Americans to buy insurance under President Barack Obama's sweeping
healthcare overhaul, opponents told the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday
in arguing the law's centerpiece provision should be struck down.
In separate written briefs, 26 states and an independent business
group argued Congress overstepped its authority under the Constitution
to regulate interstate commerce by mandating that individuals buy
health insurance or pay a penalty by 2014.
They were responding to Obama administration arguments, filed with the
high court last month, that defended the provision, known as the
individual mandate, as a constitutional attempt to address a crisis in
the national health care market.
The court has scheduled three days of oral arguments on the healthcare
battle for March 26-28, with an election-year ruling likely by late
June on the law that aims to provide more than 30 million uninsured
Americans with coverage.
The 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business
called it an unprecedented move by Congress to force individuals to
buy insurance. The states say the entire law would be invalid if the
Supreme Court strikes down the mandate.
A ruling striking down the law would be a huge political and legal
defeat for Democrat Obama ahead of the Nov. 6 election, when he seeks
another four-year term. A ruling upholding his signature domestic
achievement would be a major vindication.
Paul Clement, a former solicitor general under the Bush administration
who is arguing for the states, said Congress may not circumvent
constitutional limits by enacting a comprehensive regulatory scheme.
"The individual mandate is an unprecedented law that rests on an
extraordinary and unbounded assertion of federal power," he wrote in
the brief, arguing that the mandate "was not a valid exercise of
Congress' Commerce power."
Attorneys for the independent business group said the predominant
purpose of the mandate was to force the uninsured to get coverage and
to provide an annual subsidy of $28 to $39 billion to insurers and
their customers.
They said Congress can regulate interstate commerce by setting rules
that govern commercial activity between the states, but the powers
were limited and Congress cannot force individuals to buy a product
like health insurance.
"Forcing people into commerce does not regulate commerce. Otherwise,
Congress could compel the purchase of any product," they said in the
written brief.
One of the attorneys, Gregory Katsas, told reporters Congress had
never before in U.S. history made such a requirement. If the Supreme
Court upholds the mandate, Congress next could force people to buy a
specific car model, he said.
The legal arguments by the states and the business group were
substantially the same to those they previously have made in the legal
battle over the healthcare law.
The Supreme Court cases are National Federation of Independent
Business v. Sebelius, No. 11-393; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services v. Florida, No. 11-398; and Florida v. Department of Health
and Human Services, No. 11-400.
For more information on these matters, please call our office at 305
548 5020, option 1.
Twitter: www.twitter.com/yoelmolina_mo
Faceback page: www.facebook.com/lawofficeofyoelmolina
Linkedin profile: http://tinyurl.com/linkedinpagemo
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/molawblog
"Turn to us when you need help"
