Opinion: Universal Health Care
Nicholas Lawrence
Issue date: 10/14/07 Section: Opinion
My guess, for whatever it is worth, is that if Congress ever seeks to impose an "individual mandate" they will cheerfully rely on that font of all congressional power, the ever potent commerce clause. When I was a 1L people used to tell me that 1Ls are full of idealism and 2Ls are full of cynicism, and I remember wondering why that might be. While we certainly encountered some cases our first year that made me a little cynical (New York Times v. Sullivan comes to mind), it was not until my second year, in constitutional law, that I truly understood why 2Ls are so cynical.
Okay, it probably isn't why 2Ls are cynical, but for me the whole commerce clause jurisprudence was pretty depressing. Undoubtedly the worst case ever decided by the Supreme Court (okay there's a lot of competition, so I don't really mean that, chalk it up to an attempt to express that I think this was a really bad decision) has to be Wickard v. Filburn. I just remember reading that case, where the Supreme Court held that some poor guy did not have the right to grow his own food on his own land and eat it himself and being absolutely appalled. As if it helped any, the court cheerfully points out that if Filburn was allowed to grow his own food he wouldn't have to buy it from somebody else. I mean really: "red blooded Americans" should be appalled, "pseudo-environmental carbon freaks" (I use the term in the kindest possible way) should be appalled, enemies of
"corporate America" everywhere should be appalled. Even glassy eyed, completely- disconnected-from-political-reality libertarian potheads should be appalled (I really mean it, have a look at Gonzalez v. Raich and see what case the court cites for precedent).
To make it even better, the court patiently explains that if Congress allows poor Filburn to get away with growing his own food instead of buying it from some multi-national, then Congress won't be able to regulate up to 20% of the wheat grown in the country. The argument is that even if Filburn's wheat is not "interstate commerce," that it
Okay, it probably isn't why 2Ls are cynical, but for me the whole commerce clause jurisprudence was pretty depressing. Undoubtedly the worst case ever decided by the Supreme Court (okay there's a lot of competition, so I don't really mean that, chalk it up to an attempt to express that I think this was a really bad decision) has to be Wickard v. Filburn. I just remember reading that case, where the Supreme Court held that some poor guy did not have the right to grow his own food on his own land and eat it himself and being absolutely appalled. As if it helped any, the court cheerfully points out that if Filburn was allowed to grow his own food he wouldn't have to buy it from somebody else. I mean really: "red blooded Americans" should be appalled, "pseudo-environmental carbon freaks" (I use the term in the kindest possible way) should be appalled, enemies of
"corporate America" everywhere should be appalled. Even glassy eyed, completely- disconnected-from-political-reality libertarian potheads should be appalled (I really mean it, have a look at Gonzalez v. Raich and see what case the court cites for precedent).
To make it even better, the court patiently explains that if Congress allows poor Filburn to get away with growing his own food instead of buying it from some multi-national, then Congress won't be able to regulate up to 20% of the wheat grown in the country. The argument is that even if Filburn's wheat is not "interstate commerce," that it
Be the first to comment on this story