But would the Health Care bill be constitutional?

That is a question that surely deserves consideration, doesn’t it? In the Washington Post, two attorneys, David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, cite a number of Supreme Court precedents that would indicate that a law mandating that everyone purchase insurance would not pass constitutional muster. According to the rulings and the case law they cite, Congress has no authority under the much-invoked commerce clause to require private economic transactions. Nor can Congress use its taxing power–as has been proposed, to impose tax penalties on those who do not buy health insurance–as a way of regulating what it is not allowed to regulate under the commerce clause.

Though these attorneys have served in Republican administrations, they don’t seem to be raising a mere conservative objection. In fact, they say that the single-payer option probably WOULD be constitutional. They are simply pointing out constitutional and legal problems with the current insurance-based proposal.

"You are right. Though the birthers claimed that Obama's mom had renounced her citizenship before ..."

Might the Russians Have Flipped the ..."
"Obama didn't even need a birth certificate because his mother was a citizen. Obama did ..."

Might the Russians Have Flipped the ..."
"Except in Chicago.No one cares how many get shot there, or in Baltimore."

Might the Russians Have Flipped the ..."
"Wait, I thought it was college educated married white women."

Might the Russians Have Flipped the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Matt C.

    Hm. This is actually the first time I’ve seen the constitutional question raised on this issue. I wonder, does anybody really care whether a piece of legislation is constitutional anymore? It’s a living document for many liberals anyways, making “violation” a difficult category to apply. Even for conservatives, though, there have been so many laws that have been seen as violations already without any action other than complaint. What does it matter at this point?

  • Matt C.

    Hm. This is actually the first time I’ve seen the constitutional question raised on this issue. I wonder, does anybody really care whether a piece of legislation is constitutional anymore? It’s a living document for many liberals anyways, making “violation” a difficult category to apply. Even for conservatives, though, there have been so many laws that have been seen as violations already without any action other than complaint. What does it matter at this point?

  • Joe Sobran’s maxim might be helpful here: “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

  • Joe Sobran’s maxim might be helpful here: “The U.S. Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government.”

  • But Medicare is effectivly single payer for seniors. Why hasn’t it been found to fail constitutional muster?

    I agree with the idea that the 10th Amendment precludes government involvement in healthcare this way, by the way. I just have to point out the practical reality that the courts don’t seem to be seeing it this way.

  • But Medicare is effectivly single payer for seniors. Why hasn’t it been found to fail constitutional muster?

    I agree with the idea that the 10th Amendment precludes government involvement in healthcare this way, by the way. I just have to point out the practical reality that the courts don’t seem to be seeing it this way.

  • Bike Bubba, as I understand the attorneys, a single payer plan MIGHT be constitutional. But in the case law and precedents they cite, Congress cannot make you buy a particular product or spend your money in a way the government dictates (except for paying taxes). The constitutional issue is with mandating that everyone buy insurance.

  • Bike Bubba, as I understand the attorneys, a single payer plan MIGHT be constitutional. But in the case law and precedents they cite, Congress cannot make you buy a particular product or spend your money in a way the government dictates (except for paying taxes). The constitutional issue is with mandating that everyone buy insurance.

  • It’s not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional. What’s actually written in the Constitution is of little relevance these days.

  • It’s not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says it’s unconstitutional. What’s actually written in the Constitution is of little relevance these days.

  • DonS

    I think the argument is right. But, unfortunately, initially in the 1930’s, and then, finally, in the 1960’s, we put to rest the notion of a limited federal government. The only governmental action we seemingly find to be unconstitutional now is the attempt to put restrictions on pornography. Everything else is fair game, including the squelching of 1st Amendment free speech through draconian campaign finance laws like McCain Feingold. I cannot see any court striking down a health insurance mandate on constitutional grounds. Of course, as I have posted previously, I also cannot see any way that the government could possibly enforce such a mandate.

  • DonS

    I think the argument is right. But, unfortunately, initially in the 1930’s, and then, finally, in the 1960’s, we put to rest the notion of a limited federal government. The only governmental action we seemingly find to be unconstitutional now is the attempt to put restrictions on pornography. Everything else is fair game, including the squelching of 1st Amendment free speech through draconian campaign finance laws like McCain Feingold. I cannot see any court striking down a health insurance mandate on constitutional grounds. Of course, as I have posted previously, I also cannot see any way that the government could possibly enforce such a mandate.

  • DonS

    In comment #7, it should read: “on pornography and abortion”.

  • DonS

    In comment #7, it should read: “on pornography and abortion”.

  • This is the ‘big duh’ question, but really, since when has constitutionality been an issue?

  • This is the ‘big duh’ question, but really, since when has constitutionality been an issue?