Which side will win in the end I\’ve no idea but I don\’t think much of the arguments being pout forward by one side:
The 11th Circuit decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that \”the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress\’s enumerated commerce power.\”
\”What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die,\” the opinion said.
So that\’s the judges agreeing with the essentially conservative case.
Here\’s the liberal side of it:
Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus said in a lengthy dissent that the majority ignored the \”undeniable fact that Congress\’ commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries, and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy.\”
Now, we can be fair about this and characterise it as being one side saying the constitution is the constitution. What it says goes. Or we can take the other side, that it\’s not quite a set of rules but a set of guides, guides which change over time as the society around them changes.
While they don\’t use those words that is one of the major divides in constitutional law in the US.
However, we can be less fair and sum up that second argument as \”heck, Congress already does lots that\’s not quite constitutional under the commerce clause so why not push a bit further?\”
Or to put in en clair, the constitution doesn\’t stop the politicians from robbing the Republic blind, it just slows them down.