美国《医改法案》中的宪法决断  

The Decision on the Constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

作　　者：左权[1] 

机构地区：[1]东南大学法学院,江苏南京211189

出　　处：《河北法学》2013年第2期93-100,共8页Hebei Law Science

基　　金：2011年国家建设高水平大学公派研究生项目<人权保障的"中国模式"研究>(2011609117);2012年国家社科基金一般项目<民生保障的国家义务研究>(12BFX090)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：美国医疗体制积弊丛生,奥巴马政府为进行医改,推动国会通过了《医改法案》。然而,《医改法案》在全美引发了"医改违宪"的诉讼大战,最终该争议被提交到联邦最高法院。以罗伯茨为首席大法官的最高法院,判决认定《医改法案》的关键部分——"个人强制"条款因合乎宪法赋予国会的征税权而合宪;而"医疗补助扩大计划"因为违反了联邦主义原则而违宪。这既支持了奥巴马政府致力于医改的努力,也厘清了美国宪法中立法权和行政权的边界。该判决不仅事关美国普通民众的福祉,而且直接影响2012年11月的总统大选,并将对美国社会产生深远的影响,也会因此而成为美国宪法史上的经典一例。The U.S. medical system has accumulated chronic problems, in order to reform the medical system, the Obama administration propelled the Congress to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act （the PPACA） in 2010, which brought about a lot of lawsuits on the constitutionality of the PPACA all over the country. Eventually, the ease was accepted by the U. S. Supreme Court. The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in July, 2012, which Roberts as the Chief Justice, upheld the constitutionality of the core clause the ＂ Individual mandate＂ was within the tax power of the Congress. Meanwhile, ＂ Medicaid Expansion ＂ was considered unconstitutional for violating the federalism principle. This opinion not only acknowledged the Obama administration＇ s reform endeavor, but also affirmed the boundaries of the legislative and administrative power under the Constitution. This case involves not only the well-being of every American people, but also directly affects the presidential election in November. This case has a profound impact on American society, and definitely will become a classic case in the history of the United States Constitution.

关 键 词：《医改法案》 美国最高法院 宪法 合宪性 

分 类 号：DF36[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]