Huq on Constitutional Challenges to HCR

April 2, 2010 by · 2 Comments
Filed under: Health Reform 

constitutionAs constitutional challenges to health care reform mount, many prominent commentators have debunked the legal arguments behind them. Aziz Huq puts them in context:

Highly speculative and doctrinally out-to-sea, these suits cannot be about the law. As their timing shows, they are a continuation of politics by other means. . . .In filing these lawsuits, the attorneys general and their allies have picked up on an emerging current of popular constitutionalism, and ratified it with the dignity of official sanction and a space on the national political stage. Even if these suits fail, the constitutional ideas that animate the complaints and that bubble through tea party rhetoric will be raised again to the attention of a wide public and given new credence.

By contrast, one is hard-pressed to find any such movement linking popular constitutionalism and effective national political actors on the progressive side. These lawsuits should thus be an embarrassment and worry for progressive constitutionalists, who have not articulated a general vision of the Constitution that finds resonance among a wide populace. They should be an embarrassment for the White House, which has generally opted for “safe” and “moderate” picks for the federal bench–not judges with vision. On the right, judges pick up and carry forward popular constitutionalism impulses. On the left, they play a fragmented defense that Obama apparently doesn’t care to improve.

Even progressive commentators like Jay Rosen can’t seem to imagine a “third way” beyond Left and Right other than libertarian. If supporters of health care reform can’t get the debate to turn to real pocketbook issues like insurance rate regulation, they will forever be stuck arguing about “first principles” in a media landscape stacked against the very idea of social insurance.

Share

Comments

2 Responses to “Huq on Constitutional Challenges to HCR”
  1. Arabella says:

    Rubbish.

    According to Gen Counsel of the Constitution Accountability Center, “To help set the record straight, CAC has prepared an issue brief entitled “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution.” This issue brief demonstrates that Congress clearly had the authority to pass health care reform–including the individual mandate–and that the legal challenges to the Act filed by a handful of State Attorneys General are more political theater than genuine constitutional argument. The issue brief also explains why state efforts to block implementation of the Act outright–known as state “nullification” of federal law–are an attack on the Constitution and purely symbolic at best.”

    It’s a good read – 7 pages & she really bruises the GOP “unconstitutional” empty theatrics.

    You can find brief at http://www.theusconstitution.orgpage_module.php?id=123&mid=2

  2. Will says:

    Empty theatrics? There are many constitutional scholars that agree that this health bill is unconstitutional. Just because some website is called theusconstitution does not make it the leading authority. Article 1 section 8 has been skewed time and time again.

    Founding fathers were heavily influenced by men like John Locke, who was an advocate of natural law. The healthcare bill is far from natural law ethics.

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!