The U.S. Supreme Court will here the case brought arguing that the federal governments plan to create mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional
The types of plaintiffs arguments would be
1) Mandatory health insurance (MHI) is a taking of property without compensation (would not succeed)
2) MHI is involuntary servitude (likely would not succeed).
3) MHI is an interference with the fundamental right of property (but we know that the right of property is relativized: still this is their strongest claim).
4) That MHI exceeds the federal governments powers. Remember the federal government is of enumerated limited powers.
The government will likely argue
1) MHI Is based on the commerce clause, because illness effects interstate commerce — I don’t buy it, but the U.S. S.Ct. in Wickard did (see how one case is analogized to another?)
2) That the preamble gives the federal government power to promote the general welfare; combined with the elastic clause (necessary and proper) this is somewhat persuasive.
3) The federal government could institute a tax, and then use the tax to fund healthcare: since that is legal, why shouldn’t mandatory universal health insurance be legal? (this is called a reductio argument).
If this interests any of you ask about it during our lecture!