Constitutional Restrictions On The Federal Government

There are many laws in the United States of America, but there is one law that is especially important, as it causes a lot of controversy, and politicians not in favor are trying to shut it down. In the 2016 election, the candidates have different opinions on it, and they argue about it a numerous amount of times. It is one of the main issues of the debates. The law has caused both benefits and problems for citizens of the USA. Some citizens of America have violently protested against the ACA, while some citizens lives depend on it. This law is called the Affordable Care Act, signed in 2010, and I strongly believe that it is a good law.

Once Obamacare was passed into Law, more than half of the states joined together to file against the law stating it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed to 3 days of hearings to allow the states to share why they felt the law was unconstitutional. At the end of the 3 days the United States Supreme Court deemed the law constitutional. Then deemed that Congress had the power under the taxing clause and the Affordable Care Act moved into operation for all of the United States. Since that time the United States Supreme Court has deemed that President Obama has repeatedly plotted to increase the reach of his Executive Branch, and each time the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him.

In 2012 the Supreme Court resolved a case where Florida sued the Federal Government over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Florida believed the Federal Government had overstepped its allocated powers granted to it by the constitution. Specifically article 1, section 8, known as the Spending Clause, which gave the government the power to grant money to the states and tell the states what to do with said money (Jefferson, 1787, p. 25). Florida’s issue arose in the fact that the Affordable Care Act provided no additional funding and the government has no right to tell the states how to spend their own wealth.

The implementation of the individual mandate on health care gives the United States federal government unlimited powers. The policy is obviously unconstitutional, and it shows that the Supreme Court ignored the facts and allowed the government to misinterpret constitutional powers. The individual mandate allows Congress to use legislative powers that are not given to them in Article l of the Constitution.

The United States Constitution that was created from the convention put forth a federal government with more specific powers, including those related to conducting relationships with foreign countries. Under the reformed federal system, many of the responsibilities for foreign communications fell under the authority of an executive branch, although important powers remained with the legislative branch. The constitution came into effect in 1789 and has served as the basis of the United States Government ever since. To resolve certain issues with the rising debts from the revolutionary war and other domestic costs, the delegates at the constitutional convention created a system of checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government.

From the Constitution in Section 7, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”. (U.S. Constitution, 1787) This is the Origination clause, which aims to keep taxing power for representatives and is meant to more closely represent citizens’ will instead of the Senators who serve in the government for six years. However, unlike the typical 1911 Supreme court case called Flint V. Stone Tracy Corp, which pointed out that “the clause wasn’t violated when the Senate amended a House-passed bill to add a tax to it” (Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 1911), Obamacare began in the Senate instead of in the House of Representatives, and it was a rewriting of an old bill about providing veterans with welfare which had been passed by the House. (CATO, October 2013) The Majority Leader Harry Reid changed some contents of the old bill and added new provisions, so this old bill became the Affordable Care Act. The process of passing Obamacare was therefore careless and hasty according to Republicans, violating the spirit of the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court’s liberal wing stated that it was unconstitutional in some

Not only do states desire their unique health care for themselves, but for their citizens as well. Although the ACA is arguably for the public good, only a certain class desires such a health care, not every citizen. Yet, if citizens refuse this health care, a “penalty” is imposed. “The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation”. (Supreme Court Opinion) Yet, a payment can be major for those who: do not have the means to pay for it, and disagree with the health care plan. Also, “the new law adds a number of health care services that insurers must cover and in some cases restricts the ability of insurers and employer self-insured health plans to impose limits on the amount of services patients can consume. This combination will drive up health plan costs and premiums for both individual insurance and employer-group coverage” (Edmund F. Haislmaier). Yet,

The article begins with a review of the third day of arguments in which the court took up the question of whether or not the entire law had to be struck down if the individual mandate was found to be unconstitutional. It was only last year that an Appeals Court in Atlanta found that the individual mandate, which requires every American to wither purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, was unconstitutional. However, the Appeals Court also found that the rest of the law was constitutional. It will be up to the Supreme Court to now decide if the individual mandate is constitutional or not, and if not, then whether the rest of the law can stand without it. The next part of the arguments dealt with the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid. The court is to decide whether or not the expansion of Medicaid is unduly coercive to the states. While the new law does give the states more money to expand Medicaid, it also adds a number of new regulations which the states feel give too much

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has generated immense controversy amongst the American political spectrum over the past eight years. Most commonly known as the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, this law sought to provide health insurance coverage to more Americans and reduce the growth of healthcare spending in the United States. The Democratic Party, led by the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, argued that providing and extending health insurance coverage to millions of uninsured Americans would reduce the rising cost of healthcare through implementation of the individual mandate and promotion of competition in the healthcare exchanges. The Republican Party, led by House Minority Leader John Boehner, argued heavily against those in favor of the Affordable Care Act alleging the law would substantially increase insurance premiums and overall healthcare cost. The opposition also questioned the constitutionality and ethics of enacting the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act was signed into law seven months prior to the Republican landslide victory in the House of Representatives in November of 2010. This paper will give a brief history of healthcare reform in America and deconstruct the ethical considerations surrounding the foundation of the Affordable Care Act.

The arguments for/against ObamaCare health care are extensive. This giant law has so many parts that the average American does not even know what is really in this bill. The main supporters argue the bill is constitutional. They believe it is constitutional on three different "powers" of congress under commerce/interstate activity, the necessary and proper clause and the taxing and general welfare clause.

When attempting to determine the benefits and the negatives associated with national health care in the United States, one inevitably must discern the projected impact of the Affordable Care Act. This act was signed into being by the current president in 2010, and triumphed in a Supreme Court Decision in 2012 in which its legality was upheld as constitutional (No author). The chief aims of this particular piece of legislation are to increase accessibility to health care for Americans, primarily by lowering costs associated with it. It will fully take effect in 2014, by which time citizens will have a variety of options of obtaining health care either through a state subsidy, through Medicaid, or through one's employer or a private plan. Those who do not have health care by this point will be assessed a fine; certain employers who do not offer health care may also be assessed a fine. A thorough analysis of the boons and the detriments of this form of national health care reveals that it is beneficial to the country as a whole.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been the biggest milestone to date in American health care policy (Saldin, 2011). There is nothing more complex or controversial in recent history than the passing of the ACA in 2010 (Davidson, 2016). The United States Supreme Court ratified the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on June 28, 2012. With this, there were certainly challenges facing the full implementation of the provisions of this act by 2014.

The States also need to provide a marketplace for people who wish to find an insurance company easily. This helped many as “more than 11.5 million people had enrolled in a health plan through one of the insurance marketplaces created by the law” (Levey). American citizens found the aspect of Obamacare to be useful, and they used it to their advantages. The amount of people benefited is drastic, and the health plans in the marketplaces provide the alternative to shopping for higher priced, hard-to-get insurance plans. Going ahead, individuals are required to have insurance, or they will have to pay the “individual mandate”, or a fee. This mandate allows the insurance industry to thrive and it also benefits the people. For one thing, the insurance industry would not be held up as people would “game the system by buying insurance only once they are sick, which of course would affect the whole country” due to lack of insurance funds (Lemieux). Many argue the mandate is unconstitutional, but this is false. Opponents argued that the mandate went against the Constitution as Congress did not have the power to force individuals to buy insurance, or do something they did not wish to do. However, many, such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the case NFIB v. Sebelius, argued that “the penalty imposed on people who do not carry health insurance

However, there have only been a few cases that have made it to the Supreme Court. These cases include in 2012 NFIB V Sebelius, in 2015 King V Burwell, and in 2014 Burwell V Hobby Lobby. All of these cases targeted a different part of the Affordable Care Act. The focus of these trails was on the premium tax credit, employers’ roles in providing health insurance, and subsidies. So the question stands is the act constitutional, it is not. The federal government does not have the right to place a strain on the states governments. One of the main issues is paying out subsidies. “The recent decision by the high court upholding subsidies paid through federal exchanges, even though the law itself specified exchanges “established by the state” (Unruh). Religious groups have arguments against the ACA Act, it requires Catholics to pay for birth control when in fact that is against their beliefs. The Act also deals with abortion, it mandates that abortion should be payed for by everyone in the states. However, this decision is not the federal governments, it should be the state's decision. Overall President Obama had the right idea when he began the process of the bill five year ago, but his plan was not one that should put added stress on the

Healthcare policy analysis has been a debate for citizens and government officials. The policy was initiated as a start to healthcare reform in the U.S. Initiated in 2010, by President Barack Obama the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was on its way to redeveloping the function of the healthcare field. The ACA puts people, families, and businesses in charge of their healthcare. All three branches (Legislative, Judicial, and Executive) had a part of the creation of the law and experienced a fair share of issues in the development. Outcries from the public and lobbyists a method of seeking a favored result has influenced the development of this law. In this paper, addressing all elements involved in