The healthcare mandate is what is
being held accountable in the Supreme Court in a couple of weeks because originally the 'penalty' that employers would have to pay if they didn't provide healthcare was argued as a 'penalty'; however, when 26 states challenged it, it was then deemed by the WH to be a 'tax' covered under the Interstate Commerce Act. Now that it is being challenged, with the very real possibility that they will lose that mandate, the new argument is that it now falls under the 'necessary' provision of some other law by saying that it is under the 'necessary and proper clause' to have the mandate in order for the healthcare law to work.
>>>Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8. However, the Constitution is clearer about the role of the Congress vis-a-vis interstate commerce in Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 5 and 6, though the interpretation of Section 8 and Section 9 could depend on the circumstances presented by specific cases.
They are hoping that by including that clause in their argument that the Supreme Court will hold the entire healthcare law intact.
Was this reply helpful? (0) (0)