A Wall Street Journal article describes Andrew Coan’s National Law Journal op-ed on the health care law as a provocative piece that “stakes out a position that is new to us: that both sides in the debate over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act are correct. And, at the same time, they’re both wrong.”
In his op-ed, Coan explains how legal scholars and political activists on each side of the debate over the constitutionality of the recent health care legislation are both right and wrong. They are right, says Coen, because “the principal contentions of both sides—the contentions that both camps assume lead inexorably to their own preferred conclusions—are equally true.” They are wrong in that each side assumes “that its own central contention is sufficient to decide the issue.”
Coan teaches Constitutional Law, Federal Jurisdiction, and related subjects at the University of Wisconsin Law School. A central goal of his scholarship is to ground normative theory firmly in the empirical realities of American legal and political practice.
To read the Wall Street Journal article, click here.
To read the National Law Journal op-ed, click here.
Submitted by UW Law News on February 3, 2011
This article appears in the categories: In the Media