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 the author Angus Deaton, Dwight D. Eisenhower Professor of Economic and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs & Economics Department, Princeton University; with comments by Charles Kenny, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development; moderated by Ian Vasquez, Director, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, 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
December 9, 2013
December 9, 2013
The 2008-2009 financial crisis and Great Recession have vastly increased the power and scope of the Federal Reserve, and radically changed the financial landscape. This new ebook examines those changes and considers how the links between money, markets, and government may evolve in the future.