Time for something relatively positive.
The Obama administration is headed into a Supreme Court case over
healthcare reform without a clear answer to significant questions about
Congress’s power.
The Justice Department will file its first
brief on the merits of the case Friday — the beginning of a long process
that will almost surely culminate in a ruling this summer. The first
briefs will focus on the core question of whether it is constitutional
to make almost every American buy health insurance.
The Obama
administration has a winning record on that point in federal appeals
courts. But even in the cases it has won, the administration has failed
to answer a key question: If Congress has the power to enforce the
insurance mandate, where does that power stop?
It’s known in legal jargon as a "limiting principle.” When courts
evaluate a new application of Congress’s constitutional authority, they
have historically wanted to see clear limits to those powers.
"The
DOJ has to do a better job of answering, ‘What goes beyond your theory
of federal power?' " said Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the
libertarian Cato Institute who opposes the insurance mandate. "They’ve
been asked this in every court and they’ve never satisfied the court,
even in the cases they’ve won.”
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals
— the specific case now before the Supreme Court — struck down the
insurance mandate partially on the grounds that upholding it would open
the door to a flood of regulation.
"Ultimately, the government’s
struggle to articulate … limiting principles only reiterates the
conclusion we reach today: There are none,” the court said in its
ruling.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/202573-lawyers-courts-see-weaknesses-in-defense-of-obamas-healthcare-law