Constitutional Restrictions On 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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

On March 23, 2010 the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed by President Obama, raising the question for many of whether this new law was going to be more helpful or hurtful. With universal healthcare, healthcare coverage would be increased tremendously, costs would be reduced, jobs would be created, and consumers would be protected. Conversely, it will also raise taxes and wait times, lead to a smaller number of doctors, and infringe on some employers’ 1st amendment rights. Presenting both arguments for and against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act allows one to draw a conclusion on whether the new program will benefit or hinder the citizens of the United States.

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.

Imagine being homeless, with no job, no car, no money, but still having to pay for health care. You lose all of the money that you can to the government. You can't pay for food, clothes, or save for something. How will you survive! You'll get sent to prison because you can't afford health care. So the current health care law should be overturned.

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

What are ways the constitution limits the power of the federal government? There are three different ways the constitution limits power. The three different ways are the system of checks and balances, the bill of rights, and federalism. Along with ways the constitution limits power, there are the three branches of government as well. The first branch is the legislative branch, the second is the executive branch, and the third and final branch is the judicial branch. Each branch in the government has a lot of power and they use several ways to distribute their power evenly among other branches.

“In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care” (Supreme Court Opinion, 1). In America, it is a basic necessity to possess health care, logically, Congress would like to make such a necessity more accessible to Americans. Due to a divided government, there are variant views on whether this is necessary and just. Health care benefits all Americans; it is just a matter of if the policy of a required national health care is beneficial.

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.