Chuck Lane's Credulousness

The New Republic

You have read:

0 / 8

free articles in the past 30 days.

Already a subscriber?

Log in here

sign up for unlimited access for just $34.97Sign me up

JUNE 26, 2012

Chuck Lane's Credulousness

Chuck Lane has a piece in The Washington Post suggesting that legal academics have vastly overestimated the strength of arguments defending the individual mandate’s constitutionality. According to Lane, opposition to the mandate is real, not politically-contrived, and it’s rooted in real concerns about the “the welfare state’s cost and intrusiveness.” To that end, he says this:

"Much has been made of the fact that Republicans had no objection, constitutional or otherwise, when the individual mandate first surfaced. But that was two decades ago." 

Well, it’s true that the mandate surfaced two decades ago. But Romney supported a mandate—on a national (that is, each of the 50 states) level—just five years ago.* And Newt Gingrich supported it just four years ago. Is it really such a stretch to doubt the honesty of their conversions?   

*Update: I’ve updated to clarify language, and Chuck Lane emails to point out that in Romney’s case, this was a policy, not legal, reversal. Fair point.

share this article on facebook or twitter

posted in: the washington post, chuck lane, the plank

print this article

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 6 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Back to Top

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK