Yes, the individual mandate is legal...

[elfs]

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years shall, within six months, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. - The Second Militia Act of 1792.

If an individual mandate was legal for George Washington, it's legal for Barack Obama.

Comments

Re:

[tagryn]

I think there's a natural balance/ebb-and-flow to the political stage, its always easier to energize the people who actually will volunteer, send $$$, man call centers, etc. when out of power than when in. Once a party is in, there's a natural "whew! well, we got Our Guys in there, things will be OK, I can move on to something else" reaction, whereas I think the party that's on the outside looking in can say "Did you see what THEY did? It's outrageous! Are you going to join us to stop THAT?" One's a lot more energizing than the other.

Side issue: I think the Tea Party will probably skew heavily GOP in '10, but after that its anyone's guess. Their bloodline is more in populist movements like Perot's than in either party, and they're probably going to be against the ruling party no matter who is in control. No surprise: they are a protest party at this point, they haven't had to grow into anything else yet.

Re:

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I'd actually really like to see a third party evolve out of all this. Greater diversity could really only be good for democracy.

On the other hand, I suspect that what's likely to happen is that 'Tea Party' is just slightly rebranded version of GOP much like the difference between a Ford and Lincoln. The Tea Party doesn't seem to really have any kind of coherent message that makes it stand out from the GOP. When I try to define what they're for or against, I can't find anything that makes them unique from the GOP.

I imagine they will continue on as a brand for a little bit but when they realize that having 'Democrat, Republican, and Tea Party' on the ballot is reducing their odds of getting their way, they'll be reabsorbed back into the Libertarians and the GOP. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch.