Exposing the Dark Side of Thursday's Supreme Decision on Health Care
The immediate reactions to the decision were predictable - jubilation on the left and fury on the right. But the ruling, like Monday's decision on immigration, was far more nuanced (and dangerous) than it might at first appear.
First of all, while Roberts agreed that the mandate was constitutional, he disagreed about why. This is crucial. Roberts rejected the administration's case that Congress could enact the PPACA under Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 - a single sentence known as the Commerce Clause that gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes."
Roberts rejected this argument. Instead, he argued that Congress had the right to pass the PPACA under its power of taxation.
"The Commerce Clause ... authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it," he wrote. "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance." It "makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income."
Why is this important?
First of all, it opens up a whole host of possible challenges to federal authority under the Commerce Clause.
Read the full story on The Provocation.