We Have Ourselves A Circuit Split

Now it gets interesting.

President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when an appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, ruled 2 to 1 that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but it unanimously reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire law.

The problem for Obama and the other Democrats is that, without the individual mandate even their screwy math doesn’t work.  The law was never going to deliver anything but increased costs and diminished quality.  But without the mandate, it just collapses. 

 Next stop, the Supreme Court.  It was always going there anyway, but the circuit split (the 6th concluded it was constitutional) seals it.

Published in: on August 12, 2011 at 3:33 pm  Leave a Comment  

Talk About Stuck On Stupid

Widener Law School has decided to double down after a faculty committee determined that a couple of students — Jennifer Perez and Nadege Tandoh, to be precise — falsely accused law professor Lawrence Connell of engaging in racist and sexist conduct.  The school is requiring Connell to submit to a psychiatric examination before it will reinstate him.  Professor Jacobson has the details.

Speaking of nutjobs, who in their right mind would go to Widener or hire one of its graduates after this spectacle?  Not me.  The place is a joke.

Published in: on August 9, 2011 at 10:57 am  Leave a Comment  

Obama Owes An Apology Or Two

As Obama attempts a few victory laps and claim all credit for slaying Osama bin Laden, Marc Thiessen reminds us that Obama has not exactly been gracious to those who made it possible to find him.  And he’s not talking about President Bush:

On his second day in office, Obama shut down the CIA’s high-value interrogation program. His Justice Department then reopened criminal investigations into the conduct of CIA interrogators — inquiries that had been closed years before by career prosecutors who concluded that there were no crimes to prosecute. In a speech at the National Archives, Obama eviscerated the men and women of the CIA, accusing them of “torture” and declaring that their work “did not advance our war and counterterrorism efforts — they undermined them.”

Now, it turns out that the very CIA interrogators whose lives Obama turned upside down played a critical role in what the president rightly calls “the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat al Qaeda.”

It is time for a public apology.

Indeed.  President “I get all credit while you take any blame” has been quick to misjudge, insult, and attack those who came before him while taking credit for the results of their difficult decisions.  Isn’t it long past time someone in the media asks him about that?

Published in: on May 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm  Leave a Comment  

Redistribution By Taxation

Veronique de Rugy takes the wood to claims that the rich — whatever that means — are not paying their fair share of income taxes, as President Obama incessantly tells us.  She does it with a simple chart:

Green is share of total income.  Blues are share of total income taxes.  More information at the link.

President Obama and the Democrats in Congress view tax policy as a way to engage in (i) redistribution, not any concept of fairness that comports with the definition of the word, and (ii) social and economic engineering to favor certain industries, technologies, and groups (i.e. special interests). 

The only way to make taxes fair is to ensure that all segments of society feel a proportionate amount of pain to some degree, and to eliminate provisions that favor special interests.  This would have the added benefit of reducing market distortions that impede economic prosperity by favoring certain industries and groups instead of letting the market — meaning consumers like you and me — determine which will prosper.

Published in: on April 21, 2011 at 10:49 am  Leave a Comment  

In CLE Hell

For the un-annointed, CLE means Continuing Legal Education.  It is a ridiculously stupid requirement of our various states.  In Colorado, I need 36 credits every three years; for New Mexico, where I am also licensed, I need 12 credits every year. 

As far as I can tell, once you have practiced 5-6 years, there is zero benefit from this crap.  It is little more than one more way for the bar association to suck on the teat of my (and every other practitioner’s) wallet.

Anyway, I am listening to one live on the web today to make up some past-due NM credits, so I thought I would multi-task and blog a bit.  But this stuff is so soul-numbing that it has snuffed out every spark I had when I woke up this morning. 

Kill me.  Now.  Please.

UPDATE: Who knew lawyers could be so boring?

Published in: on April 8, 2011 at 10:53 am  Leave a Comment  

Hey Gunners — F*** You

There is a very funny video based on the Cee Lo Green song “F*** You,” or cleaned up, “Forget You,” making the legal rounds.  Just about anyone who went to law school and wasn’t the guy they are spoofing is likely to have had the same thoughts throughout their first year.

Published in: on March 28, 2011 at 12:43 pm  Leave a Comment  

Yet Another Jobs-Killing White House Initiative

Sigh.  They really don’t get it.

In an unprecedented and controversial move, the White House has launched a new program at the Department of Labor which will refer workers who have complaints about their bosses to a toll free number at the American Bar Association, where they can get a lawyer to work on their case on a contingency fee basis.

