# Supreme Court will invalidate health care legislation because it violates states rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 28, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093 "2010-03-28T07:10:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/1 "2010-03-28T07:10:54Z")
So says this guy. Does he have a point or not? [Napolitano: Supreme Court to Strike Down Obamacare](http://newsmax.com/Headline/Andrew-Napolitano-barack-obama/2010/03/26/id/354008) > [@](#): > > In an exclusive interview with [Newsmax.TV](http://Newsmax.TV)’s Ashley Martella, Napolitano says the president’s healthcare reforms amount to “commandeering” the state legislatures for federal purposes, which the Supreme Court has forbidden as unconstitutional. > > “The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. "Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/2 "2010-03-28T07:19:00Z")
He is correct that this law violates the Tenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. But ever since FDR tried to pack SCOTUS and they threw out stare decisis and suddenly upheld the New Deal laws, many of the laws Congress pass are likewise unconstitutional but SCOTUS has no problem upholding those. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/3 "2010-03-28T12:01:54Z")
I think it is a non-trivial legal question, and that anyone who claims “for sure” what the court will do is full of it. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/4 "2010-03-28T12:10:48Z")
See South Dakota v. Dole: > [@](#): > > In 1984, the United States Congress passed legislation, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, withholding 5% of Federal-Aid Highway Act funds from states that did not adopt a minimum legal age of 21 for the purchase and possession of alcohol. South Dakota, a state that had allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer containing up to 3.2% alcohol, sued to challenge the law, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant because her office was responsible for enforcing the legislation. > > The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress’s conditional spending is subject to four restrictions: > > 1. The condition must promote “the general welfare;” > 2. The condition must be unambiguous; > 3. The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;” and > 4. Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. > > The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a “pressure” on the State to comply, not a “compulsion” to do so, because the State’s failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5%[1] of the highway funds it may obtain. Therefore, Congress has not run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendments. > > SOURCE: [South Dakota v. Dole - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole) You’d think Napolitano would have mentioned this. If Napolitano wanted to give a fair rundown of the case this would seem a salient point to mention. That it wasn’t, to me, suggests either someone who does not know what they are talking about or someone who is intentionally trying to skew the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/5 "2010-03-28T12:19:50Z")
Newsmax? The guys who published an [article calling for a military coup](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/09/full_text_of_newsmax_column_suggesting_military_co.php) against Obama awhile back? I’d hardly consider anything they publish credible. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/6 "2010-03-28T12:38:38Z")
Napolitano is a conservative hack who frequently misstates settled law in aid of his partisan beliefs (and his pocketbook). That does not make his argument wrong in this instance, but it does mean that you’d be better off reading the analysis of smarter lawyers on both sides of the argument. (See, e.g., [http://volokh.com/](http://volokh.com/) for more intelligent legal discussion from a conservative POV). ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/7 "2010-03-28T12:53:48Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > He is correct that this law violates the Tenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. > > But ever since FDR tried to pack SCOTUS and they threw out stare decisis and suddenly upheld the New Deal laws, many of the laws Congress pass are likewise unconstitutional but SCOTUS has no problem upholding those. If SCOTUS upholds them, in what reasonable sense are they unconsitutional? The Supreme Court _is the consitution_. You may as well throw the original document away. ---
**Author:** ![Camus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ba8739/32.png) [@Camus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Camus)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/8 "2010-03-28T13:17:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > But ever since FDR tried to pack SCOTUS and they threw out stare decisis and suddenly upheld the New Deal laws, many of the laws Congress pass are likewise unconstitutional but SCOTUS has no problem upholding those. _Stare decisis_ as a legal principle does not mean that precedent should be upheld forever. It means, rather, that a precedent should be upheld unless there is a good reason to overturn it (by a court with the power and jurisdiction to do so). ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/9 "2010-03-28T16:39:15Z")
I just don’t see it happening. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/10 "2010-03-28T16:41:15Z")
> [@Camus](#): > > _Stare decisis_ as a legal principle does not mean that precedent should be upheld forever. It means, rather, that a precedent should be upheld unless there is a good reason to overturn it (by a court with the power and jurisdiction to do so). True such as _Brown_ overturning _Plessy_. But my point was specifically that after the court packing attempt in 1937, the same court started overturning their own decisions just to stay in FDR’s good graces and manufactured the expansion of the ICC to stay in office. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/11 "2010-03-28T16:48:50Z")
