I went to law school, but I'm certainly no expert on Commerce Clause jurisprudence. My knowledge on the subject doesn't go very far beyond Wickard and Lopez. That said, based on the current composition of the Court and the general trend away from an expansive reading of the Commerce power, I can't help but think that the individual mandate is ripe for rejection by the Court.
True, the smart money is always on the Court upholding a far-reaching piece of legislation. But an individual insurance mandate is so obviously distinguishable from previous Commerce Clause precedent (which is totally unpredictable as it is) that the arguments briefed in this case should carry a lot of weight. It'll be a close one.
For what it's worth, here are just a few analysts in support of a Constitutional challenge to the individual health insurance mandate under the Commerce Clause:
Randy Barnett via PJTV
Jonathan Turley (certainly no lockstep conservative) in USA Today.
Judge Andrew Napolitano via his Facebook page
Ilya Shapiro at CATO.
*****
Update: The Seattle Times is on board.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment