Thoughts on Healthcare, Necessary and Proper, Commerce Clause

    After reading a few articles this morning I thought I would comment on my thoughts about recent occurrences with regards to the recent vote to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act(A.C.A.) of last year. I will note that from the records, it failed 51-47(two senators did not vote) I am a strong supporter of the idea that if the people wish for laws to change that they should first seek to change it through the legislature, and if that fails, through electing leaders who will make the changes needed.
     The A.C.A. overall has been met mixed feelings by all. Statistics show that overall americans are not in favor of the act, and wish for it's repeal. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll 58% of americans want the healthcare bill repealed. The Washington Post has that a little smaller percentage at 50%. It has been noted by some, that some of those who responded also may be those who believe the bill did not go far enough. Among these would be people who wished for the public option, or further tort reform, the purchasing of insurance across state lines, etc., not just those who don't like the individual mandate or the law altogether. I like portions of the bill, like allowing people to not be turned down for previous conditions, as well as the portion that allows children up to the age of 26 to remain on their health insurance.
    With this being said, we now see that 26 states have filed suit, and with varying result in the Federal District courts, it seems this issue will come before the Supreme Court. The basic argument comes down to this: does the constitution support the idea that congress can mandate that people buy insurance? The commerce clause, which most believe to be the reasoning behind those supporting the A.C.A., states: "The Congress shall have Power....to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."(U.S. Constitution Art 1 Section 8) However, this is the first case of which I am aware of where an act of congress had mandated that people participate in commerce, namely buying health insurance. How can punishing inactivity be found within that clause. The concern comes that if this law is upheld, then congress will continue to push the authority that has been given to them.
    The other argument is that the power to enact this legislation comes within the necessary and proper clause, otherwise known as the elastic clause which reads: "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." I personally do not see that this is a power that has been vested in the congress by the constitution, however, that will be up to the supreme court to ultimately decide.
    This case will determine a number of things, and will be the first major case to affect the understanding of the constitution under Chief Justice Roberts.  From what I have found it is possible for the court to strike down the mandate, and still keep the rest of the law.
click here to learn more about Judicial review.
click here for an interesting summary of the chief arguments
click here for info about Virginia's attempt to take the case to the supreme court.