Andrew Koppelman is correct that Hammer v. Dagenhart would be the most obvious precedent for a Supreme Court decision striking down the ACA: Both then and now, challengers to the statutes.
Our liberty-loving Supreme Court has once again decided to use the Federalist Society Constitution, the one with the word "suckers" in it that omits the Fourth Amendment. You can now.
Given the amount of pushback, I decided to make my argument about legitimacy and the ACA at much greater length. A lot of people seem to think that this particular.
Akhil Reed Amar is making sense: I start with the Constitution here. It’s the power to regulate interstate commerce. Is this a regulation? Yes. It’s just a regulation like regulating.
After going back and forth for a year I ended up being somewhat more pessimistic than a lot of liberal observers before the argument, so I perhaps wasn't as shaken.
Paul Clement is so good that he started his argument today with a devastating rebuttal of his own argument that the mandate is unconstitutional: If the individual mandate is unconstitutional,.
Some thoughts about day 2. The key to Kennedy's vote, evidently, is whether he can be convinced that there's a limiting principle. Kennedy, unlike the other conservatives, does seem to.
Much more later about today's argument, but I'd like to address this particular slippery slope hypothetical from Scalia, responding to the government's argument about the necessity of the mandate to.