The legal challenge to US President Barack Obama’s healthcare act has invigorated a dispute as old as the Constitution about the framers’ most nettlesome grant of power, which gives the US Congress treacherously broad authority to pass laws “necessary and proper” to carrying out its assigned responsibilities.
The cases, which are presumed to be headed to the Supreme Court, center on whether Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce is so expansive that it can require citizens to buy health insurance, but as the litigation advances, the “necessary and proper” clause is taking on greater prominence in briefs and oral arguments, with the Obama administration asserting that it shelters the insurance mandate and state officials arguing that it buries it.
Because the facts are novel — the courts have never addressed whether US citizens can be penalized for not buying something — each side has managed to glean what it wants from the Supreme Court’s most recent guidance.
A spirited debate broke out in legal blogs this month after Judge Henry Hudson of US District Court in Richmond, Virginia, invalidated the insurance requirement in part by rejecting the administration’s necessary-and-proper defense. As that case and others move into the appellate courts, academics are submitting friend-of-the-court briefs that focus on the meaning of necessary and proper.
Some forecast that by the time it gets to the Supreme Court, a case that seemed to be about the commerce clause may be fought largely on necessary-and-proper grounds.
“I think it’s going to be crucial,” said Randy Barnett, a Georgetown law professor who recently filed a brief, in the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, that assails the insurance mandate with a necessary-and-proper argument. “The necessary-and-proper clause is always lurking in these commerce clause cases.”
The necessary-and-proper clause sits at the end of Article I, Section 8, after 17 paragraphs that enumerate the powers delegated to Congress, ranging from the establishment of post offices to the declaration of war. It conveys authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the -foregoing powers.”
The clause’s potential to concentrate power in the national government — it became known as the “sweeping power” — caused consternation among anti-federalists during ratification and the Supreme Court has struggled since to define its limits, in decisions from McCulloch v Maryland in 1819 to the US v Comstock last May.
The next refinement could well come when the Supreme Court considers the healthcare law, probably two years down the road. Three US District Court judges so far have ruled on the merits of the case, with two upholding the insurance mandate and Hudson invalidating it, but not blocking it pending appeal. A fourth judge is expected to rule next year.
The US Department of Justice, which represents the Obama administration, argues that the insurance requirement is constitutional under the commerce clause and allowed under the necessary-and-proper clause as a rational means to an appropriate end. It points to a series of Supreme Court precedents that interpret those provisions as allowing the regulation of “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.”
The act of not obtaining health insurance, the federal government’s lawyers contend, is effectively a decision to pay later rather than up front in a market that consumers cannot avoid. Such decisions, they say, have a substantial impact on the market because many of the uninsured cannot afford their care and shift costs to governments, hospitals and the privately insured.
Furthermore, the lawyers argue, the insurance mandate is essential — both necessary and proper — to making other changes work, particularly prohibitions on discrimination by insurers against those with pre-existing medical conditions.
“We’re not talking about downstream effects,” Ian Gershengorn, a Department of Justice lawyer, told Hudson at an October hearing. “We’re talking about the very thing that enforces insurance companies to comply with the regulations.”
However, the judge agreed with Virginia’s attorney general that the necessary-and-proper clause could not prop up an otherwise unconstitutional provision. Virginia argued, and the judge agreed, that the insurance requirement, by regulating inactivity rather than activity, exceeds the limits of the commerce clause.
“The necessary-and-proper clause does not provide a safe sanctuary,” Hudson wrote, because it “may only be constitutionally deployed when tethered to a lawful exercise of an enumerated power.”
That prompted online rebuttals from a number of legal academics who argued that Hudson’s misreading would render the necessary-and-proper clause meaningless.
“It reads the necessary-and-proper power out of the Constitution because it won’t allow it to add anything to the enumerated powers,” Andrew Koppelman, a Northwestern University law professor, wrote on the legal blog Balkinization.
The Supreme Court’s seminal instruction came from Chief Justice John Marshall in McCulloch v Maryland, which upheld Congress’ right to incorporate a national bank. While the court found that the necessary-and-proper clause granted Congress broad authority, Marshall set outer limits by writing: “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”
The Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts Jr, affirmed the scope of Congress’ authority 191 years later in the Comstock case, which upheld the federal government’s ability to detain sexual predators beyond their prison release dates.
Writing for the court, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that the Constitution did not explicitly grant Congress the power to criminalize conduct or imprison offenders, but that the necessary-and-proper clause made each possible.
The court laid out five “considerations” to help determine whether a statute was in fact necessary and proper. Lawyers in the healthcare cases differ over whether those considerations constitute a test and if so, whether the insurance requirement would pass.
Each side has also found encouragement in Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion in the last significant commerce clause case.
In Gonzales v Raich in 2005, the majority found that the clause allowed the government to prosecute the possession of medical marijuana. Scalia, while agreeing, wrote that the case should have hung on the necessary-and-proper clause.
Congress can regulate “even noneconomic local activity if that regulation is a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce,” he wrote.
That might provide solace to the administration, except that Scalia used the words “activity” or “activities” 42 times in his ruling. The court has never been asked whether inactivity should receive the same blessing.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with