Review by Choice Review
This work offers an array of legal perspectives on NFIB v. Sebelius (2012), the case where Chief Justice Roberts surprised many by writing a majority opinion upholding the individual mandate based on Congress's taxing power. The decision, while preserving most of President Obama's signature legislative accomplishment, has unleashed discussions relating to the chief justice's motives, the significance of the decision for the law, and its importance to Constitutional law and the role of the federal government. If readers are looking for definitive answers, they should look elsewhere. There are contributors who believe the decision will have little long-term impact because Congress is unlikely to ever again mandate the purchase of a product; there are others who believe it is significant because, while Congress may not mandate purchases, it will serve to discourage Congress from using its taxing power. Depending on the chapter, the chief is a statesman, a cynic, or someone who clearly misinterpreted the commerce and the necessary and proper clauses. This is the book's strength. The diversity of ideological and legal perspectives, and the different interpretations of the case's significance, makes this a good read for anyone interested in NFIB v. Sebelius and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Summing Up: Recommended. Graduate, research, and professional collections. J. F. Kraus Wagner College
Copyright American Library Association, used with permission.
Review by Choice Review
