Democrats messed up when they created the mandate that everyone buy private health insurance, and they know it, argues Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett in The Wall Street Journal. When they realized that their constitutional rationale — Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce — wouldn't pass muster, they started describing it as a tax. It isn't, Barnett says, and the courts won't fall for this slight of hand:
"A 'tell' in poker is a subtle but detectable change in a player's behavior or demeanor that reveals clues about the player's assessment of his hand. Something similar has happened with regard to the insurance mandate at the core of last month's health reform legislation. Congress justified its authority to enact the mandate on the grounds that it is a regulation of commerce. But as this justification came under heavy constitutional fire, the mandate's defenders changed the argument—now claiming constitutional authority under Congress's power to tax.
This switch in constitutional theories is a tell: Defenders of the bill lack confidence in their commerce power theory. The switch also comes too late...."
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- Why you should stop believing in evolution
- How Israel's hawks intimidated and silenced the last remnants of the anti-war left
- The real lesson of Rick Perry's mug shot
- Why China thinks it could defeat the U.S. in battle
- The big policy question libertarians can't answer
- The secret to handling pressure like astronauts, Navy SEALs, and samurai
- What you need to know before you support the police in Ferguson
- Welcome to the age of ambivalent feminism
- What the 'death of the library' means for the future of books
- How the West produces jihadi tourists
Subscribe to the Week