The Wall Street Journal had a great article today regarding two Virginia federal judges decisions on the compulsory health insurance mandate within PPACA. I’m having trouble including the link so the name of the article is “Judges Divided on Health-Care Law”. I find this article to be very interesting in two ways. First, I like the controversey over this health reform. I don’t think the reform measures have received enough public attention and I think a good constitional dust up will put this thing front and center. Second, I just took a Constitutional Law Powers exam yesterday and am all to familiar with the Commerce Clause, which is what the US is hanging its hat on with the requirement for individuals to have health insurance or face a penalty. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3. In the WSJ article they mention Wickard v. Filburn, which established that Congress’ power to regulate commerce extends to activities with a substantial economic effect on commerce. The WSJ continues to mention a case involving the Gun-Free School Zones Act and the Violence Against Womans Act. Is it possible that the WSJ is referring to U.S. v. Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison. I think so.