11 May 2011

The healthcare reform law's constitutionality

A nice review of the law and precedents as it relates to the PPACA from the Yale Law Review, which concludes that the PPACA is "obviously" constitutional based on existing law. For those who don't feel like wading through the entire legal analysis, Kevin Drum at MoJo has summarized the case in a single powerpoint slide:

Though all the usualy caveats apply about the politicization of the Courts, as the 4th circuit court of appeals drew a 3-democrat panel of jurists, and the 6th circuit drew 2 republicans and 1 democrat, and it'll all come down to Anthony Kennedy in the end. 

4 comments:

Scruffy Scirocco said...

This is a circular argument: You use a clause of a regulation that sets an impractical requirement to derive the need for an unconstitutional mandate called for by the same regulation that sets the requirement.

It also does not logically follow the the only way the private sector can do this is to require universal health care. In fact, the facts argue against this, since the shortfall to universal health care will be absorbed by the government, and therefore will not offset the costs incurred by the private insurers.

Logic is not taught in medical school?

shadowfax said...

It's not my argument, but one from a professor at the Yale School of Law, and I am pretty sure they teach logic there.

From my limited understanding, in order to be constitutional, the mandate need not be the "only" means to accomplish a goal, but be "rationally" related to accomplishing a given legitimate goal. The law does not even require that a given regulation be the "best" let alone the "only" method. To claim that it must be the sole means would create a burden of proof so high that no government regulation could ever meet that test.

If you had read the article, you would note that the author addressed this directly.

Anonymous said...

And reading only the first couple lines of the Yale review I concluded that the author was *obviously* biased, thus their argument was not worth reading.

JimII said...

Yeah, well as of today, matching funds are 'obviously' constitutional too but that is likely to change in mid June.