Republican

Obama’s healthcare act that was passed just over two years ago is now in serious danger of being found unconstitutional.

The Solicitor General arguing the case, Donald Verrilli, has created multiple problems for himself in trying to argue that the law is constitutional.

On Monday, the focus of the argument was whether or not the law could be considered a tax, as if it did, then the Anti-Injunction Act of 1867 would apply and the law could not be brought to the courts until the tax had been paid, which wouldn’t be the case until at least 2015.

The Obama administration wanted this case dealt with now, and so Verrilli argued before the court that the fee imposed for ignoring the mandate was a penalty, not a tax.

Today, his argument is that the mandate is a tax, and therefore falls within the scope of congressional power. So yesterday it wasn’t a tax, and today it is a tax. Even reliably liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was skeptical of this argument, after stating that the primary function of a tax is to raise revenue, she said, “This cannot be a revenue raising measure, because if it’s successful, there won’t be any revenue raised.”

And today, Verrilli had to go before her and say it was a tax, which made his argument pretty difficult.

Further, some liberal pipe dreams had said that Justice Scalia could vote in favor of the law, due to his history of interpretations of the commerce clause.

This no longer seems likely. Today Scalia discussed at length his problems with the law, pointing out that this interpretation of the commerce clause that is required for the Healthcare law to be found constitutional could also mandate the purchase of broccoli.

While a bit of an extreme, Chief Justice Roberts used the same argument. So long as Scalia is comparing the law to a forced purchase of broccoli, I would have a hard time seeing a scenario in which he votes in favor of Obama’s law.

Perhaps most devastating to the Obama administration is swing vote Anthony Kennedy’s skepticism of the law, saying today during oral argument that this law, if found constitutional, “changes the relationship between the individual and the government in a very fundamental way.”

That doesn’t sound much like a man who is willing to find in favor of the law, and he said that the government has a very high burden to prove if they want this law to stay on the books.

On Monday, reporters were claiming that the law is likely to be found constitutional are now changing their mind, saying that today was a disaster for the Obama administration, Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s legal correspondent, called today a “train wreck,” and other media outlets pointed out that Verrilli was so incompetent today that he had to rely on the Democrat appointed Justices to make his argument for him, and keep him on track.

The main arguments against the law on a constitutional basis are that the law forces signing of a contract, which is unprecedented in contract law, and this amounts to duress, making the law unconstitutional.

The government’s main argument is that because everyone is in the healthcare market in the long term, this law is necessary to contain cost. This argument made by the government is simply wrong, however.

The court made a point today of noting that the health insurance market is separate from the health care market, and that the health insurance market is not all encompassing, and people can avoid it if they so choose. To force them to sign the contract of insurance because they will eventually access healthcare is beyond the scope of the government’s enumerated powers, and it must be struck down because of this.

Tucker is a sophomore majoring in political science.

Democrat

Currently the Supreme Court is hearing a case about the constitutionality of the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The individual mandate is only part of the healthcare legislation. Aside from the constitutionality of the individual mandate, there are other questions. The Court first heard arguments concerning the Anti-Injunction Act. This Act prevents federal courts from taking cases in which taxpayers are trying to stop the government from collecting taxes. The court will also hear argument about the severability of the law. That is whether the healthcare law could continue if part of it was struck down.

The first day of arguments was about the Anti-Injunction Act. It appears as if the Court is not buying the arguments upholding the Anti-Injunction Act. Justice Stephen Breyer said, “Congress has nowhere used the word ‘tax.’ What it says is ‘penalty.’ Moreover, this is not in the Internal Revenue Code but for purposes of collection.” The penalty, Breyer added, is “not attached to a tax. It is attached to a health care requirement.” That it’s being “collected in the same manner as a tax,” he said, “doesn’t automatically make it a tax.” So, the Anti-Injunction Act seems to be a non-factor in the case.

The arguments for the individual mandate began on Tuesday. This mandate has what has drawn the most contention about the Affordable Care Act. Some people are outraged that the government would force them to buy insurance. The mandate rests on how one interprets the commerce clause. The question is whether the mandate oversteps the reach of government power. I believe it does not.

Dissenters of the mandate often ask what is called “the broccoli question,” which is could the government force you to buy broccoli, or purchase a car or a flat-screen TV? This is an erroneous metaphor. Healthcare may be commerce, but it is not the same as other forms of commerce. Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who argued the health care cases for the Obama administration in the lower courts made a more accurate analogy, “the auto industry simply can’t be compared to the health industry, because not everyone will inevitably own or even drive a car. If the two industries did work the same way, he contends, you could “show up at the car lot, drive off with a car and stick your bill to your neighbor.” This latter scenario is “what’s going on in the health insurance market.” The American health insurance system needs to be reformed, which is what the Affordable Care Act does.

The mandate is constitutional in my opinion because it does not overreach the proper limits of interstate commerce. Since healthcare is an industry that is literally life and death, as opposed to other forms of commerce, it needs to be regulated properly. This regulation is of importance. The government can force you to comply. People may complain about the possibility of infringing on individual rights. The U.S. government has infringed on individual rights much more under the pretense of national security, which is not as valid of a reason as providing healthcare in my opinion.

What gives the government the right to mandate healthcare? It is the duty of the government to serve for the general welfare. This law was aimed at reducing the number of uninsured Americans. Not only does that benefit the uninsured, it benefits every other taxpayer as shown above. The Affordable Care Act is not perfect. I personally think that it should have been written better. I believe that if the government is going to have a mandate, they should have a government insurance option available to everyone. If a person wanted to have private insurance, they would be able to get it. The problem with the Affordable Care Act is mixing a mandate with private insurance.

Despite these issues, I support the Affordable Care Act. Despite whatever reservations people hold about it, it is legislation that would benefit our nation. If we care about our fellow American citizens, we should not let petty squabbles interfere with their quality of life.

Michael is a freshman majoring in human rights and political science.