Yale Law Professor Jack M. Balkin, quoted in the article from his remarks at the 2010 ACS National Convention, defended the bill under the government's power to tax and provide for the general welfare during the convention's health care reform panel.
Indeed, "[t]he tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding" the individual-coverage requirement, Balkin told The Times.
White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer told The Times that the tax and spend clause is an "alternative source of authority," and its primary source remains the commerce clause.
"The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law," Pfeiffer said.
Balkin made clear at the ACS convention, during his participation in the health care reform panel, that the law is justifiable under both the commerce clause and the power to tax clause. A number of other constitutional law professors, including Erwin Chemerinsky and Robert A. Schapiro have also asserted that the health care reform law is on solid constitutional ground under both clauses.
Georgetown Law Professor Randy E. Barnett, who engaged in a spirited discussion with Balkin during the ACS convention panel, responded to Balkin's commerce clause argument by suggesting that the law is an "unconstitutional commandeering of the people."
"Now, you may say that's a novel argument," Barnett said. "And I agree. But why is this a novel argument? Because this has never been done before. ... And something that's never been done before is going to require a novel argument on both sides."
View the conversation between Balkin and Barnett below. Watch video of the entire panel discussion here.
You need Adobe Flash Player to see this content.
A handful of district and circuit courts have begun to examine the scope of the President's authority to subject enemy combatants to military detention without charges, a jury trial, or any of the other trappings of criminal detention. Some parties have taken the position that the President lacks detention authority in the fight against a terrorist group, while others argue that the President may detain even unwitting supporters of al Qaeda. The courts have reached a number of different conclusions.
his eagerness to find a conspiracy, George has chosen to either ignore or willfully distort the history of this important document. The truth is, five drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address exist, and historians are uncertain about which one Lincoln actually read on the battlefield. Three included references to God and two did not. Which one was the most accurate is not and cannot be known for certain. George cites the recollections of several reporters of the time who stated that the president included the words "under God" in his remarks. Did President Lincoln improvise and add those words as he spoke? Perhaps! I wasn't at Gettysburg, so I can't be sure that George wasn't. As for the journalists' accounts, it would be interesting to read a history of the Civil War based solely on contemporaneous reports of journalists of the time, which would include countless conflicts, distortions, and inaccuracies. At the very least, honest scholars must acknowledge that wise people have differing views based on the available facts.