As the debate about whether or not the next Republican should try to “repeal and replace” patient protection and affordable Continuous Care Act, the general attitude that prevails among conservatives is that the Americans found the bill Health unpopular, so the Republicans should be repealed. And yet, as pollsters continually tell us, “while the bill as a whole is not popular, many of their individual characteristics are not. They are, in fact, the most popular. However, there is a section unpopular legislation: the individual mandate, sixty-eight percent of Americans want to see repealed. Today, the legal battle over the mandate might be a more consistent judicial decisions and politics in recent history. When states and people began to file lawsuits against individual mandate a few months ago, many commentators and politicians simply dismissed as frivolous lawsuits political obstructionism with little chance of victory. However, those who question the individual obligation in fact have a much greater chance of success than many believe, as law professor Ilya Somin argues convincingly.

There are two possible outcomes of the final judicial decision, or the courts rule the constitutional mandate and is applied as directed, or is declared unconstitutional and a vital part of the draft health reform law is overthrown, eliminating any possible reductions costs that strives to achieve reform. The first result has serious long-term implications for the future constitutional interpretation by the courts, and the second will have a dramatic impact on our system of health care that could leave us with a system that is worse than before. Consider the first result. Today, those who argue that the individual mandate is constitutional to do with the argument that it is simply a tax and only changed the tax regime as other fiscal incentives do. For example, numerous tax credits and contains our system are, in essence, sanctions on those who choose not to do those things. In theory, already supported a number of mandates, as our ineligibility of certain tax credits (ie credits for certain energy) may be interpreted as a de facto penalty. However, if the courts decide that there is a tax and instead of a penalty, then it becomes much more difficult to make a constitutional argument. President Obama apparently agrees with this line of reasoning, as stated in September 2009 that “we say you have to take responsibility for obtaining health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.” However, as argued by Somin, advancing the idea that the bill is constitutional under the Commerce Clause is simply wrong, “instead of regular pre-existing trade, the bill requires people to engage in commercial transactions otherwise have been avoided. ” Refuting the idea advanced Michigan District Judge George Caram Steeh that the mandate is constitutional because it is “economic activity”