No. 11-398
================================================================
In The
Supreme Court of the United States
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,
Petitioners,
v.STATE OF FLORIDA, et al.,
Respondents.
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
On Writ Of Certiorari To TheUnited States Court Of AppealsFor The Eleventh Circuit
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAELANDMARK LEGAL FOUNDATIONIN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTSON THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE(Minimum Coverage)
---------------------------------
♦
---------------------------------M
ARK
R. L
EVIN
M
ICHAEL
J. O’N
EILL
M
ATTHEW
C. F
ORYS
L
ANDMARK
L
EGAL
F
OUNDATION
19415 Deerfield Ave.Suite 312Leesburg, VA 20176(703) 554-6100(703) 554-6119 (Facsimile)R
ICHARD
P. H
UTCHISON
Counsel of Record
L
ANDMARK
L
EGAL
F
OUNDATION
3100 BroadwaySuite 1210Kansas City, MO 64111(816) 931-1175(816) 931-1115 (Facsimile)Hutchison@landmarklegal.org
ttorneys for Amicus Curiae
================================================================
COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831
iTABLE OF CONTENTSPageINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................ 1INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGU-MENT .................................................................. 1 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 5I. THE PPACA’S INDIVIDUAL INSURANCEMANDATE IS AN UNPRECEDENTED ANDUNCONSTITUTIONAL NATIONAL POLICEPOWER PERMISSIBLE NEITHER UNDERTHE COMMERCE CLAUSE NOR THENECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE ......... 5 A. The Commerce Clause in Historical Con-text Contemplates Voluntary Commer-cial Interactions. .................................... 5B.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Requires Reasonable Application of Commerce Clause .......... 6C. The Supreme Court’s Modern Jurispru-dence Does Not Sustain The IndividualMandate ................................................. 81. The Individual Mandate Cannot Sur-vive Commerce Clause Scrutiny ...... 9a. Inactivity is
not
activity ............. 9b. The decision to forego insuranceconstitutes inactivity .................. 112. The Individual Mandate Is Not SavedBy The Necessary And Proper Clause ... 11a. The Necessary And Proper Clauseis restrained ................................ 11
iiTABLE OF CONTENTS – ContinuedPageb.
United States v. Comstock
Reaf-firms Limits On The Necessary And Proper Clause ..................... 13D. The Individual Mandate Is An Unconsti-tutional National Police Power ............. 16II. SECTION 5000A OF THE PPACA ESTAB-LISHES AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX ... 18 A. The Federal Government Cannot Jus-tify The Penalty Provision As A Per-missible Excise Tax ............................... 20B. Rationales Proffered By Petitioner AndLower Courts That The Penalty Provi-sion Constitutes A Justifiable Tax AreUntenable And Should Not Be AdoptedBy The Court ......................................... 23C. The Federal Government Cannot Jus-tify The Penalty Provision As A Per-missible Income Tax .............................. 27D. The Penalty Provision Is Readily Dis-tinguishable From The Social Security Act .......................................................... 30E. Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 ProhibitsThe Issuance Of Capitation Or DirectTaxes Unless Apportioned Among TheStates ..................................................... 31
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Mark Levin’s “Friend of the Court” Brief on Obamacare’s Individual Mandate
This case is about individual liberty, state sovereignty and federalism. Indeed, whether there remain any limits on the power and reach of the federal government is the fundamental question before this Court. The federal government’s defense…
(More)
508
Reads
2
Readcasts
639
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
