Health Care Law Unconstitutional
Is the Health Care Law Unconstitutional?
Take a position on whether the Healthcare Law is constitutional or unconstitutional and why? What are your arguments for feeling the way you do?
On March 23, 2010 President Barrack Obama signed into law the Affordable Care Act. At the heart of this law, are series of regulations that are designed to reduce the most common challenges when utilizing different health care solutions. These include: eliminating various provisions that allowed insurance companies to reduce / eliminate coverage, it provides consumers with more choices and the law is tackling the large number of uninsured. The combination of these factors is supposed to help reduce costs and increase competition. ("Fact Sheet," 2010)
However, since the passage of this law, a host of court cases have arisen that are challenging its constitutionality. As many opponents are claiming, that this is the federal government's attempt to overregulate the health care system. Moreover, Congress is overstepping its boundaries based on several distinct constitutional provisions (i.e. states' rights vs. The Commerce Clause).
The biggest arguments made against the Affordable Care Act are that it violates designated powers that are reserved exclusively for the states. Yet, there have been situations where the federal government will become involved in certain activities under the Commerce Clause. This is a provision that gives Congress the right to regulate trade among the states and
Throughout American history the case precedent surrounding the interpretation of this
power has led to a host of conflicting decisions. This is because various political, economic and foreign policy related events will shape how this power is applied. ("The Reach of Congressional Power," 2010)
In the 20th and early 21st centuries a host of cases were decided in favor of the federal government in regards to standards that were implemented across the country. The most notable include: Hammer v Dagenhart (national child labor standards), U.S. v Darby (federal guidelines on local wages), Heart of Atlanta v U.S. (federal
authority on imposing anti-discrimination provisions) and Gonzalez v Raich (federal authority over the
enforcement of medical marijuana sales). During this same time period, is when the
Supreme Court also ruled against the federal government under the provisions of the Commerce Clause. These include: NRLB v Jones (national minimum wage standards), U.S. v Lopez (the federal gun free zone) and U.S. v Morrison (the federalization of criminal offenses). In general, the majority of Supreme Court decisions are in favor of the federal government. This is giving them power to regulate commerce inside and outside of a state. This can take
place, when local authorities are failing to address these issues (on an intrastate level). At the same time, it can be applied to anything that is crossing state lines (i.e. interstate commerce). The real issues are arising when it comes to: areas of regulation and the implementation of certain federal guidelines. This is what is creating the differences about how these powers are interpreted by both sides. ("The Reach of Congressional Power," 2010)
As a…
