Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Constitutionality of Health Care Law 11-12-11

The Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 12, 2011, during The Federalist Society's 2011 National Lawyers Convention. The debate, titled "RESOLVED: Congress Acted Within Its Authority in Enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act", featured Prof. Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School and Hon. Paul D. Clement of Bancroft PLLC and former U.S. Solicitor General with Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz of the Georgetown Law Center as the moderator. Introduction by Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President of the Federalist Society.

Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate and Luncheon
RESOLVED: Congress Acted Within Its Authority in Enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
12:30 p.m. -- 2:30 p.m.
Grand Ballroom

--Hon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Bancroft PLLC and former U.S. Solicitor General
--Prof. Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School
--Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center
--Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• federalist
• judiciary
• law
• supreme
• court
• conservative
• libertarian
• public
• policy
• constitution
• United States Congress
• United States Constitution
• health care
• Obamacare
• health
• PPACA
• Rosenkranz
• Clement
• Tribe
• Conference
• America

[gryvop]

Excellent debate.

[heatbucspies55]

Lol, debate.

Maybe next, they should debate whether 2+2=4 or not.

[saldar05]

@Jaba6798 oh really? do you really think the court is going to say that congress cant regulate people particpating in a 854 billion dollar national industry? Complete nonsense...if you dont like it, have your respective politician repeal it or or amend it...

[Jaba6798]

1:21:00 That is why the PPACA will be ruled unconstitutional.

[mamboz1]

8) Tribe's “swimming in the river” metaphor is only partly true. ObamaCare requires not only the level of coverage that almost everyone would need, but a slew of items that the vast majority of the public will probably NEVER use, such as vasectomies, addiction counseling, hearing aids, and much more. Using Tribe's metaphor, it's like having the federal government require the swimmer in the river to buy diving gear even though they do not wish to dive in the river and will never do so.

[mamboz1]

I wrote this as I was watching, then realized that Clement addressed most of these points.

[mamboz1]

7) It seems to me that even if Tribe's arguments hold true, they would only if congress had no other alternative. But on healthcare, congress clearly had many other alternatives that were perfectly constitutional. So why would the court give its blessing on an act that has such far reaching implications on basic liberties, when there are alternatives that do not require such an infringement on liberty? i.e., it's not “necessary” even if one argues that it's “proper”. [continued..]

[mamboz1]

6) Tribe argues that in Filburn the farmer was “all but forced by name” to purchase wheat. But that not true, as the farmer had the choice not to consume wheat. [continued..]

[mamboz1]

5) Tribe argues that the states cannot cope with the matter on their own, but doesn't explain why we would believe that is so. Clearly there have been states that have dealt with this issue, now and throughout US history. His “race to the bottom” argument doesn't hold water since pre-ObamaCare there was no race to the bottom and there's no race to the bottom in countless other areas. [continued..]

[mamboz1]

4) Tribe's theory would give Congress the power to make laws on any subject, impose a fine for noncompliance, have the IRS collect the fine, and then claim that the entire regulatory structure is part of the tax power. The result would nullify Article I of the Constitution, which carefully grants Congress 18 specific powers and does not grant a general power to legislate on everything. [continued...]