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
[The following is an argument for the constitutionality of the individual mandate, written in the form of an amicus brief. It argues that Congress could reasonably conclude that the individual mandate serves vital interests of national defense.]
Various Circuit Courts have addressed the constitutionality of the Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (hereinafter HC ERA), and determined whether the Commerce power allocated to Congress by Article 1, Section 8 was sufficient to support the individual mandates to purchase healthcare required By the Act.
This brief takes no position on this matter. Rather, it makes two, separate but related arguments: (1) that such mandates are an example of an increasingly important method of taxing and spending; (2) that it can be persuasively shown that Congress could rationally have concluded that such a means was an appropriate method of providing for the “common Defence … of the United States.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
Philip C. Bobbitt is Herbert Wechsler Professor of Federal Jurisprudence and Director of the Center for National Security at Columbia Law School. You can reach him by e-mail at bobbitt at law.columbia.edu Posted
3:07 PM
by Guest Blogger [link]