Skip to comments.'Inside Washington' Host: Why is it Constitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance
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: Thats Ken Cuccinelli. Hes the attorney general of Virginia. He brought the challenge to ObamaCare. The federal court and judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled its 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 ...
You don’t have to, you can put up a cash bond!!!
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.
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”.
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.
Liberals. There is no limit to their stupidity.
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.
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.
"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)
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.
Car insurance is for protecting someone else, not you. Plus you are not forced to buy a car either.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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?
‘Inside Washington’ Host: Why is it UnConstitutional to Force People to Buy Car Insurance Except for Illegal Mexicans?
Post of the Day!
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.
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!
The 10th amendment says the federal government doesn’t have that power.
The states do have that power.
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.
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.
Local and state governments have the power to do things that are prohibited to the feds.
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.
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?
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
One man’s freedom extends as far as the outer perimeter of the next man’s freedom.
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.
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
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.
I’m guessing the biggest offenders on the auto insurance requirement are some of Baraq’s strongest supporters, inner city and illegals.
Ding Ding Ding!
You do indeed have a RIGHT to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
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.
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.
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.