***WARNING***
This is a huge wall of text. I like to ramble. If you don't want to read the whole thing, jump down to the very end to "Conclusion" and save yourself ten minutes from my mumbo-jumbo.
***END WARNING***
While many people do agree that there needs to be a change in health care, most do not agree in the methods PPACA would use to change it. One of the most controversial aspects of the healthcare law is the individual mandate, which requires all citizens to have some form of healthcare coverage or be fined.
Mere hours after the healthcare bill was signed, lawyers representing more than a dozen states brought a lawsuit against the Federal government, stating that the individual mandate, among other things, overstepped Congress' power given to them by the US Constitution. They state that that is a power reserved to the states. The Federal government countered by stating that it is well within their rights to impose an individual mandate, citing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
With all this bickering between the Feds and the States, various judges ruling either in favor or against the law, the Supreme Court has decided to take on the case and will begin the arguments on March 26, 2012. The main issue they will decide on is on the individual mandate.
So, is the Federal government right in saying that the individual mandate is within their powers, or are the states right in stating that the Federal government has overstepped their bounds? To answer that, we need to review several things namely, Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, Amendment 10 of the Constitution, and several Supreme Cases.
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America
This section of the Constitution clearly states the powers that Congress will have to run the country. One of them is the Commerce Clause, which states that Congress has the power to regulate international commerce, interstate commerce (this is important) and commerce with the Indian tribes (Native American, to be PC).
The big factor in this clause is to define what the definition of "commerce" is. The Supreme Court has heard several cases to this effect. One of the earliest cases was Gibbons v. Ogden, which stated that commerce relates to every species of commercial intercourse (this was a case about navigation rights) and that Congress' power does not end at the state line (intrastate commerce, commerce that stays within the state exclusively, is not under Congress' domain). This case helped establish Congress' power over commercial commerce, and throughout the years, that power has grown.
One of the reasons this power has grown is the fact that with technology and the increasing interconnected-ness of the country in general, more and more things are being traded interstate and therefore naturally become subject to Congress' power. Another reason is that throughout the years, the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of commerce, so far as including products that never have or will be in commercial traffic (Wickard v. Filburn), or to cleverly help enforce many of the civil rights acts that were being ignored in the South during the 1960's (Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Katzenbach v. United States).
The Commerce Clause if often used in conjunction with the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, stating that Congress can make any laws necessary to help them enforce their Constitution-given powers. If they can connect any law to these powers, then they pretty much can do anything (like enforce the civil rights acts).
As we can see, the Commerce Clause has become a very powerful and useful tool for Congress to pass their laws. If they can manage to show that something is commercial-related, they can say that it is within their power. There have been limits to this power however, such as when the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Lopez that the connection between taking guns to school and commercial traffic was way too much of a stretch for them to take seriously.
How does this relate to the individual mandate? Well, if Congress can convince the Supreme court that health care is commerce, then they can make laws about it. They do have pretty big hurdles to jump though, one of the biggest is within Gibbons v. Ogden, the very case that helped define commerce. In that case, Chief Justice Marshall explicitly stated that there are rights that a state has that are not surrendered to Congress, such as inspection, quarantine, and health laws of every description. That's an awful big hurdle to jump. In United States v. Lopez, it expresses the opinion that if they (the Supreme Court), were to accept this gun protection law, there would be practically nothing that would not be under the cover of the Commerce Clause.
Sorry for the huge wall of text there, but the Commerce Clause is something that needs to be researched a bit, seeing that it is a Big Thing for Congress.
Amendment 10 of the Constitution of the United States
This amendment states that any power that was not given to Congress (via the Constitution) is reserved for the states (if not prohibited) or to the people. This amendment is probably one of the big arguments that the states will use in their fight against the individual mandate. Congress was not given the power for health care laws, therefore it belongs to the states (or people, but they're probably not picky).
Other Insurance Laws
Many people who are in favor for the individual mandate like to argue that we are required to have car and home insurance, no ifs, ands, or buts. Since this is true they state, what are people who against the health care law complaining about? This is true, but who regulates car and home insurance? Congress doesn't, that's a fact. Car insurance is regulated by the states, and the laws differ from state to state. Home insurance is privately regulated. That's probably another reason why the states are peeved about the federal laws, they want to regulate insurance their own way, in their own states. While "Romneycare" (that health care law Mitt Romney enacted in Mass.) also has an individual mandate, it wasn't that big of a stretch for him to do so, seeing that it was only for his state of Mass. Also, you are not required to have either car or home insurance if you have neither. Some people are irked by the health care law because they feel like it's a tax on simply existing.
Conclusion
I'm not a huge fan of an individual mandate (as any good American, I dislike "do as you're told because I say so" rules), but if I were required to have health insurance by law, I would prefer it to be via state law, not federal law. Given the "legal history" (for lack of a better term) of the United States, the states have more valid reason to enact one if they so wish, rather than the Federal government. The biggest argument that will have to be resolved in the Supreme Court case come March is whether "commerce" covers health care laws. Congress will have to explain away part of Gibbons v. Ogden to do that and/or possibly rewrite the law as to not step on state's rights. Given the fact that the Commerce Clause has gained a lot of power naturally over time, I see no reason to artificially expand their power with new definitions and laws.
Sorry for the long post. It's probably as long as the healthcare law itself.
I think we need some kind of health care for the working class. We have medicaid and medicare. The elderly need the health care, but the people not working get the health care, but not the working class. We work to support the lazy and we are not given a choice.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Congress and the Commerce Clause is that Congress has usurped their power under it as of at least the 20th Century with Wickard v. Filburn, etc by regulating actual INTRASTATE commerce, which it is not given authority to do. The Constitution specifically states Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce AMONG the states (interstate commerce) and this is its limit, and it is never once given authority to regulate intrastate commerce. So how is it that if interstate commerce is the expressed limit, that Congress has asserted power to regulate intrastate commerce that it claims is connected to interstate commerce? Can't any intrastate commerce be said to be connected in some way to interstate commerce in a global world such as ours? If interstate commerce was not the limit, and intrastate commerce were included as well, I would think the Constitution would have stated such, that Congress to has the power to regulate all intrastate commerce affecting interstate commerce, but the Constitution does not say this, and I think it's a wrongful interpretation of the Constitution by the judiciary to say that this power is implied. But, I realize I'm probably in the minority on this view. I tend to be a textualist, interpreting the Constitution as it is word for word, according to its words. I think Congress has become way to powerful, arbitrary, and unlimited in powers under the Commerce Clause, which goes contrary to what was stated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.
ReplyDelete