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
- 7 things the world's happiest people do every day
- Israel has only two choices: Eliminate the Palestinians or make peace
- 9 things you probably didn't know about the moon
- Why are so many parents being arrested?
- 7 grammar rules you really should pay attention to
- 10 burning questions you've always wanted to ask about investing
- The biggest lesson Obama failed to learn from Bush
- Why America is duty bound to help Iraqi Christians
- 10 things you need to know today: July 22, 2014
- How to pack a jar salad
Subscribe to the Week