Debate Club

The Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional and Corrupt

By SHARE

The U.S. Constitution is a document of specific, enumerated, and therefore limited powers. The Rehnquist court recognized that there must be limits to what can be considered regulation of interstate commerce if the Constitution is to have any meaningful limit on federal power. If the Roberts court decides to uphold the despised individual mandate in Obamacare, the Commerce Clause would be transformed into a de facto plenary power, obliterating enumerated powers and allowing the federal government to do nearly anything. This is despite the clear structure of the document and the inclusion of the Ninth and 10th Amendments.

Never before in history has the Congress attempted to force every American to purchase a product of their choosing. In this case, it was because they cut a corrupt deal with the insurance companies in which the companies agreed to submit to onerous, expensive regulations in exchange for the government forcing everyone to buy their product--with hundreds of billions of tax dollars in subsidies thrown their way to sweeten the deal.

[See a collection of political cartoons on healthcare.]

If that's allowed to stand, nearly every industry with lobbying prowess will angle for a law forcing people to buy their products. The prospect of such a thing would be unrecognizable to the founders who wrote our Constitution.

Moreover, the court must strike down not just the mandate but the entire monstrous law that the corrupt mandate held together and allowed to pass over the objections of the American people. To strike down just the mandate would cripple private insurance and accelerate us down on a path to a complete Washington takeover of our healthcare.

If the Supreme Court fails to strike down the law in its entirety, then it will fall to Congress and the president to correct the court's error and restore constitutionally limited government--a fact voters should not overlook.

Phil Kerpen

About Phil Kerpen Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity

Tags
health care reform
Obama administration
Supreme Court
health care

Other Arguments

#1
2,025 Pts
Much More Than Politics at Stake

No – Much More Than Politics at Stake

Ethan Rome Executive Director of Health Care for America Now

#2
1,952 Pts
Constitution, Court's Precedent on Affordable Care Act's Side

No – Constitution, Court's Precedent on Affordable Care Act's Side

Ian Millhiser Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress

#3
1,945 Pts
Striking Down the Affordable Care Act Would Be Unconscionable

No – Striking Down the Affordable Care Act Would Be Unconscionable

Ron Pollack Founding Executive Director of Families USA

#4
1,936 Pts
Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy

No – Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy

Elizabeth B. Wydra Chief Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center

#6
-1,924 Pts
Individual Mandate Goes Against Basic Freedom and Liberty

Yes – Individual Mandate Goes Against Basic Freedom and Liberty

Hans A. Von Spakovsky Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation

#7
-1,942 Pts
Obamacare Both Unnecessary and Improper

Yes – Obamacare Both Unnecessary and Improper

Trevor Burrus Legal Associate at the Cato Institute

#8
-1,976 Pts
Rick Santorum: Obamacare Means Unlimited Government

Yes – Rick Santorum: Obamacare Means Unlimited Government

Rick Santorum Republican Candidate for President of the United States

You Might Also Like


See More