Comparativist-Structural Approaches to Interpretation of the Post-Obamacare Spending Power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the spending power dimension of the recent United States Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act from the unique perspective of situating it within a comparativist analysis alongside Canadian and Australian approaches to a federal spending power. It does so, in particular, in the context of two competing approaches to the anticoercion rule within a divided majority at the United States Supreme Court. Part II of the paper examines this division in depth and shows how standard approaches to determining the resulting rule end up in ambiguity. Part III shows how even those justices commonly considered originalist actually rely on structural and pragmatic reasoning in the case and argues that this reality opens the door to comparative analysis of federalist structures. Part IV offers an in-depth examination of Canadian and Australian approaches, noting the ongoing scholarly developments on Canada’s federal spending power and a June 2012 Australian case putting limits on Australia’s spending power provisions. Part V develops an argument that the different approaches to the spending power reflect an underlying set of structural considerations about federalist structure and shows why this analysis favours one of the two different formulations of the spending power rule after the Affordable Care Act decision. The piece thus brings together a comparative analysis not present elsewhere in scholarly literature with a unique perspective on the Affordable Care Act decision.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".