Understanding the ACA Arguments

[Lori A Ringhand]

But by its own terms that position requires some independent reason, separate from John Doe's liberty interest, why Congress has in fact overstepped its Commerce Clause authority.

Lori A. Ringhand
Professor of Law
University of Georgia College of Law
Athens, GA 30601

ringhand at uga.edu<mailto:ringhand at uga.edu>
706 542 3876
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=332414
________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Rick Duncan [nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:23 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Understanding the ACA Arguments

I think structural limitations on national power, such as the limits of the Commerce Clause, are indeed designed to protect individual liberty from a national government exceeding its powers. John Doe, hiding under the bed, indeed wishes to have his liberty protected from a government that has overstepped the limits of its powers. He is seeking a structural protection of his liberty, not a SDP protection.

To continue the analogy, John Doe wants the Court to play the role of Liam Neeson and rescue him from the overreaching national government.

Prof. Rick Duncan (Nebraska Law)

See my recent paper on The Tea Party, federalism, and liberty at:
   http://ssrn.com/abstract=1984699


"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill)


--- On Wed, 3/21/12, Lori A Ringhand <ringhand at uga.edu> wrote:

From: Lori A Ringhand <ringhand at uga.edu>
Subject: RE: Understanding the ACA Arguments
To: "Rick Duncan" <nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com>, "conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu" <conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2012, 10:14 AM

That is an interesting analogy, but surely it is one sounding more in liberty and substantive due process than in a restriction inherent in the terms "regulate" or "commerce".

Lori A. Ringhand
Professor of Law
University of Georgia College of Law
Athens, GA 30601

ringhand at uga.edu<UrlBlockedError.aspx>
706 542 3876
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=332414
________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Rick Duncan [nebraskalawprof at yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 12:37 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Understanding the ACA Arguments

Thanks for the link.

In class, I like to use a scene from the recent Liam Neeson movie, Taken, to illustrate the difference between Wickard/Raich and Obamacare's individual mandate. In the precedents, the farmer/grower was engaged in some productive activity--growing wheat or weed for personal use or use on the farm. However, under Obamacare individuals want nothing to do with health insurance and are dragged into the market by government.

It is like that scene from Taken where Liam Neeson's daughter is hiding under the bed from the kidnappers who want to auction her off in the sex slave market. She is hiding, curled up under the bed, and just when we think she has escaped we see two hands reach under the bed, grab her by the legs, and drag her off to be sold.

Similarly, under Obamacare, we have Citizen John Doe curled up under his bed screaming "but I don't want to buy insurance, please leave me alone," when suddenly the long arm of Leviathan reaches under the bed and drags poor John off to the health insurance market.

I am not sure this is an argument for court, but it sure helps students see that Obamacare is a bridge well past the facts of Wickard and Raich.






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20120321/c50fd115/attachment.html>