In an interview with the New Hampshire Union Leader, likely Republican 2012 presidential hopeful Mitt Romney once again attempted to clarify the differences between federal health care legislation (Obamacare) and health care legislation he signed while governor of Massachusetts (Romneycare).
It’s an issue that has dogged the 2008 Iowa Caucus runnerup for months. As governor, Romney supported a health care initiative with some requirements similar to those in the president’s plan, most significantly a mandate for Massachusetts residents to purchase health insurance. That idea has become a lightening rod for conservatives who believe a mandate violates the U.S. Constitution. Some of his potential 2012 rivals, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, have used the issue to draw early distinctions with Romney.
Romney’s defense is that the individual mandate in his plan came from the state government instead of the federal government. He continued down that line of thought in his New Hampshire interview.
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.”
The entire bill may end up collapsing, Romney said, due to a constitutional challenge in court.