Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Inside Washington' Host: Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance
Newsbusters ^ | 12/18/10 | Noel Sheppard

Posted on 12/18/2010 8:03:56 PM PST by Nachum

Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.

On the most recent installment of PBS's "Inside Washington," the host queried his guests, "Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?" (video follows with transcript and commentary): ---

GORDON PETERSON, HOST: That’s Ken Cuccinelli. He’s the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled it’s un-Constitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance, as the law mandates. Why is it constitutional to require Americans to buy automobile insurance but un-Constitutional to force them to buy health insurance?

(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitutional; host; inside; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last
To: Nachum

You don’t have to, you can put up a cash bond!!!


51 posted on 12/18/2010 8:43:50 PM PST by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

How do we KNOW the court would find it constitutional to force people to buy car insurance? So far as I can tell, there is no federal mandate to buy car insurance.

Meanwhile, states may force you to buy insurance, but only if you own a car. So far as I can tell, no state requires car insurance just for having a drivers license. So I’m guessing the requirement is that if you want to put a car on one of the state’s roads, you need to have insurance the state approves of.

That seems like a somewhat rational requirement, given that your presense on the roads could damage other people’s property, and they want to make sure you can pay for it.

So far as I can tell, my state doesn’t require me to have collision insurance for my own car, only for others. So I don’t have to insure myself, OR MY car — I just have to have insurance for the damage I could do to other people’s cars.

The car insurance analogy is so far off, that it is almost juvenile to bring it up.


52 posted on 12/18/2010 8:44:08 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool

Oh, one more thing. As somebody already posted states require that a person prove financial responsibility when it comes to legal liability regarding vehicles. You are not required to buy insurance. I know several people with big bucks that “self-insure”.


53 posted on 12/18/2010 8:44:12 PM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Do I really need to qualify my statement by saying that the only way for Me to opt out is to die or to get elected to Congress?

Well, I don't know about you but I have looked into obtaining certification for my Indian background to opt out of Obamacare. I'm not sure a Mennonite church would obtain the religious exclusion, but if so, perhaps I'd consider joining a congregation.

54 posted on 12/18/2010 8:47:29 PM PST by highlander_UW (Education is too important to abdicate control of it to the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Liberals. There is no limit to their stupidity.


55 posted on 12/18/2010 8:51:07 PM PST by Rocky (REPEAL IT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Gordon Peterson on Friday asked either a staggeringly ignorant or intentionally provocative question.


It’s not only just staggeringly ignorant but moronic trolls have been calling talk shows everyday asking the same thing for a month now.


56 posted on 12/18/2010 8:52:38 PM PST by PaleoBob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

IMO, the answer to this lies in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. As others have pointed out, requirements to carry insurance for liability on the road are mandated by the states.

The power to force individuals to purchase health insurance is not a power granted to the federal government, and would therefore be deferred to the states to make that determination, as per the 10th amendment.

That is what Massachusetts has done.


57 posted on 12/18/2010 8:56:16 PM PST by omni-scientist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum; calcowgirl; NormsRevenge; Grampa Dave; tubebender; hedgetrimmer; forester; BOBTHENAILER
The states are allowed to have police powers the feral govermint was never intended to have! States have always regulated insurance and could mandate this forced purchase to assure liability insurance ONLY! The Tenth Amendment declares:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Long live the Tenth Amendment and the Tenth Commandment!!!

(As well as the Ninth (and all others) which commands that:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"))

These are the NEGATIVE words the founders insisted the feral govermint live by or they would not sign up to be the "United States" at all!!! Yes, Obamanites, I said NEGATIVE!!! (That means not positive)

58 posted on 12/18/2010 9:04:27 PM PST by SierraWasp (What's worse... shutting down government, or the private sector with uncertainty???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I had to have insurance on my house but only while I was paying the mortgage.

Your lender required it as a condition of loaning you the money, the government didn't require it............Unless it was the government that loaned you the money.

I know of no state that requires "full coverage" insurance, states require liability insurance only. However if you borrow the money to buy that car, your lender will almost certainly require that you have that "full coverage" to protect their investment.

