MANDATORY HEALTH CARE COVERAGE

Mandatory Health Care Coverage or Face a Penalty

Mandatory Health Care Coverage or Face a Penalty



One of the more disturbing elements of the ObamaCare bill wending its way through the House is the insertion of separate someone orders to bear health insurance.  What renders Congress the power to dictate that option to American citizens?  A solitary written material enumerates Congressional power, and first Department of Justice advocates David Rivkin and Lee Casey have some difficulty finding that power in it.  They dispute, with advantageous citations of precedent, that HR3200 and any other bill that tries to inflict orders will violate the Constitution:

Although the Supreme Court has construed Congress's finance power expansively, this sort of mandate would not go beyond muster even under the most combative finance clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court sustained a federal government justice regulating the countrywide wheat markets. The justice was drawn so widely that wheat propagated for use on separate someone rural properties in addition was regulated. Even though this lead arrived at entirely restricted (rather than interstate) pursuit, the court reasoned that the use of homegrown wheat by separate someone rural properties would, in the aggregate, have a extensive monetary issue on interstate finance, and so was in Congress's reach.

The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress's agency to regulate the household cultivation of marijuana for private use. In performing so, even so, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the pursuits regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That basically would not be accurate with view to an separate someone health insurance mandate.

The then uninsured would be demanded to pay for reporting, not because they were even tangentially engrossed in the “production, dissemination or ...