Wednesday, March 16, 2011;
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.