1. 

   Comment by Charles B
   April 2, 2010 @ 10:13 pm

   I should hope he does

   Are you saying we shouldn’t have mandatory car insurance? If you wreck my car, do you have enough money in the bank to buy me another one? If you don’t, then you damn well better have insurance.

2. 

   Comment by Donald F
   April 2, 2010 @ 10:56 pm

   Ron Paul would probably say that it is a state issue whether auto insurance should be mandatory. And if it isn’t, he wouldn’t be for a federal mandate to force states to change the laws or to make it a federal law. Of course, anyone who has no insurance and causes an accident can be sued through the court system.

3. 

   Comment by Shard F
   April 2, 2010 @ 11:36 pm

   The constitutional position, which is what Ron Paul always takes, is that any power not delegated to the United States nor prohibited to the States, falls to the States respectively, or to the people. The power to mandate insurance is not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the States. Auto insurance is currently mandated state by state, and not all states require it. There is still debate among the people as to whether mandatory auto insurance, per se, is constitutional, and if brought before the courts, the laws can change.

   The overall situation fully complies with the Constitution, and I am confident Ron Paul would agree.

   (More knowledgeable people please correct me if I am wrong.)

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment