Abstract
The paper proceeds as follows. Part I describes the constitutional common law and its interactions with common-law constitutionalism. Part II uses the fight over the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its so-called "individual mandate" as a case study to flesh out the core differences between common-law constitutionalism and constitutional common law. Part III argues that a viable justification for a living constitution needs to embrace and defend the courts' essentially political nature, confronting head-on the (skyscraper) originalists' sense that courts should never do politics.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Boston University Law Review |
| Volume | 92 |
| State | Published - Jul 1 2012 |
Keywords
- healthcare
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA)
- originalism
- Commerce Clause
Disciplines
- Constitutional Law
- First Amendment
- Health Law and Policy
- Law
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS