By: Savanna Shuntich

Much of the controversy surrounding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) comes from the mandate found in section 1501, requiring all Americans above a certain income level to purchase healthcare. Experts like law professor Randy Barnett of Georgetown University claim that the mandate unconstitutionally relies on the commerce clause. He suggests that for the first time in our history Americans are being punished for inaction. In an article authored with Elizabeth Price Foley, Barnett argues that, “This novel use of the Necessary and Proper Clause, if allowed to stand, would fundamentally transform our constitutional scheme from limited to unlimited federal power, narrowing the scope of individual liberty.

Surprisingly, Barnett’s views were validated in the courtroom as recently as last month. On August 15th the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the mandate was unconstitutional but that the rest of the law could remain. Earlier in the year Florida Judge Roger Vinson went so far as to strike down the bill entirely due to section 1501. Many opponents of the bill hope that it will die in the court system or at the very least be crippled beyond repair.

Let me start by saying that I do not like the PPACA and would hate to see it remain on the books. However, the constitutionality of the law is supported by past Supreme Court rulings and even if I do not like the precedent, the precedent is clear. We should not be wasting the time of our court systems by attacking the law in this manner.

The issue hinges on one Supreme Court decision. In Wickard v. Filburn the Court ruled that the federal government could force an Ohio farmer to destroy his extra wheat crop based on its power to regulate interstate commerce. The wheat crop existed only for the farmer’s personal consumption but it affected the government’s country wide agricultural regulatory scheme by adding to the surplus. Thus, the Court established that the federal government could regulate a purely intrastate matter if it economically affected the rest of the country. Later in Lopez the Court affirmed, “We have upheld a wide variety of congressional Acts regulating intrastate economic activity where we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce….Where economic activity substantially affects interstate commerce, legislation regulating that activity will be sustained.”

Those who claim the PPACA is unconstitutional suggest that an individual who refuses to buy healthcare is not engaging in an economic activity. This is nothing more than hair splitting. It’s virtually impossible not to participate in the country’s healthcare system. Everyone needs a doctor at some point even if they leave in the deepest West Virginia mountain hollow. The suggestion that people should be able to pay out of pocket is also ridiculous. In most cases only a very wealthy individual is capable of paying out of pocket for medical services. Even minor tests and procedures can be incredibly expensive. Try paying for heart surgery out of pocket.

In conclusion, the Republican Party needs to focus on getting the PPACA repealed and reforming Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. We should have the numbers after the next election cycle to strike down the law entirely. In the meantime, the court system has better things to do.