The ACA and the Three Branches of U.S. Government
This paper examines the roles of the three branches of the United States federal government — the executive, legislative, and judicial — in implementing and interpreting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). It discusses the President's role in signing and administering the law through the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress's oversight and lawmaking functions, and key Supreme Court rulings on the law's constitutionality, including challenges under the Commerce Clause and the Hobby Lobby decision. The paper also considers how federalism and the Supremacy Clause affect state-level resistance to the PPACA, including refusals to expand Medicaid or establish state exchanges.
- Introduction: Overview of PPACA and three-branch framework
- The Executive and Legislative Branches: Presidential, cabinet, and congressional roles in ACA
- The Judiciary and Constitutional Challenges: Supreme Court rulings on ACA constitutionality
- Federalism and State-Level Resistance: State pushback and Supremacy Clause implications
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Efficiently organizes analysis around a clear structural framework — the three branches of government — making the argument easy to follow.
- Connects abstract constitutional concepts (Commerce Clause, Supremacy Clause) to specific, real-world legal cases and policy outcomes.
- Balances federal and state perspectives, showing how intergovernmental tensions shape the law's implementation.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses institutional analysis — systematically working through each branch of government and its specific relationship to the PPACA — to build a comprehensive picture of how a single piece of legislation is shaped by multiple actors. This technique grounds abstract political science concepts in concrete examples, such as the Hobby Lobby ruling and Medicaid expansion disputes.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief framing introduction, then moves into an analytical section covering the executive, legislative, and judicial branches in sequence. A concluding section shifts focus to the state level, tying in federalism and the Supremacy Clause. The structure mirrors the logical hierarchy of government, moving from federal to state, and from enactment to legal challenge to implementation resistance.
Introduction
When it comes to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), all three branches of the United States government play their own distinct role in relation to this enacted legislation. Beyond that, the principles of federalism and federal supremacy clearly come into play, given that states are largely subject to what the federal government mandates. Even so, the individual parts of the government at both levels — and the roles they are required to play, at the federal level in particular — must be examined. While there has been considerable acrimony and contentious debate surrounding the PPACA, the program is established and verified law in the United States, and there are no current prospects of that changing.
The Executive and Legislative Branches
There are three distinct branches of the United States government, and each plays its own part in relation to the PPACA. The President is the party who signed the law — that being President Barack Obama. A new President entering office in early 2017 would not, in and of itself, change that. Beyond the act of signing, the President leads the Cabinet of executives and advisors responsible for administering the law. When it comes to the PPACA, the most important figure in this regard is the leader of the Department of Health and Human Services. The authority and rights granted to operate and implement the law as written center largely on that agency and what the laws of the land permit it to do.
As for Congress, its major duties with respect to the PPACA involve enacting new laws and provisions as needed to shape and refine the Act. Beyond that, Congress uses its committees and other institutional mechanisms to regulate and monitor the effects of the law's passage and enforcement. It exercises oversight and draws on those findings to propose or enact changes. Ultimately, no amount of political acrimony will alter what the law says — or what is done in response to it — unless the law is changed by an agreed-upon act of Congress or invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling.
The Judiciary and Constitutional Challenges
The Supreme Court represents the third branch of the federal government: the judiciary. Generally speaking, the Court's role has been to interpret the law as written and to determine whether it passes constitutional muster. This function applies both to the law itself and to any exceptions sought under it. One significant legal challenge asserted that the PPACA should not stand because it requires individuals to purchase insurance, thereby violating the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court found no grounds to strike the law on this basis.
On the other hand, private corporation Hobby Lobby sought an exception allowing it to refrain from offering certain birth control healthcare options, citing the company's ethical and religious convictions. The Supreme Court ruled mostly in Hobby Lobby's favor, primarily because of the company's private status and the rights that accompany it (NCC Staff, 2015). These rulings illustrate the judiciary's critical role in defining the boundaries of what the PPACA requires and what exemptions may be constitutionally permissible.
References
NCC Staff. (2015). How Obamacare has faced five years of constitutional challenges. Constitution Daily. Retrieved 10 September 2016, from http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/03/how-obamacare-survived-five-years-of-constitutional-challenges/
WSJ. (2016). Federalism and Obamacare. WSJ. Retrieved 10 September 2016.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.