LyrArc Article Gist
Arguments that are expected to be used by both sides before the U.S. Supreme Court on the health care law. At the heart of this is the 1942 decision, Wickard v. Filburn, on the limits of federal power. Mr. Filburn, was an Ohio farmer who questioned a 1938 federal law that imposed a penalty on every extra bushel of wheat on his farm beyond the stipulated amount. The decision was unanimous and went against Filburn. At issue is whether the federal government can impose a penalty on individuals for not buying health insurance. Justice Robert Jackson wrote in that case: "Even if appellee's activity be local, and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress, if it exerts a substantial economic effect on commerce." The Obama administration's argument in its brief is that the decision of individuals not to buy insurance, like that of Filburn to plant that extra bushel, has larger effects beyond the local one and serious consequences for the whole country- it raises insurance rates of people in states across the country and makes hospitals bear the burden of caring for these uninsured people. For over 50 years the Supreme Court has largely supported the idea behind the Filburn decision, except in 1995 and 2000- these two decision invalidated laws made about guns near schools and violence against women. The Court ruled that the activities were local and noncommercial and beyond the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.