This short book analyzes the Obamacare case - focusing on many points the Supreme Court was never told about - including the fact that the constitutional framers themselves had approved mandates to buy health insurance! "Anyone who cares about the Supreme Court's approach to constitutional issues - and especially about the claims of some Justices that they try to follow the Constitution's original meaning - must read Einer Elhauge's devastating analysis of what all nine Justices, and the hundreds of advocates whose briefs and arguments they studied, simply failed to take into account when the Supreme Court decided the Health Care Case of 2012. No history of that decision will be complete unless it includes this brilliant and eminently readable little book - a book that deserves to become an instant classic." - Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard Law Professor, leading constitutional law scholar, acclaimed Supreme Court advocate, and author of many books, including the highly influential treatise, American Constitutional Law. "An illuminating analysis of the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare that offers rigor and insight, written by a brilliant legal mind." - Amy Chua, Yale Law Professor and author of World on Fire, Days of Empire, and Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. "Einer Elhauge is the single best and most incisive commentator on the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the Affordable Care Act more generally. His gathering of precedent and penetrating analysis will convince you that much of the Court's arguments were mistaken." - Ezekiel J. Emanuel, M.D., Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania Professor and Chair of the Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, former Special Advisor for Health Policy to the Obama White House OMB, New York Times columnist, and author of many books on health care. "Elhauge asked a brilliant and devastatingly simple question of the Supreme Court's so-called 'originalists.' They simply ignored it. This beautiful book tells a story history won't forget." - Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professor, and leading scholar and author of many books on Constitutional Law and Internet Law. "Einer Elhauge brings to the debate over the individual mandate an extraordinary combination of skills: he is deeply knowledgeable about health policy, and he is also a terrific lawyer. This book is the result of his exceptional insight, and it demonstrates why the attacks on the health care reform law were so utterly misguided. Anyone who wants to understand this chapter in our history should read this book." - David Strauss, University of Chicago Law Professor, author of The Living Constitution, and leading constitutional law scholar who has argued 18 cases before the Supreme Court. "Elhauge's lucid account of the battle over health care mandates seeks answers to important questions wherever they may lie, without letting policy preferences or political ideology drive outcomes. That's a rare and refreshing approach. He re-inspires confidence in the notion that the Constitution's principles can unite people with disparate views, rather than being bent by a bare majority to whatever preordained task is at hand." - Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law Professor, co-director of the Berkman Center, and author of The Future of the Internet -- And How to Stop It.

The Supreme Court's decision in the Health Care Case, NFIB v. Sebelius, gripped the nation's attention during the spring of 2012. Like the legislative battle leading to adoption of ?Obamacare?, the litigation took many unexpected twists and turns, culminating in a surprising, fractured and confusing decision from the Supreme Court. This volume gathers together reactions to the decision from an ideologically diverse selection of the nation's leading scholars of constitutional, administrative, and health law.

Foreword by Randy E. Barnett In 2012, the United States Supreme Court became the center of the political world. In a dramatic and unexpected 5–4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts voted on narrow grounds to save the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Unprecedented tells the inside story of how the challenge to Obamacare raced across all three branches of government, and narrowly avoided a constitutional collision between the Supreme Court and President Obama. On November 13, 2009, a group of Federalist Society lawyers met in the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C., to devise a legal challenge to the constitutionality of President Obama’s “legacy”—his healthcare reform. It seemed a very long shot, and was dismissed peremptorily by the White House, much of Congress, most legal scholars, and all of the media. Two years later the fight to overturn the Affordable Care Act became a political and legal firestorm. When, finally, the Supreme Court announced its ruling, the judgment was so surprising that two cable news channels misreported it and announced that the Act had been declared unconstitutional. Unprecedented offers unrivaled inside access to how key decisions were made in Washington, based on interviews with over one hundred of the people who lived this journey—including the academics who began the challenge, the attorneys who litigated the case at all levels, and Obama administration attorneys who successfully defended the law. It reads like a political thriller, provides the definitive account of how the Supreme Court almost struck down President Obama’s “unprecedented” law, and explains what this decision means for the future of the Constitution, the limits on federal power, and the Supreme Court.

Six years after its enactment, Obamacare remains one of the most controversial, divisive, and enduring political issues in America. In this much-anticipated follow-up to his critically acclaimed Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare (2013), Josh Blackman argues that, to implement the law, President Obama has broken promises about cancelled insurance policies, exceeded the traditional bounds of executive power, and infringed on religious liberty. At the same time, conservative opponents have stopped at nothing to unravel Obamacare, including a three-week government shutdown, four Supreme Court cases, and fifty repeal votes. This legal thriller provides the definitive account of the battle to stop Obamacare from being 'woven into the fabric of America'. Unraveled is essential reading to understand the future of the Affordable Care Act in America's gridlocked government in 2016, and beyond.

The Affordable Care Act debate was one of the most important and most public examinations of the Constitution in our history. At the forefront of that debate were the bloggers of the Volokh Conspiracy who, from before the law was even passed, engaged in a spirited, erudite, and accessible discussion of the legal issues involved in the case.

