• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Healthy start

Note to Senate Democrats who have to run for re-election in 2012: Some of you may have blown your last chance:

Efforts to repeal President Barack Obama's health care law died a quick death in the Senate Wednesday, but the GOP got a consolation prize — a bipartisan fix to a tax-reporting requirement in the law that was widely panned by businesses.

A Democratic amendment to repeal the law's new tax-reporting requirements passed, 81-17, with broad bipartisan support. A Republican amendment to repeal the entire health reform law, meanwhile, fell along party lines, 47-51, in a procedural vote.

Even Richard Lugar got this one right.

Over at reason.com, Steve Chapman writes about Judge Roger Vinson's ruling that the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional:

It's one thing for the government to set rules for people who have chosen to engage in economic activity. It's another to dictate to people who have chosen not to.

"It would be a radical departure from existing case law," wrote Vinson, "to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause." Before the law was passed, even a neutral arbiter like the Congressional Budget Office said the mandate was "unprecedented."

Unprecedented it is—and, if allowed, an important precedent for future lawmakers. Vinson noted that Erwin Chemerinsky, a prominent liberal law professor at the University of California at Irvine, has asserted that Congress could not only force Americans to buy health insurance but also to purchase cars—say, to bolster a vital industry and preserve jobs during a recession.

Chemerinsky acknowledged that a law requiring Americans to eat certain vegetables "might"—might!—infringe on constitutional liberties. But you would not be taking a huge leap to surmise that if and when Congress sees reason to enact such a law, plenty of legal thinkers will argue that the Constitution allows it.

Comments

Kevin Knuth
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 12:45pm

I heard a great discussion on this today on Diane Rehm- here is the link to the audio-
http://thedianerehmshow.org/audio-player?nid=13670

at about 14 minutes in, one of the commentators gives a history of commerce clause and past rulings that is easy to follow and understand

Worth you time to listen to it- regardless of your position on this issue.

john b. kalb
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 1:35pm

Kevin - Again you and this professor bring up one of the political items from 1930's that started our country on the downward spiral that lately has resulted in the passage of a law as onnerous as the one covering Obamacare! The threat of FDR to "pack" SCOTUS caused the judges to back down and for over 50 years we have been under it's erroneous mandate that extended the Commerce Clause!

Harl Delos
Thu, 02/03/2011 - 2:14pm

How is requiring Americans to eat a certain vegetable different than laws prohibiting them from baking certain herbs into their brownies?

How is requiring a financial guarantee that an American's medical problems not cause a burden on the public any different than laws requiring that children have vaccinations before schooling, or that newborns have silver nitrate applied to their eyes? (I note that some states require those vaccinations even of children who are home-schooled.)

This SCOTUS is more conservative than in years past, and it won't be easy for Obama's lawyers to win there. I wonder if they are hoping to have as many challenges as possible in lower courts first, so they have the best-possible education in how to argue the case, where it really counts.

Quantcast