, and it is making it harder for them to expand and hire.
"It did nothing to address the escalating cost of health care," Gibbs said. "It's not good for the economy, and it's not good for freedom. It's an expansion of big government."
"The decision of the
Former U.S. Rep.
Boccieri said he had a hard time seeing a conservative court overturn a conservative idea, a reference to the concept of an individual mandate appearing in a
"The drama of (Thursday) had more to do with politics than legal perspective," Boccieri said. He read the law and thought the legal arguments supporting it were pretty strong.
It's strange that the president would sell it politically as not being a tax -- the law references the commerce clause and not the taxing authority -- and then told his solicitor to argue it was tax, Obhof said.
"It's cause for concern," Obhof said. "In more than 200 years, the federal government never forced an individual to buy any product or service. I think it is a significant overreach."
Obhof said he hopes his colleagues in
"Realistically, we need a new president for that to happen," Obhof added.
As for the individual mandate, which forces all people to purchase health insurance, being a Republican idea, Obhof said he did not care whether it was a Republican or Democratic idea because "the federal government cannot force an individual to buy something."
"The ruling on the commerce clause seems to be a step in a different direction," Kennedy said, adding this court has found a distinction between regulating commerce and compelling commerce. "It draws a line in the sand." If
The commerce clause, which allows
In Roberts' opinion, he said
Kennedy said he sees a danger in using the taxing authority of the federal government to force someone to do, or not do, something.
"How will this be applied in other circumstances," Kennedy asked. "It could be applied to a number of things."
As an example, Kennedy said what if the federal government ordered everyone to buy perch from
"They didn't like the way it was structured, but they found a way to interpret it through the tax code," Estill said. "Whatever works, works."
"I think the whole, complicated act is important. It begins to rationalize the delivery of health care. I believe it will make (health care) affordable, and it's important that more people will be covered."
Ohio House Minority Leader
As Boccieri reflected on the battle in
However, Boccieri said he believes the Republicans were able to successfully frame the argument around emotions, picking up on a struggling economy and saying the health care battle was one of freedom. "It was really about responsibility," Boccieri said. "I'm disappointed in how Renacci and Republicans framed this when, after all, it was their idea."
Indications are Republicans will continue to frame the message in the months leading up to the presidential election.
Renacci pointed to one of the lines in Roberts' decision.
Roberts wrote, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
"Elections have consequences," Renacci said. When he ran for office two years ago, he got in the race because he did not agree with a big government "take-over," of which health care was a part. "The political choices made four years ago are having consequences today."
In November, the people will have a clear choice between bigger government or smaller government, both Gibbs and Renacci said.
"The court has spoken today, but in November there will be a chance for the people to speak."
|Copyright:||(c) 2012 ProQuest Information and Learning Company; All Rights Reserved.|