 |
|---|
| Home |
| Magazine |
| Interviews |
| Policy Papers |
| Donate |
| Story |
|
Obamacare Held Constitutional The lawsuit, National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. was brought by more than half of the States (26), several individual citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business. The suit concerned “the individual mandate, which requires individuals to purchase a health insurance policy providing a minimum level of coverage; and the Medicaid expansion, which gives funds to the States on the condition that they provide specified health care to all citizens whose income falls below a certain threshold.” An appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was argued before the Supreme Court in late March. Yesterday, the Supreme Court “affirmed in part and reversed in part” the initial decision handed down by the Eleventh Circuit. According to the Supreme Court decision, the Eleventh Circuit “upheld the Medicaid expansion as a valid exercise of Congress’ spending power, but concluded that Congress lacked authority to enact the individual mandate.” While Justice Roberts rejected the individual mandate as a valid exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause (as was argued by the law’s defenders and accepted by several of the other justices), he ultimately joined the majority in allowing the mandate to stand on the grounds that it is a tax which Congress has the authority to levy. In the decision, Justice Roberts recognized that, “Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.” On the Medicaid issue, the Court ruled that, “Congress is not free to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding.” However, “Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer.” In their 65-page dissent, Justices Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas wrote, “What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs. That clear principle carries the day here.” In a press release, Alliance Defense Fund senior counsel Steven H. Aden reiterated the group’s commitment to continuing its challenges to religious freedom violations resulting from the implementation of the healthcare law. “The court’s decision is alarming and deeply wrong. ObamaCare holds your health care hostage and offers no real choice,” said Aden. “Either comply and abandon your religious freedom and conscience, or resist and be fined for your faith. All current ADF legal challenges to the Obama administration’s abortion pill mandate will proceed.” Likewise, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty remains committed to its pending litigation, which is also related to religious liberty concerns stemming from the law. In a press release, senior counsel Hannah Smith clarified, “We are challenging the Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate on religious liberty grounds, which are not part of today’s decision. We will move forward seeking vindication of our client’s First Amendment rights.” These ongoing challenges based on religious liberty would seem to be supported by part of the opinion written by Justice Ginsberg, who wrote: “A mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.” Related resources: Copyright © 2012. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved.
|