59 posted on 12/18/2010 9:05:33 PM PST by Graybeard58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Car insurance is for protecting someone else, not you. Plus you are not forced to buy a car either.


60 posted on 12/18/2010 9:07:48 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer And A Painter Can Change Black Into White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SERKIT

That kind of insurance is never required by law, but it might be required by the bank if you are using the car as collateral for a loan.


61 posted on 12/18/2010 9:14:04 PM PST by John Valentine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The federal government does not require anyone to have car insurance. States require people to have car insurance if the CHOOSE to drive.

Can those idiots not understand the not so suttle difference? Perhaps they need to review Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution and the 10th amendment.

62 posted on 12/18/2010 9:20:51 PM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Car insurance is a STATE issue. A state can decide to force its citizens who register and drive a vehicle to carry insurance on it. What Judge Hudson ruled was a FEDERAL mandate, and the DOJ argued it was constitutional because of the Commerce Clause. Gordon, that’s about business BETWEEN states. And, the argument failed.


63 posted on 12/18/2010 9:25:49 PM PST by EDINVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
2) You dont have a “right” to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.

I respectfully disagree...I built the highway, I pay for the maintenance of the highway, I do not need permission of the state to go from state to state in this country, I purchase and license my vehicle therefore I have the right to use the highway......I have, however CHOSEN to allow states to ascertain that YOU are worthy of driving on my highway......by so doing, I will also go along with being tested to make sure that I am also capable of driving on your highways......I guess it's better this way....the pioneers did not seek the permission of anyone to drive their conostoga wagons to California

64 posted on 12/18/2010 9:26:24 PM PST by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Actually, in many States if you drive a car on a public roadway, you can either buy Vehicle Liability Insurance or post a Personal Liability Bond. Insurance is just a more affordable avenue for most people.

I liken it to owning a home with a Mortgage. You are required to have Fire Insurance on the structure which protects the Mortgage Holder's asset, your home.

If you own the home outright, there is no “requirement” to carry Fire Insurance because you are taking the risk.

65 posted on 12/18/2010 9:27:13 PM PST by Kickass Conservative (If Sarah Palin was President, you would have a job by now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The other point is if you have no auto insurance and get in an accident nobody is going to pay for your car or the other persons car. If you don’t have heath insurance you get treated anyway. No one in this country is refused treatment because they don’t have insurance.

Look at all the little gang bangers. Shoot em up and they all get cared for at the local hospital.


66 posted on 12/18/2010 9:29:46 PM PST by Random Access
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

It is a STATE issue, as some states like TN and GA did not have mandatory insurance regulations, so it is NOT a Federal Issue. A drivers license is from a STATE not the Federal Government, as well as the STATE License TAG.

The Health Care Bill should never have been passed, it is a STATE issue. States provide Medicaid, that is supplemented by the Federal Gov’t...not the other way around. The Health Care Bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!


67 posted on 12/18/2010 9:46:52 PM PST by Kackikat (There is no such thing as a free lunch, because someone paid, somewhere.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Here’s another point he doesn’t make:

When I go take my car in for an oil change, do I turn the bill over to my auto insurance carrier? Heck no, I just pay it. But people do that for their annual check up.


68 posted on 12/18/2010 9:54:30 PM PST by henkster (A broken government does not merit full faith and credit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

You are not required to have car insurance to drive on peurely private roads. It is the revocable and conditional permit of driving on public roads that allows the state to require liability insurance as a condition of the permit. Life is an inalienable right, it is not a permitted privilege. It does not require a permit, nor can the federal government require health insurance as a condition.


69 posted on 12/18/2010 9:55:42 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

They protect us from ourselves with the seatbelt law. Lie that it turned out to be. When they were talking about passing, or as they were passing the seat belt law way back when they said it would only be enforced during routine traffic stops for other reasons. That police would/could not pull you over simply for seeing you not wearing one. Look where that got us. I received my first and only ticket last year, at a friggin “road block” type seat belt check while being a passenger in my mother’s car.


