Sheldon Richman tears into Harry Reid’s monstrosity here. Among other points, he shows that the constitutional justification being offered (“the Commerce Clause says we can regulate interstate commerce and that means we can force people to buy things they don’t want”) is groundless.
If Congress is empowered to do anything so long as there is some possible effect on interstate commerce, no matter how minimal or speculative, then it can do anything. Banning books, for example (whether one specific book, a few, or all books) would affect interstate commerce. So could Harry Reid do that? Or how about a bill that would compel people to give money to the Democratic Party? That would also affect interstate commerce in some way. Could Harry Reid push through such a bill? If mandatory insurance purchases are constitutional, there can be no principled argument against banning books or compelling political “contributions.”
