Loading…
THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "clearly constitutional" -- that the case is "easy," and "not even... close." I disagree. The case for the mandate may end up winning, but it won't be easy. It's hard to follow...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Law and contemporary problems 2012, Vol.75 (3), p.17-27 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 27 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 17 |
| container_title | Law and contemporary problems |
| container_volume | 75 |
| creator | Sachs, Stephen E. |
| description | Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "clearly constitutional" -- that the case is "easy," and "not even... close." I disagree. The case for the mandate may end up winning, but it won't be easy. It's hard to follow the debate over the individual mandate -- and the many court decisions it has produced -- and conclude that there is nothing going on here but raw politics. The mandate raises deep issues of the scope of federal power, the reach and correctness of existing doctrine, and the right way to interpret the Constitution. Adapted from the source document. |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1267030762</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A289359745</galeid><jstor_id>23216716</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>A289359745</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-g394t-4fb44f17656a7658207db17e4d8d683dbc402afb6e17d4197b5018f892517dda3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0ltLwzAUAOAiCs7pTxAKvghayf3yWLvOCcPBLg8-lbRNa0bXzqZ98N-bMR82GSyBk-TwnQMHcuENoCQ0QBihS28AAMKBhIJdezfWroFbnIOB97ScxP7qIw4Xn34ULmJ_PJv7u1w4drdR-DqNXX7u3tHy1rsqVGX13d859FbjeBlNguns7T0Kp0GJJekCUqSEFJAzypQLAgGep5BrkoucCZynGQFIFSnTkOcESp5SAEUhJKIukSs89B73fbdt891r2yUbYzNdVarWTW8TiBgHGHCGzlNIISBAEHaeAgEFlYBTRx_-0XXTt7Wb2SmIEIPsUJWq0ompi6ZrVbZrmoRISEwlJzsVnFClrnWrqqbWhXHpI_9ywrud643JThY8HxSkvTW1ti5YU351tlS9tcf8fs_XtmvaZNuajWp_EvdN3FCQ4V_GmKXf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1012261675</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT</title><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>Nexis UK</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals</source><creator>Sachs, Stephen E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E.</creatorcontrib><description>Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "clearly constitutional" -- that the case is "easy," and "not even... close." I disagree. The case for the mandate may end up winning, but it won't be easy. It's hard to follow the debate over the individual mandate -- and the many court decisions it has produced -- and conclude that there is nothing going on here but raw politics. The mandate raises deep issues of the scope of federal power, the reach and correctness of existing doctrine, and the right way to interpret the Constitution. Adapted from the source document.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-9186</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1945-2322</identifier><identifier>CODEN: LCTPA5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Durham: Duke University School of Law</publisher><subject>Affordable Care Act ; Broccoli ; Commerce ; Constitution ; Constitutional law ; Constitutions ; Court ordered mandates ; Courts ; Federalism ; Government mandates ; Health care ; Health care industry ; Health care policy ; Health insurance ; Health policy ; Income taxes ; Individual health insurance mandates ; Insurance regulation ; Judiciary ; Law ; Laws, regulations and rules ; Legal aspects ; Legislation ; Legislative power ; Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US ; Patients ; Political partisanship ; Political power ; Power ; Public law ; Right Wing Politics ; Self insurance ; Statutory law ; U.S.A ; United States</subject><ispartof>Law and contemporary problems, 2012, Vol.75 (3), p.17-27</ispartof><rights>copyright © 2012 its author(s)</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2012 Duke University, School of Law</rights><rights>Copyright Duke University School of Law 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23216716$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/23216716$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27865,27866,33223,33224,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E.</creatorcontrib><title>THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT</title><title>Law and contemporary problems</title><description>Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "clearly constitutional" -- that the case is "easy," and "not even... close." I disagree. The case for the mandate may end up winning, but it won't be easy. It's hard to follow the debate over the individual mandate -- and the many court decisions it has produced -- and conclude that there is nothing going on here but raw politics. The mandate raises deep issues of the scope of federal power, the reach and correctness of existing doctrine, and the right way to interpret the Constitution. Adapted from the source document.