Mitt Romney says that he thinks the Democrat health care bill is unconstitutional on the “10th amendment front,” and draws a distinction between that bill and government-run health care in Massachusetts which he signed into law. Because government health care is good, I guess, as long as it’s the states doing it and not the federal government.
In an interview at the Union Leader this morning, Mitt Romney said President Obama’s health care plan was an unconstitutional violation of the 10th Amendment.
Romney has been saying that a key difference between his Massachusetts health care reform and President Obama’s reform is that his was a state plan and Obama’s is a federal plan. In speeches in New Hampshire last night and this morning, he defended his plan (as he has before) by noting that the 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states that are not explicitly granted to the federal government. But he stopped short of stating that Obama’s plan violated the 10th amendment by taking powers that were reserved to the states.
In a scheduled interview this morning, I asked Romney if Obama’s individual mandate unconstitutional in ordering individuals to purchase a commodity.
“I’m not enough of a judge,” he said. “I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.”
He said he could not characterize every provision of the bill as unconstitutional because Washington might well have the authority to do many things that are included in the 2,700-page bill.
I actually agree with Romney in that at least the health care take over he backed in Massachusetts is at least legal under the US constitutional, though that still doesn’t mean it’s good policy.
Regardless, barring some radical change in the national political atmosphere, can anyone imagine Mitt Romney gaining any traction as a 2012 candidate with his background on the health care issue?