Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2199538
 
 

Footnotes (102)



 


 



Like Eastwood Talking to a Chair: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Obamacare Ruling


Ilya Shapiro


Cato Institute

January 11, 2013

Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2013

Abstract:     
The constitutional challenge to Obamacare was a case that comes along once every generation, if not less often. Not because it could affect a presidential election or was otherwise politically significant, but because it reconsidered so many aspects of our constitutional first principles: the fundamental relationships between citizens and the government and between the states and the federal government; the role of the judiciary in saying what the law is and checking the political branches; and the scope of and limits to all three branches’ powers. This case was not about the state of health care in America or how to fix this troubled area of public policy. It was instead about how to read our nation’s basic law and whether Congress was constitutionally authorized to use the tools it used in this particular instance.

Anyone reading this article will already know at least the basic outline of the Supreme Court’s ruling. As I wrote on the leading Supreme Court blog in the wake of the decision, those who challenged the law won everything but the case. That is, the Supreme Court adopted all of our legal theories regarding the scope of federal regulatory authority and yet Obamacare stands. This article explains and elaborates on those basic points, the good (Commerce Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause, Spending Clause), the bad (the taxing power), and the ugly (John Roberts's reasoning and motivations).

In sum, the Constitution’s structural provisions — federalism, separation and enumeration of powers, checks and balances — aren’t just a dry exercise in political theory, but a means to protect individual liberty from the concentrated power of popular majorities. Justice Kennedy said it best in summarizing the joint dissent from the bench: “Structure means liberty.” If Congress can avoid the Constitution’s structural limits by “taxing” inactivity, its power is no more limited and liberty no better protected than if it were allowed to regulate at will under the Commerce Clause. The ultimate lesson to draw from this two-year legal seminar, then, is that the proper role of judges is to apply the Constitution regardless of whether it leads to upholding or striking down legislation. And a correct application of the Constitution inevitably rests on the Madisonian principles of ordered liberty and limited government that the document embodies.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 23

Keywords: PPACA, Obamacare, Roberts, taxing power, activity, inactivity, Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper, Medicaid expansion, individual mandate, unicorn tax, judicial pacifism

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: January 12, 2013  

Suggested Citation

Shapiro, Ilya, Like Eastwood Talking to a Chair: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the Obamacare Ruling (January 11, 2013). Texas Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2013. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2199538

Contact Information

Ilya Shapiro (Contact Author)
Cato Institute ( email )
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001-5403
United States
202-218-4600 (Phone)
202-842-3490 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,695
Downloads: 422
Download Rank: 39,296
Footnotes:  102

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.328 seconds