Oral arguments for and against the legality of the act endorsed by President Barrack Obama are set to begin at the nation's high court, according to brainerdispatch.com, during which there will be 6 hours of debate.
During the arguments, the government will contend that congress may force individuals to purchase private health insurance in order to reduce health care/insurance costs and provide greater access to health care for everyone.
The bill that passed a Democrat controlled House and Senate has been scrutinized ever since it passed in 2010.
The Tea Party, formed to protest Obamacare, is among those who believe that the bill, which goes into effect on January 1, 2014, is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.
At the core of the constitutionality of the ACA's Individual Mandate is whether the mandate falls within congress' power to regulate interstate commerce.
Although the federal government has a strong interest in providing affordable health insurance for all of its citizens there has yet to be a case within the high court's jurisprudence that supports compelling individuals to purchase private products, no matter how strong the government feels that the purchase of those products would lessen the government burden of regulating the interstate market for those products.
The case may rest on the court's interpretation of a case decided in the 1930's, Wickard v. Filburn. A case that many contend is one of the broadest interpretations of congress' commerce power in this nations history.
In that case the Supreme Court found that congress could impose a tax on commercial farmers who grew wheat in excess of a congressional mandate strictly for home-grown consumption. The court observed that home-grown and home consumed wheat essentially took farmers out of the market as consumers and affected the price of wheat in the intestate market, which the congress sought to regulate.
Accordingly, the court held that the law was a constitutional exercise of congressional commerce power because the farmer's home consumption when viewed in the aggregate had a substantial effect on interstate wheat sales.
Among other things, the Courts broad or narrow reading of Wickard will have a substantial impact on its decision to uphold or invalidate the mandate.
I guess we will see which side provides the more compelling arguments and if those arguments have an impact on the 9 justices views regarding the bill and the Commerce Clause.
Either way we should soon have a decision regarding this contentious issue.
What do you think?
Bankruptcy – Business
Bankruptcy – Personal
Criminal Law – Appellate
Criminal Law – Federal
Criminal Law – State Felony & Misdemeanor
Drunk Driving Defense
Dumb or Weird Laws
GM Ignition Switch
Stryker Hip Replacement
Intellectual Property Law
Labor & Employment Law
Landlord Tenant Law
Personal Injury – Defendant
Personal Injury – Plaintiff
Social Security Disability
Weird Law Friday
Trending Searches#TBT #ThrowbackThursday constitutional law Criminal Law - State Felony & Misdemeanor dangerous or defective products divorce DUI dumb laws estate planning Events that Changed History Family Law FAQ first-amendment product-recall products liability random laws recall safety recall strange laws weird laws