Healthcare Mandate: A Justification "Shot in the Dark"

I am no legal scholar, but I am going to take a "Shot in the Dark" in trying to prove the constitutionality of the new Healthcare mandate by precedent.

Here we go...

In 1905, the Supreme Court rejected a New York law that restricted the working hours of bakers. The majority opinion (by Justice Rufus Peckham) in the case Lochner v New York said that laws regulating working hours of bakers is not within the "Police Powers" of the state and violates the inherent liberty of contract within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Legal scholars call the next quarter century the "Lochner Era" where the Supreme Court struck down regulations on business using the same argument.

In 1908, The Supreme Court upheld Oregon regulations on working hours for women. The majority opinion (by Justice David Josiah Brewer) in the case Muller v. Oregon said that Lochner was not overruled, but tweaked. They made the distinction between the role of women and men adding special protection for women because "the physical well-being of woman becomes an object of public interest." Justice Brandeis supported the unanimous decision with a series of studies (later called Brandeis Briefs) that brought social science into the purview of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

In 1923, the Supreme Court struck down a federal minimum wage statute for women. The majority opinion (by Justice Sutherland) in the case Adkins v. Children's Hospital used the Lochner argument, saying that the federal minimum wage statute was a violation of the 14th Amendment.

In 1937, the Supreme Court upheld a minimum wage law in Washington, overruling the Adkins decision. In the majority opinion in the case West Coast Hotel Co v Parrish (by Justice Hughes), the court upheld the law saying that the 14th Amendment protection does conflict with laws that are meant to protect the community and the health and safety of vulnerable groups.

in 1942, the Supreme Court upheld the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 (controlled the wild fluctuation of wheat prices with quotas) in the case Wickard v Filburn. The majority opinion (by Justice Robert Jackson) said that the power to regulate price at which commerce occurs in inherent in the Commerce Clause.

The Healthcare mandate us currently being argued before Federal Judges. 26 states have challenged the law in court, and some have struck it down while others have upheld it. One of the arguments against the law is that it does not have precedent - there is no power or ruling that upholds the federal government's power to force people to take part in commerce (in this case - buy insurance).

I disagree...

Explicit in the Supreme Court cases I have listed is the ability of the Federal Government to regulate commerce. Minimum wage laws, as in the Parrish decision, were upheld to protect the health and well being of a vulnerable group. The Filburn decision showed that, through the power of Interstate Commerce, the federal government can regulate economic issues. The Supreme Court also upheld Social Security, the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the ban on White's Only lunch-counter through its ability to regulate interstate commerce. The Interstate Commerce Clause, in some regard, can be used to avoid a confusing and patchy regulatory environment of issues of safety and commerce. If an individual were to get sick across state lines and he/she is uninsured, they are subject to the laws of that state. This is where an Healthcare interface with interstate commerce exists. The uninsured become an "object of public interest" because of the burden of care they have on taxpayers. Thus, the federal government has the right to require a minimum standard.