Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“Our People in General Have a High Degree of Freedom”

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article considers the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business et al v Sebelius, which questioned the constitutionality of President Obama’s signature healthcare reforms of 2009, which have become colloquially known as ‘Obamacare’. Although the Supreme Court upheld the Act as constitutional, this article contends that the Supreme Court’s reasoning can be read as another battle in the long-standing debate in American politics over the correct size and limits of the Federal Government. In upholding the healthcare reforms as a tax, rather than under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court has endorsed a view of limited government in line with the principles of classical liberalism. This has the potential to greatly restrict the scope of the Federal Government to pursue large scale expansive social welfare programmes in the future.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 567 U.S. (2012), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf. This suit was decided together with the cases of Department of Health and Human Services et al. v Florida et al., No 11-398 and Florida et al. v Department of Health and Human Services et al., No 11-400.

  2. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L No 111-148, 124 Stat 119 (2010) (to be codified at 42 USC § 18001) as amended by the Health and Education reconciliation Act, Pub L No 111-152, 124 State 1029 (2010).

  3. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 2 (Ginsburg J).

  4. Ibid, at 3.

  5. Ibid, at 4–5.

  6. Ibid, at 5.

  7. Ibid, at 6.

  8. Ibid.

  9. 26 U.S.C. § 5000A (establishing the fine as the greater of $695 or 2.5 per cent of the taxpayer's income in excess of the threshold amount at which a tax return is required).

  10. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 45–46 (Roberts CJ).

  11. All the States involved either had a Republican Governor or a Republican Attorney-General. No State controlled by a Democratic Governor was a party to the lawsuit.

  12. Florida v U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 780 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (ND Fla. 2011); Florida v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 648 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2011).

  13. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 2 (Roberts CJ).

  14. McCulloch v Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819).

  15. Gibbons v Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 195 (1824).

  16. U.S. Constitution, Amendment 10.

  17. United States v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618–619 (2000).

  18. 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992).

  19. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, §8, cl. 3.

  20. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, §8, cl. 1.

  21. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 45 (Roberts CJ).

  22. New York, 505 U.S. at 188.

  23. 2 U.S.C. §7421(a).

  24. Flora v United States, 362 U.S. 145 (1960).

  25. 26 U.S.C. §5000A.

  26. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 12 (Roberts CJ).

  27. Ibid.

  28. EEOC v Wyoming, 460 U.S. 226, 244–245 (1983) (Stevens J, dissenting).

  29. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 13 (Ginsburg J).

  30. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 13 (Ginsburg J).

  31. Gonzales v Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17 (2005).

  32. Wickard v Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

  33. Hodel v Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 323–324.

  34. United States v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000).

  35. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 16 (Ginsburg J).

  36. Ibid.

  37. Ibid.

  38. Ibid, 14, citing Hamilton (2001b) 163.

  39. Ibid, 18.

  40. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 18 (Roberts CJ).

  41. Ibid, 22–23.

  42. Ibid, 27. Justice Ginsburg chided this example as the ‘broccoli horrible’ 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 29 (Ginsburg J).

  43. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 10 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  44. U.S. Constitution, Article 1, §8, clause 18.

  45. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 29 (Roberts CJ).

  46. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 22 (Ginsburg J).

  47. Ibid, 25.

  48. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 3 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  49. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 27 (Ginsburg J).

  50. Ibid; citing Traxel v Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).

  51. Ibid, 37 (Ginsburg J).

  52. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 48–63 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  53. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 31 (Roberts CJ).

  54. Ibid; citing Parsons v Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830).

  55. Crowell v Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 62 (1932).

  56. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 64 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  57. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 28 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  58. Bailey v Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20 (1922).

  59. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 35–36 (Roberts CJ).

  60. Ibid, 38.

  61. College Savings Bank v Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666, 686 (1999).

  62. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 46–47 (Roberts CJ); citing Barnes v Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 186 (2002).

  63. Ibid, 47.

  64. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 1 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  65. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 52–53 (Roberts CJ).

  66. Ibid, 51.

  67. Ibid, 53.

  68. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 48 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito JJ).

  69. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 56–57 (Roberts CJ).

  70. 567 U.S. (2012), slip. op. at 6 (Roberts CJ).

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Newcastle Law School, Newcastle University, 21-24 Windsor Terrace, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 7RU, UK

    Tom Frost

Authors
  1. Tom Frost
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tom Frost.

Additional information

The title of the article was quoted in The Federal Farmer, The anti-federalist writings of the Melancton Smith circle (Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, 2009) 62.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Frost, T. “Our People in General Have a High Degree of Freedom”. Liverpool Law Rev 34, 75–89 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-013-9125-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-013-9125-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation