Obamacare’s supporters argue that the individual mandate is justified because the health care market is unique—it’s something that everyone uses, and a great deal of cost-shifting now occurs in health care. The argument is fatuous for two reasons. First, the cost-shifting is, for the most part, created by Congress itself—through, for example, mandates on hospitals…Details
EDITOR’S NOTE: Misrepresenting Budgets is Fraud. Unless you’re in Elected Office. Then it Gets you Re-Elected
“A public office is a public trust”—common saying, but do we really believe it?
The American Founders did. Most of them agreed that public officials should be held at least to the standards imposed on private trustees and other fiduciaries—maybe even higher standards, since government officials can do more damage than private fiduciaries. (A fiduciary—from Latin words meaning “confidence” and “faith”— is someone entrusted with the property or affairs of another.) The Founders often referred to public officials as the “trustees,” “agents,” “guardians,” or “servants” of the public. (In those days the legal term “servant” referred to an employee in a job not involving a lot of discretion.)
But in modern America public officials are not held to anywhere near the legal standards imposed on private trustees and other fiduciaries. The corporate corruption some on the Left justifiably complain about pales by comparison to common political behavior.Details
Sometimes a convention for proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution is referred to as a “constitutional convention.” That title is both wrong and fatally misleading.
The correct name—given by the Constitution itself—is convention for proposing amendments. Other accurate names are amendments convention, Article V convention, or convention of the states. In the Founding Era and during the early Republic, the last name was most frequently used.
Article V of the Constitution permits either Congress or a “Convention for proposing Amendments” to propose amendments for state ratification or rejection. The convention for proposing amendments was based partly on similar provisions in state constitutions. It also was based partly on the practice of colonies and states sending delegations (“committees”) of delegates (“commissioners”) to work out answers to common problems.Details
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
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
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
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
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
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
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