The PPACA in Wonderland
Boston University School of Law
David B. Kopel
Independence Institute; Denver University - Sturm College of Law
January 19, 2012
American Journal of Law & Medicine, Vol. 38, 2012
Boston Univ. School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-03
The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some portions of the statute are challenged. We then, using “unconstitutional” to mean” inconsistent with an original social understanding of the Constitution’s text (with a bit of a nod to judicial precedents),” show that the individual mandate in the PPACA is not authorized by the federal taxing power, the federal commerce power, or the Necessary and Proper Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 19
Keywords: constitutional, Obamacare, Necessary and Proper, Commerce Clause, taxing power
JEL Classification: K19, K32, K39, K49
Date posted: January 19, 2012 ; Last revised: March 20, 2012
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.234 seconds