{"id":3223,"date":"2010-04-29T18:23:16","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T23:23:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=3223"},"modified":"2010-04-29T18:23:16","modified_gmt":"2010-04-29T23:23:16","slug":"the-health-insurance-mandate-and-the-constitution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stonescryout.org\/?p=3223","title":{"rendered":"The Health Insurance Mandate and the Constitution"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/p>\n

One of the more controversial provisions of the recently-enacted health insurance reform bill is the mandate for all individuals to purchase health insurance. But as Randy Barnett points out in a op-ed in the Wall Street Journal <\/a>today, the mandate isn’t likely to pass constitutional muster:<\/div>\n
\n

\nThe Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) includes what it calls an “individual responsibility requirement” that all persons buy health insurance from a private company. Congress justified this mandate under its power to regulate commerce among the several states: “The individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section,” the law says, “. . . is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of the effects described in paragraph (2).” Paragraph (2) then begins: “The requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is purchased.”<\/p>\n

In this way, the statute speciously tries to convert inactivity into the “activity” of making a “decision.” By this reasoning, your “decision” not to take a job, not to sell your house, or not to buy a Chevrolet is an “activity that is commercial and economic in nature” that can be mandated by Congress.<\/p>\n

It is true that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause broadly enough to reach wholly intrastate economic “activity” that substantially affects interstate commerce. But the Court has never upheld a requirement that
\nindividuals who are doing nothing must engage in economic activity by entering
\ninto a contractual relationship with a private company. Such a claim of power is
\nliterally unprecedented.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Professor Barnett also co-authored a more detail analysis of the individual mandate found here<\/a>. He also wrote an excellent analysis on the constitutionality of the legislation here.<\/a><\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n
ObamaCare was passed with little regard for the constitutionality of its provisions. Although there is a popular move to repeal the bill the more likely dismantling of the law will come through the courts. With Justice Stevens retiring, the President’s Supreme Court nominee takes on a new importance.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 One of the more controversial provisions of the recently-enacted health insurance reform bill is the mandate for all individuals to purchase health insurance. But as Randy Barnett points out in a op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today, the mandate isn’t likely to pass constitutional muster: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,18,275,12],"tags":[436,290,277],"class_list":["post-3223","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-culture","category-government","category-healthcare","category-tom","tag-constitution","tag-healthcare-reform","tag-obamacare"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t