For both constitutional and pragmatic reasons, “Obamacare” appears more than capable of weathering the approaching storm of the Supreme Court, argues attorney Douglas L. McSwain. Why? For one, a good number of the law’s provisions — things such as increased transparency in health coverage options and paying providers based on quality of service, not quantity — are widely supported and are not being heard by the Court. In addition, McSwain maintains, the most controversial element of health care reform, the individual mandate, has a strong legal precedent in cases like Gonzales v. Raich (2005) and The Necessary & Proper Clause (2010). Still up for debate: the constitutionality of the law’s Medicaid expansion and the Anti-Injunction Act. 

Read the story.