Conservative Scholar: Court Should Uphold Obamacare

[Havakasha]

More evidence I believe that the law should be upheld. If not its clearly a political act.
There are just too many Conservative Scholars who agree its legal.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...constitutional


One theme of Monaghan's work is respect for precedent. And that's precisely why, he says, the Court should uphold the Affordable Care Act—even if the justices think it's bad public policy.

The individual health mandate surely passes constitutional muster under settled judicial principles. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce ... among the several States.” ... The purported limit on congressional power favored by the mandate's opponents—between constitutionally permissible regulation of “activity ” and unconstitutional regulation of “inactivity ”—is simply unknown to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is wholly unworkable, and makes no economic sense. ... I recognize that many persons believe the health mandate is very bad legislative policy. But the appropriate judicial response to such a complaint has long been clear. The Court was admirably forthright about the point in its ruling in Munn v. Illinois in 1876: “For protection against abuses by the Legislature, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts.”

[SiriuslyLong]

More evidence I believe that the law should be upheld. If not its clearly a political act.
There are just too many Conservative Scholars who agree its legal.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-coh...constitutional


One theme of Monaghan's work is respect for precedent. And that's precisely why, he says, the Court should uphold the Affordable Care Act—even if the justices think it's bad public policy.

The individual health mandate surely passes constitutional muster under settled judicial principles. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce ... among the several States.” ... The purported limit on congressional power favored by the mandate's opponents—between constitutionally permissible regulation of “activity ” and unconstitutional regulation of “inactivity ”—is simply unknown to Commerce Clause jurisprudence, is wholly unworkable, and makes no economic sense. ... I recognize that many persons believe the health mandate is very bad legislative policy. But the appropriate judicial response to such a complaint has long been clear. The Court was admirably forthright about the point in its ruling in Munn v. Illinois in 1876: “For protection against abuses by the Legislature, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts.”

Evidence? LMFAO. Try opinion.