“States Rights” has been a dead argument since the judgment in the case of Grant v. Lee (1865). It’s still dead. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/12 "2010-03-28T17:09:40Z")
This is not some sober scholar giving a considered and dispassionate analysis, this is a conservative media lawyer (yes, he’s a former judge, but he’s functioning as an advocate for a particular side, not as an analyst) spewing hack partisan spin. Napolitano works for Fox News. Enough said. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/13 "2010-03-28T18:09:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Napolitano is a conservative hack who frequently misstates settled law in aid of his partisan beliefs (and his pocketbook). Worse. He’s a pro-life (small “l”) libertarian. :eek: And I agree that he is acting as an advocate, not an impartial analyst. I wouldn’t give his ideas much attention, although it’s pretty clear that there will be a whole slew of lawsuits over the law. ---
**Author:** ![NotreDame05](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90ced4/32.png) [@NotreDame05](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotreDame05)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/14 "2010-03-28T18:18:47Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > See South Dakota v. Dole: > > You’d think Napolitano would have mentioned this. If Napolitano wanted to give a fair rundown of the case this would seem a salient point to mention. That it wasn’t, to me, suggests either someone who does not know what they are talking about or someone who is intentionally trying to skew the discussion. Well I do not know the answer to this question but are we talking about parallel examples? Has Congress conditioned the receipt of money on the basis the states A.) modify their health care regulation in certain areas B.) surrender the regulation in other areas and C.) spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. Now, assuming these dictates to the states are not predicated upon the receipt of federal dollars, there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision which may assist the judge’s analysis. The case is _National League of Cities v. Usery_, 426 U.S. 833 (1976). “It is one thing to recognize the authority of Congress to enact laws regulating individual businesses necessarily subject to the dual sovereignty of the government of the Nation and of the State, in wich they reside. It is quite another to uphold, a similar exercise of congressional authority directed, not to private citizens, but to the States as States…The question we must resolve here, then, is whether these determinations are ‘functions essential to separate and independent existence’ so that Congress may not abrogate the States’ otherwise plenary authority to make them.” ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/15 "2010-03-28T18:27:27Z")
> [@NotreDame05](#): > > Now, assuming these dictates to the states are not predicated upon the receipt of federal dollars, there is a U.S. Supreme Court decision which may assist the judge’s analysis. The case is _National League of Cities v. Usery_, 426 U.S. 833 (1976). “It is one thing to recognize the authority of Congress to enact laws regulating individual businesses necessarily subject to the dual sovereignty of the government of the Nation and of the State, in wich they reside. It is quite another to uphold, a similar exercise of congressional authority directed, not to private citizens, but to the States as States…The question we must resolve here, then, is whether these determinations are ‘functions essential to separate and independent existence’ so that Congress may not abrogate the States’ otherwise plenary authority to make them.” According to wikipedia _National League of Cities v. Usery_ was over-ruled ten years later. So apparently the answer to the question posed in your quote is: “no”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/16 "2010-03-28T19:21:45Z")
> [@](#): > > But my point was specifically that after the court packing attempt in 1937, the same court started overturning their own decisions just to stay in FDR’s good graces and manufactured the expansion of the ICC to stay in office. So what are you saying? John Roberts is afraid to make any rulings that would piss off Franklin Roosevelt? If so, somebody should tell him Roosevelt’s dead. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/17 "2010-03-28T19:26:49Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > the case of Grant v. Lee (1865) Is that a real case or just a funny name for the war? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/18 "2010-03-28T19:33:45Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > He is correct that this law violates the Tenth Amendment and is unconstitutional. > > But ever since FDR tried to pack SCOTUS and they threw out stare decisis and suddenly upheld the New Deal laws, many of the laws Congress pass are likewise unconstitutional but SCOTUS has no problem upholding those. Agreed. You stated succinctly why this law will stand. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/19 "2010-03-28T19:45:44Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Is that a real case or just a funny name for the war? Oh, it was a famous case all right. Settled in a courthouse, too. The one in Appomattox. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [March 28, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093/20 "2010-03-28T20:35:29Z")
Mods, should this thread be merged with other ones debating this issue, like [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=556773) and/ or [this one?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=557335) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-will-invalidate-health-care-legislation-because-it-violates-states-rights/534093.md?page=2)