The ACA as Case Law

[C_Clayton_Jones]

For those interested, particularly Section II concerning the The Necessary and Proper Clause:

Unlike with the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper doctrine is now fully originalist. NFIB returns Necessary and Proper doctrine to the originalist doctrine explicated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Note that McCulloch resolved a dispute among the Framers themselves. Alexander Hamilton favored a broader reading of the N&P Clause, while James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and Thomas Jefferson preferred a narrower reading. McCulloch (and derivatively, NFIB) adopt the Hamilton approach of an expansive but not limitless interpretation of N&P.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/o...m_campaign=Feed:+scotusblog/pFXs+(SCOTUSblog)

 

[LAfrique]

For those interested, particularly Section II concerning the The Necessary and Proper Clause:

Unlike with the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper doctrine is now fully originalist. NFIB returns Necessary and Proper doctrine to the originalist doctrine explicated by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).

Note that McCulloch resolved a dispute among the Framers themselves. Alexander Hamilton favored a broader reading of the N&P Clause, while James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and Thomas Jefferson preferred a narrower reading. McCulloch (and derivatively, NFIB) adopt the Hamilton approach of an expansive but not limitless interpretation of N&P.

Online symposium: The Bar Review version of NFIB v. Sebelius : SCOTUSblog

Interesting citation. However, any US law that forces the PEOPLE to do for themselves, rather than provide options, is in violation of the Constitution of the US.