Well, “proof” is defined by perspective, right? All the proof I need on this one is just one man’s name.
Jack is a “leading constitutional scholar” from Yale. What does that mean? He advocates the living constitution. You know the one – the kind of constitution that morphs and changes based on the whims of politicians, judges, and Jack himself.
I consider him one of the worst of the worst in this field. And, what did he have to say about the DOMA case?
Well, Balkin is concerned because Judge Tauro’s:
“Tenth Amendment arguments prove entirely too much. As much as liberals might applaud the result, they should be aware that the logic of his arguments, taken seriously, would undermine the constitutionality of wide swaths of federal regulatory programs and seriously constrict federal regulatory power.” [emphasis added]
The modern state depends heavily on the federal government’s taxing and spending powers for many of the benefits that citizens hold dear, including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the newly passed provisions of the Affordable Care Act. These programs have regulatory effects on state family policies just as much as DOMA does. If DOMA’s direct interference with state prerogatives is beyond federal power, then perhaps any or all of these programs are vulnerable– and unconstitutional– to the extent they interfere with state policies regarding family formation as well. Put differently, Judge Tauro has offered a road map to attack a wide range of federal welfare programs, including health care reform. No matter how much they might like the result in this particular case, this is not a road that liberals want to travel.
Latest posts by Michael Boldin (see all)
- Nullify 101: Stop Asking Permission Where None is Required - November 26, 2014
- The Root Cause of Ferguson: The War on Drugs, Foreign Policy, and the Federal Reserve - November 25, 2014
- New Jersey Bill Seeks to Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Marijuana Prohibition - November 25, 2014