David Rivkin Explains the Problem with ObamaCare's Individual Mandate

Like this video? Please rate and favorite, and subscribe for more video updates!

David Rivkin is a partner at Baker & Hostetler LLP and also represented the plaintiffs in the recent Florida v. HHS case. Here he explains why the commerce clause does not apply to ObamaCare's individual mandate, noting that it violates fundamental principles in the US Constitution and centuries of precedent case law. He claims that the individual mandate is "the single most unconstitutional piece of statute language in our history," because allowing the government to regulate economic inactivity would allow for federal intervention in virtually every kind of market imaginable.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• cato
• individual mandate
• obamacare
• health
• heath care
• commerce clause
• insurance
• david rivkin
• libertarian
• libertarianism
• vinson
• economics
• constitution

[a052014]

@a4finger This interpretation would be unconstitutional as violating federalism principles by giving the government a federal police power. Only states have such a power.

[shamgar001]

@MarmaladeINFP You don't understand the 3/5 compromise at all. The slave-owning states WANTED slaves (including white slaves, excluding free black people, both of which existed at the time) to be given full count when distributing representatives. The abolitionists thought slaves should not be counted at all. They compromised for slaves and non-taxpaying natives to be counted as 3/5. This does not mean that they thought they were morally worth 3/5.

[evan13579b]

@MarmaladeINFP

You are the one being extremely fucking stupid. We have to interpret it based on what those words meant at the time they were written. Anything else and the thing is absolutely worthless. You don't give a shit about it being worthless because you don't even want a constitution.

Ya people don't agree. that doesn't meant there isn't a correct interpretation. If I think the sky is pink will you suddenly start saying that no one can ever claim to have the corect opinion on that?

[macman237]

Tonight for "Earth Day" I'll be turning "ON" (yes, you read right--"ON" NOT "OFF") EVERYTHING ELECTRICAL I OWN--IN ALL FOUR (4) of my Condos :) Why? BECAUSE I CAN :)

--

IMPEACH OBAMA AND JAIL HIS LACKEY CRIMINALS!

[macman237]

CLOWN Obama can have my "mandatory" Health Care Payment when he PRYS it from my COLD DEAD hands.

--

IMPEACH OBAMA AND JAIL HIS LACKEY CRIMINALS!

[a4finger]

great video!

I've heard people claim that obamacare is constitutional because the constitution says the gov must provide for the general welfare of the public, or something like that. What is a good way to argue with that claim?

[KenMacMillan]

We need a constitutional convention to write a new article one section eight.

[Moonteeth62]

@DarcMac I'm not being an idiot. I know the bible is a bunch of made up stories BY MEN to control men. It is *EXACTLY* the morons that think there anything there beyond that need for control that is the crux of the problem. You have no special knowledge, you have no special abilities, so how do you decide which is literal and which is not? There has to be some objective test if it is there is a methodology that the intelligent use that the mere literate do not.

[BillyGtr1]

Rivkin illuminates eloquently the essential constitutional flaws in the federal government's ongoing attempt to control every aspect of life in America. If you don't think this is a broader trend than just control of who provides health services to whom, consider that on March 23, 2011 the Federal Reserve denied Bank of America, a publicly-held company (as opposed to government owned) plan to increase its dividend to shareholders. Socialist megalomania is the death of American liberty.

[DarcMac]

@Moonteeth62 Don't be an idiot. Literate people used to be smart; it was expected that the Biblical reader had enough intelligence to discern between literal and symbolic meanings in the path to spiritual growth. Today, everyone is literate, yet you just proved that literacy does not mean intelligence these days; you expect a manual to tell you the difference.