December 27, 2010
— Gabriel Malor One of the leading lights of conservative jurisprudence, Randy Barnett, has been at the forefront of efforts to see ObamaCare stopped in the courts. He writes in the Wall Street Journal today that stopping ObamaCare is not only about halting Congress' creeping seizure of power under the Commerce Clause; Barnett says that it's also about preventing the federal government from compelling the states to do things that the federal government isn't constitutionally authorized to do alone.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." The problem with the Cornhusker Kickback was that the citizens of 49 states would have had to pay for Nebraska's Medicaid exemption—without getting anything in return. The special exemption exceeded Congress's constitutional authority because it did not serve the "general welfare"—meaning, the welfare of the people of each and every state.This defect is true of the new health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Although the constitutional objections to its individual insurance mandate—the requirement that any person who isn't provided insurance by his employer buy it on his own—have gotten all the public attention, the law also has a "general welfare" problem. It will pile unspecified new costs on states by requiring them to extend their Medicaid coverage to more people. In Florida, 20 states have challenged these state mandates as exceeding Congress's spending power. Their challenge is based on South Dakota v. Dole (1987).
In Dole, the Supreme Court upheld the congressional mandate that every state raise its drinking age to 21, or lose 5% of its highway funding. But the Court also acknowledged that "in some circumstances, the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which 'pressure turns into compulsion'" (quoting a 1937 opinion by Justice Benjamin Cardozo). The Court upheld the drinking age mandate because a state would only "lose a relatively small percentage of certain federal highway funds."
ObamaCare won't alter Medicaid in a relatively small way. It's an "all in or all out" proposition—not a threat of losing just 5% of some transportation funds, but a threat of losing 100% of the single largest federal outlay to the states.
The Medicaid mandate/General Welfare Clause argument was not made in some of the other challenges to ObamaCare, which mostly focused on the individual mandate under Commerce Clause and tax arguments. As we saw with the Virginia lawsuit, the judge held that the individual mandate is severable from the rest of ObamaCare, and thus upheld the rest of the healthcare law. I'm sure the severability finding will be upheld on appeal.
But the General Welfare Clause argument applies to much more than just the individual mandate. ObamaCare without the Medicaid mandates is essentially an empty shell. In fact, if the Medicaid mandate portion of ObamaCare were overturned, Congress would immediately have to pass new laws relating to Medicaid, since Obamacare supplanted them.
From a litigators' perspective, this argument of Barnett's is strategically attractive because the Dole restriction, discussed in the WSJ piece, is relatively unfleshed by the courts. This case is absolutely headed for the Supreme Court and justices hesitate to overturn precedent. Dole's very vagueness gives them (ahem, Kennedy) room to maneuver because ObamaCare says 100% of Medicare dollars will be withheld from states that opt out. The justices won't have to decide a sticky question about just how much is too much coercion; it's relatively easy to say that 100% is too much.
Barnett writes over at Volokh Conspiracy that this op-ed explains a point not emphasized in oral argument a few weeks ago in the 20-state case: that if under ObamaCare a state opts out of Medicaid, the federal taxes of its citizens are transfered to other states on a massive, dare I say coercive, level. Be sure to click over for the whole thing.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
12:26 PM
| Comments (39)
Post contains 681 words, total size 5 kb.
Posted by: B+rry Ob+owmao at December 27, 2010 11:40 AM (SBISO)
Posted by: t-bird at December 27, 2010 11:42 AM (kho+0)
Damn, I didn't know that. Kennedy must have got up on the wrong side of the bed for that one. There is absolutely no justification for that BS ruling.
Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 11:50 AM (M9Ie6)
Does any FICA money go directly to states? I thought it went directly either to beneficiaries (Medicare or SS) or to specific other entities such as hospitals.
Am I understanding incorrectly?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 11:50 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 11:51 AM (XXyJt)
Posted by: pep at December 27, 2010 11:54 AM (8lSIO)
Posted by: Sponge © at December 27, 2010 11:56 AM (UK9cE)
Current anti-Federalism strikes again.
Actually, there is an argument, the one they made just isn't it.
The real argument (for it), IMO, is this: The Federal Government has authority to lay Post Roads, which is where most Federal Transportation dollars go. Therefore, they are fully justified to spend tax dollars on Federal Transportation grants. In issuing grants, they can certainly identify specific requirements to determine eligibility for said grants.
