@article{ref1,
title="The PPACA in Wonderland",
journal="American journal of law and medicine",
year="2012",
author="Lawson, Gary and Kopel, David B.",
volume="38",
number="2/3",
pages="269-287",
abstract="The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (&quot;PPACA&quot;) is &quot;unconstitutional&quot; is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word &quot;unconstitutional.&quot;  The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution's text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term &quot;unconstitutional,&quot; as well as the problem of determining the &quot;constitutionality&quot; of a lengthy statute when only some portions of the statute are challenged. We then, using &quot;unconstitutional&quot; to mean&quot; inconsistent with an original social understanding of the Constitution's text (with a bit of a nod to judicial precedents),&quot; show that the individual mandate in the PPACA is not authorized by the federal taxing power, the federal commerce power, or the Necessary and Proper Clause and is therefore unconstitutional.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0098-8588",
doi="10.1177/009885881203800202",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/009885881203800202"
}