Weaknesses Seen in Obama's Healthcare Law Defense

(Newsroom America)-- The Obama administration is set to file its first brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of the president's controversial healthcare reform law, but legal experts see weaknesses in its case, The Hill newspaper reported Friday.

Justices will examine the most pressing question presented by the law, namely, whether it is constitutional for Congress to require Americans to purchase a good or service, in this case health insurance.

The administration and backers say the provision is legal and proper under Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce, but critics have said if that is true, then in essence Congress has unlimited regulatory power.

And that is the key issue the high court be asked to address: the "limiting principle" behind the provision, a legal phrase applied to cases dealing with new congressional powers in which the court will want to see clearly defined limits.

"The [Department of Justice] has to do a better job of answering, ‘What goes beyond your theory of federal power?'" Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, which opposes the mandate, told The Hill. "They’ve been asked this in every court and they’ve never satisfied the court, even in the cases they’ve won."

Though there have been several federal cases involving the so-called individual mandate provision of the healthcare law - and rulings in those cases have split along the question of whether it is constitutional - the actual case before the high court involves a ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down the provision out of concern that upholding it would open the floodgates to excessive government regulations.

"Ultimately, the government’s struggle to articulate … limiting principles only reiterates the conclusion we reach today: There are none," the court said.

The Hill said the provision itself is unprecedented, noting that never before in the history of the country has Congress required Americans to purchase a good or service from a private company just for being citizens.

"The question is whether Congress is exerting a new power not authorized by the Constitution, or using its authority under the Commerce Clause in a new way, consistent with Supreme Court precedent," the paper said.

Other federal courts - even those that have upheld the mandate - have openly voiced concern about where Congress' power limitations fall.

The U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, in upholding the mandate, said it was "troubling, but not fatal" that DOJ had not set forth a limit to the Legislative Branch's power, the paper reported.

"We acknowledge some discomfort with the government’s failure to advance any clear doctrinal principles limiting congressional mandates that any American purchase any product or service in interstate commerce," said the court.

© 2012 Newsroom America.

Contact Jon E. Dougherty

Newsroom America Twitter Feed