Abstract
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, I authored op-eds for SCOTUSblog, the Washington Examiner, the Daily Beast / Newsweek, and the Washington Post, the last of which is reproduced in previous chapters. All sounded a similar theme: although I was bitterly disappointed by the failure of our legal challenge to bring down the woefully misnamed “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” we were victorious in defeating the expansionist readings of the Constitution that had been offered by the government, and by many law professors, on behalf of the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Andrew Koppelman, “Bad News for Mail Robbers: The Obvious Constitutionality of Health Care Reform,” Yale Law Journal Online 121 (2011): 1;
Gary Lawson and David B. Kopel, “Bad News for Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality of the Individual Mandate,” Yale Law Journal Online 121 (2011): 267;
Andrew Koppelman, “Bad News for Everybody: Lawson and Kopel on Health Care Reform and Originalism,” Yale Law Journal Online 121 (2012): 515;
Gary Lawson and David B. Kopel, “Bad News for John Marshall,” Yale Law Journal Online 121 (2012): 529.
For an article written in John Marshall’s voice and applying his jurisprudential rules to the individual mandate, see Robert G. Natelson and David B. Kopel, “‘Health Laws of Every Description’: John Marshall’s Ruling on a Federal Health Care Law,” Engage 12 (2011): 49;
Gerald Gunther, ed., John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 1969), 92 (reprint of newspaper article written by Marshall).
For example, Jack M. Balkin, “Commerce,” Michigan Law Review First Impressions 109 (2010): 1;
Robert G. Natelson and David B. Kopel, “Commerce in the Commerce Clause: A Response to Jack Balkin,” Michigan Law Review 109 (2010): 55.
See Ilya Somin, “The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of ‘Proper,’” in The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court Decision and Its Aftermath, ed. Gillian Metzger, Trevor Morrison, and Nathaniel Persily (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013);
Ilya Somin, “A Mandate for Mandates: Is the Individual Health Insurance Mandate a Slippery Slope?,” Law and Contemporary Problems 75 (2012): 75;
Ilya Somin, “Assessing the Health Care Decision,” Harvard Health Policy Review 13 (2012): 13; Ilya Somin, “A Taxing, But Potentially Hopeful Decision,” SCOTUSblog, June 28, 2012, supra.
See Andrew Koppelman, “Necessary, ‘Proper,’ and Health Reform,” in The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court Decision and Its Aftermath, ed. Gillian Metzger, Trevor Morrison, and Nathaniel Persily (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2013 Randy E. Barnett, Jonathan H. Adler, David E. Bernstein, Orin S. Kerr, David B. Kopel, Ilya Somin, and Trevor Burrus
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Barnett, R.E., Adler, J.H., Bernstein, D.E., Kerr, O.S., Kopel, D.B., Somin, I. (2013). Postscript and Concluding Thoughts. In: Burrus, T. (eds) A Conspiracy Against Obamacare. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363732_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137363732_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-36374-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-36373-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)