Political Commentary

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

12 Comments

Dave Kopel weighs in. And discusses an important issue — if the mandate is struck down, how much of the rest of the monstrosity can survive? Unfortunately, the calorie labeling requirement is probably severable. But most isn’t.

I also agree with Jonathan Turley — to let the mandate stand is to put a complete end to federalism. Which of course has been the left’s goal for decades.

12 thoughts on “Is ObamaCare Constitutional?”

  1. The bill contained no severability clause, which means if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away.

  2. There is no serious basis to challenge the right of Congress to impose a national medical plan on the states. In 2008, this country spent $2.3 trillion on health care — representing 16.2% of our gross domestic product. This is a national crisis demanding a national, as opposed to a state-by-state, solution.

    These are two unjustified and wrong assumptions in my opinion. I believe congress is overstepping it’s constitutional restrictions to impose anything beyond those things enumerated in the constitution. Secondly I know the states are better equipped to provide a solution because they can come up with 50 solutions and we can see which is best rather than debate it.

  3. The bill contained no severability clause, which means if the mandate is found unconstitutional, the whole bill goes away.

    I’ll be in my bunk.

  4. The amazing thing is how simple it would have been to cause the same major effect whilst remaining pretty mundane from the “current view” of the Constitution.

    If the “private mandate” was instead an income tax credit for anyone who has suitable health insurance, it would fundamentally cause the same “direct” consequences.

    The only difference is then precisely the warping effect. “Hi, we’ve made something we don’t think you’ll dare repeal… that happens to also have a poison pill to the entire dead tree thing.”

  5. ken,

    One of the premises of the argument given was that it was based on current Supreme Court jurisprudence, rather than any arguments about what current Supreme Court jurisprudence should be. Your argument is about what current Supreme Court jurisprudence should be.

    Yours,
    Tom

  6. Wasn’t McCain-Feingold considered unconstitutional by some people? Please don’t depend on the Supreme Court to bail us out. Won’t happen.

  8. Bet you a dollar? Better still, let’s make it $10, or a hundred?

    But don’t let that stop you.

    This really really beats my expectations btw. I can’t wait to see if Obama is reelected now.

  10. “This really really beats my expectations btw.”

    I can’t imagine what those would be other than something detrimental to the United States.

Comments are closed.