Two Litigators Debate The Constitutionality Of A Mandated Health Insurance Law

As we wrote before, the constitutionality of this health insurance mandate will be based on interpretation of precedence, case law and the Constitution. It won't be based on warm and fuzzy feelings of political victory or political whims.

A few days ago I read an op-ed by Elliot Spitzer on Slate regarding the legality of federally-mandated health insurance. He trivializes this case with loose lips and closes by remarking that most people like what's in the bill so it isn't likely to be overturned. You must be kidding. People still don't even have any idea what is in this bill. That includes Congresspersons who voted for it. We are already seeing challenges by insurance companies seeking to drop critically-ill children in the name of profit over an American citizen's life. And Congresspersons who voted for the bill are aghast. What single person can read a 2,700 page bill written in twistable legalese open to countless interpretations and understand it? This will take years to sort out what will and won't be interpreted as it may have been intended. Or to even understand its unintended and intended consequences. For a former attorney general, that Slate article is a disgrace. It's purely political in nature and has no citing of specific precedence, case law or Constitutional interpretation. Citing this endless babble that the federal government basically has unlimited powers to regulating interstate commerce is simply inaccurate. This is clearly not so as one of the attorneys in this debate clearly points out.

I could care less what any journalist or politician thinks of this bill unless they are citing legal arguments, which will be used in the courts, as a litmus test as to its validity. Political editorials are completely worthless in economics, legality of this or any other issue or for that matter, anything. Political editorials are as diverse as interpretations of religion. They are not any form of incontrovertible truth. Yet the only thing we ever seem to hear on the radio, see on television or read in print are political editorials of every issue imaginable. This is not news. It's bulloney.

This exchange by two competent litigators (starting at about three minutes of the video) is the first real look at how this case will be argued on its merits. Both cite precedence, case law and the Constitution in their arguments. ie, These are litigators who understand how this case will actually be decided. And who will use these arguments to determine the constitutional merit of any federal mandate to buy health insurance. There is substantial interpretation of case law, precedence and the Constitution to give one pause. This is a very worthwhile video. And what else would you expect from PBS? One of only a few sources of journalism seemingly left in this commercialized, profit-seeking Orwellian world.