Frederick Thide’s article, “In Search of Limiting Principles: The Eleventh Circuit Invalidates the Individual Mandate in Florida v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,” appearing in the Boston College Law Review claims that Congress will be crippled in its “future efforts to set social welfare policy” (Thide 2012, 370) if the Supreme Court affirms the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s holding that “Congress exceeded its power under the commerce clause and necessary and proper clause by requiring individuals to purchase health insurance as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (359). In his introduction, Thide (2012) describes the economic conditions of the health insurance market that brought about the need for the Affordable Care Act and presents three main ideas to support his conclusion. As a final point, Thide (2012) warns that rejecting “the view that Congress is the primary arbiter of what is necessary and proper,” (370) under the necessary and proper clause, may “significantly constrain Congress’s power” (359) to develop and implement “novel regulatory schemes that include the use of economic mandates” (371).
After “decades of political wrangling over proposals for universal health care” (Thide 2012, 359), Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. Thide (2012) calls the act “Congress’s solution to a complex market failure” (360).