NFIB v. Sebelius

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
NYSStateOfMind
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:26 pm

NFIB v. Sebelius

Postby NYSStateOfMind » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:13 pm

Does anyone have an outline/something that explains this Con Law case as it relates to Congress' commerce/taxing/spending powers?

Traynor Brah
Posts: 718
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:23 pm

Re: NFIB v. Sebelius

Postby Traynor Brah » Sat Apr 25, 2015 6:40 pm

you should really just read it, but:

Commerce power = framers gave congress power to regulate, not compel, commerce. Govt argues there's no temporal limit to CC power and because everyone must eventually participate in the healthcare market, they may be regulated in advance. Majority says no; that's an impermissible expansion of power by necessary and proper clause; even if it was necessary, it is not proper (whatever that means). Ginsberg categorized the new limit on CC power to an "actively engaged" in commerce standard.

Spending power = Dole and NY v US important. fed govt cannot compel the state to administer a federal regulatory program. Also inducement by spending power cannot pass to the point of compulsion; b/c the encouragement here is a "gun to the head" it is unconstitutional.

Taxing power = process here yields the essential feature of any tax: produces govt revenue. Important to distinguish between penalty and tax. Three considerations. Considerations point to this being a tax. Irrelevant that congress did not frame it as a tax.

User avatar
pancakes3
Posts: 3907
Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:49 pm

Re: NFIB v. Sebelius

Postby pancakes3 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:03 pm

Traynor Brah wrote:you should really just read it, but:

Commerce power = framers gave congress power to regulate, not compel, commerce. Govt argues there's no temporal limit to CC power and because everyone must eventually participate in the healthcare market, they may be regulated in advance. Majority says no; that's an impermissible expansion of power by necessary and proper clause; even if it was necessary, it is not proper (whatever that means). Ginsberg categorized the new limit on CC power to an "actively engaged" in commerce standard.


Just want to elaborate on this in emphasizing that this case makes clear that CC governs activity, not inactivity.

Taxing power = process here yields the essential feature of any tax: produces govt revenue. Important to distinguish between penalty and tax. Three considerations. Considerations point to this being a tax. Irrelevant that congress did not frame it as a tax.


Important that it's not framed as a tax for purposes of bypassing the anti-injunction act but important that it's essentially a tax to justify the exercise of taxing power... for the general welfare...

doctoroflaw91
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 10:38 am

Re: NFIB v. Sebelius

Postby doctoroflaw91 » Sat Apr 25, 2015 7:22 pm

I made a color coded outline that walks through the arguments/counterarguments for each portion of the case. Would be happy to send it to you if you PM me.

User avatar
Nebby
Posts: 21945
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: NFIB v. Sebelius

Postby Nebby » Mon Apr 27, 2015 1:22 am

NFIB will take up two sentences on your issue spotter. Please don't over think this.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jerrycallo and 13 guests