Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Randy Barnett on the constitutionality of Obama's health care mandate

    Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing that examined the constitutionality of the ObamaCare individual mandate.  The hearing came only days after a federal judge in Florida ruled that President Obama's landmark healthcare overhaul is unconstitutional.  The 78 page decision (which I analyze here) essentially instructed the federal government to immediately stop implementing the ObamaCare law.

    I recently concluded my 8 part series of blogs that considered this very issue by stating:

    A federal mandate on insurance regulates existence.  Being alive is not an “economic activity” or even an “activity” at all.  Therefore, it remains outside of the regulatory powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.

    Similarly, federal Judge Roger Vinson of Florida ruled that the law is unconstitutional writing in his decision:

    It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting… that compelling the actual transaction is itself “commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce” [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted.

    In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Randy Barnett, the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center and author of Restoring the Lost Constitution which I relied upon in my examination of the Commerce Clause, draws the same conclusion as Judge Vinson and me.  He states:

    ...the Commerce Power has never been construed to include the power to mandate that persons must engage in economic activity...

    His testimony is thoughtful, insightful and certainly worth the 6 minutes that it takes to watch it in its entirety:

     

    1 comments
    Robert Paxton
    07/27/2012

    After examining the effect of the Supreme Court ruling that provided Florida the versatility to legally decide out of utilizing one of the costliest provisions of the Affordable Care Act, typically understood as "ObamaCare," Governor Rick Scott has actually chosen 2 significant provisions in the law are inconsistent with his purpose to expand jobs for Floridians, ensure there is sufficient financing for education and learning, and to keep the price of living as inexpensive as feasible.

    The Affordable Care Act does not call for states to take any type of action prior to the 2012 basic election, and the full law does not work till January 1, 2014, delivered it is not repealed prior to that date. Governor Scott, like additional state governors, has actually made it clear that also though Florida will certainly decide out of executing 2 significant, yet optional, provisions, ought to there be any sort of legal responsibility to execute ObamaCare, the state will certainly follow the law, and if ObamaCare is not repealed by January 1, 2014, Florida will certainly carry out and abide by needed parts of the Affordable Care Act.

    Florida will certainly choose out of spending around $ 1.9 billion even more citizen dollars needed to execute a huge entitlement development of the Medicaid program to cover services, such as <a href="http://www.non12step-drugrehabs.org/state-rehabs/florida-rehab.html">Flo... drug rehabs</a> treatment. A 2nd provision in the Affordable Care Act provides Governor Scott the versatility to decide out of structure insurance "exchanges."