Some will immediately claim that today’s decision in United States v. Comstock bodes ill to pending challenges to the individual health insurance mandate, but this would be a mistake. It is one thing to uphold as “necessary and proper” a law confining sexual predators who were already incarcerated pursuant to the enumerated powers of Congress. It is quite another to impose a mandate on every citizen of the United States as necessary and proper to its power “to regulate commerce … among the several states.” The justices who sided with the government today cannot all be counted on to uphold the unprecedented claim of federal power to require that all persons engage in economic activity.
Featuring Holly Bell, Associate Professor (Business), University of Alaska Anchorage; and Hester Peirce, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; moderated by Louise C. Bennetts, Associate Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute.
- Legal Briefs
- Cato Handbook for Policymakers
- Cato Journal
- Cato's Letter
- Cato's Letters
- Cato Papers on Public Policy
- Cato Policy Report
- Cato State Legislative Guide
- Cracking the Books
- Economic Freedom of the States of India
- Economic Freedom of the World
- Public Comments
- Supreme Court Review
In this issue of Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler and Nathaniel Stewart make the case for property-based fishery management, utilizing territorial or catch-share allocation among fishery participants. Also in this issue, Michael L. Wachter explores the relationship between the much-maligned National Labor Relations Act and the decline in union membership.
Latest Blog Post
A nonprofit TV station asks the Supreme Court to review an outdated legal doctrine.
Timothy Sandefur’s insightful new book documents a vital, forgotten truth: our Constitution was written to secure liberty, not to empower democracy.