Constitutional Sleight of Hand from George F. Will

In Sunday’s Washington Post, conservative columnist George F. Will takes on the constitutionality of the so-called “individual mandate” of the health care reform law not by dealing with the merits, but by mixing up constitutional provisions, perhaps hoping that no one will notice.  Apparently of the belief that Congress went too far in requiring all individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty tax, Will urges the courts to be “engaged” enough to constrain congressional overreaching.  According to Will, borrowing from a Texas judge’s description of that state’s Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is “’irrefutably framed in proscription’” and “’declares an emphatic ‘no’ to myriad government undertakings,’ no matter how much a majority might desire them.”  In support, Will cites “the first words of the Bill of Rights: ‘Congress shall make no law . . . ‘”

But Will’s constitutional prestidigitation should not go unanswered.  Will’s Bill of Rights quote is not a general limitation on the powers of Congress, but instead is an excerpt from the First Amendment, which contains an express limitation on the power of Congress to trample on certain specified rights:  religious liberty, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  None of this has anything to do with the health care reform law or the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision.

Significantly, Will ignores what is in fact the Constitution’s first substantive provision:  Article I, which creates the Congress, vests it with “all legislative powers herein granted,” and then enumerates specific grants of powers (not limitations), using these very clear, affirmative terms: “The Congress shall have Power To . .  .” (Emphasis added).  Among the expressly enumerated powers of Congress set out in Article I are the powers to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States,” “lay and collect Taxes,” “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States,” and “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

The limitations placed on congressional power by the First Amendment — to infringe upon religious freedom or the right to free speech, for example — do not negate the affirmative grants of congressional power in Article I, nor do they turn the Constitution into a charter of “proscription” upon the federal government.   George Will is of course entitled to his own opinion about whether the minimum coverage provision of the health care reform law exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, but he isn’t entitled to his own Constitution.

* * * * * *

For a discussion of why enactment of the health care reform law, including the minimum coverage provision, was well within the constitutional authority of Congress, please see CAC’s Issue Brief, “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution,” here.  In addition, please also see CAC’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health care reform law filed on behalf of State Legislators from 27 States in federal court in Florida.

More from

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes