Back in 1989, National Public Radio reporter Nina Totenberg attempted to portray the individual rights view of the Second Amendment as a fringe position with no academic support. She claimed that the National Rifle Association had been unable to provide her with names of any professors who thought the Second Amendment was an individual right.
According to the NRA, Ms. Totenberg was lying, and the NRA had given her three names: Robert Cottrol of George Washington, Joseph Olson of Hamline, and Sanford Levinson of Texas. The latter, of course, was (and is) well-known as the co-author of a major constitutional law textbook, and had just published an article in the Yale Law Journal, titled “The Embarassing Second Amendment,” which stated that the arguments in favor of an individual right were very strong.
Indeed, the individual right arguments were so strong that when the Supreme Court finally got around to announcing a new Second Amendment decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, all nine Justices readily agreed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right. There was a 5–4 split on the scope of the right, but all Justices recognized that the right belonged to inviduals, not to states or to some “collective.”
Earlier this week at the University of Washington Law School, a “debate” was held on the constitutionality of Obamacare. All four of the debaters said that the new law is unquestionably constitutional. According to moderator Hugh Spitzer, the reason that the “debate” featured only one side was that “we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional...But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.” The Center for American Progress touts this story as proof of the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the comments on the blog post are a self-congratulatory frenzy about the stupidity of anyone who doubts Obamacare.
Well, all I can say is that if I had some legal problem that required modestly diligent research, I sure wouldn’t hire any of those Washington panel organizers.
My Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro has just posted an offer to debate Obamacare anywhere, anytime. Besides working at Cato (where he edits the Cato Supreme Court Review, and helps manage Cato’s extensive constitutional litigation program), he is also an adjunct professor of law at George Washington University.
Like Sanford Levinson, Randy Barnett, of Georgetown Law School, is also the author of a constitutional law textbook; Barnett has commented extensively on the unconstitutionality of Obamacare. Cato’s Roger Pilon has written many legal scholarly articles, and is an adjunct at Georgetown, although he teaches Government, so perhaps he does not count. Another law professor skeptic is Richard Epstein, of the University of Chicago. Lee A. Casey, who is co-counsel for the 13-Attorneys-General lawsuit, is currently in private practice, but has been an adjunct law professor at George Mason.
Michael McConnell (Stanford) wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal challenging the constituitonality of the mandate.
Writing in USA Today, Jonathan Turley (George Washington) suggested that Obamacare is a flagrant violation of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.
Hypothesizing that Barnett, McConnell, and Epstein were asked to participate in the UW and declined because of schedule conflicts, and that Casey doesn’t count because he is not currently teaching, Shapiro avers that he was never contacted.
As VC readers know, I also think that Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Wall Street Journal excerpted some of my blog post on March 25. I teach Advanced Constitutional Law at Denver University Sturm College of Law. My most extensive article on the interstate commerce power is Taking Federalism Seriously: Lopez and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, 30 Connecticut Law Review 59 (1997). In that article, Glenn Reynolds (Law Professor, U. of Tenn.) and I argue that the post-Lopez interstate commerce power does not give Congress the power to regulate the particular technique that is used in abortions. [The plaintiffs in Gonzales v. Carhart did not raise this issue, but the concurrence by Justices Thomas and Scalia indicated that they might have voted against the federal ban, if the plaintiffs had raised the commerce clause.] A fortiori, at least as Glenn and I see things, the interstate commerce power does not include the power to compel every American in buy a congressionally-designed product.
CBS News noticed the prediction by Ilya Somin (George Mason Law, VC) that the Court would probably uphold the mandate, but “such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause — or any interpretation that takes the constitutional text seriously.” That view would have added some intellectual diversity to a debate.
Another law professor who has raised constitutional questions about Obamcare is Rob Natelson (U. Montana; also my colleague as a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute). However, Rob is pretty busy getting ready to retire and to move to Colorado, so perhaps he was not available.
With a few minutes of searching on the web, I also found
“It’s definitely going way beyond anything Congress has ever attempted before,” said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and candidate for Kansas secretary of state. “There’s a very solid argument here.”
And:
Bruce La Pierre, a constitutional law professor at Washington University [St. Louis, not UW], noted that the court majority in the Raich medical marijuana case was a delicate one and left “little reason to be sanguine that health-care legislation will survive attack under commerce clause.” [La Pierre was not advocating for this position, just observing that it was entirely possible that the current Court would find that the mandate exceeds the interstate commerce power.]
I don’t know if Kurt Lash (Loyola LA) thinks Obamacare is unconstitutional, but he does think that Akhil Amar’s 14th Amendment argument in favor is incorrect.
Any VC readers who are law professors who think that Obamacare has constitutional problems and are willing to participate in a debate on the topic are welcome to identify themselves in the Comments below, or to email me. I will post the names of any volunteers. Professors need not take the firm position that the bill is definitely unconstitutional; professors who acknowledge that the bill raises serious and unresolved issues are also welcome.
B.D. says:
I understand your frustration, but perhaps you shouldn’t take The Center for American Progress seriously. B.D.(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
A slightly different question, but:
Does any serious legal scholar think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that an appellate court or SCOTUS will actually find the bill unconstitutional?
If not, aren’t the states’ attorneys general wasting their taxpayers’ money on a purely political endeavor? Mahan Atma(Quote)
Brett Bellmore says:
In the case of the minority, I suspect that had less to do with their perception of the strength of the arguments, than with their perception of the risks of pissing off that many armed people. Since the ‘individual right’ they supported was purely rhetorical in nature, no individual would ever plausibly be in a position to claim it. It was more a slap in the face to that position, than a concession to it. Brett Bellmore(Quote)
Steve says:
Writing in USA Today, Jonathan Turley (George Washington) suggested that Obamacare is a flagrant violation of federalism and the Tenth Amendment.
This is a really funny sentence. People are free to believe the Constitution should be interpreted in any number of ways, but can there really be a “flagrant” violation of a provision as toothless in practice as the Tenth Amendment?
At any rate, I can’t help but recall the time my law school decided to host a debate on the raging Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill controversy. They nearly had to call it off when they couldn’t find a single member of the faculty willing to take his side. Gosh... Steve(Quote)
Brett Bellmore says:
Well, I’m not a serious scholar, but I long ago stopped assuming that the Supreme court could be reliably predicted. There’s at least a snowball’s chance in hell here, and that’s more than zero. Brett Bellmore(Quote)
PaperNuncio says:
Uhh...I think that’s sort of Kopel’s point. A lot of peopl 30+ years ago might have said of the Second Amendment
“Does any serious legal scholar think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that an appellate court or SCOTUS will actually find that the Second Amendment describes an individual right?” PaperNuncio(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
One in a trillion is more than zero too.
By Kerr’s estimation, it’s less than 1%. Sounds about right to me. Mahan Atma(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
Like who? Mahan Atma(Quote)
Gordo says:
It’s a shame that 45,000 people have to die every year, and hundreds of thousands be unnecessarily sick and in pain, because it is alleged that it is unconstitutional to do much about it.
But I guess that’s real life, not the constitution. Gordo(Quote)
Gordo says:
On a more substantive note:
1. Unlike the “collective rights” view of the 2nd amendment, which rested upon a very thin thread of the Miller decision, an expansive view of federalism, even after Lopez, Morrison, and SWANCC, is solidly ensconced in post-1937 case doctrine.
2. The “mandate” is, in fact, not a mandate — it’s a tax penalty. Sort of like when I want to take out my retirement savings before I’m 59 1/2. Gordo(Quote)
Steve says:
It’s a shame that 45,000 people have to die every year, and hundreds of thousands be unnecessarily sick and in pain, because it is alleged that it is unconstitutional to do much about it.
Fortunately, the well-known trump card called “the Constitution is not a suicide pact,” much favored by conservatives in recent years, can be deployed to cure any constitutional infirmity. Steve(Quote)
Guy says:
Akhil Amar argued it was Constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment? The balls on that man, seems about as likely a position to be adopted as his two-tiers theory of federal jurisdiction. In both cases it’s not a textually unreachable position but it would require throwing out more than a century of case law to adopt either. Guy(Quote)
Gordo says:
As for the Tenth Amendment, Justice O’Connor did us the good favor of providing the glimmer of a resurrection in the New York vs. U.S. decision in 1990. But that involved the government ordering states around and mandating particular actions, not individuals. It should also be noted, as Senator Wyden of Oregon has done, that this law mandates a result of the states, but allows them to go their own way to achieve that result if they so choose independent of “Obamacare.”
By the way, the Republican talking points now seem to be calling it “Demcare,” so perhaps a correction to the post is in order. Gordo(Quote)
PaperNuncio says:
Well, go read Dave Hardy’s posts about the first law reviews to start discussing the issue:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/01/yet_another_tri.php
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/01/subsequent_hist.php
According to Hardy, his review article was the first ever to posit individual rights. Even he was skeptical when he started. From the first post, he writes, ”
PaperNuncio(Quote)
MQuinn says:
Jonathan Turley’s article says:
While the original post isn’t flat-out inaccurate, it is somewhat misleading:
MQuinn(Quote)
Steve says:
Akhil Amar argued it was Constitutional under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment? The balls on that man, seems about as likely a position to be adopted as his two-tiers theory of federal jurisdiction.
Well, Section 5 was the winning argument in the FMLA case, so I don’t know that it’s as big a stretch as you suggest. Surely one could construct an argument that the status quo on health care disproportionately impacts women and minorities, or something of the sort.
A lot of peopl 30+ years ago might have said of the Second Amendment “Does any serious legal scholar think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that an appellate court or SCOTUS will actually find that the Second Amendment describes an individual right?”
If we want to reframe the question to “is it possible that in 30 years, there will be a Supreme Court majority in favor of restoring the Lost Constitution?” then surely it’s at least theoretically possible. But these lawsuits are being brought now. Steve(Quote)
Cornellian says:
If banning discrimination based on pre-existing conditions is only feasible if everyone’s in the pool (because of the self-selection bias) then why isn’t the individual mandate constitutional as a “necessary and proper” measure as that term is used in McCullough and in Raich? Cornellian(Quote)
frankcross says:
I thought McConnell’s argument was about a method of passage (deeming) that wasn’t used. Isn’t it a misrepresentation to count him? Or am I unaware of another article of his? frankcross(Quote)
Bart says:
Why would it matter whether a “legal scholar”, “academic” or law professor had an opinion about a legal matter (e.g., the constitutionality “Obamacare” or “gun laws”) or about what that opinion was?
If you have an opinion about a legal matter, great; explain it. If you are persuaded by someone else’s argument, then that’s fine too.
But if whether you believe that something is true is affected by whether “legal scholars”, “academics” or law professors believe it (or in what relative numbers), then you’re an idiot. Why waste our time with idiots who draw legal conclusions based on the existence or number of “legal scholars”, “academics” or law professors on one or both sides of an issue? Bart(Quote)
llamasex says:
I am fairly sure it is constitutional. If you’re sure it’s not. Lets put some money on it. I’ll go up to $5k, we can see if Eugene or Orin will act as Escrow. Dead serious. I will even open the offer up to others. llamasex(Quote)
Guy says:
Yes, but there Section 5 was only brought to “fill the gap” and apply to public employers if it was found that the Commerce Clause couldn’t reach them, but this act goes much farther than regulating state action. Unless I misunderstand, Amar seems to tout section 5 as a general source of authority, maybe he meant he only relies on section 5 where regulation of state action is concerned and he didn’t mention it because he was writing for a lay audience, but it’s a point that deserves to be made explicit if that’s what he meant. Also it’s extraordinarily disingenuous for him to talk about Congress having power to decide what rights are protected by the 14th amendment without even acknowledging the congruence and proportionality test. Guy(Quote)
Stephen Lathrop says:
And what did Ms. Totenberg have to say? And what kind of a cite is, “According to the NRA”? Anyone there willing to own that assertion? Or maybe it’s just the NRA talking, like the Citizens United decision says it can? Stephen Lathrop(Quote)
therut says:
All those long miserable years I heard Schumer, Kennedy, Feinstein and others( add Gore after a change of politics) say that it was a FACT that the 2nd amendment did not protect an individual right was SETTLED LAW makes me want to chuckle. therut(Quote)
Guy says:
Incidentally, I should point out explicitly what you implicitly acknowledge, not agreeing with Amar’s interpretation of Congress’ Section 5 power in no way indicates a belief that the health care bill is unconstitutional. For example, I was surprised by the assertion although I think the act fits quite comfortably within the Commerce Clause power. Guy(Quote)
Some Guy says:
Hey, Gordo, why don’t you set an example and open up YOUR wallet.
And health insurance means no one will die? Really? Some Guy(Quote)
Strict says:
Can we be clear what we mean here?
The legislation is big.
It’s possible that certain provisions will be struck down, but impossible [literally zero, not one in a trillion] that the entire bill will be struck down.
Mr. Kopel seems to be talking about the “bill,” but I think he must be referring to certain provisions. Strict(Quote)
Strict says:
Some Guy: “And health insurance means no one will die? Really?”
I don’t think he was talking about simple deaths, but rather deaths relating to lack of insurance. Health insurance for all, for example, would not mean that no one dies, but it would mean that no one dies for lack of insurance. Strict(Quote)
not my leg says:
Given the people at the forum it’s pretty clear that the pool of people contacted was basically professors at Seattle University and the University of Washington (where it was hosted). Professor Spitzer’s remark was really more of an apology for not having someone than an attempt to make any claim about the merits of the lawsuit (he really was only moderating, except for a question on the Washington State Constitution, which is his area of expertise). He also was trying to be funny after the audience had listened to everyone basically argue for the constitutionality of the bill.
Without going too much into what people said, the at one point panel made basically the same point as Bruce La Pierre; the Raich coalition was fragile, and could fall apart on this case. Especially given the fact that conservatives (not libertarians though) would be expected to support the illegality of marijuana, and that might have kept the Raich coalition together. The same force would not hold together a coalition in support of a liberal reform measure. They also considered the substantive arguments on each side; but for the cynical (or the realistic?) you should address the political motivations as well.
EDIT: Meant to add the link to the forum for anyone who wanted to see it. http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010030169&TYPE=V&CFID=6431744&CFTOKEN=84800113&bhcp=1 not my leg(Quote)
Perseus says:
Not really since you are not required to have a tax-advantaged retirement account. A more appropriate analogy would be if the federal government
nudgedshoved you into setting up a retirement account by imposing a tax penalty if you failed to do so. Perseus(Quote)Steve says:
A more appropriate analogy would be if the federal government nudged shoved you into setting up a retirement account by imposing a tax penalty if you failed to do so.
Your government-mandated retirement account is called Social Security. Of course, as we all know, it’s flagrantly unconstitutional. Steve(Quote)
yao says:
After reading this post, I am still left with the impression that “there are relatively few [“professor[s] who could come and who [think] this is flat-out unconstitutional”], and they are in great demand.”
What I find especially ridiculous is this passage from the OP:
“Well, all I can say is that if I had some legal problem that required modestly diligent research, I sure wouldn’t hire any of those Washington panel organizers.
My Cato Institute colleague Ilya Shapiro has just posted an offer to debate Obamacare anywhere, anytime. Besides working at Cato (where he edits the Cato Supreme Court Review, and helps manage Cato’s extensive constitutional litigation program), he is also an adjunct professor of law at George Washington University.”
Nota bene: “has just posted”. Shapiro didn’t issue his offer until after the original article had run. Is failing to foretell the future now evidence of poor preparation? yao(Quote)
AF says:
Can we all agree on two propositions?
1) That law professors have argued that a law is unconstitutional does not mean there is a plausible argument that it is unconstitutional under current law or that courts are minimally likely to hold it unconstitutional in the foreseeable future.
2) There is a far stronger textual and historical basis for finding an individual right to own guns in the Second Amendment than there is for finding a prohibition on health care reform in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution? AF(Quote)
Arthur Kirkland says:
This thread (with its call to cavalry) reminds me of a tea party for law professors — same defiant energy, same result, but much better spelling. Arthur Kirkland(Quote)
Bob Stump says:
The courts should heed the words of Ilya Somin carefully with respect to the constitutionality of the Democare mandate: “Such a law would be unconstitutional under the correct interpretation of the Commerce Clause.”
The U.S. has built a dubious body of case law upon another Commerce Clause case, the 1873 Slaughterhouse decision by SCOTUS, now widely regarded as bad law.
The issue nearly 140 years of stare decisis is causing all kinds of angst for the Fourteenth Amendment case of MacDonald v. Chicago related to the vector for incorporation of the Second Amendment to the States..
History may repeat itself, unfortunately. But if SCOTUS were to find the mandate constitutional, these two wrongs will most certainly not make a right. Bob Stump(Quote)
Parable_of_the_rich_man says:
Just how many more boxes on my PAY STUB will they add to pay for Obumacare? Now I will provide funds to pay for gastric bypass’s for the Obese, the lung transplants for smokers, the broken arms/legs and craniotomies for motorcyclists, the liver transplants for alcoholics and the penile implants for patients with HIV/AIDS.
Can you feel the love yet.........................
Say goodbye to the United States and hello to the United Socialist States of American.
I mourn for my country. Parable_of_the_rich_man(Quote)
Jonathan H. Adler says:
FWIW, my view is fairly close to Ilya’s. I expect challenges to the mandate to fail, largely due to Gonzales v. Raich, but I think Raich was wrongly decided.
I spelledout my views in this op-ed.
JHA Jonathan H. Adler(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
I’m not sure what question you think you’re answering, but I don’t see any cite to legal scholars who said the SCOTUS would never find an individual right in the Second Amendment (much less any evidence that pretty much all legal scholars said so). Mahan Atma(Quote)
byomtov says:
you are not required to have a tax-advantaged retirement account. A more appropriate analogy would be if the federal government nudged shoved you into setting up a retirement account by imposing a tax penalty if you failed to do so.
Which is what the federal government does. A tax break for doing something is exactly the same thing as a penalty for not doing it. Is that really so hard to understand? byomtov(Quote)
J says:
“a fringe position with no academic support”
Significant academic support would increase, not decrease the likelihood a given position was on the fringe. Unanimity would pretty much guarantee it. J(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Because such pablum is always right. Anonsters(Quote)
Jamcleat » Blog Archive » Opionion On Obamacare Oh-Oh-Oh says:
David M. Nieporent says:
You’re confused. Nobody thinks there is a “prohibition on health care reform in Article I, Section 8.” Setting aside the minor error — that this is about the mandate, not about “health care reform” in toto — we come to the major error: the notion that the federal government is one of unlimited powers, subject only to explicit constitutional restraints. The claim is that there’s no authorization for the mandate — and as such, it is unconstitutional — not that it is expressly prohibited. David M. Nieporent(Quote)
John Martin says:
As they say: “the science is settled.” John Martin(Quote)
Perseus says:
That Ponzi scheme probably would have been deemed unconstitutional under the Lochner era Court. More to the point, as a constitutional matter, SS was sold as a tax on individuals and corporations, not as an individual mandate (even if it was sold popularly as “social insurance”). Benefits were deliberately kept distinct as a separate program for “the general welfare.” See Helvering v Davis. Perseus(Quote)
Hannibal says:
I think the point of the post was that UW didn’t try very hard to find serious skeptics of Obamacare’s constitutionality, but then presented their “debate” to the public as if that issue had been precluded somehow. The constitutionality of Obamacare is definitely questionable, and you don’t have to be a law professor to see that. Its unlikely to me that the whole thing will be struck down, fairly likely that provisions of it will be struck down, and exceptionally likely that there will not be a unanimous Supreme Court decision on the issue. Hannibal(Quote)
Guest12345 says:
Well, yes it is. I mean, are you a robber because you don’t give people money at every possible opportunity? Are you a murderer because you haven’t donated every spare organ, bit of tissue and bodily fluid that might have saved someone’s life? Are you a prostitute because you’ve had sex with someone who has ever given you a gift or bought you a drink or a meal? Are you an arsonist because you haven’t gone and put out all the fires in the world? Apparently in your world, all those statements are true. Not to mention, you not killing me is the same thing as giving me life. I think you’ve got 18 years of back child support payments that you owe me. I’m surprised that a multiple murderer, serial robber, wanton prostitute, prolific arsonist, deadbeat parent such as yourself has access to the internet. One would think that The Man would have locked you up and thrown away the key.
Or maybe it’s not just a matter of math, where you can flip the signs across the board and still get the same answer. Sometimes there are non-mathematic facts that have some relevance. In the United States there is this concept of individual ownership of property. The government not taking from me isn’t the same thing as the government giving to me. And vice versa. It’s not that difficult an idea to grasp, I’m sure that if you try you’ll be able to get it. Guest12345(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
I think your assertion is definitely questionable. Can you back it up? Mahan Atma(Quote)
mack says:
Gordo:2. “The “mandate” is, in fact, not a mandate — it’s a tax penalty.Sort of like when I want to take out my retirement savings before I’m 59 1/2.”
Is it not a mandate — when the penalties for failure to comply can rise to felony status and years in prison?
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years. mack(Quote)
Anonsters says:
And those are sections of what? Anonsters(Quote)
yankee says:
I often hear this said, but I don’t think it’s quite right. There are two major differences between a tax credit/deduction for X and a tax on not-X:
1) If there’s a tax break for X, it only benefits you up to the amount of tax you would otherwise owe. By contrast, a tax on not-X would apply whether or not you otherwise owed tax. The only way to make them equivalent is to define the “tax on not-X” in an almost absurdly gerrymandered way.
2) Many common deductions or credits would be virtually impossible to implement as taxes. How would you define a tax on not owning a home that produced precisely the same results as the home mortgage interest deduction? You’d have to define the “tax” on non-homeowners in terms of the amount of mortgage interest they’re not paying; maybe there’s some economic wizardry that will let you do that, but it would be an exceptionally complicated matter. yankee(Quote)
Sebastian the Ibis says:
Llamasex, I accept your wager so long as Randy Barnett and Ilya Shapiro judge it’s constitutionality. Sebastian the Ibis(Quote)
Octavian says:
How ironic that this nation successfully led the free world during the Cold War against a totalitarian government, only to see the Usurper morph our federal government into the very same totalitarian government that was vanquished 20 years ago. Octavian(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Boring troll is boring. Anonsters(Quote)
Mahan Atma says:
Those are sections from Title 26, right?
On what basis do you claim these apply to a failure to buy health insurance?
Or is this your idea of a legal argument, to pluck sections from one area of federal statutes and blindly apply them to something completely inapplicable?
(Prof. Yoo, is that you?) Mahan Atma(Quote)
Anonsters says:
Particularly in light of H.R. 3590’s § 1501, which adds to Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code § 5000A(g)(2):
Anonsters(Quote)
cubanbob says:
If that is ruled to be the case then the mandates mean nothing and the apparent motive is to eliminate private health insurance. Then the question is does the Congress have the authority to ban private health insurance covertly and if so, do the insurance companies have a takings clause claim? cubanbob(Quote)
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » The Myth of an Expert Consensus on the Constitutionality of the Health Care Mandate Revisited says:
The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » A Better Question says:
Mike Hansberry says:
Mathematicians are unanimous, 2 + 2 = 5
On which side of the looking glass are excise taxes levied on actions not done or items not purchased? Mike Hansberry(Quote)
David Sucher says:
If Republicans kill Obamacare, they will get the public option. David Sucher(Quote)
Anonsters says:
In that case, I hope they kill Obamacare. Anonsters(Quote)
Mike Hansberry says:
That is the beauty of it, the dissenters were too clever by half.
The 9–0 count in favor of an individual right means it is not likely to be overturned. And the implausibility of the limited individual right theory embraced by the dissenters (a theory rejected out of hand by Silveira) is ripe for mockery. Mike Hansberry(Quote)
rpt says:
US = USSR? “Usurper” not elected? Wow. rpt(Quote)
Evan Thomas says:
“I don’t think he was talking about simple deaths, but rather deaths relating to lack of insurance. Health insurance for all, for example, would not mean that no one dies, but it would mean that no one dies for lack of insurance.”
Does having insurance save lives? That’s the more interesting question. Evan Thomas(Quote)
Ryan A says:
Social Security is a condition of employment not a government mandate applied to all citizens. It only applies to those with earned income. Ryan A(Quote)
Doctor Gator says:
If the federal must buy health insurance “mandate” is constitutional, then a federal mandate that I must park the car I own that gets 20 mpg and buy a car that gets 35 mpg would be constitutional. Even if I don’t want a car at all. Doctor Gator(Quote)
Tweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Pretending that no law professors question Obamacare -- Topsy.com says:
Norris Hall says:
Oh my God!!
It’s Happening!!!
I called my doctors office just one week after Health Care reform and I got a recorded message saying that due to the government takeover of health care he was no longer seeing private patients and was being forcibly move to a huge government medical building. I called My insurance company the person on the phone whispered that private health insurance had been eliminated and from now on I would have to call a government health exchange for insurance…if there was any left.
Frantic, I called the Pharmacy at our local supermarket . The clerk who answered the phone said that the pharmacy had being forced to close in an morning raid by the DEA and that all the pharmacists and drugs had been taken to the big government health care building .lle
I called my local Catholic hospital. A nun answered . Weeping hysterically she said that they had been shut down, all the doctor and nurses had been forced onto busges and taken to the big government health care building. They were all being forced to become federal employees, And all the old patients in the hospital.....they had been wheeled out on gurneys and left in the street under the hot sun and shivering cold night to die. My God, Sarah was right!!
Just one week after Health care reform, Armageddon!!
Freedom is coming to an end.
Life as we know it is finished.
The Communists have taken over!!
Oh God!!! Norris Hall(Quote)
Ken says:
I agree that the individual mandate is likely unconstitutional, but something about the “Obamacare” label strikes me as wrong. It just sounds like something you’d hear at a Tea Party rally and not on an academic blog. I realize the term has been co-opted by some outlets in the mainstream media, but the negative connotation remains.
Why not just refer to “Obamacare” as the “health care plan,” the “health care bill,” etc.? Ken(Quote)
noahp says:
Yep it is not fair to call it Obamacare since he didn’t understand the bill. Either that or he is a cynical liar..take your pick. noahp(Quote)
S says:
No one answered the call in the post? That’s funny. S(Quote)
Pretending that no law professors question Obamacare « Daniel Joseph Smith says:
uh_clem says:
Agree with S — it’s somewhat ironic that a post attempting to demonstrate that there are lots of law professors who will participate in the public debate an the unconstitutional side and that issues a call for them to announce their willingness generates zero takers.
So, how’s that list coming along, Prof Kopel? uh_clem(Quote)
Parallels | Snowflakes in Hell says:
byomtov says:
Yankee,
More important, I think, is the general point that using the tax code to to encourage or discourage certain behaviors by manipulating tax burdens is a commonplace. The mandate just strikes me as one more example. byomtov(Quote)
Houstonselgin says:
Well, we already PAY farmers to not grow certain crops or raise certain animals, so why not do the same on the other side of the ledger? :-P Houstonselgin(Quote)
Gordo says:
I guess every other western developed country government is “totalitarian” by your mindset.
In other words, you speak hogwash. Gordo(Quote)
David Sucher says:
I will ask a serious question for serious people who oppose Obamacare, which excludes the black helicopters used as ambulances crowd etc etc.
To wit:
What is so offensive about the zeitgeist of the individual mandate?
There seems to be a whole bunch of disliked elements which include “unconstitutionality” and a broader sense that the mandate is unethical, unfair, immoral and so on.
Putting aside the gamesmanship of calling it “unconstitutional,” what really bothers you?
I can see that reasonable people can disagree and that plan may be unwise economically, or bad public policy and so forth. Yes it is a political compromise and imperfect. (And I am not wild about the specifics either but grudgingly I am for it.)
But what really bugs people? It’s preposterous (to me) that people are freaked out — and yes that is what it is — because the Feds mandate health insurance when the Feds also prevent people from buying machine guns and marijuana. And states mandate car insurance. So yes there is lots of government intrusion in our lives and some is dumb.
But what is it about the personal mandate which upsets you so? Why all this talk about going to Court? Is it just “the final straw?” I just don’t get it — and I am speaking of the reality-based folks so death panel folks just please ignore me. David Sucher(Quote)
Joe says:
By the way, the Republican talking points now seem to be calling it “Demcare,” so perhaps a correction to the post is in order.
That. I’m really tired of this “Obamacare” b.s. Analysis in fact has suggested that given his druthers (or his consigliere’s druthers), Obama would have supported something a lot less expansive.
This law is a result of Senate Democrats with an edit by the House Democrats. The childish obstructionist measures of the Republicans (over a year taken, repeated attempts to get Republicans involved, Republican amendments accepted, and like children talk of “ramming” through the bill etc.) and conservative nature of the balance of the Democrat coalition in fact required a bill that even in some more sane Republican controlled state legislatures would in various ways be deemed at worst “centrist” in character.
But, we again the “Obamacare” line. I’m more inclined to call it Pelosi/Reid care ... they have as much or more to do with getting the thing passed. Joe(Quote)
Here Come the Lawyers, Part 3 says:
dan says:
Using the term “Obamacare” signals that you do not intend to present a serious argument but instead are interested in rhetorical scare tactics and divisiveness.
The term “Obamacare” has been used — exclusively by conservatives — to describe the following:
- all versions of the House bill;
- the Senate bill;
- the public option;
- the reconciled version of the Senate bill;
- death panels
- anything else Rush and Hannity want to demonize.
Thus, a post declaring “Obamacare is unconstitutional” is just sloppy. If I made that statement in my con law class, the professor would have driven me out of the class with a barrage of derision. If I said it in court, I would expect a judge to do the same.
If you want to be taken seriously, try using a precise term that says what you mean. Maybe “the individual mandate is unconstitutional.” Oh, but wait — that wouldn’t be so divisive, so it wouldn’t serve the apparent purpose of this post. dan(Quote)
Alpheus says:
This is a funny idea: that the tenth amendment would have “teeth” that it could use to “enforce” itself. The truth is that the entire Constitution has no “teeth”; the only thing that could potentially prevent Unconstitutional Things from happening is the balance of power between the executive, legislative, judicial and state powers, occasionally checked by voters and sometimes juries.
The Constitution is just a piece of paper. On it is written a valiant attempt to describe what’s needed to preserve liberty, but if the people in charge of government (including the people themselves) choose to disregard the document, there’s nothing within the power of a piece of paper to keep it from happening! Alpheus(Quote)
Kevin P. says:
You mean, like how people who called Obama “Barack Hussein Obama” before the election were engaged in rhetorical scare tactics and divisiveness. Funny how we never heard any more of that smear after he took the oath of office. Kevin P.(Quote)
Pops says:
Personally, I have a high-deductable “catastrophic care” policy, and pay for routine doctors appointments out of pocket. My understanding is, this will not qualify as an acceptable plan under the new law, and I will be penalized for it, and possibly my insurance company will stop offering my current plan.
I’m HAPPY with what I’ve got, and my ability to get medical care is not at risk (nor is my retirement savings). So why should I be penalized for doing what I believe is a responsible job of managing my own health care? Pops(Quote)
Doctor Says Goodbye To Health Reform Supporters – Blog Watch says:
anonymous says:
My initial reaction to the requirement that I purchase insurance was that this bill has restored slavery.
Through this law I am required to select a private entity to give my labor to or face a penalty. In the old days of slavery a slave was required to work for a private entity or face some form of penalty from that private entity. Now I am required to labor for a private entity and if I choose not to, I face a penalty from the government rather than the private owner.
So from my perspective I have been enslaved by the government itself. It requires that I labor for some private entity under penalty of law. The only significant difference between this and old style slavery is that I get to select my private master and only part of my labor must be for him. Depending on my medical condition the amount of that labor can be small or large according to the whim of the available choice in masters.
If such a thing is allowed to stand what is to stop the government from mandating that I purchase a new car every year under the premise that new cars will get better mileage and reduce emissions. And in so doing improve the health of everyone.
We need to elect people that understand that the purpose of the commerce clause is to prevent individual states from enacting barriers to free trade between the different states; not to wield it as a means of forcing citizens and the states into doing what they think is “good for us”. anonymous(Quote)
Mike says:
I think the differences between car insurance and the individual mandate are two:
1. you don’t need to buy car insurance unless you have a car and,
2. you only have to buy liability, not comprehensive or collision. You would only need to buy comprehensive or collision if you financed the car, and the lender required it to protect their interest in the vehicle. The mandatory purchase of liability is to protect others in case you hit them. With the individual mandate, it’s to protect yourself. Well, what if you don’t want to protect yourself? Shouldn’t that be a choice?
I noticed on your web page that you are an author. Well, what if you were forced to buy plagiarism insurance with premiums exceeding $100k per year? Could you have started your business with such a requirement? Well, young people 26+ years old, may want to scrimp and save every nickel to become the next Google, Microsoft, Hewlett Packard. And why are these young people forced to buy insurance? So, smokers can get lung transplants, obese people can get gastrointestinal surgery, so drug users can get treatment, etc., as mentioned in another post? It’s about freedom. Mike(Quote)
Alaska Jack says:
Is there anything left that the government can’t do?
Last year, my daughter asked what a “president” was. I told her (paraphrased): “The president is our leader, but he’s not my boss. He can’t tell me what to do.
“That’s the difference between a president and a king or a dictator. A king (in the old days at least) had ultimate authority; he could tell you what to do, and if you didn’t do what he said, could have you punished. A president can’t do that. He’s limited to doing only certain things. He doesn’t have the power to tell you to do things.”
Seems stupid now.
— Alaska Jack
PS — Not singling out Obama here. All three branches are in agreement, as far as I can tell. Our conversation just happened to be about the presidency. Alaska Jack(Quote)
David Sucher says:
That’s interesting, Mike. Thanks.
So let me ask you, do you think that there is a huge difference in character between a government — any government — prohibiting to do X versus compelling to do Y?
My own response so far is that I don’t see much, practically.
I’m also puzzled that some people — such as yourself, Mike — are upset by being compelled by the individual health insurance mandate and yet accept being compelled to pay income tax at all. What’s the difference? Why aren’t the Republicans asking to rollback the IRS? I just don’t get it.
Furthermore, people are compelled by government buy and use something every day: they wear clothing. Why do you object? David Sucher(Quote)
Purple Koolaid says:
Bc it offends me to purchase something,and subsidize something that I will not use. When buying my own insurance, I have always had a “catastrophe insurance” plan w/ an $8,000 deductible for the occasional broken bone or appendicitis, but otherwise I use non-western medicine, homebirth (not covered in my state, so I pay oop), etc. I do lots of research and we choose very healthy options. As I understand, such plans that have high deductibles will not be allowed.
Furthermore, I do not want to pay for abortions. Purple Koolaid(Quote)
Kelly Haggar says:
Brett Bellmore says:
Indeed, the individual right arguments were so strong that when the Supreme Court finally got around to announcing a new Second Amendment decision, in District of Columbia v. Heller, all nine Justices readily agreed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
In the case of the minority, I suspect that had less to do with their perception of the strength of the arguments, than with their perception of the risks of pissing off that many armed people. Since the ‘individual right’ they supported was purely rhetorical in nature, no individual would ever plausibly be in a position to claim it. It was more a slap in the face to that position, than a concession to it.
Quote
April 1, 2010, 7:22 pm
Had almost this exact conversation with a law prof in 2004. He thought Miller had settled the issue; no private right to own a gun. I told him the 2nd A has NOTHING to do with duck hunting. It’s the ultimate safety valve. It was designed to ensure rebellion was always possible. The police and the military are overwhelmingly Red and the guns are in Red states. There is no way Red country is going to give Blue country its guns, no matter what the Supreme Ct says. Or, as Bork observed, any decision (Dred Scott) it takes a civil war to reverse is probably a bad one. I think judges SHOULD think very carefully before they issue an order which will not be obeyed . . . but then O’Connor seems to have actually believed she “settled” the abortion question with Casey. Kelly Haggar(Quote)
Fourier says:
It helps to have the facts right when discussing health care. First, the claim of 45,000 deaths from a lack of health insurance has been debunked. There is very little evidence that lacking health insurance increases morbidity or mortality, primarily because people who are uninsured in the US do get medical care. For more on this see http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/
Second, it is not true that an individual mandate is required to cover pre-existing conditions. HIPAA has required that states establish a mechanism for insuring the uninsurable for over a decade. The majority of states do this via high risk pools, which have worked well. Others designated an insurer of last resort. At present, problems with insuring pre-existing conditions mostly stem either from states refusing to follow the law and fund the required insurer pools adequately or from people who refuse to purchase insurance and then complain about having to pay the higher rates the risk pools charge when they want someone else to defray their major medical bills.
Third, it is fairly clear that ObamaCare is inferior to existing models of health care reform because it expands third party payment, and people do not spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own. In health care, savings from having people spend their own money range from 15 to 30 percent in carefully done studies. There are no discernable effects on health. For people on Medicaid, savings are in the 20% range and health improves because Medicaid red tape keeps people from accessing the care that they are theoretically entitled to.
A superior way forward (because it is both less expensive, provides superior medical care, and can be tailored to individual needs) would be to reform Medicare and Medicaid so that they function more like private insurance and to encourage the purchase of individual policies by equalizing the tax treatment. For a beginning discussion of this see http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2009/Gormanhealthinsurance.html
As for the absurd quibbles about calling the new law ObamaCare, people who dislike the name should supply an alternative, one that is descriptive of the exceedingly expensive, wasteful, and ineffective top down “reform” this new law is. Fourier(Quote)
jbarntt says:
I’m neither a lawyer or a scholar, but I would guess that the mandate meets the necessary part, but at least arguably fails the properness test. If so, then it is not “necessary and proper”.
I have only a cursory knowledge of the McCullough decision, but it seems to me Marshall largely adopted Hamilton’s view of the N&P clause, as expressed in his “Opinion as to the Constitutionality of the Bank Of the United States”, (1791),
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp
The power of a sovereign to erect a corporation, while not an enumerated power of the federal gov’t., does indeed seem like an ordinary power of such a gov’t. and is therefore proper.
The power to require participation in a particular market, or face a penalty seems rather more dubious, to me, in that regard. jbarntt(Quote)
Hey, Lefties! Having trouble finding people who will debate the constitutionality of Obamacare? « The Last Post for Freedom says:
Michael Lee says:
A couple of comments: No state requires every person to purchase auto liability insurance — if they don’t have a car. Many states require a person who owns/drives a car to demonstrate financial responsibility. Quite a few states allow for alternatives to insurance — a deposit with the state treasurer or a bond. The Health Care Bill could have allowed such an alternative scheme. A combination of a high deductible insurance policy plus a bond would allow some individual freedom to opt out. However, I am certainly hoping that this mandate will be found to be beyond the reach of the federal government. I do wish some states had tried some different health insurance schemes as experiments in federalism. I enjoy very much the range of opinions expressed here! Michael Lee(Quote)
Pretending that No Law Professors Question Obamacare | KEYTLaw says:
Alaska Jack says:
Michael Lee -
Just a minor nitpick: It is perfectly legal to own a car and even drive it without insurance. You just can’t drive it on public roads.
— AJ
Alaska Jack(Quote)
Doctor Says Goodbye To Health Reform Supporters | Go HealthReform says:
xrayvision says:
Full disclosure: I am a physician.
Making health care and health insurance more affordable for more people is a worthy goal. My gripe with ObamaCare (and Mr. Obama has made “health care reform” his signature issue, so the name seems adequate even if it is used as an epithet) is that it attempts to do so by making the federal government liable for a larger share of the costs of health care in this country.
ObamaCare turns health insurance companies into public utilities. These privately-owned, often publicly-traded companies are required to offer specific plans, as set forth in the legislation; they are only allowed to make a prescribed profit; they are required to offer insurance to all comers; they are not allowed to cancel insurance except for nonpayment of premiums or fraud on the part of the insured; and can only charge a certain prescribed amount for said insurance. For instance, a middle-aged diabetic morbidly obese smoker can only be charged 4.5 times as much for insurance as a 32-year-old vegan marathon runner, even though the fat smoker is going to use far more than 4.5 times as much health care in a month as the runner will in a year. The insurance companies have been removed from the business of calculating risk to individuals, and are relegated to administering prepaid health plans under close government supervision and under the constant threat of having their prescribed profits decreased at the stroke of a pen when costs go up. This seems to be a massive government appropriation of private capital — if I owned stock in insurance companies, I would be livid.
Parenthetically, why are the young, who are usually at the low end of their earning power, expected to subsidize the middle-aged, who are at the peak of their earning power? Social Security relied on that model, and is quickly headed toward insolvency — do we really want a repeat performance with another entitlement program?
Yes, ObamaCare includes subsidies to people who make less than 400% of the poverty level, and specifies that those people can only spend up to a certain percentage of their income on insurance. But, those subsidies do not come from a magic money tree in Washington DC. They come from the pockets of taxpayers, either directly or through future interest payments on borrowed funds. ObamaCare, as some Democratic leaders recently admitted, is at least as much about income redistribution as it is about health care.
Furthermore, making health insurance an entitlement is not the same thing as making health care an entitlement. Government-issued insurance, including Medicaid (through which 16 million people will supposedly get insurance under ObamaCare) often pays less than the cost of providing services. Specifically, I know that Pap smears and mammograms cost more to provide than Medicaid reimburses. It is pretty hard to find a doctor who will accept some government plans — the Mayo Clinic, for example, recently stopped accepting Medicare patients at its Glendale offices because they were losing millions of dollars a year by treating those patients. Since very few physicians are willing to, essentially, pay someone for the opportunity to work, few physicians will be willing to accept those newly insured people, which will lead to long waiting lists or higher costs. It cannot be otherwise.
ObamaCare, at great cost, does not solve the problems it was intended to solve, unless those problems have to do with taxpayers being allowed to keep too much of their own money.
Finally, I wish to emphasize Fourier’s transformative (subtle math joke) comment above about lack of health insurance not being an adverse factor in health outcomes. xrayvision(Quote)
xrayvision says:
A further thought experiment, since this is a legally-oriented blog:
Let’s say that Congress decided that legal representation and advice is so valuable that it constitutes a fundamental right, even for persons who are not accused of a crime. Therefore, all attorneys will bill a government-administered insurance agency for the services they provide, rather than billing their client. Attorneys’ pay would be subject to the whims of a government-appointed panel, and would obviously be a fraction of the amount billed.
1) Under this system, would the quality of legal representation change? For the better or for worse?
2) Would there be more or less legal action under such a system?
3) Would there be better legal outcomes under this system?
4) Would the professional satisfaction of attorneys change? For the better or worse?
5) Would anyone be willing to practice law under such a system? xrayvision(Quote)
fultzy says:
Too bad those folks aren’t smart enough to walk into an emergency room where they will be treated without charge if they cannot pay. Nice try Bozo. I can hear you whining now “millions of people dying every single minute...” fultzy(Quote)
George M says:
It is hard to believe that America has so many @@@%%%% citizens who have not even the vaguest idea of what our Constitution is about.
It clearly does not define who shall live or die according to their ability to pay for or to have access to health care. It does not guarantee an equal playing field for all.
