Constitutionality of the Health Care Act

A Former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried delivered testimony during a Senate hearing on the "The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act," expressing, in no uncertain terms, his personal assessment that he is "quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional."

Here's the key part of Fried's statement, transcribed by ThinkProgress:

I am quite sure that the health care mandate is constitutional. ... My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall, who sat in the Virginia legislature at the time they ratified the Constitution, and who, in 1824, in Gibbons v. Ogden, said, regarding Congress' Commerce power, "what is this power? It is the power to regulate. That is--to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed." To my mind, that is the end of the story of the constitutional basis for the mandate.
The mandate is a rule--more accurately, "part of a system of rules by which commerce is to be governed," to quote Chief Justice Marshall. And if that weren't enough for you--though it is enough for me--you go back to Marshall in 1819, in McCulloch v. Maryland, where he said "the powers given to the government imply the ordinary means of execution. The government which has the right to do an act"--surely, to regulate health insurance--"and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means." And that is the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...]

I think that one thing about Judge Vinson's opinion, where he said that if we strike down the mandate everything else goes, shows as well as anything could that the mandate is necessary to the accomplishment of the regulation of health insurance.

You don't get it, do you?

The majority of the people do not want this budget busting Obama Care that will reduce healthcare to the majority and greatly increase healthcare costs!

Just like socialism National Healthcare has been a failure everywhere it has been tried.

You are changing the subject again Jack. My post was quite obviously about a qualified individual commenting on the constitutionality of the bill. Apparently you cannot insult his reputation so you retreat to your socialism argument. Also , current polling data shows about an even split between those who favor the bill and those who oppose it and the polls also show many who oppose are against outright appeal.

eyemaratzass wrote:

You are changing the subject again Jack. My post was quite obviously about a qualified individual commenting on the constitutionality of the bill. Apparently you cannot insult his reputation so you retreat to your socialism argument. Also , current polling data shows about an even split between those who favor the bill and those who oppose it and the polls also show many who oppose are against outright appeal.

I'm talking about ObamaCare, what are you talking about? The opinion you posted is one person's opinion that I don't agree with.

Just because you posted an individual opinion doesn't make it right, especially since a Federal Judge has an oposite opinion that trumps the one you posted.

26 states have filed suit against imposing a program that would be a national disaster and you still don't get it!

Professing ignorance is no excuse for changing the subject. I know it is very obvious to to you that my original post refers to the Health Care Act and, more specifically, the mandate portion thereof.
My second post refers to "the bill". I am sure that, with your obviously high IQ, you could deduce that I was referring to my original post the subject of which you refer to as "Obamacare". It is a small point but you neglected to note that two federal judges have ruled the bill to be constitutional.
Since you have gone so far off the legal argument I am done with this thread!

eyemaratzass wrote:

Professing ignorance is no excuse for changing the subject. I know it is very obvious to to you that my original post refers to the Health Care Act and, more specifically, the mandate portion thereof.
My second post refers to "the bill". I am sure that, with your obviously high IQ, you could deduce that I was referring to my original post the subject of which you refer to as "Obamacare". It is a small point but you neglected to note that two federal judges have ruled the bill to be constitutional.
Since you have gone so far off the legal argument I am done with this thread!

Your attempt to divert attention away from my comments and to discredit what I said are typical leftist tactics that anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through.