What editorial writers are saying about the individual mandate ruling

Editorial writers largely turned their attention to the mandate controversy's next stop: the U.S. Supreme Court.

Obamacare's mandate: Why it's closer to a Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court could well end the mandate simply for its violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. But in so doing, the court (and Congress) should also support this long-term trend toward people taking charge of their health -- and not having others make decisions for them. The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 15

Obamacare down, but not out

We prefer the high court resolve this matter sooner, not later. Whether that comes before the election or after, the end may be the same. It could result in removing from the books this onerous mandate and its associated regulatory intrusions. The Orange County (Calif.) Register, Aug. 16

Public is finding out exactly how much of a problem this garbled legislation is

This issue goes far beyond patient care and affordable health care. The crux of the matter is whether the federal government can force an individual to purchase something. To simplify it, the act gives the federal government the right to force you to do whatever it wants to. The Lufkin (Texas) Daily News, Aug. 16

Why are we spending money to deny health insurance to residents?

These rarified legal matters seem to carry a whiff of a law-school library on some pristine campus. They are far removed from the day-to-day lives of Alabamians struggling to make ends meet, keep a family fed and pay the medical bills. The Anniston (Ala.) Star, Aug. 16

Appeals court deals serious blow to Obamacare

We do not know whether a majority of the Supreme Court justices may uphold or strike down Obamacare, in whole or in part. But under our Constitution, the federal government does not have the power to order Americans to purchase health insurance, however sensible it may be to have it. Chattanooga (Tenn.) Times Free Press, Aug. 16

Health care and the Constitution

In our judgment, the mandate is an unprecedented but reasonable -- and constitutional -- intrusion on individual decision-making. Lawmakers correctly decided that permitting some people to choose to go without insurance would make it impossible to carry out the law's requirement that insurance be offered to all without reference to preexisting conditions. The Washington Post, Aug. 12