70 posted on 12/18/2010 10:08:58 PM PST by kelly4c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

I rather doubt it is constitutional to force people to buy auto insurance. If I operate a car in CA, a portion of my assets now belong to the insurance industry. If I don’t surrender this portion to an insurance company, the state will prosecute me and fine me, which doesn’t give me insurance. I did not intend to surrender my property when I got a car. Apparently, I did.


71 posted on 12/18/2010 10:16:13 PM PST by Judges Gone Wild (Who are these uncircumcised to oppose the armies of the Living God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

There is no federal law requiring car insurance, only state laws. Also, you only need insurance to drive on public roadways.

The car insurance argument is a favorite, but easily refutable, one of liberals.


72 posted on 12/18/2010 10:50:29 PM PST by Strk321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Because the Feds don’t mandate car insurance. The states do that and they are not limited by the enumerated powers in the US constitution. They could also mandate the purchase of health insurance, and I would be looking forward to it in blue states everywhere should SCOTUS rule in favor of Virginia’s complaint. ObamaCare must be repealed and not just left to SCOTUS.


73 posted on 12/18/2010 10:58:25 PM PST by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

The simplicity here is that if you don’t own a car...you don’t pay for any insurance. If you do own a car...the state will make its own requirements upon you as you register the car (from actual car inspections, to liability insurance).

Note that Mennonites and their horse-drawn wagons don’t have liability insurance. If you own a pedal-drawn vehicle...it requires no insurance. If you live in a retirement community and use golf carts...they require no insurance.

The argument given by the Inside Washington guy...is the type you’d expect from a 8-th high school student. I’m amazed that he stood there smiling over his suggestion.


74 posted on 12/18/2010 11:46:10 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Damn. As soon as my insurance company found out my kids got there drivers licences, I was paying out the a$$.

No way in hell could I get over by saying they wouldn’t be driving my car. I could only get out of it by proving they were going to college over 1000 miles away.


75 posted on 12/19/2010 12:06:30 AM PST by onona (dbada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
It's fairly simple. The federal government's powers are granted and delineated by the Constitution. The Commerce Clause has been cited (and rejected) as the basis for federal power to impose mandatory health insurance. The powers of the states are not granted by the Constitution in general or by the Commerce Clause in particular; their powers over intrastate commerce are not limited by it.

The Fourteenth Amendment imposes on the states various limitations otherwise applicable only to the federal government -- First Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights, etc. The Commerce Clause, however, is a grant of various limited powers to the federal government and grants no commerce powers to the states; they don't need such a grant.
76 posted on 12/19/2010 12:28:37 AM PST by DanMiller (Dan Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Well it goes like this: auto insurance or posting a bond for a state mandated amount is required if, and only if, you chose to drive.

Health care insurance is required if, and only if, you chose to live ... but, and this is a big but indeed, ... the constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - so we have a conflict!
Can a constitutional government force you to chose to give up your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because you don't want to buy health insurance?

77 posted on 12/19/2010 12:30:33 AM PST by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Random Access

“No one in this country is refused [medical] treatment because they don’t have insurance.”

Okay, I’ll bite....Why not? Who pays? Is it fair?


78 posted on 12/19/2010 12:57:16 AM PST by TexNewMex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

‘Inside Washington’ Host: Why is it UnConstitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance Except for Illegal Mexicans?


79 posted on 12/19/2010 1:33:50 AM PST by bunkerhill7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD
They may all have Ivy League degrees, but they can only hold bumpersticker thoughts.

Post of the Day!

80 posted on 12/19/2010 1:46:36 AM PST by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Health insurance choices involves personal survival and ObamaCare limits those choices and penalizes anyone
who forgoes it. Car insurance doesn’t work remotely like that.


81 posted on 12/19/2010 1:53:16 AM PST by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

If you don’t want a car you are not forced to buy insurance!
If you do you get to choose the insurance at the best price!


82 posted on 12/19/2010 3:02:23 AM PST by timetostand (Ya say ya wanna revolution -- OK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

The 10th amendment says the federal government doesn’t have that power.

The states do have that power.


83 posted on 12/19/2010 3:06:03 AM PST by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance But Not Health Insurance?

It is NOT constitutional for the Federal government to force people to buy car insurance and they don't.

It is NOT constitutional for the Federal government to force the people to buy anything, eat anything, wear anything, say anything, worship anything, love anyone, hate anyone, like anyone, or live anywhere.

84 posted on 12/19/2010 3:08:55 AM PST by MosesKnows (Love many, Trust few, and always paddle your own canoe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
A case where the word insurance is taken to mean the same in both cases when in one, it is only for damages made to other cars and/or people (the only legal car insurance requirement), and the other is for self purposes. The self part being unconstitutional.
85 posted on 12/19/2010 3:09:47 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
1. The Feds don't require you to have auto insurance

2. To avoid paying "manditory insurance" all you have to do is not drive or own a car.

3. People who don't own or drive are not required to carry insurance in order to cover people who do.

86 posted on 12/19/2010 3:25:45 AM PST by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
The correct answer is that the purchase of automobile insurance is a STATE requirement, not a federal one.

Local and state governments have the power to do things that are prohibited to the feds.

87 posted on 12/19/2010 3:38:44 AM PST by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

My neighbor had a non-working car in her driveway. Since she wasn’t driving it, she didn’t renew the registration. A cop came onto her driveway, observed the out-of-date sticker, and gave her a ticket.


88 posted on 12/19/2010 4:12:30 AM PST by Dizzy Lizzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Stosh
[If I] have a car that I drive only on my ranch and never on a public road, do I need to buy car insurance for it?

No insurance, tags, safety equipment, pollution-control equipment, etc. required for anything you operate only on your own property.

Operating it on your own property, you assume full liability for any injuries or damage caused by its operation.

How many riding lawn-mowers do you see with license plates?

89 posted on 12/19/2010 4:14:43 AM PST by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nachum
Nina Totenberg was asked the question, so I have to assume either it was a set up question by Gordon to embarrass her (which I doubt) or Gordon is really that ill informed and ignorant.

He is after all a Washington insider so I have to assume he lives in that DC bubble and really thought it was a liberal gotcha talking point

90 posted on 12/19/2010 4:36:51 AM PST by Popman (Obama. First Marxist to turn a five year Marxist plan into a 4 year administration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

One man’s freedom extends as far as the outer perimeter of the next man’s freedom.


91 posted on 12/19/2010 5:13:13 AM PST by RoadTest (Religion is a substitute for the relationship God wants with you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Popman

Additionally, there are a number of “pre-existing conditions “ that actually prevent you from obtaining car insurance— like six DWI’s and a revoked license.


92 posted on 12/19/2010 5:14:12 AM PST by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

States can require it ,you can move if you want too,the Federal Govt is different if they mandate it you cant go anywhere.
Something like those powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. It doesnt say except in Health Care


93 posted on 12/19/2010 5:39:53 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

ok...so we have to have insurance to walk down the street?


94 posted on 12/19/2010 5:49:14 AM PST by MsLady (If you died tonight, where would you go? Salvation, don't leave earth without it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MsLady
ok...so we have to have insurance to walk down the street?

No, but government does not have the right to restrict either. Driving is no different than walking down the street. A person needs to go from point A to point B in their life and our Constitution permits us to travel freely without government interference.

95 posted on 12/19/2010 8:59:59 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

I’m guessing the biggest offenders on the auto insurance requirement are some of Baraq’s strongest supporters, inner city and illegals.


96 posted on 12/19/2010 9:05:02 AM PST by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Ding Ding Ding!

You Win!

Nice answer.


97 posted on 12/19/2010 9:11:15 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik

You do indeed have a RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.


98 posted on 12/19/2010 9:12:14 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat

It’s a strange ethos that forces a you into the whimsy of what others think must be done to you protect them from you.


99 posted on 12/19/2010 9:15:18 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Because of the 10th Amendment, it is a State authority, not a federal authority, to require certain automobile insurance coverage under specified circumstances.

The federal government has no Constitutional authority to require any individual to purchase anything.

No matter how true some of the other arguments are, they are irrelevant.


100 posted on 12/19/2010 9:25:54 AM PST by savedbygrace (But God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson