Collision Insurance Requirement and Traffic Safety Act in Gonzalez vs Essay

Collision Insurance Requirement and Traffic Safety Act in Gonzalez vs. Raich's case - Essay Example This paper illustrates that the individual mandate will be a crucial part of the CIRTSA’s plan to reduce car accident costs. If individuals do not have to purchase insurance, then the companies offering the service cannot ensure others who are affected by accidents. It is possible to argue that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate those activities that will significantly impact on interstate commerce by contending that the motor insurance market is a significant player in the national US economy. Therefore, uninsured drivers will use roads and fail to pay for the billions of dollars the sector is worth annually, shifting the costs to society and significantly impacting on interstate commerce. The US Supreme Court ruling in Gonzalez vs. Raich relied in part on Wickard v. Filburn, which can be, in this case, to hold that the refusal of many individuals to buy collision insurance would substantially impact on the market for collision insurance. This is because even i f, the activity of the individual may not be considered commerce, Congress could still treat it as such because it exerts substantial effects interstate commerce economically, especially if many people lose their livelihoods, such as with Robert Doe. A substantial number of Americans will require collision insurance at some point and, if they do not purchase insurance, they will be shifting their costs to other individuals. This law should be introduced as a regulation for how people pay for their likely collision insurance. Finally, if the Act is challenged in court, it can be argued that laws must be presumed constitutional if it is impossible to prove otherwise. Because Congress is entrusted by the Constitution with policy decisions, the courts should rarely interfere with its policies. The second argument could come in if the Commerce Clause is found insufficient to support CIRTSA’s individual mandate. In this case, the mandate should be upheld as being within the powers of Congress to lay taxes and collect them.