Just minutes after President Obama signed the landmark health care reform legislation into law solidifying an overhaul of the U.S. health care system top legal officials from 14 states across the country filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the new law. The controversial bill’s passage has spurred heated discussion and in some cases protest. The Federalist Society at Pepperdine’s School of Law engaged the debate Wednesday hosting an event examining the unconstitutionality of the individual health care mandate. Robert Alt senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Legal and Judicial Studies presented the ins and outs of this provision that requires every American without exemption to purchase health care or face tax penalties. “The vote was as unconstitutional as it was historic Alt said, addressing a room full of Pepperdine School of Law students. The timing of the event was coincidental and providential, as the merits of the bill are being hotly debated this week. When we booked [the forum] we didn’t realize just how timely it was going to be Alexandar Gaddis, President of Pepperdine’s chapter of The Federalist Society, said. It’s fortunate that it came when it did.” Alt who has lectured extensively on issues of constitutional law focused specifically on the legality mandate aspect of the new law rather than discussing the merits or potential efficacy of the overall health care reform. The mandate which will go into effect in 2013 is defended by Commerce Clause authority. Alt argued that under Congress’ application of the clause in this way it could serve as validation for a congressional directive to purchase any product violating some of the liberties provided by the Constitution. According to Alt never in the history of the nation has Congress adopted a law requiring people to purchase a product or service simply because they exist inside the confines of the United States. “There simply is no legal precedent in American law for what it is Congress is trying to do with this particular mandate Alt said. Those who fail to purchase coverage will incur a penalty tax. Different than an income tax or excise tax, Alt called this form of taxation a tax on being a tax on the person— the functional equivalent of a head tax.” Alt fielded impressive questions of clarification and dispute from the group of concerned students. Some defended Congress’ right to mandate individual health care citing legal precedent for the regulation while others saw this aspect of the health care reform as a clear violation of the Constitution. “For the most part I think it was well-received and some pretty good questions were asked Gaddis said. Robert Alt was able to meet them where they were. I think the students are probably pretty well divided on the issue but everyone I spoke with afterwards said this is the best event we’ve had so far.” Alt predicts that the states challenging the new law in court will have difficulty establishing standing preemption and risk and are unlikely to be successful at least for some time.