II files unique Supreme Court brief in Obamacare case

We have just filed an amicus curiae (”friend of the court”) brief with the Supreme Court arguing that (1) under current Supreme Court rulings, Obamacare’s individual mandate, if it can be justified at all, must be justified under the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause, and (2) scholarly research into the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause…

Details

Chickens come home to roost

Obama’s plan to cut federal aid to colleges that don’t limit tuition increases I observe with some satisfaction that the higher-education establishment is finally learning that if you play with snakes you get bitten. It is no secret that academics were heavily in President Obama’s corner when he ran for President in 2008. Part of…

Details

Independence Institute submits brief to protect states from Obamacare bullying

II is submitting not merely one, but two separate brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Obamacare. One will show why the mandate that individuals buy government-approved insurance is unconstitutional. The other shows that Obamacare’s Medicaid mandates inposed on states also are unconstitutional.

Both briefs are based on a powerful blend of the Constitution’s original meaning and modern Supreme Court jurisprudence.

I’ll post on the individual mandate brief later. The Medicaid brief, to be filed in just a few days, addresses a part of Obamacare overshadowed by the individual mandate—but just as damaging to our federal republic, and just as clearly unconstitutional.

Obamacare requires all states to greatly expand government health care within their states or lose ALL Medicaid funding—or at least a portion thereof to be set by the unguided discretion of the bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services. Since federal Medicaid funds are a huge portion of all states’ budgets, the effect is to subordinate state fiscal policy to the whim of federal officials. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Here is what the brief demonstrates:

Details

Did Judge Silberman ask the Supreme Court to rein in Congress?

Two notes on the court challenges to Obamacare: First: The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the challenge to the law’s expensive and humiliating Medicaid mandates on the states. The Court did so although no lower court has yet overturned those mandates. This is clearly the correct decision. Those mandates appear to violate even the modern Supreme Court’s…

Details

Congress, Butt Out! The Constitution Reserves Malpractice Reform for the States

In their zeal to adopt a federal malpractice reform bill to dictate procedures to state courts, many Republicans in Congress are doing precisely what they rightly accuse Democrats of doing: blithely disregarding the Constitution’s clear limits on federal power. Their proposals, once encapsulated in H.R. 5 and then slipped into the Senate Republican “jobs bill,” not only…

Details

Attacks on the Modern Tea Party Resemble Abuse British Tories Hurled at American Patriots

“Criminals!”
“Frenzy!”

Does this sound like the abuse that apologists for Big Government fling at the modern Tea Party?

It should. Tea Party activists have been the victims of some incredible verbal smears—especially considering that (unlike leftist demonstrators) they have been almost uniformly peaceful and law-abiding. But modern Tea Partiers can point with pride to the fact that the patriots who stood up for freedom before the American Revolution were rewarded with the same kind of mindless abuse.

In some ways, the situation in the British Empire before the American Revolution resembles that in the United States today. On the one side were the American patriots and their British Whig sympathizers, who insisted that under the British constitution colonists were entitled to certain rights and freedoms, and that the corrupt central government in London had extended its power far beyond constitutional limits.

Details

The Necessary and Proper Clause Grants no Power at all

One way apologists for the modern federal monster state attempt to justify it constitutionally is to argue that the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 18) is an “elastic clause” conferring vast “implied” power on Congress. Actually, as Constitution’s advocates during the ratification battles made clear, the Necessary and Proper Clause grants…

Details

The Fascinating Story of How the States Used the Constitution’s Amendment Procedure to Adopt Reform, 1789-1913

Common sense tells us that an out-of-control Congress is not going to rein in its own power. The American Founders predicted this might become the case, so they provided a way by which the state legislatures could propose and ratify corrective constitutional amendments without Congress being able to stop them. This is the “state-application-and-convention” procedure of…

Details

Want to push back against federal overreach?

Arm yourself with constitutional information Sept. 30 in Colorado! Dave Kopel and I will be offering a one-time public class on the Constitution in Colorado Springs. The program, co-sponsored by the Colorado Springs Gazette and the Independence Institute, is called “A Constitutional Guide to Fighting Federal Overreach; A program for the Grassroots.” The class will run from 2…

Details

II Submits Brief Destroying Basis for Suit against Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights

The Independence Institute, through Dave Kopel as legal counsel, has submitted anamicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief opposing the lawsuit to overturn Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights. The brief destroys the plaintiffs’ claim that by allowing citizens to vote on tax increases, Colorado is violating the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that all states have a “republican…

Details