More than 40,000 workers annually contact the Department of Labor with complaints about their bosses. But Labor can’t get to all of them, an estimated 10%, because of budget constraints, the White House says. So the White House has instead launched a program for “unresolved complainants” with the ABA. Workers will now be provided a toll-free number that connects them with ABA lawyers nationwide who are experienced in things like alleged workplace abuses of minimum wage, overtime and family medical leave laws.

The White House in a statement says this is “a new effort between the federal government and private bar to assist complainants” who may need help with “worker rights.” In a statement, the ABA calls this new alliance “unprecedented.”

It is a sad fact of our legal system that small claims are too expensive to defend, and there is virtually never a penalty for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.  The lawyers who field these calls will mostly be bottom-feeders looking to wring a few bucks out of employers regardless of the merits of the case, and they will largely succeed given the cost of defending even meritless claims.  

Obama appears to honestly think that a speech full of pro-business cotton candy platitudes to the Chamber of Commerce will counteract a relentlessly anti-business agenda, a Department of Labor full of anti-business pro-union partisans, and a massive increase in regulatory burdens.  I am not sure if it would be better or worse if he were merely being cynical.

Published in: on February 9, 2011 at 10:49 am  Leave a Comment  

Liberals Remain Incapable Of Answering The Fundamental Question Underlying The Constitutionality Of ObamaCare

After the decision on Monday by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida, which held that the ObamaCare law is unconstitutional, an anonymous White House official gave what so far appears to be the official Administration response:

Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.

White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

If that is the best they can do, then the Administration really has failed to take seriously, or to seriously consider, the fundamental constitutional question underlying the individual mandate.

For months, conservative writers have been asking a simple question — if the individual mandate to buy insurance under ObamaCare is constitutional, what are the limits of federal power over the U.S. citizenry.  I asked a few questions along these lines here. I have not seen a single serious response from ObamaCare’s supporters.

Instead, we have someone who is not even willing to go on the record saying the question itself is “surpassingly curious” and “odd and unconventional.”  In what way?  Vinson was doing exactly the kind of analysis you do when considering fundamental questions of constitutional law — If position X is correct, what implications does that have for A, B, and C? 

Or instead we get Adam Serwer jumping back into the fray (I responded to Serwer’s earlier defense of the individual mandate here) to declare that

If there’s one thing that’s clear from Florida Judge Roger Vinson’s polemical ruling against health-care reform, it’s that the fight over the Affordable Care Act is more a political battle than a legal one.

 Actually, all Serwer can do is make a straw man caricature of Vinson’s legal arguments in order to misconstrue them as political, such as:

Vinson provides other explicit nods to his partisan inclinations. He winks at President Obama’s most visible public opposition, citing the original Boston Tea Party, and pulls out his originalist ouija board, declaring that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton would have opposed ratification of the Constitution had they known the individual mandate might someday become law. This tracks closely with conservative arguments that the individual mandate, once touted by the “far left” Heritage Foundation, reflects the sinister, un-American perversions of the liberal influence on public discourse rather than liberals scuttling their own policy instincts and adopting a conservative route to ensuring universal coverage.

That doesn’t really address the central question, does it?  So Serwer tries on a few other analogies that don’t get the job done:

[U]sing the tax code to manipulate public behavior is nothing new. As libertarian writer Tim Lee wrote weeks ago, if courts want to overrule the individual mandate, they have to explain why “coercing people to buy health insurance is more objectionable than coercing them to have children, pay tuition, take out a mortgage, or install solar panels on their house.” Who knew we’d already been living in a tyrannical dystopia?

Each of the activities Serwer lists has economic impacts of the same sort as a decision not to buy health insurance:

Demand for consumer goods goes up if there are more consumers.  Not having children results in fewer consumers.  Therefore, the decision not to have children has economic consequences. 

Demand for housing goes up if there are more home buyers.  Renting results in fewer home buyers.  Therefore, the decision not to buy a home has economic consequences. 

Demand for fossil-fuel electricty goes down, and demand for solar panels goes up, if more people buy solar panels.  Not buying solar panels results in less use of fossil-fuel energy and less demand for solar panels.  Therefore, the decision not to buy solar panels has economic consequences. 

The difference between Serwer’s tax incentive examples and the individual mandate, of course, is that in each of his examples the tax code is being used (I would say misused for most of them) to provide an incentive to encourage conduct; it does not mandate that people engage in conduct under threat of a penalty. 

All that courts who want to “overrule the individual mandate” have to do is explain that the current tax code does not mandate that people must have children, mandate that people must go to college or pay college tuition, mandate that people must buy a house or take out a mortgage, or mandate that people must buy and install solar panels on their houses. 

