Introduction
The US Constitution protects the individual liberties of the American citizen by providing guidelines upon which further laws must conform. The Constitution establishes checks and balances for the three arms of the US government, especially the power limits that define operational scopes for each branch. Therefore, when a legal crisis arises, such as the debate on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act mandate on health insurance purchase, the US must rely on its legal bodies (the court system) to provide further clarifications. This paper provides a commerce clause brief, as held by various Supreme Court judges, by defending the position that Congress has no constitutional power to require Americans to purchase health insurance.
Discussion
Congress has no mandate under the commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to make health insurance purchases mandatory for all Americans. Chief Justice Robert’s opinion on the commerce clause is that it has limits regarding individual mandates on mandatory purchases, especially since the ACA Act did not provide adequate frameworks for solving the cost-shifting problems (Maggs & Smith, 2021). The Chief Justice clarified that if Congress had the power to exercise individual mandate, then the government abuses the authority in oversimplifying solutions to national and public health problems. For instance, the cost-shifting model for funding medical care through individual finance can overburden healthy individuals who end up not using the premiums, although others with chronic health challenges can benefit from the insurance scheme (Maggs & Smith, 2021). The Chief Justice’s argument clarifies the commercial clause, stating that Congress’ individual mandates are unconstitutional since the government cannot dictate how Americans purchase commodities to their benefit or buyer satisfaction.
Justice Ginsburg led a dissenting opinion defending Congress’ power to enact individual mandates on health insurance purchases, arguing that commerce regulatory decisions are usually based on practical considerations or actual experiences. Justice Ginsburg’s major argument is that Congress decided the mandate rationally, with a scope wide enough to impact interstate commerce (Maggs & Smith, 2021). However, Justice’s counterargument pre-empts Congress’ rationality without establishing the strategies behind the individual mandate legislative decision. Moreover, Justice Ginsburg admits that the current purchase terms lack community-rating frameworks for promoting consumer attainment of legitimate commercial power (Maggs & Smith, 2021). Therefore, of the two opinions, the Chief Justice’s argument provides a more rational determination of Congress’s constitutional powers to enact individual mandates.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two opinions reflect different interpretations of the government’s constitutional limits in regulating interstate commerce. The most credible argument is that Congress cannot force Americans to purchase health insurance since it has no power to make buying decisions on behalf of an American citizen. Chief Justice Robert elaborated on the objection by providing an example of how the government can shift the individual mandate power to any US market and abuse power through dictatorial purchase decisions. Therefore, even if Congress exercised rationality based on other national economic programs, the Constitution still limits the authority it can exercise to force Americans into buying any personal commodity.
Reference
Maggs, G., & Smith, P. (2021). Constitutional law: Undergraduate edition, volume 1 (Higher education coursebook) 2nd edition. West Academic Publishing.