Skip to main content

View Diary: The Necessary And Proper Clause And The Individual Mandate (64 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I agree that this may never get to the Supreme (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    andgarden, Armando, Eric Nelson, pico

    Court since the Circuits will probably all sustain the mandate and the ACA as a whole.

    When I wrote about this a couple of weeks ago I only partially tongue in cheek suggested that Vinson's opinion actually supports the argument that the mandate is Necessary and Proper

    The recent decision in Florida v HHS striking down the ACA actually supports that proposition. Yes, the court did rule that the insurance mandate, the requirement that individuals purchase insurance, is unconstitutional. But the court went on to rule that since that provision is absolutely integral and indispensable to the entire regulatory scheme established in the ACA, the entire law would have to be struck down. Well, the court was incorrect in saying that the mandate was unconstitutional but was clearly correct in saying the mandate is entirely necessary and proper and, in fact, an essential feature of the regulatory scheme established by Congress.

    Vinson ruled it was "inactivity" and thus not covered by the CC. But once you get passed the inactivity misdirection, the decision holds that it is such a necessary part of the regulatory scheme that the entire law falls without it. I'm waiting on the briefs to see if they point that out.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site