December 27, 2010

Barnett: It's Not Just About the Individual Mandate
— 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.

1

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)

2
What about FICA?

Apples and oranges? If so, why?

Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 27, 2010 11:35 AM (mpQs4)

3 Yeah yeah, whatever.

Posted by: The Federal Government at December 27, 2010 11:39 AM (BHLuE)

4 If anyone disagrees with me they just might find themselves in front of a Death Panel. Yeah I lied when I took it out...but its back in. Bitchez.

Posted by: B+rry Ob+owmao at December 27, 2010 11:40 AM (SBISO)

5 What time zone are you on, Atlantic? As for the "general welfare" clause, I'm sure that means that Congress' lootings (minus a small fee) should only go to those generally on welfare.

Posted by: t-bird at December 27, 2010 11:42 AM (kho+0)

6

But what does that Constitution of yours say about my man-date?

I one- Go Orunj!

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama at December 27, 2010 11:42 AM (hYkUF)

7 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.

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)

8 Posted by: Soothsayer for RNC Chair at December 27, 2010 03:35 PM (mpQs4)

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)

9 Beware a Kelo type decision by the SCOTUS. Congress created this nightmare and Congress must fix (remove) it.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 11:51 AM (XXyJt)

Posted by: garrett at December 27, 2010 11:52 AM (hYkUF)

Posted by: pep at December 27, 2010 11:53 AM (8lSIO)

12 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 11:54 AM (8lSIO)

13 dare I say coercive, level.

Dare, dare.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 11:55 AM (S5YRY)

14 It's Buck Farack Day!!!!  Every day is Buck Farack Day!!!!

Posted by: Sponge © at December 27, 2010 11:56 AM (UK9cE)

15 Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 03:50 PM (M9Ie6)

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)

16 Blah blah blah.  While your analysis is very interesting, and there are lots of apparently fatal problems elucidated here, the arguments are all pin-dancing angels.  What it really will come down to is whether the Supremes are going to interpret law or make it.  IOW, did Kennedy have a regular morning, or does he need more fiber?  What a way to lose a country.

Posted by: pep at December 27, 2010 11:57 AM (8lSIO)

17 did Kennedy have a regular morning, or does he need more fiber?

+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)

18 OT. Sorry. 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. I guess we are beyond that.

Posted by: Boris Yeltsin at December 27, 2010 12:01 PM (g+EkV)

19

Kwanzaa Greetings from the Shitstain-in-Chief

Click the link to read about 'American values'.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 27, 2010 12:03 PM (pLTLS)

20 That's right bitches--MY CALL! MINE!

Posted by: Anthony Kennedy at December 27, 2010 12:04 PM (DLxD/)

21 We  (the country, the U.S.) are in such a deep hole it will take a generation to dig out.......if we are lucky.  Two years of Obama & the 111th congress, and we spend the next 30 repenting, paying, and litigating.  While the perps laugh and pop open another bottle of bubbly.

Posted by: Boots at December 27, 2010 12:04 PM (neKzn)

22 I see that Scalia voted with the liberals on that case. The liberals liked it because it gives the federal gov even more power. Scalia liked it because it was intended to push a "conservative cause" of drunk-driving.

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)

23 Yo Dawg, what do you think of the Commerce Clause now?

Posted by: Pres. Hoops McMulligan, chillaxin' w/Bo & Mr. Vick at December 27, 2010 12:12 PM (GwPRU)

24 BTW, there was no Kennedy on this case.  This was the day of Sandra Day O-flip-flop. She dissented BTW.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 12:12 PM (M9Ie6)

25 Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 04:10 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)

26 18 OT. Sorry.

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)

27 This is why the reading of the Constitution to open the next Congressional session (in the House) and the explicit justification of new law by citing said Constitution is more than a trivial exercise. This nation needs an education on the purpose, function, and scope of government. Until the voter understands the most central kernels of our founding, we'll repeatedly suffer the transgressions of an ObamaCare etc. Getting voters to actually think about governance is vital.

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)

28 Lacey check out this oh-so-informative Coulter Classic

Kwanzaa: Holiday From the FBI

Posted by: The Mega Indepedent at December 27, 2010 12:19 PM (BHLuE)

29 OT. Sorry. 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 04:15 PM (9hSKh) Only in legitimate response to Lutheran aggression.

Posted by: Amish Front of Liverpool at December 27, 2010 12:21 PM (XXyJt)

30 Splitters.

Posted by: The Liverpool Amish Peoples Front at December 27, 2010 12:22 PM (S5YRY)

31  
not to be confused with the Good and Plenty clause

Posted by: Good & Fruity at December 27, 2010 12:31 PM (mpQs4)

32 " 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."

That would only affect those that chose to drink.

Posted by: Milton Berles giant schloong at December 27, 2010 12:38 PM (745NF)

33 5
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)

34 Since when has unconstitutionality ever stopped the Democrats from doing any thing they want? I'm serious here!

Posted by: navybrat at December 27, 2010 01:17 PM (1rmJS)

35 8
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)

36 12
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)

37 32 
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)

38 <A href=http://www.thomassabocharmsuk.com>thomas sabo sale</A>

Posted by: belly at January 02, 2011 11:37 AM (/ltVI)

39 http://www.trade9shoes.com

Posted by: timberland boots at March 06, 2011 08:58 PM (x1gHq)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
88kb generated in CPU 0.0607, elapsed 0.2209 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2056 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.