Romneycare Mandates v. Obamacare Mandates
Romney signs Massachusetts health reform into law
Matt Yglesias knocks Mitt Romney for apparently refusing to deny that the individual mandate would be unconstitutional, even though the Massachusetts health reform that Romney signed into law as governor contained a similar mandate.
Of course, from the standpoint of constitutional law, there’s a big difference between a mandate imposed by the federal government and one imposed by a state. The federal government may exercise only those powers granted by the constitution. The states, on the other hand, exercise plenary power and are presumed to have all powers not expressly prohibited to them by the constitution.
There are two basic kinds of arguments you can make against the constitutionality of the mandate. You can argue that the federal government does not have the power to impose it; or you can argue that the mandate violates individuals’ constitutional rights. The latter type of argument will not depend on whether it is the federal government or a state that is imposing the mandate. If constitutional rights are violated, the law is invalid. Presumably, this is the kind of argument Yglesias had in mind when challenging Romney’s consistency on the issue. It’s perfectly consistent, though, to believe that Massachusetts’ mandate is constitutional but that a federal mandate would not be, if you believe that the federal mandate would exceed congressional authority under Article I.
About Me
- I write this blog.
-
My twitter feed:
