EDITOR: I am surprised that the debate over Obamacare, in the media and before the U.S. Supreme Court, has not raised the question of whether the mandate that everyone buy insurance is a violation of the contract clause of the Constitution. That clause says, "No state shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts . . ." By its terms, the prohibition applies only to the states, but the Supreme Court has extended it to the federal government.
The clause was adopted shortly after publication of Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations," which was well known to and accepted by the framers. The underlying theme of "Wealth of Nations," and the apparent presumption of this clause, was that in a free society money, goods and services are best allocated by private decision-making, not governmental mandates. Most of us think that has turned out to be true.
The questions arise: Why isn't it just as much an "impairment" of the obligations of contracts to mandate entering into a contract as to mandate abrogation of a contract? And if Congress changes its mind about how the health industry should function in a few years, can it order abrogation of all these insurance contracts without liability?
JARED G. CARTER
Ukiah
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: