Obama should hope the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will not be -- or at least should not be -- debating the merits of the law. The primary issue, at least for the mandate -- is the commerce clause.

Interesting perspective from Akil Amar Reed (Constitutional law professor at Yale) in an interview in the Washington Post. Conservatives will disagree with this, but there seems to be a growing consensus among conservatives that this a slam dunk against the bill, so I am posting this to show that there is an actual controversey that goes beyond politics.
The Link


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
dheiman and prodigal:

In response, I would say that your counter arguments are about policy. The question is not whether it is well targeted to address these issues, but whether it is interstate commerce at all, and if so, this constitutes the regulation of it.

For what its worth, I would not have voted for the ACA, but if I believe it is was within Congress' authority to pass it. That is why I am differentiating the policy argument from the constitutional one.
 
Prodigal:

Forcing people to engage in this commerce being beyond the regulation of commerce is a solid constitutional argument, and there is a good chance it prevail. I've been more persuaded, however, by the argument that everyone inevitably participate in the healthcare market already. I realize that this argument opens the door for an even more expansive reading of the commerce clause. To some extent, I think that ship has already sailed. For reasons beyond the scope of this issue, I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing for centralized decision making in a world economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top