washingtonpost.com
The individual mandate isn't unconstitutional

Wednesday, March 16, 2011; 8:49 PM

Regarding George F. Will's March 13 op-ed column, "Necessary - and improper":

Nobody is arguing, as Mr. Will claims, that the individual mandate is constitutional under the necessary and proper clause because the law would be unworkable if it were not. Such a circular argument is base sophistry, and it is insulting that Mr. Will would attribute such inanity to federal judges.

The real argument is that the mandate satisfies the clause because it is necessary and proper to realizing Congress's uncontroversial power to regulate the interstate health insurance market. The real focus of the litigation is whether Congress may compel economic activity, and Congress may do so as long as such compulsion is necessary and proper to the realization of its power to regulate interstate commerce.

Branden Frankel, Encino, Calif.

Post a Comment


Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

© 2011 The Washington Post Company