It does give every citizen certain rights, which does not include health care or insurance. It protects our freedoms and liberties from an overzealous government. It establishes a military and provides for the use of national guards to secure our nation from its nemies. And, yes, it provides for fair interstate commerce, which has thus been abused by extravagant outlier interpretations of this power of government.
Obamacare goes far beyond constitutional limits on our federal republic form of government. Those who believe they should have welfare, education, housing, food, transportation, and other needs they may require should get states and fellows citizens of their states to provide them with this, through their elective process. George M(Quote)
Vandervecken says:
Ah, but your creation of a retirement savings account was a 100% voluntary commercial activity, and the penalty in this case is levied because you reaped benefits for engaging in that voluntary activity and failed to wait until you were entitled to reap those benefits without penalty.
In this case, the buying of health insurance under the statute is a 100% involuntary commercial activity, and the fact that the enforcement of the penalty–as it is named in the statute–is given over to the IRS doesn’t make it a tax. It just means they gave enforcement to the IRS.
If you’re going to make a counterargument that, “sure it’s voluntary, you can always not buy the insurance and pay the penalty,” let me just point out that that’s like saying compliance with the posted speed limit while driving is “voluntary”–hey, you can always just pay the fines.
I’ve read a lot of heavy reliance by supporters of the Democrat Populace Control Act of 2010 (aka, Obamacare) on the Raich decision in trying to read the USSC tea leaves. Even J. Stevens, writing for the majority in Gonzalez v. Raich, writes the following:
“(c) Respondents’ heavy reliance on Lopez and Morrison overlooks the larger context of modern-era Commerce Clause jurisprudence preserved by those cases, while also reading those cases far too broadly. The statutory challenges at issue there were markedly different from the challenge here. Respondents ask the Court to excise individual applications of a concededly valid comprehensive statutory scheme. In contrast, in both Lopez and Morrison, the parties asserted that a particular statute or provision fell outside Congress’ commerce power in its entirety. This distinction is pivotal for the Court has often reiterated that “[w]here the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power ‘to excise, as trivial, individual instances’ of the class.”
I think we may be more surprised than we imagine on how this falls out. Conventional wisdom has been that this will come down to Anthony Kennedy. It just may be that Stevens and others on the Court’s liberal wing will surprise us. Vandervecken(Quote)
John Rojewski says:
“Toothless 10th Amendment?”
Not being a constitutional scholar, I have a tendency to read the 10th Amendment as 28 words that should need no interpretation. I would believe anyone having passed the 6th grade would be able to understand:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
If you can find the words, health, insurance, doctor, or hospital in the body of the US Constitution, then maybe the Federal government can look into the issue. If not, it belongs to ths States and the people. John Rojewski(Quote)
Stewart Jay says:
I was one of the participants in the UW Law School program castigated by Mr. Kopel. Unfortunately, he has many of his facts about the program wrong. We organized the event immediately after the WA state AG announced he was joining the Florida lawsuit, which provoked immediate controversy in this state. Given the rapidity of the news cycle, we wanted to have a program as soon as possible, i.e., within a couple of days, simply to discuss the lawsuit. In picking the panelists, we did not know the views of the participants (with the exception of my own, which had been published). Rather, we picked professors based on (a) expertise in constitutional law, and (b) availability. We WERE concerned that the panel might all agree that the suit was meritless, so an effort was made to identify and invite academics who might think the act was unconstitutional. Some of the people mentioned by Mr. Kopel were on our list. (Regrettably, Mr. Shapiro’s self-advertised availability was announced after the event.)
It also is not true that all the panelists said that the act was “unquestionably constitutional.” I was the only one who advanced that view, although it’s accurate that everyone thought the lawsuit was a long shot. Much of the program was spent providing simple facts, such as how the health care act works, or what the Court said in a certain case, or why standing and ripeness might be an issue in the current litigation.
During the program, the views of those supporting the FL suit were carefully laid out and discussed. Several panel members played Devil’s Advocate, so it was a spirited discussion. We also had audience members submit questions, some of which were implicitly critical of the position taken by one or more panelists. In advance of the program, we posted a lengthy law review article on the UW Law School site, by the 2 attorneys representing Florida in the case, along with an opposing piece Jack Balkin. Students and audience members were directed to the site by e-mail announcements.
This was NOT an academic conference, but rather reaction to a newsworthy event by academics whose views largely were unknown in advance. Was it a perfect “debate”? Of course not, as debates are always better with debaters presenting opposite points of view. It was not even meant as a “debate” between opposing sides, but was billed as a discussion, a panel, etc. But it was a good faith effort to discuss a timely issue in a way that aired the various viewpoints. And I’m sure it will be but one of many discussions here, and you can be certain that the foes of the act will be well represented.
Stewart Jay
University of Washington Stewart Jay(Quote)
Nathan Lusk says:
I am not a constitutional “scholar”, but I am very versed in its form and function, and would be happy to debate it with any Liberals, especially concerning the healthcare debacle. I am a political talk radio show host and I am running for Lubbock County Judge in Lubbock, TX. I also own a freelance writing company and a dodgeball league, and spend much of my time researching and commenting on the Constitution and politics in general.
Please have me added to the list of people who would be outrageously happy to debate the constitutionality of the healthcare reform bill, and expect me to be well-rehearsed on the topincs for discussion. Also, if you want to see some of my constitutional positions, please check out my political blog at http://www.natelusk.wordpress.com. Nathan Lusk(Quote)
Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e113v2 says:
Bob Langenbach says:
What Professor Stewart Jay states above is significantly different than reported in the Seattle Times.
He may think that the people chosen were experts in constitutional law, but the moderator definitely is suspect. He does not believe the US Constitution’s Second Amendment is an individual right, for one thing. Bob Langenbach(Quote)
Wally F says:
Lets face it politicans suck, believe in Joe Boss for a good laugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB7E-BLfFjU
Wally Wally F(Quote)
David Mayer says:
Quite belatedly, I’d like to identify myself as a law professor who argues that so-called “Obamacare,” the Democrats’ health-insurance nationalization legislation, is unconstitutional. Indeed, in my blog essay “Unhealthy, Unconstitutional ‘Reform’,” I identify a half-dozen important constitutional objections to the law and discuss (favorably) the various efforts at the state level to “nullify” this unconstitutional federal law. See http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20100408.asp David Mayer(Quote)