That is the difference — ObamaCare mandates that people must buy health insurance.  Indeed, we already give tax incentives to employer-provided health insurance, and no one is arguing that such incentives are unconstitutional.

Finally, Serwer concedes the essential problem facing his side of the argument:

But Vinson’s partisanship doesn’t obscure or change the very real problem liberals have in offering a concise response to concerns that their interpretation of the Commerce Clause gives the government limitless power. The individual examples of apocalyptic “mandates” are easily dispatched one at a time [Where has Serwer done that?], but collectively the slippery slope argument has power. . . .  Simply dismissing the “broccoli mandate” as silly or citing legal precedent won’t be enough to win that argument — liberals need to find a concise way to articulate both why the individual mandate is constitutional and why it doesn’t simply open the door to limitless government abuse, and thus far, they haven’t found one.

And so the question remains — if the individual mandate to buy insurance under ObamaCare is constitutional, what are the limits of federal power?  It is increasingly clear that ObamaCare’s supporters do not have an answer.

Via the Volokh Conspiracy.

Published in: on February 1, 2011 at 1:46 pm  Leave a Comment  

Race-Based (In)Justice At The Justice Department

Jennifer Rubin has an invaluable post up about the New Black Panther case and race-conscious civil rights enforcement non-enforcement by the Obama Justice Department. 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights came out in December with a draft of its interim report on the New Black Panthers Party scandal. Earlier today a final report was posted on the commission’s website, and with it, a flurry of rebuttals and separate statements from a number of the commissioners. The import of these statements should not be minimized.

The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration’s political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission’s work.

There is much, much more.  Do read the whole thing.

Published in: on January 28, 2011 at 4:22 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Chicago Way — Rahm Emanuel’s Back On The Ballot

The opinion of the Illinois Supreme Court is here

It holds that “reside in” means the same thing as “residence.”  “Thus, in assessing whether the candidate has established residency, the two required elements are: (1) physical presence, and (2) an intent  to remain in that place as a permanent home. Once residency is established, the test is no longer physical presence but rather abandonment, the presumption is that residency continues, and the burden of proof is on the contesting party to show that residency has been abandoned.”

 The case is a real smack-down of the panel that kicked Rahm off the ballot:

Before proceeding to the merits, we wish to emphasize that, until just a few days ago, the governing law on this question had been settled in this State for going on 150 years. . . . 

Thus, from April 1867 through January 24 of this year, the principles governing the question before us were settled. Things changed, however, when the appellate court below issued its decision and announced that it was no longer bound by any of the law cited above, including this court’s decision in Smith, but was instead free to craft its own original standard for determining a candidate’s residency. . . .

Thus, our review of the appellate court’s decision in this case begins not where it should, with an assessment of whether the court accurately applied established Illinois law to the particular facts, but with an assessment of whether the appellate court was justified in tossing out 150 years of settled residency law in favor of its own preferred standard. We emphatically hold that it was not. . . .

So there will be no mistake, let us be entirely clear. This court’s decision is based on the following and only on the following: (1) what it means to be a resident for election purposes was clearly established long ago, and Illinois law has been consistent on the matter since at least the 19th Century; (2) the novel standard adopted by the appellate court majority is without any foundation in Illinois law; (3) the Board’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; and (4) the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous.

Ouch.  That’ll leave a mark.  You almost never see a higher court go after a lower court like this.

UPDATE: The opinion is the judicial equivalent of this, from the movie Billy Madison:

[Supreme Court]: [Court of Appeals], what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Court of Appeals]: Okay, a simple “wrong” would’ve done just fine.

UPDATE II: Allahpundit sums things up:

Not only does Rahm win 7-0 and get a boatload of triumphant headlines right before the big mayoral debate, he’s actually got five members of the state supreme court doing an end-zone dance on his behalf. Well f***ing played, Rahm. Very well f***ing played.

Indeed.

Published in: on January 27, 2011 at 5:00 pm  Leave a Comment  

Colorado’s “Amazon Tax” Has Been Enjoined

United State District Judge Robert Blackburn issued a preliminary injunction today barring the Colorado Department of Revenue from enforcing a new Colorado law that would require retailers that generate more than $100,000 in gross annual product sales to customers in Colorado, but do not collect and remit Colorado sales tax on those transactions, to report certain information about the customers’ purchases from the retailer to each customer and to the Colorado Department of Revenue:

First, such retailers must notify their Colorado customers that the retailer does not collect Colorado sales tax and, as a result, the purchaser is obligated to self-report and pay use tax to the DOR (Transactional Notice).

