Nick Gillespie
Reason Magazine
6/23/2012
As the nation waits on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), it’s worth taking a look at the 2010 ReasonTV video that the New York Times recently cited as one of the reasons why the individual mandate is under legal attack.
Here’s the original writeup for “Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare,” produced by Austin Bragg:
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several States,” and for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to eat your vegetables.
During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what about ObamaCare’s “individual mandate,” which forces Americans to purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it’s justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.
How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and purely private behavior? How will ObamaCare stand up against the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky (Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law) slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been abusing the commerce clause.
*Update: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson ruled that because the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, the entire law “must be declared void.” Judge Vinson cites this Reason.tv video on page 47 of his decision.
Produced by Austin Bragg. Approximately 10 minutes.
Watch the video at Reason.com
Update: Get ’em addicted: Obama Admin boosted Obamacare spending after oral aarguments
It seems the Obama administration saw the writing on the wall after the Obamacare oral arguments ended. According to a Politico report, the administration has spent “at least $2.7 billion since oral arguments in the case ended on March 28” on Obamacare, which is “more than double the amount that was handed out in the three-month period leading up to the arguments.” A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human services told Politico that there was nothing to see here, because these funds had been in the pipeline….
…Since most of Obamacare’s provisions do not get implemented until 2014, most of the public has not had an opportunity to be dependent on various parts of it, and, with this increase in funding, the Obama administration is trying to accelerate people’s dependence on various aspects of the law to try to make it more popular…
