The Supreme Court is at it again. This time, they have the opportunity to strike a major blow to Obamacare in King vs. Burwell. However, members of the court are seemingly more interested in the policy ramifications of their decision than protecting the Constitution.Details
I agree with many of the arguments that have been made by people like Prof. Adler, Michael Cannon, and others – that in King v. Burwell, IRS subsidies should be struck down as unconstitutional because they’re not authorized in states where the federal government operates an exchange.
But, the Court will not agree.
The federal government, including the federal courts, cannot be trusted to shut down such a massive expansion of federal power. Congress cannot be trusted. New Republican majorities cannot be trusted. The Courts cannot be trusted.
The only way to stop Obamacare is through state and individual resistance. That is, nullification.
As the unconstitutional federal war on marijuana comes to an end, the prohibitionists aren’t going out with class or dignity. The latest measure is an anti-constitutional lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General in the states of Oklahoma and Nebraska.Details
On Sept. 30, Judge Ronald A. White of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma delivered his decision in Pruitt v. Burwell, the third of four related cases to have received a judgment. The four cases challenge the IRS ruling that ObamaCare subsidies will be given to policyholders who’ve purchased health insurance in exchanges established by the federal government. Like the verdict in Halbig v. Burwell, Judge White found for the plaintiffs and against the IRS, and he vacated the IRS regulation pending appeal. The other case to have received a judgment is King v. Burwell, which found for the government. So we have a 2-1 split. The U.S. Supreme Court must eventually weigh in.Details
In yet another misguided attempt to use the courts to do what the Constitution has already done, a group of plaintiffs will have their challenge to ObamaCare care heard by the Supreme Court.Details
With it becoming increasingly clear every day that Congress will not take any substantive action to stop NSA spying, some privacy advocates have begun to pin their hopes on the federal courts.
If history serves as any indication, they will find themselves equally disappointed with the judiciary. Courts tend to defer to the government, especially when it comes to “national security.”Details
Three years ago, a group of primarily government plaintiffs sued in federal district court to void Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). TABOR allows the people, not just the legislature, to vote on most tax increases, most debt increases, and some spending hikes.Details
“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”
—Justice William O. Douglas
Justice in America makes less sense with each passing day.Details
An important citizen protection against government is the rule that in criminal prosecutions, criminal statutes are interpreted strictly. In other words, if the government wants to punish someone for violating a statute, it has to show that the defendant’s behavior was illegal beyond a reasonable doubt under the clear wording of the statute. Citizens are not held criminally responsible for guessing “wrong” about the meaning of an ambiguous law.Details