“States have what is known as ‘police power,’ which allows them to regulate widely—such as requiring residents to purchase auto insurance.”
No, not exactly. They can’t require you to purchase auto insurance unless you choose to drive on their roads. Obamacare, contrarywise, seems to think it can force me to buy insurance for the privilege of living, which isn’t at all analogous.
By the way, I don’t car insurance mandates are a matter of the police power, except insofar as that power has been extended to cover everything under the sun. All drivers being insured would make for a more smoothly functioning society, but I could easily make the argument that it’s my right to go into massive debt for damages caused during reckless uninsured driving. Where does the state’s interest intrude? Not in the realm of safety. Insurance has nothing to do with preventing accidents, only providing a more orderly manner to handle them.
No, there is no police power here, to my mind. It’s entirely a matter of “the state may regulate that which it subsidizes.” Not that this appears anywhere in actual law, but it has been pretty widely and consistently adopted as a compromise principle. The state can tell you under what circumstances you are allowed to drive on the roads that they built and maintain by confiscating your money. That is why, and not because of the police power, they can order you to buy auto insurance.
Really; and here I thought that governments existed with the consent of the government, such sentiment is found in many of the State Constitutions.
BTW, even terminology reflects this: the roads are public roads, not "government roads."
” I could easily make the argument that it’s my right to go into massive debt for damages caused during reckless uninsured driving.”
If, by extension, that argument is applied to Government itself the argument makes perfect sense, because Government as the driver is operating under the influence and causing massive damage as it drives all over every square inch of this country.