Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



New Podcasts: Reactions to the Obamacare decision

| No Comments

Jarrett Dieterle
Legal Intern, Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy

After the oral arguments in the Obamacare case this past April, we invited Michael Rosman, general counsel of the Center for Individual Rights, and Nadine Strossen, professor of law at New York Law School and former President of the ACLU, to participate in podcasts to gauge their reactions. After yesterday's decision by the Court, we invited them both back again for podcasts to analyze the outcome.

Despite upholding Obamacare, Strossen emphasized the significant ways in which the Court cut back on federal power:

[The case can be described as] winning the battle but losing the war for expanded federal power... Because the holding on the taxing clause was so extremely narrow it comes extremely close to saying - as the Court did in Bush v. Gore - that this holding applies only to this particular statute. It is written in a way that has very, very little, if any, precedential effect. In contrast, the Court cut back on the scope of three power-granting clauses in the Constitution... While the immediate impact is to uphold this particular exercise of federal power, the long-range impact may well be a cutback on significant federal power.
Michael Rosman commented on the Court placing limits on the federal government's Spending Clause power:

There is some limit, but what it is gosh only knows... If coercion is the idea that states don't really have a choice, hasn't Medicaid sort of always been coercive in that regard? Hasn't, for example, Title VI and any other statute in which the receipt of federal funds includes college loans, always been to a substantial degree coercive? As witnessed by the fact that there is no state, I believe, that doesn't participate in those statutes. So yeah, there is a limit; where exactly we're going to draw the line is not entirely clear.

Strossen and Rosman also both participated in our Featured Discussion on the Obamacare decision, which includes analysis from various prominent constitutional commentators.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.