There is a very good reason that most of the lower courts have ruled for the mandate: they were following Supreme Court precedent set in Wickard v. Filburn.
Wickard was the 1942 case wherein the high court decided that wheat that a farmer grew for his own personal consumption -- food that was never intended to leave his farm -- could still be regulated under the commerce clause of the Constitution.
Rule of law obligates lower courts to follow the higher courts' precedent.
However, the Supreme Court does not need to follow past precedent; it has created and still can create it's own logic, thereby setting new precedent.
It's not really surprising that lower courts ruled for the mandate: mostly, those rulings fell in line with Wickard.
Many libertarians believe that Wickard has already stretched the commerce clause too far. If the current conservative-leaning Supreme Court believe the same, their upcoming decision on Obamacare is a great opurtunity to reign back in Congress's regulatory power.
Therefore, Obamacare supporters who cite lower court rulings as proof of the mandate's constituionality should probably hold off their celebration, because the Supreme Court is not constrained by anything but the Constitution.
Comments