私人诉讼要求

Gerard N. Magliocca
{"title":"私人诉讼要求","authors":"Gerard N. Magliocca","doi":"10.25148/LAWREV.6.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Symposium Essay assesses the constitutional challenge to the individual health insurance mandate. The principal argument against the mandate is that Congress is barred from regulating private inaction (or compelling action) under its Commerce Clause authority. Such a \"private action\" requirement must be judged by comparison to the state action doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the only other general limitation on the power of Congress that distinguishes between acts and omissions. Measured against this principle, the attack on the individual mandate is without merit.","PeriodicalId":230649,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Private Action Requirement\",\"authors\":\"Gerard N. Magliocca\",\"doi\":\"10.25148/LAWREV.6.1.4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Symposium Essay assesses the constitutional challenge to the individual health insurance mandate. The principal argument against the mandate is that Congress is barred from regulating private inaction (or compelling action) under its Commerce Clause authority. Such a \\\"private action\\\" requirement must be judged by comparison to the state action doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the only other general limitation on the power of Congress that distinguishes between acts and omissions. Measured against this principle, the attack on the individual mandate is without merit.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230649,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-12-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25148/LAWREV.6.1.4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Law & Policy eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25148/LAWREV.6.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇专题讨论会论文评估了对个人健康保险授权的宪法挑战。反对强制令的主要论点是,国会被禁止在其商业条款授权下监管私人不作为(或强制行动)。这种“私人行为”要求必须通过与第十四修正案的国家行为原则进行比较来判断,这是对国会权力区分作为与不作为的唯一一般限制。根据这一原则来衡量,对个人强制医保的攻击是没有道理的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Private Action Requirement
This Symposium Essay assesses the constitutional challenge to the individual health insurance mandate. The principal argument against the mandate is that Congress is barred from regulating private inaction (or compelling action) under its Commerce Clause authority. Such a "private action" requirement must be judged by comparison to the state action doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is the only other general limitation on the power of Congress that distinguishes between acts and omissions. Measured against this principle, the attack on the individual mandate is without merit.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信