MITCH MeCONNELL United States Senate OFFICE OF THE REPUBLICAN LEADER November 9, 2010 Dear Colleague: Last Tuesday, Americans cast votes reflecting what they had been telling Washington for many months: they oppose a 2,700 page health care law that dramatically increases spending and expands the reach of the federal government into their health care decisions. While I strongly believe that we should repeal the law and replace it with the types of commonsense reforms Americans support, I also strongly support the efforts of over twenty States that have challenged this law in the courts. Senate Republicans have long expressed grave misgivings about the constitutionality of Public Law 111- 148 (2010), otherwise known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or “PPACA”). During last December's floor debate, Senate Republicans unanimously supported two constitutional points of order lodged against the legislation by Senators Hutchison and Ensign. 1 intend to submit, as amicus curiae, the attached brief reiterating these constitutional concems to the federal court in Florida that is, hearing the challenge to the law brought by numerous States, the National Federation of Independent Business, and individual citizens. ‘The brief essentially makes two points. First, it asserts that the Individual Mandate in the PPACA is an unprecedented and unauthorized extension by the Congress of its authority to “regulate Commerce among the several States. ....” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. For the first time, the Congress is not regulating an economic activity in which its citizens have chosen to engage, but rather is mandating that its citizens engage in economic activity—that they purchase « particular product—to begin with, and it ‘would allow the federal government to punish those who make a different choice. Second, the brief argues that if the Individual Mandate is deemed constitutional, there will no longer be any meaningful limit on Congress’s power to regulate its citizens under the Commerce Clause. Congress’s specific power under that Clause will be transformed into a general police power, all but eliminating the constitutional distinction between federal and state regulatory authority in our federal union, As the Supreme Court has noted, the Framers of our Constitution conceived of limitations on government “to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.” By preventing “the accumulation of excessive power,” the Constitution is designed to reduce “the risk of tyranny or abuse from either” state or federal government. Gregory v. Ashcraft, 501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991). The PPACA would remove an important ‘bulwark of this protection. I hope you will join me in arguing to the court in the attached brief why that should not happen. Should you or your staff have questions about the brief, please contact John Abegg or Megan Hauck in the Republican Leader's Office at (202) 224-3135. Sincerely, tM ee ‘MITCH MeCONNELL REPUBLICAN LEADER MMirw ‘$-230, THE CAPITOL, WASHINGTON, Dc 20510-7012 202-204-3135