An incisive biography of the Supreme Court's enigmatic Chief Justice, taking us inside the momentous legal decisions of his tenure so far. John Roberts was named to the Supreme Court in 2005 claiming he would act as a neutral umpire in deciding cases. His critics argue he has been anything but, pointing to his conservative victories on voting rights and campaign finance. Yet he broke from orthodoxy in his decision to preserve Obamacare. How are we to understand the motives of the most powerful judge in the land? In The Chief, award-winning journalist Joan Biskupic contends that Roberts is torn between two, often divergent, priorities: to carry out a conservative agenda, and to protect the Court's image and his place in history. Biskupic shows how Roberts's dual commitments have fostered distrust among his colleagues, with major consequences for the law. Trenchant and authoritative, The Chief reveals the making of a justice and the drama on this nation's highest court.

An original ebook from the current US senator to Utah, explaining why Chief Justice Roberts was wrong to disregard the Constitution in making his historic and controversial healthcare decision. During Chief Justice Roberts’s first seven terms on the Supreme Court of the United States, he distinguished himself as a fair-minded jurist and a true constitutional scholar—a man seemingly committed to the rule of law and to core constitutional principles. That hard-earned distinction was turned on its head when, on June 28, 2012, the Chief Justice—writing for a five-to-four majority in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebilius—essentially re-wrote key provisions of Obamacare in order to uphold the law, and allow it to be approved, in the face of a justified constitutional challenge. Now United States Senator Mike Lee presents a conservative critique of this controversial ruling, and explains why John Roberts in particular was wrong to vote to preserve the act. In an attempt to be perceived as fair in the mainstream media, Roberts allowed himself to be swayed by outside influences -- influences to which a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be absolutely immune. Not only that, Senator Lee explains, Roberts conceded that much of the Obamacare act was unconstitutional; yet he instructed states simply to ignore those parts, instead of recognizing that those parts made the entire act invalid. A smart, fair and evenhanded argument, Why John Roberts Was Wrong provides a definitive, concise argument against Obamacare.

The Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as it has come to be known, has split American society, politics and media like no other subject in living memory. It is not just the concept itself as there is a pretty general recognition that healthcare needed reforming in the US. It is more the nature and implications of the system that seem to have stirred up a veritable hornets nest of protest – even outrage. Some will see in the extreme reaction of the Republican party, especially the more right-wing elements, an idealogical stance that has more to do with a hatred of big government, state spending and what they see as taking away individual choice. Some will go further and say that it is an almost pathological hatred of this presidential regime and the current Democrat culture which drives opposition to almost destructive – and maybe self-destructive – lengths. A more balanced view might be that Obamacare has both good and bad aspects but that something has to be done and the resultant impact might be necessary pain for some for a period. Whether the system delivers only time will tell. The same goes for whether it will bankrupt the country, cost jobs and competitiveness and generally weaken the US economy. Both sides of the argument have got a lot to lose – and potentially – gain if the pendulum swings their way. It will be an interesting journey.

On June 28, 2012, a mere century after the first presidential proposal for national health insurance, the Supreme Court issued a resounding victory for President Obama and for health-care reform generally, upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act against a serious constitutional challenge. Nevertheless, the Court also struck a potential blow to future health-care reform efforts. A majority of the Court refused to accept the Solicitor General's argument that health care is a unique market with unique regulatory needs that justify special constitutional treatment. The failure of health-care exceptionalism in the Court's opinion might render future reform efforts more difficult than they would have been if the Solicitor General's argument had carried the day. This Commentary seeks to shed light on the Court's hesitation to recognize the uniqueness of health insurance and health care, noting that market-based exceptionalism in constitutional law has a long, dark history that the Court was understandably loath to repeat. Although the result of the majority's one-size-fits-all approach to constitutional analysis in this case is an odd holding that elides some genuine uniqueness of American health care, the alternative of health-care exceptionalism might have been much worse for our overall constitutional system.

Now with a new epilogue-- an unprecedented and unwavering history of the Supreme Court showing how its decisions have consistently favored the moneyed and powerful. Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law. The Court was the midwife of Jim Crow, the right hand of union busters, and the dead hand of the Confederacy. Nor is the modern Court a vast improvement, with its incursions on voting rights and its willingness to place elections for sale. In this powerful indictment of a venerated institution, Ian Millhiser tells the history of the Supreme Court through the eyes of the everyday people who have suffered the most from it. America ratified three constitutional amendments to provide equal rights to freed slaves, but the justices spent thirty years largely dismantling these amendments. Then they spent the next forty years rewriting them into a shield for the wealthy and the powerful. In the Warren era and the few years following it, progressive justices restored the Constitution's promises of equality, free speech, and fair justice for the accused. But, Millhiser contends, that was an historic accident. Indeed, if it weren't for several unpredictable events, Brown v. Board of Education could have gone the other way. In Injustices, Millhiser argues that the Supreme Court has seized power for itself that rightfully belongs to the people's elected representatives, and has bent the arc of American history away from justice.