Register for E-mail alerts. Comment on articles. Sign up today, it's easy.
Close

Commerce Clause at center of battle over health reform

Social Networks
facebookFacebook
twitterTwitter

Congress has used the Constitution's Commerce Clause to fight prostitution and domestic violence, to break monopolies and to combat segregation — but its biggest test could come over the Obama administration's claim that it can compel individuals to buy health insurance.

A federal judge earlier this month struck down part of the new health care law on the grounds that Congress had stretched the Commerce Clause too far. Other federal courts, though, have upheld the law, and its fate is certain to be decided eventually by the Supreme Court.

The battle is just the latest in a long line of showdowns over the clause. While some see it as a critical tool to give power to the most important pieces of legislation, others believe Congress has applied it too broadly.

"It's kind of gone from being broadly interpreted to narrowly interpreted, to broadly being interpreted again and then narrowly interpreted," said Robert Langran, a Villanova University political science professor who specializes in constitutional law. "And now, who knows?"

Found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power "to regulate commerce … among the several states." In its infancy, Congress used the power to build interstate roads, but has since expanded its claim of authority to target social ills such as human trafficking, segregation and, now, the uninsured.

**FILE** President Obama greets Gail O'Brien, from Keene, N.H., in the back yard of a private residence in Falls Church, Va., on Sept. 22 to discuss the Patient's Bill of Rights and health care reform. Earlier this year, Ms. O'Brien was diagnosed with high grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and had no health insurance. (Associated Press)**FILE** President Obama greets Gail O'Brien, from Keene, N.H., in the back yard of a private residence in Falls Church, Va., on Sept. 22 to discuss the Patient's Bill of Rights and health care reform. Earlier this year, Ms. O'Brien was diagnosed with high grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and had no health insurance. (Associated Press)

In defending the new law, the Obama administration says that everyone will eventually need health care and caring for the uninsured affects all aspects of health care, so requiring residents to buy coverage is a way to regulate that market.

The government makes other arguments, too. It insists Congress' taxing powers or the Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as the "elastic clause" because of its vague but broad grant of powers, can be used to justify the health care law.

Still, the Commerce Clause remains the chief battleground, and on Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled against the government and in favor of a suit brought by Virginia's attorney general that challenged the "individual mandate" to buy coverage.

"An individual's personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of Commerce Clause," Judge Hudson wrote.

At least by one reckoning, the Commerce Clause is the reason the Constitution was written in the first place. Maryland and Virginia were trying to settle rights to the Potomac River under the old Articles of Confederation, and their efforts led to the Annapolis Conference that called for a convention to be held in Philadelphia in 1787.

Story Continues →

© Copyright 2011 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

About the Author
Ben Conery

Ben Conery

Ben Conery is a member of the investigative team covering the Supreme Court and legal affairs. Prior to coming to The Washington Times in 2008, Mr. Conery covered criminal justice and legal affairs for daily newspapers in Connecticut and Massachusetts. He was a 2006 recipient of the New England Newspaper Association's Publick Occurrences Award for a series of articles about ...

Comments

New User b8d7a says:

2 days, 3 hours ago

Mark as offensive

Good question coming? Are any of our medical injuries from auto accidents being paid for by personal health care insurance and if so Why? Someone told me our personal medical insurance pays first and when it runs our automobile insurance pickup where it left off, if this is true, this is part of the graft and corruption that is breaking our personal health and medical insurance and driving personal medical insurance out of the ball park. Automobile medical insurance should pay for accidents from the start of the accident till it is complete. Tell me this is not happening please.

New User 38087 says:

2 days, 6 hours ago

Mark as offensive

Did it ever occurr to any of these fine minds that "necessary and proper" would first ask the question if it satisfied the other parts of the Constitution? That is being "proper" for the government to do UNDER the Constitution? If it was proper then it needed to be determined that it was necessary. The PROPER was the key as it would be established that it met the Constitution and was not the government grabbing new powers it had not the authority to aquire. The NECESSARY would seem to imply that the government and only the government could do it to avert unacceptible consequences.

New User 38087 says:

2 days, 6 hours ago

Mark as offensive

The word is "among". If the Constitution was to give the Federal Gov. power to regulate ALL commerce it would have plainly said so. The framers recognized that commerce needed to be regulated among/between the states to have level playing field for all companies tryinbg to do business throughout the country and not confined to a single state which had the right to regulate commerce within it's boundaries.
To claim that the fed gov. can regulate what a man grows for his own private use is preposterous and violates other sections in the Constitution. Even with any weak definition "commerce" could not be defined to include an individuals actions on his own behalf and for his personal use. In order for one ammendment to override and nullify other parts of the Constitution, it must say so or have had a previous ammendment that did. This just really shows how Supreme Court Justices that are chosen to be activists rather than applyers of the Constitution as written have destroyed it. The politicians are to be the legislators and the court is to be protectors of rule by law as established by the first law...the Constitution.

View all comment(s) on this article.

Not Registered Yet?

Comment on articles. Receive e-mail newsletters and alerts. Sign up today.

Happening Now
Most Read

    Independent voices from the TWT Communities

    Tea Party Report

    Real news, opinion and true-life tales from everyday Americans on the front lines of the Tea Party movement. This is your story.

    Baseball's Labyrinth

    A statistically slanted view of baseball, brought to you by a disciple of the Bill James movement.

    Omkara World

    Join the Evolution with Adam Omkara! Empowering, cutting-edge mind/body/spirit and health dialogue.