Has the issue jumped the shark? Only thirty comments by midday! The brief referenced by the resident constitutionality of law representative is pretty good as is this one. Dream Supreme Court nominee (well, for some of us; that unlikely, Goodwin Liu is up again) Pamela Karlan is on the case (note the ironic url):
Many of the people against this law, few true libertarians (who, particularly back in the day, were among the defenders of the "forced" insurance model), say political checks are good enough, such as when something like the basic presence of the death penalty is involved. Suddenly, it isn't good enough. The law was weaker than many (arguably a majority of those who voted on it) wished because of such checks. Without phony "inactivity" tests, "commercial" regulations were struck down as violating the Constitution. This includes in effect rules that were deemed not "proper" such as requiring state legislatures to pass legislature or state officials to enforce federal laws.
The problem for the other side is that law in question simply don't violate them. On this, as with (sadly) other issues that divide the parties these days, it is not true that there is really a reasonable difference of opinion. The "rules" say there must be on some level, but it doesn't seem that way to me. More so now.
Anyway, Happy Mardi Gras and so forth.
---
* I have cited these already and get little in response other than support for constitutional limits ... apparently, other than limits like not being able to force people to purchase abortions or religious periodicals. And a myriad of others. It's cant.
Randy Barnett tries a "citizen over subject" anti-commandeering principle, but the whole point of rulings on the point is that the federal government can regulate people in ways they can't regulate states. The non-subject rule is a backdoor liberty interest by another name, which is again covered by many things.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—which critics sometimes label Obamacare, as if the issue were the president, rather than providing adequate and affordable medical care—is under sharp legal attack, condemned as unconstitutional by conservative federal judges in Virginia and Florida.As to debate over effectiveness [and/or their "necessity" for the ends sought], she is agnosticism, since she is only a law professor, not a member of Congress (reasonableness the grounds there). Clearly, she is too humble. As a final matter, upon reflection, I have five replies to the "no limit now" brigade:
[1] The overall scheme has to be "commercial"
[2] It has to be federal
[Update: Furthermore, we can add a means/end fit test here if the issue at hand is if something is "necessary and proper" to the enumerated power involved or something like that is deemed necessary to limit governmental power, even though again, there are various other ways it is limited. So, the "mandate" here can be shown to be a reasonable fit while some sort of broccoli mandate (ever so stupid) will not.]
[3] It has to go through two houses (one with a filibuster) and the President
[4] It can't violate some federalism principle such as commandeering* state officials or favoritism of one state over the other
[5] It can't violate some other textual (or structural) command, liberty based or otherwise
Many of the people against this law, few true libertarians (who, particularly back in the day, were among the defenders of the "forced" insurance model), say political checks are good enough, such as when something like the basic presence of the death penalty is involved. Suddenly, it isn't good enough. The law was weaker than many (arguably a majority of those who voted on it) wished because of such checks. Without phony "inactivity" tests, "commercial" regulations were struck down as violating the Constitution. This includes in effect rules that were deemed not "proper" such as requiring state legislatures to pass legislature or state officials to enforce federal laws.
The problem for the other side is that law in question simply don't violate them. On this, as with (sadly) other issues that divide the parties these days, it is not true that there is really a reasonable difference of opinion. The "rules" say there must be on some level, but it doesn't seem that way to me. More so now.
Anyway, Happy Mardi Gras and so forth.
---
* I have cited these already and get little in response other than support for constitutional limits ... apparently, other than limits like not being able to force people to purchase abortions or religious periodicals. And a myriad of others. It's cant.
Randy Barnett tries a "citizen over subject" anti-commandeering principle, but the whole point of rulings on the point is that the federal government can regulate people in ways they can't regulate states. The non-subject rule is a backdoor liberty interest by another name, which is again covered by many things.