Justice Xxxxxxx’x Case for Quasi-Originalism Sample Clauses

Justice Xxxxxxx’x Case for Quasi-Originalism. One case that demonstrates Xxxxxxx’ use of quasi-originalism is NFIB x. Xxxxxxxx (2012), which addressed the legality of federally mandating government sponsored healthcare—impacting the political and social life of everyday Americans. The justices in this case had to grapple with the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The specific part of the law in question, the individual mandate, required Americans to obtain health insurance, and thus, issued a penalty payment to punish individuals and states that failed to obtain said insurance. The National Federation of Independent Business sued the federal government, arguing that “the individual mandate exceeded Congress’ enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause…[and] the employer mandate impermissibly interfered with state sovereignty.”121 In a 5-4 decision, led by Xxxxxxx, the Court upheld the mandate, viewing it as a legitimate exercise of Congress's taxing power under the Commerce Clause despite the ACA’s 121 "National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius." Oyez. xxxxx://xxx.xxxx.xxx/cases/2011/11-393. lack of the word “tax”. Xxxxxxx writes, “The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”122 By reinterpreting the ACA's penalty as a tax, Xxxxxxx balances his originalist perspective by moving beyond the semantic confines of "penalty", and focused on the functional role of the mandate within Congress's taxing powers. Further, when he writes, “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness,” Xxxxxxx illustrates a commitment to uphold the legislative intent and the broader constitutional powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and thus, his opinion underscored a quasi-originalist approach. In contrast, the dissenting justices, employing a stricter version of originalism, held the individual mandate unconstitutional “because Congress characterized the payment as a penalty” and “to instead characterize it as a tax would amount to rewriting the Act.”123 The minority’s characterization of Xxxxxxx’ interpretation of the payment penalty as creating law or “rewriting the act'' holds little weight since the power of Congress to administer and collect payments stem from the Commerce Claus...