Of course, that doesn't address why the Federal Government cares what the legal drinking age is...
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 11:57 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: pep at December 27, 2010 11:57 AM (8lSIO)
+100
One guy decides the fate of the nation. An unelected lawyer.
Madison wept.
Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 12:00 PM (S5YRY)
Posted by: Boris Yeltsin at December 27, 2010 12:01 PM (g+EkV)
Posted by: Anthony Kennedy at December 27, 2010 12:04 PM (DLxD/)
Posted by: Boots at December 27, 2010 12:04 PM (neKzn)
Scalia is not a textualist or a Constitutionalist". As for the post road argument I am not buying it. Sure they can fund post roads but pushing a drinking age as a condition is not "constitutional".
Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 12:10 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Pres. Hoops McMulligan, chillaxin' w/Bo & Mr. Vick at December 27, 2010 12:12 PM (GwPRU)
Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 12:12 PM (M9Ie6)
Like I said, my argument still leaves the whole "why is the drinking age a federal issue" question unanswered. My answer?: It's not (which is what SCOTUS should have found IMO).
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 12:14 PM (8y9MW)
Over in the UK, nine men are arrested of plotting mayhem. I have read the reports I could find, and while most have names like Mohammed and Hussein, no mention is made of the religion of peace. None.
Damn Amish are acting up again.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 27, 2010 12:15 PM (9hSKh)
This is the GOP's chance to shine. I hope it doesn't blow it by paying mere lip-service to this novel approach. If using the Constitutional justification as a fig leaf to maintain the status quo is the real goal, then the GOP will have failed as spectacularly as the Democrats.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at December 27, 2010 12:19 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at December 27, 2010 12:19 PM (BHLuE)
Posted by: Amish Front of Liverpool at December 27, 2010 12:21 PM (XXyJt)
That would only affect those that chose to drink.
Posted by: Milton Berles giant schloong at December 27, 2010 12:38 PM (745NF)
What time zone are you on, Atlantic?
Posted by: t-bird at December 27, 2010 03:42 PM (kho+0)
Our server farm is located in Goose Bay, Labrador! (Which I vaguely recall isn't in the Atlantic Time Zone, but what am I, your personal research assistant?)
Posted by: AoSHQ Crackerjack Server Support Staff ('cause we work for CrackerJacks (smothered in Val-U-Rite)) at December 27, 2010 01:14 PM (HmCnI)
Posted by: navybrat at December 27, 2010 01:17 PM (1rmJS)
Does any FICA money go directly to states? I thought it went directly either to beneficiaries (Medicare or SS) or to specific other entities such as hospitals.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 03:50 PM (8y9MW)
FICA money goes into my patented Social Security Lockbox©®™.
FICM, on the other hand ...
Posted by: AlGore, Cargo Cultist at December 27, 2010 01:17 PM (HmCnI)
Hmmmm. I always wondered what the occasional blank entry meant. Was the commenter being especially obnoxious? Now I know. I just hit enter while changing a sock, and there it is.
Posted by: pep at December 27, 2010 03:54 PM (8lSIO)
You're getting damn close to crossing the streams, buckaroo. This is your first and only warning ...
Posted by: AoSHQ NSA at December 27, 2010 01:20 PM (HmCnI)
Posted by: Good & Fruity at December 27, 2010 04:31 PM (mpQs4)
Ah, justification for DADT de-lurks at last!
Posted by: AoSHQ's De-Lurker Alarm at December 27, 2010 01:26 PM (HmCnI)
Posted by: belly at January 02, 2011 11:37 AM (/ltVI)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2056 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








I'm sure the severability finding will be upheld on appeal.
I'm not so sure. If SCOTUS eventually affirms the district court, I think they may not find it severable. If you look at the congressional record, congress itself argued that the whole scheme relied upon the individual mandate to work. How is that severable?
And, I still think insurance companies would have an objection to the law as a taking. When you require a company to pay someone else's known future costs (i.e., no pre-existing condition "discrimination") it is not insurance. It is instead simply congress ordering citizen "a" to pay citizen "b's" bills. How is that not a taking? How is that different than taking my real property to build an exit ramp?
Posted by: monkeytoe at December 27, 2010 11:34 AM (sOx93)