ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> CL&P Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: CL&P Blog

Some Tidbits on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Legislation's "Tax" or "Penalty" or "Fee" for Not Participating

By Brian Wolfman

ADVERTISEMENTS

As many of you know, the health care legislation's so-called mandate on participation and its tax (or penalty or fee) for not participating has raised a constitutional ruckus. Most (but not all) of that debate has centered on whether the "mandate" is within Congress's Commerce Power. I thought I'd share two recent pieces on the topic: an op-ed by Harvard law professor. (and former Reagan Administration SG) Charles Fried, who says that the provision is constitutional and that it's not a close call, and a response from Professor Ilya Somin.

Fried It's critical to know that Professor Fried (pictured to the right) is so sure of himself that he told CNN reporter Greta Van Susteren that he'd eat a kangaroo skin hat (pictured to the Images left) if the Supreme Court disagrees with him:

FRIED: So, the question is, is it constitutional? And it seems to me, though there are a lot of things to object in this, and I would be the first to say so, the constitution is not one of them. If you don't like it, repeal it or amend it. But don't ask the courts to do the job for you, because they won't. [...]

VAN SUSTEREN: The issue that will confront the federal judge, and the Supreme Court if it goes on, is whether or not the Commerce Clause gives the federal government the power to do this....And does the constitution in your opinion, sir, enable them?

FRIED: It certainly does. The statute which I have in front of me, I bothered to read it, says that the health insurance industry is an $854 billion dollar industry. That sounds like commerce. The Supreme Court just five years ago with Justice Scalia in the majority said that it is all right under the Commerce Clause to make it illegal for California for residents in California to grow pot for their own use, because that has effect on interstate commerce. Well, if that has effect on interstate commerce, what happens in an $854 billion national industry certainly does.

VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any possibility, in your mind, or any thought that you could be wrong?

FRIED: Well, I suppose I could. But I'll tell you what, I would be happy to come on this program and eat a hat which I bought in Australia last month made of kangaroo skin.

This almost makes me want the Supremes to strike down the law!

Full post as published by CL&P Blog on May 25, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0028 secs (from cache 11/02/26 19:59:38)