</description><subject>Affordable Care Act</subject><subject>Broccoli</subject><subject>Commerce</subject><subject>Constitution</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Constitutions</subject><subject>Court ordered mandates</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Federalism</subject><subject>Government mandates</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health care industry</subject><subject>Health care policy</subject><subject>Health insurance</subject><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Income taxes</subject><subject>Individual health insurance mandates</subject><subject>Insurance regulation</subject><subject>Judiciary</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Laws, regulations and rules</subject><subject>Legal aspects</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Legislative power</subject><subject>Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Political partisanship</subject><subject>Political power</subject><subject>Power</subject><subject>Public law</subject><subject>Right Wing Politics</subject><subject>Self insurance</subject><subject>Statutory law</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United States</subject><issn>0023-9186</issn><issn>1945-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><sourceid>7UB</sourceid><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0ltLwzAUAOAiCs7pTxAKvghayf3yWLvOCcPBLg8-lbRNa0bXzqZ98N-bMR82GSyBk-TwnQMHcuENoCQ0QBihS28AAMKBhIJdezfWroFbnIOB97ScxP7qIw4Xn34ULmJ_PJv7u1w4drdR-DqNXX7u3tHy1rsqVGX13d859FbjeBlNguns7T0Kp0GJJekCUqSEFJAzypQLAgGep5BrkoucCZynGQFIFSnTkOcESp5SAEUhJKIukSs89B73fbdt891r2yUbYzNdVarWTW8TiBgHGHCGzlNIISBAEHaeAgEFlYBTRx_-0XXTt7Wb2SmIEIPsUJWq0ompi6ZrVbZrmoRISEwlJzsVnFClrnWrqqbWhXHpI_9ywrud643JThY8HxSkvTW1ti5YU351tlS9tcf8fs_XtmvaZNuajWp_EvdN3FCQ4V_GmKXf</recordid><startdate>2012</startdate><enddate>2012</enddate><creator>Sachs, Stephen E.</creator><general>Duke University School of Law</general><general>Duke University, School of Law</general><scope>N95</scope><scope>XI7</scope><scope>ILT</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>7UB</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2012</creationdate><title>THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT</title><author>Sachs, Stephen E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g394t-4fb44f17656a7658207db17e4d8d683dbc402afb6e17d4197b5018f892517dda3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Affordable Care Act</topic><topic>Broccoli</topic><topic>Commerce</topic><topic>Constitution</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Constitutions</topic><topic>Court ordered mandates</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Federalism</topic><topic>Government mandates</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health care industry</topic><topic>Health care policy</topic><topic>Health insurance</topic><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Income taxes</topic><topic>Individual health insurance mandates</topic><topic>Insurance regulation</topic><topic>Judiciary</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Laws, regulations and rules</topic><topic>Legal aspects</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Legislative power</topic><topic>Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Political partisanship</topic><topic>Political power</topic><topic>Power</topic><topic>Public law</topic><topic>Right Wing Politics</topic><topic>Self insurance</topic><topic>Statutory law</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sachs, Stephen E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Gale Business Insights</collection><collection>Business Insights: Essentials</collection><collection>LegalTrac</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>Worldwide Political Science Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Law and contemporary problems</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sachs, Stephen E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT</atitle><jtitle>Law and contemporary problems</jtitle><date>2012</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>75</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>17</spage><epage>27</epage><pages>17-27</pages><issn>0023-9186</issn><eissn>1945-2322</eissn><coden>LCTPA5</coden><abstract>Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is "clearly constitutional" -- that the case is "easy," and "not even... close." I disagree. The case for the mandate may end up winning, but it won't be easy. It's hard to follow the debate over the individual mandate -- and the many court decisions it has produced -- and conclude that there is nothing going on here but raw politics. The mandate raises deep issues of the scope of federal power, the reach and correctness of existing doctrine, and the right way to interpret the Constitution. Adapted from the source document.</abstract><cop>Durham</cop><pub>Duke University School of Law</pub><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0023-9186 |
| ispartof | Law and contemporary problems, 2012, Vol.75 (3), p.17-27 |
| issn | 0023-9186 1945-2322 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1267030762 |
| source | International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Nexis UK; PAIS Index; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts; JSTOR Archival Journals |
| subjects | Affordable Care Act Broccoli Commerce Constitution Constitutional law Constitutions Court ordered mandates Courts Federalism Government mandates Health care Health care industry Health care policy Health insurance Health policy Income taxes Individual health insurance mandates Insurance regulation Judiciary Law Laws, regulations and rules Legal aspects Legislation Legislative power Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act 2010-US Patients Political partisanship Political power Power Public law Right Wing Politics Self insurance Statutory law U.S.A United States |
| title | THE UNEASY CASE FOR THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T14%3A42%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20UNEASY%20CASE%20FOR%20THE%20AFFORDABLE%20CARE%20ACT&rft.jtitle=Law%20and%20contemporary%20problems&rft.au=Sachs,%20Stephen%20E.&rft.date=2012&rft.volume=75&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=17&rft.epage=27&rft.pages=17-27&rft.issn=0023-9186&rft.eissn=1945-2322&rft.coden=LCTPA5&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA289359745%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-g394t-4fb44f17656a7658207db17e4d8d683dbc402afb6e17d4197b5018f892517dda3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1012261675&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A289359745&rft_jstor_id=23216716&rfr_iscdi=true |