Another part of the Constitution, the “Necessary and Proper Clause,” provides even more well-established support for Congress’s action. That catch-all provision authorizes Congress to enact laws that, while not expressly authorized by the Constitution’s specific enumerated powers, are “necessary and proper” to the exercise of those powers. In one of the Court’s most important decisions, McCulloch v. Maryland, written by Chief Justice John Marshall nearly two hundred years ago, the Court unanimously ruled that this provision must be given a broad reading, permitting any laws that are “convenient” or “rationally related” to the furtherance of an express power.6 In that case, the Court upheld Congress’s creation of a national bank, even though the authority to do so is nowhere expressly provided, because a national bank was rationally related to the exercise of Congress’s other powers, including the power to coin money and tax and spend. By the same token, because the individual mandate is rationally related to Congress’s conceded power to regulate health insurance, it is “necessary and proper.”
The wide reach of the Necessary and Proper Clause was reaffirmed just last year when, in a 7–2 decision joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Kennedy and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law authorizing civil commitment of federal prisoners who are sexual predators, even though no provision expressly authorizes Congress to do so.7 The Court explained that as long as there is some initial link to an explicitly enumerated power in the Constitution, the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes actions many steps removed from that power. Thus, the Court reasoned, Congress may pass criminal laws “rationally related” to any of its other enumerated powers. It may then build prisons to house those convicted, enact rules to govern prisoners, and provide civil commitment to protect the community from those leaving federal prison—even though the Constitution expressly authorizes none of these actions.
If the Necessary and Proper Clause supports such an extended string of implied powers, there can be little dispute that it authorizes the individual mandate. Congress undoubtedly has the authority to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause, so the individual mandate is “necessary and proper” as long as it is “rationally related” or “convenient” to that larger project. It clearly passes that test, as it is integral to avoiding a very large increase in health insurance premiums. Judge Hudson concluded, however, that because in his view the mandate was not permissible under the Commerce Clause, it could not be authorized by the Necessary and Proper Clause. That approach renders the latter clause meaningless, and directly contravenes McCulloch v. Maryland.
Finally, the individual mandate is also sustainable under Congress’s independent power to tax. President Obama insisted on a Sunday talk show that the mandate was not a tax, but the Court has long ruled that the validity of a law turns not on what label is attached to it, but on what it does. The individual mandate collects revenue from individuals as part of their income tax. It is expected to generate $4 billion annually, which will help the federal government defray the health care costs the uninsured fail to pay.
Judge Hudson deemed the law to be a penalty, not a tax, citing a 1922 decision that invalidated a federal tax on child labor on this ground.8 But that case, which dates from the same pre–New Deal era when the Court was narrowly construing Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, rested on another formalist distinction, since rejected, between laws that collect revenues and laws that regulate behavior. As with the pre–New Deal Commerce Clause distinctions, the Court has since abandoned this distinction, recognizing that taxes inevitably have regulatory effects by increasing the cost of the activity that is taxed. Thus, according to modern constitutional jurisprudence, a tax law is valid if it raises revenue and its regulations are reasonably related to the exercise of the taxing power.
Congress plainly can tax for the purpose of providing health insurance. It does so already, through Medicare and Medicaid. Had it simply expanded these programs to provide universal care, there would be no question that its actions would be permissible under the taxing power. Similarly, it indisputably could have granted tax credits to those who purchase health care, and withheld them from those who do not. Imposing the tax directly on free riders is no less an exercise of the taxing power.
Judge Hudson’s concerns that upholding the law would lead to unlimited federal power are wildly exaggerated. A decision to sustain the individual mandate would not mean that Congress could require all Americans to exercise or eat only healthy food, as some have suggested. The individual mandate regulates an economic decision that is in turn an essential part of a comprehensive economic regulation of the interstate business of insurance. And health care is a unique commodity, in that virtually everyone will eventually need it; along with taxes and death, a trip to the doctor is one of life’s inevitabilities. Thus, to say that Congress can require an individual to purchase insurance or pay a tax does not signal the end of all meaningful limits on federal power.
In short, Congress had ample authority to enact the individual mandate. Absent a return to a constitutional jurisprudence that has been rejected for more than seventy years, and, even more radically, an upending of Chief Justice Marshall’s long-accepted view of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the individual mandate is plainly constitutional.
Near the end of his decision, Judge Hudson writes: “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.” Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the suit, echoed that point the day the decision came down, insisting that “this lawsuit is not about health care. It’s about liberty.” But that is exactly what the case is not about. A decision that Congress lacks the power to enact the individual mandate says nothing about individual rights or liberty. It speaks only to whether the power to require citizens to participate in health insurance, a power that states indisputably hold, also extends to the federal government. The framers sought to give Congress the power to address problems of national or “interstate” scope, problems that could not adequately be left to the states. The national health insurance crisis is precisely such a problem. The legal question in the case is about which governmental entities have the power to regulate; not whether individuals have a liberty or right to refuse to purchase health care insurance altogether.
But Judge Hudson and Ken Cuccinelli’s misstatements are nonetheless telling. Opposition to health care reform is ultimately not rooted in a conception of state versus federal power. It’s founded instead on an individualistic, libertarian objection to a governmental program that imposes a collective solution to a social problem. While Judge Hudson’s reliance on a distinction between activity and inactivity makes little sense from the standpoint of federal versus state power, it intuitively appeals to the libertarian’s desire to be left alone. But nothing in the Constitution even remotely guarantees a right to be a free rider and to shift the costs of one’s health care to others. So rather than directly claim such a right, the law’s opponents resort to states’ rights.
In this respect, Judge Hudson and the Virginia attorney-general are situated squarely within a tradition—but it’s an ugly tradition. Proponents of slavery and segregation, and opponents of progressive labor and consumer laws, similarly invoked states’ rights not because they cared about the rights of states, but as an instrumental legal cover for what they really sought to defend—the rights to own slaves, to subordinate African-Americans, and to exploit workers and consumers.
Here, too, opponents of health care reform are not really seeking to vindicate the power of states to regulate health care. Rather, they are counting on the fact that if they succeed with this legal gambit, the powerful interests arrayed against health care reform—the insurance industry, doctors, and drug companies—will easily overwhelm any efforts at meaningful reform in most states. Unless the Supreme Court is willing to rewrite hundreds of years of jurisprudence, however, they will not succeed.
—January 27, 2011
'Is Health Care Reform Unconstitutional?': An Exchange April 7, 2011