Heath Mandate

USD hosted a debate on whether Obama's heath mandate otherwise known as "Obamacare" is constitutional. Three constitutional law professors from the law school had it out in front of a decent crowd of maybe 100 people. Pizza was provided so of course I, always looking for a free ride, attended.

The debate centers around many issues including federalism, judicial restraint, and individual rights, but at the center of the debate is the notorious commerce and supremacy clauses of the constitution (Article I, § 9) that grants the federal government power to "regulate commerce."

The debate was not lively in any sense but for a couple jabs here and there. The panel consisted of two professors that were arguing for constitutionality and a third arguing against it. The professors arguing "for" were eloquent and spoke clearly and directly. The professor "against" struggled to make clear and direct points. Although his argument probably had strong points he struggled to make those points clear. I won't go into detail about each argument made, but I will say that I left the debate rest assured the mandate is constitutional.

I will say something about the issue, however. With respect to the sources cited supporting the constitutionality question of the health mandate, another clause in § 9 appears entirely, if not more, relevant than the commerce clause. I'm referring to the first paragraph of § 9 where it says that the federal government has the power to provide for the "general welfare" of the United States. This seems like a logical and reasonable basis for justifying the health mandate. I would argue that healthcare is included under "general welfare of the United States" especially considering the astronomical price of health care today. People can't afford it, and without it, people gonna die.

At the end of the day, I don't think the right question is whether the mandate is constitutional. In my mind it is unequivocally constitutional. I think the real question is: Just because we can mandate it—does it mean we should mandate it? In this case, yes, I think we should. You can disagree. But my reasons are based on social and political policy not on a question of constitutionality. Politicians are trying to turn a policy debate into a constitutional debate and thus throwing down in the wrong fora. This debate should be hammered out in congress, not before the Supreme Court of the United States. The justices are supposed to eat cake, and we're stuffing meatballs down their throat.