IJ on the Individual Mandate

Listen to an in-depth podcast about this subject here: http://ij.org/freedomcast/4336-mutual...

If government-mandated health insurance is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) case is argued in March 2012, the Institute for Justice warns in its amicus brief that there will be dire and predictable threats to individual liberty and voluntary relations that have been the foundation of American contract law for centuries.

Constitutional law professor Elizabeth Price Foley, who is the executive director of the Institute's Florida Chapter and who co-authored IJ's brief, said, "The individual mandate violates a cardinal rule of contract law—to be enforceable, all agreements must be voluntary. The Framers understood this, and would never have given the federal government the power to force individuals into lifelong contracts of insurance. The Court should not allow the government to exercise this unprecedented and dangerous power."

As IJ's brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle. (For a copy of IJ's brief, visit: www.ij.org/PPACAbrief.)

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government's powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

The Institute for Justice's brief is the only amicus brief filed with the Court that examines this case in the context of the history of contract law. The brief illustrates how the Supreme Court has recognized the principle of consent in commercial relations in its Commerce Clause and Tenth Amendment cases, and it explains why the U.S. Supreme Court has a key role in acting as a check against this unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[Brett Mason]

Please feel free to help as many people as you can. I know I do in my life. What I don't need is the government to steal money from me to help other people. Why are you so in favor of a middle man? And why do you put so much trust in the middle man?

[jasonaorr]

@MrHarrytoor People can choose to drive or not. There is an element of consent in your example; not so in Obamacare.

[classOHeight]

Taxes 'Murica!!!!

[spacegirl31061]

"The more power we give government to control businesses, the more businesses will seek to control government." - John Stossel. So, we get concentrated wealth going to those who lobby most and dispersed costs across taxpayers. Those who get the wealth from government have a big incentive to keep that going. The only way it stops is for government to get out of the "business" of selling favors in return for votes and campaign money. Your economic intuition is flawed.

[Christian Clements]

I thought ijustine was in this video...guess not

[snillocgromreturns]

Both Medicare and Medicaid are considered forms of charity care. I already said I'd purchase insurance if and when the time comes. I'm sure the hospital will accept reimbursements. No one is gonna force me to accept charity care. Or are they doing that now too? Frankly it isn't something I believe in. I take it you don't either. And would please stop assuming I can't pay 30k up front?

[pluto4847]

So if you needed a surgery that would cost you more than what you have in assets, the hospital wants their money now. They will say, 'Don't worry dear, we'll put you on Charity Care,'' but what they don't tell you is that when an uninsured person gets charity care, they raise everybody else's healthcare expenses to bail the uninsured out.

[pluto4847]

No medicare is for senious passed 65 years old. Medicaid is for low income people under a certain income. Charity care is not an ongoing program. Its when people show up at the emergency room, and cannot pay. You have to qualify for charity care when you are in the hospital. They look at all your assets, and if you don't have enough they charge the rest of the payment onto you guessed it--The State. The State picks up the tab. Charity care is a default program that is put on tax payers.

[snillocgromreturns]

"Ok so when you show up at the emergency room, and you can't pay--don't expect the taxpayer to bail you out."

Why would the hospital pass on my bill to taxpayers? U said so yourself they'd come after me. I thought I already said that if and when I end up in the ER, I can afford it. And if I can't, I can purchase insurance if and when something happens. Charity Care? You mean Medicare. And any care with reduced cost targeted at anyone below a certain income bracket (with or without insurance).

[snillocgromreturns]

"Ok, so you say its your problem, but I don't want to see anybody go broke."

Rhetorical and extraneous.

[snillocgromreturns]

Well sir, there are many ways that lead to big government. I mean, the People's Republic of China had no private corporations few decades ago and its government was pretty much obese.

[pluto4847]

Big Government? We don't need big Government interfering in our lives, the Private Healthcare Corporastions do enough of that already.

They fund Big Government. The Corporations are the ones pulling the purse strings. Without Private Corporations, there would be no Big Government. You see where I am getting at. You have a lot to learn about economics.