PARTY POLARIZATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: LESSONS FROM THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT[dagger]

By Devins, Neal | Northwestern University Law Review, October 1, 2012 | Go to article overview

PARTY POLARIZATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: LESSONS FROM THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT[dagger]


Devins, Neal, Northwestern University Law Review


ABSTRACT-Congress paid nearly no attention to the Constitution when enacting the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010. Legislative hearings and committee reports ignored the Constitution altogether; legislative debates largely did the same. This Essay both highlights Congress's indifference to the Constitution when enacting the ACA and examines the reasons behind this legislative failure. In particular, this Essay advances three explanations. First, Congress is generally uninterested in "public goods" like constitutional interpretation. Second, the polarization of Democrats and Republicans in Congress further depresses Congress's interest in thinking about the Constitution; instead, the majority party seeks to limit opportunities for the minority party to raise constitutional objections to legislation. Third, there is no federalism constituency in Congress that pushes lawmakers to take federalism into account when enacting legislation. For this very reason, Republican lawmakers almost always attacked the ACA on policy, rather than on constitutional, grounds. While embracing these three explanations, this Essay rejects a fourth explanation, namely, that lawmakers had no reason to know that the ACA would be subject to vigorous constitutional attack. Finally, this Essay argues that congressional disinterest in constitutional federalism supports the Supreme Court's establishment of boundaries that limit Congress's Commerce Clause power. At the same time, this Essay does not endorse the action- inaction distinction advanced by five Justices in the ACA decision.

INTRODUCTION

When enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA),1 the 111th Congress paid scant attention to possible constitutional challenges to their signature achievement. No constitutional hearings were held, committee reports did not discuss the Act's constitutionality, and legislative debates largely ignored constitutional objections to the Act.2 Why did lawmakers seemingly drop this ball?

In the lead-up to National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB),3 various theories were launched and various culprits identified. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Michael McConnell argued that "[t]he drafters and defenders of the health-care law have only themselves to blame for this mess . . . [as] they did not take seriously their obligation to" interpret the Constitution and act within its bounds.4 In a vigorous defense of congressional Democrats that appeared in Salon, Andrew Koppelman claimed that the bill's supposed constitutional shortcomings "could not have been anticipated because they did not exist while the bill was being written."5 In both The New Yorker and The New York Times, news analyses placed responsibility on a confluence of factors-the fact that "liberal [legal] academics" thought the constitutional issue a nonstarter, the failure of the Republican lawmakers and media outlets to question the bill's constitutionality, and the related failure of media outlets to run stories about potential legal challenges to the statute.6

In earlier writings that have appeared in the Northwestern University Law Review and Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy,7 I have argued that party polarization contributes to congressional disinterest in the Constitution and that the ACA is a classic case study of the pernicious effects of polarization on congressional interest in constitutional questions. In the pages that follow, I will recap and extend that argument. Specifically, after discussing party polarization's impact on constitutional deliberations and the corresponding failure of Congress to take the Constitution seriously when enacting the ACA, I will consider alternative explanations for Congress's failure to take the Constitution into account when enacting the legislation. I will embrace two supplemental explanations-Congress's general disinterest in "public goods" like constitutional interpretation and the absence of a federalism constituency in Congress. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

PARTY POLARIZATION AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: LESSONS FROM THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT[dagger]
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.