As the nation waits on the Supreme Court’s ruling on the
Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare), it’s worth taking a look at
the 2010 ReasonTV video that the
New York Times recently cited as one of the reasons why the
individual mandate is under legal attack.

Here’s the original writeup for “Wheat, Weed, and Obamacare,”
produced by Austin Bragg:

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the
power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several States,” and
for more than 100 years federal lawmakers invoked it for a very
narrow purpose—to prevent states from imposing trade barriers on
each other. But today members of Congress act as if it gives them
the authority to do just about anything—including forcing you to
eat your vegetables.

During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Elena Kagan
seemed to accept that the Commerce Clause could, in theory, give
Congress the power to dictate what Americans eat. And what
about ObamaCare’s “individual mandate,” which forces Americans to
purchase health insurance? ObamaCare opponents are lining up to
challenge its constitutionality, but supporters say it’s
justified—you guessed it—under the Commerce Clause.

How did a clause intended as a restriction on states wind up
giving Congress a green light to regulate noncommercial, local, and
purely private behavior?  How will ObamaCare stand up against
the legal challenges brought by the states? Legal titans John
Eastman (Chapman University Law Professor) and Erwin Chemerinsky
(Founding Dean, University of California, Irvine School of Law)
slug it out to to determine whether or not Congress has been
abusing the commerce clause.

Produced by Austin Bragg.  Approximately 10 minutes.

Visit Reason.tv for
HD, iPod, and audio versions of all our videos and subscribe
to Reason.tv’s
YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new
material goes live.