Some thoughts for Tuesday’s Supreme Court argument

Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear arguments on that portion of Obamacare that requires citizens to purchase government mandated insurance from a private company, or pay a penalty.

Embedded in this discussion is basic contract law, so, I thought you might like to learn a piece of  “Contracts 101”. 

Under our law, each party must consent to both entering into a contract, and  the specific terms of that contract, or the contract is void or voidable. 

In the case of Obamacare, an individual is required to enter into a contract with an insurance company containing government mandated insurance coverage.  Whether that person wants to enter into that contract with an insurance company at all, or whether that person wants the specific things mandated  is irrelevant.  That person must, by law, sign the contract.

Is this the type of coercion that renders the insurance contract void or voidable?

Or, is basic contract law suspended because of Congress’ action?

We’ll learn the answer in a few months.

 

Posted in

SoundOffSister

The Sound Off Sister was an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and special trial attorney for the Department of Justice, Criminal Division; a partner in the Florida law firm of Shutts & Bowen, and an adjunct professor at the University of Miami, School of Law. The Sound Off Sister offers frequent commentary concerning legislation making its way through Congress, including the health reform legislation passed in early 2010.

9 Comments

  1. essneff on March 27, 2012 at 12:19 am

    I’ll be interested in your answer to??that last question you posited after the testimony ends…… I appreciate how you simply this…… my opinion is that the law should be declared unconstitutional, but I fear that certain parts will stand?



  2. winnie on March 27, 2012 at 1:05 am

    If this stands because of? Congress’ actions, I’d hate to think of the contracts the federal, state & local governments could then force us to sign under duress with the threat of a little fine here and a little fine there.? I think we’re taxed enough already.?
    Not feeling too confident that the supreme court won’t land on the side of the dems.
    ?



  3. phil on March 27, 2012 at 7:46 am

    Wasn’t Kagan supposed to recuse herself?



    • Dimsdale on March 27, 2012 at 8:30 am

      Why, yes.? What of that?



    • phil on March 27, 2012 at 9:45 am

      Time to stamp our feet and have a tantrum!



    • RoBrDona on March 27, 2012 at 2:35 pm

      Special K had a major hand in formulating and advocating for a law that would hold sway over an entire nation. And then was inserted into SCOTUS knowing that she would eventually have to rule on it.?



    • GdavidH on March 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm

      It’s an Obamanation and the “press” has “Left” the building.



  4. Lynn on March 27, 2012 at 11:39 am

    People need to be able to buy policies that meet their needs. KISS



  5. Lynn on March 27, 2012 at 11:40 am

    If not clear enuff…. NO Mandates
    ?



square-obama-doctor

The website's content and articles were migrated to a new framework in October 2023. You may see [shortcodes in brackets] that do not make any sense. Please ignore that stuff. We may fix it at some point, but we do not have the time now.

You'll also note comments migrated over may have misplaced question marks and missing spaces. All comments were migrated, but trackbacks may not show.

The site is not broken.