Topic: Application of the commerce clause in this hypothetical supreme court case

Order Description

You are the attorney for the Social Security Administration, utilizing the following case we have read, OUTLINE the best argument to the hypothetical

below that the PRA is constitutional in the supreme court. Use the commerce clause

CASES: Marbury v. madison, McCulloh v. Maryland, Dred Scott v. Sandford, National League of Cities v. Usery, Garcia v. SAMTA, Printz v. United

States, New York v. US, Schechter E&W, NRLB v. Jones, United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, Gonzales v. Raich, Heart of Atlanta Motel,

Inc v. US

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius that the individual mandate is not consistent with the Commerce Clause (also assume

that the Court did not uphold the statute based upon the taxing power), Congress passes an amendment to the Affordable Care Act.

The Patient Responsibility Amendment (PRA) reads as follow

: Upon presentment to any hospital, clinic or provider receiving federal funds, a patient

must show proof of insurance. If the patient does not have proof of insurance, the provider shall notify the Department of the Treasury. Information

shall include the patient’s name, Social Security number and the amount of provided services. The Department of the Treasury shall then adjust the

beneficiary’s Social Security withholding for all future withholding in an amount equal to the costs of services provided plus the annual median

amount of an individual insurance policy, such adjustments to continue until the age of 62 or until the beneficiary provides proof of insurance


John Liberty Valence is admitted to the Columbiana Medical Center (CMC) after presenting at the CMC’ emergency room with conditions consistent with

Ebola. He is hospitalized in quarantine for 21 days and then released when CMC confirms that he is not infected. His total hospital charges are

$52,000. He did not have insurance. Following release, he returns to work and his first paycheck includes an additional deduction for Social Security

taxes consistent with the PRA. Valence files suit against the Social Security Administration arguing that the PRA is not consistent with the Commerce