Republicans and anti-health care LAW tactics

The bill passed and the Party of No lost. But they've already sworn they will repeal the law, and state-based Republicans (legislators, attorneys generals) are threatening to sue on the basis that the health care bill somehow violates the 10th Amendment (powers not reserved for the feds reside with the states).

Unfortunately, the Republicans have uphill sledding in the repeal and legal world.

• On repealing, Republicans have to either take over the House and get 60 seats in the Senate (mathematically impossible, I'm told) OR wait until 2013 and get control of both houses of Congress and the presidency.  Good luck with that.
• On the legal appeals, Republicans are working against legal precedent when it comes to mandatory taxes, because the government already collects direct taxes (taxes such as Social Security and unemployment already exist).
• Republicans are also going to have trouble with the insurance mandate itself, which can be seen as part of the broad reaching "interstate commerce" regulatory powers of the federal government.  And given that most insurance companies operate across state lines, good luck with that.

A nice quote from a story by Eric Black on the legal challenge:

Lucinda Jesson of Hamline Law School, said...“I would be surprised if it was taken seriously by the courts.”

The one thing I found worrying in Black's piece is that the federal government has been using the interstate commerce clause in some ways that seem like overreaching.  In California, for example, the Supreme Court struck down a medical marijuana law even though the law required it to be marijuana grown in California and not crossing state lines.  Even someone who grew there own, the Court said, could be subject to federal drug laws. 

The other interesting issue, he notes, is that states have become largely dependent on federal aid for many areas of spending (transportation, health care, etc) and that state discretion has largely vanished because the courts give broad latitude to the federal government to tie strings to its aid.  (Example // you want federal highway money, raise the legal drinking age...)  In an era of state dependence, the 10th amendment becomes almost meaningless.

I think that the health care bill is a very good thing for society, and I'm glad it's likely to stand against the legal challenges.  But it's interesting to consider how important states rights are in this era...