Constitutional Sleight of Hand from George F. Will

In Sunday’s Washington Post, conservative columnist George F. Will takes on the constitutionality of the so-called “individual mandate” of the health care reform law not by dealing with the merits, but by mixing up constitutional provisions, perhaps hoping that no one will notice.  Apparently of the belief that Congress went too far in requiring all individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty tax, Will urges the courts to be “engaged” enough to constrain congressional overreaching.  According to Will, borrowing from a Texas judge’s description of that state’s Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is “’irrefutably framed in proscription’” and “’declares an emphatic ‘no’ to myriad government undertakings,’ no matter how much a majority might desire them.”  In support, Will cites “the first words of the Bill of Rights: ‘Congress shall make no law . . . ‘”

But Will’s constitutional prestidigitation should not go unanswered.  Will’s Bill of Rights quote is not a general limitation on the powers of Congress, but instead is an excerpt from the First Amendment, which contains an express limitation on the power of Congress to trample on certain specified rights:  religious liberty, freedom of speech and of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”  None of this has anything to do with the health care reform law or the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision.

Significantly, Will ignores what is in fact the Constitution’s first substantive provision:  Article I, which creates the Congress, vests it with “all legislative powers herein granted,” and then enumerates specific grants of powers (not limitations), using these very clear, affirmative terms: “The Congress shall have Power To . .  .” (Emphasis added).  Among the expressly enumerated powers of Congress set out in Article I are the powers to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States,” “lay and collect Taxes,” “provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States,” and “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

The limitations placed on congressional power by the First Amendment — to infringe upon religious freedom or the right to free speech, for example — do not negate the affirmative grants of congressional power in Article I, nor do they turn the Constitution into a charter of “proscription” upon the federal government.   George Will is of course entitled to his own opinion about whether the minimum coverage provision of the health care reform law exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress under Article I, but he isn’t entitled to his own Constitution.

* * * * * *

For a discussion of why enactment of the health care reform law, including the minimum coverage provision, was well within the constitutional authority of Congress, please see CAC’s Issue Brief, “The States, Health Care Reform, and the Constitution,” here.  In addition, please also see CAC’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health care reform law filed on behalf of State Legislators from 27 States in federal court in Florida.

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
April 29, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority, Once Again, Guts the Voting Rights Act and Further Enables Racial Discrimination in Voting

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a...
By: David H. Gans
Access to Justice
April 28, 2026

CAC Release: In Cisco v. Doe Argument, Justices Grapple with the Scope of Liability Under Two Critical Human Rights Statutes

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Cisco Systems...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Harith Khawaja
Access to Justice
April 27, 2026

Human Rights Suit Over Cisco Work for China Heads to Supreme Court

Bloomberg Law
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Miriam Becker-Cohen was interviewed by Bloomberg Law about our brief in Cisco...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
April 25, 2026

The Chilling Message Behind Trump’s Attack On The SPLC

Huffington Post
CAC Vice President Praveen Fernandes was interviewed by HuffPost about Trump's attacks on the Southern...
Access to Justice
April 17, 2026

The Most Offensive Thing a Supreme Court Justice Can Do Is Be Honest About the Supreme Court

Balls & Strikes
This Week In Other Stuff We Appreciated Judges Overseeing Louisiana’s Landmark Oil Cases Have Financial...