E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
More on the Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate for Health Insurance
JB
The second half of my debate with David Rivkin and Lee Casey on the constitutionality of the individual mandate has just been published by PENNumbra. Rivkin and Casey's closing statement is here and you can find mine here. If you missed the first round of arguments, you can find them here (Rivkin and Casey) and here (me).
In the first round, Rivkin and Casey tried to resurrect the The Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. , 259 U.S. 20 (1922) from the Lochner Era. In the second installment, they dredge up Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895), a case that held that the income tax was unconstitutional and that was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment. Their argument is that the individual mandate is a direct tax. Text, history, structure and precedent are all against them, as I show in my rebuttal. The debate on the commerce power also continues, with Rivkin and Casey trying (unsuccessfully) to distinguish Gonzales v. Raich -- and pretty much the entire New Deal.
What is remarkable about this exchange is that Rivkin and Casey have to reach back to the Lochner Era (and even earlier, in the case of Pollock) to find legal authority for their claims. Despite this, they make their arguments with an entirely straight face. This suggests that what they are really advocating is a return to pre-1937 understandings.
Except, that is, where Presidential power is concerned. Orin Kerr joked that Rivkin and Casey would probably argue that the individual mandate was constitutional if it was justified by the President's powers as commander-in-chief. Obama's problem, it seems, is that he didn't package health care as an anti-terrorism measure.