Second, such retailers must provide to each of their Colorado customers [who spend more than $500 in the calendar year] an annual report detailing that customer’s purchases from the retailer in the previous calendar year, informing the customer that he or she is obligated to report and pay use tax on such purchases, and informing the customer that the retailer is required by law to report the customer’s name and the total amount of the customer’s purchases from that retailer to the DOR (Annual Purchase Summary). . . .

Third, such retailers must provide the DOR with an annual report concerning each of the retailer’s Colorado customers stating the name, billing address, shipping addresses, and the total amount of purchases from the retailer by each of the retailer’s Colorado customers (Customer Information Report).

[Paragraph breaks added.]  In short, it was an attempt to tax all on-line purchases by Colorado consumers. 

The Direct Marketing Association (“DMA”) challenged the new law and associated regulations as violating the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and filed a motion for preliminary injunction to temporarily block their enforcement.

A motion for preliminary injunction typically asks the court to freeze the status quo until the case can be fully tried.  It is temporary – lasting only until the verdict at trial or other final decision – but often has a huge impact on the overall outcome of the case.  It is also provides a relatively quick path to an appeal, albeit one under the preliminary injunction standard rather than one that is more authoritative. 

The first issue to be decided when considering a motion for preliminary injunction is whether the plaintiff has established “a substantial likelihood that it is likely to prevail on the merits of the substantive claims that are the basis for its motion.”  They don’t have to win; but they must prove a reasonable probability of success.

The DMA first argued that the Act DMA alleges that the Act discriminates against out-of-state retailers because the it imposes notice and reporting obligations on those retailers that are not imposed on Colorado retailers.  Since in-state retailers are subject to are subject to civil and criminal penalties if they fail to collect and remit Colorado sales tax, and almost all of them do so, the court held that the plaintiff had “shown a substantial likelihood that it will succeed in showing that the Act and the Regulations are discriminatory because, in practical effect, they impose a burden on interstate commerce that is not imposed on in-state commerce.”

The DMA also alleged that the Act imposes an improper and burdensome regulation of interstate commerce.  The Supreme Court has held that there is a “bright line” rule that creates a “safe harbor for vendors whose only connection with customers in the [taxing] State is by common carrier or the United States mail” under which “vendors are free from state-imposed duties to collect sales and use taxes.”  Therefore, the court held that the DMA had a reasonable probability of winning under this theory as well.

Often, the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction receive more detailed attention, but here the court was able to move quickly through them to conclude that an injunction should be issued. 

The insidious thing about laws such as this is that the voting public is generally not aware — and not adequately informed by the media — of the huge impact they will have.  Because the immediate reporting burden is on retailers, those who are the targets of a massive new tax on on-line transactions are generally not aware of what the legislature is plotting until it’s too late.

It will be interesting to watch this case go up on appeal.  If affirmed, it will be left to the federal government to determine whether on-line transactions with out-of-state retailers can be taxed by the states.

Via Complete Colorado.

Published in: on January 27, 2011 at 4:37 pm  Comments (2)  

Rahm Emanuel Ouster Stayed By the Illinois Supreme Court

The court of appeals decision of yesterday striking Emanuel from the Chicago mayoral ballot has been stayed pending further review by the Illinois Supreme Court:

[T]he Supreme Court granted Emanuel’s motion for a stay of the ruling.

“The appellate court decision is stayed,’’ the Supreme Court’s order reads. “The Board of Elections is directed that if any ballots are printed while this Court is considering this case, the ballots should include the name of petitioner Rahm Emanuel as a candidate for Mayor of the City of Chicago.’’

Via Ace, who thinks the Supremes may have tipped their hand by granting a stay.  I disagree. 

More likely, they were just looking at the practical effect of denying a stay and having the ballots printed without including Emanuel.  That might not be possible to undo in time for the election if Emanuel were later declared to be eligible to run, irreparably prejudicing him and any voters who want to see him elected mayor.  It is easier to strike him later, I guess, than to add a name to the ballot. 

A stay also preserves the status quo — where he was a candidate — while the Supreme Court considers the matter, and this is the kind of momentous case the Supreme Court really should and almost certainly will hear.

So the least harmful thing to do is stay the court of appeals decision, hear the case now — there can’t be much on their docket that is more pressing — and quickly issue a decision.  I expect that a decision will be issued before the end of the week.

Published in: on January 25, 2011 at 12:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

U.S. District Judge John Roll

Matt Bowman, one of Chief Judge Roll’s former law clerks, eulogizes the federal judge killed in the Tucson shootings at NRO Online’s Bench Memos.  He sounds like a terrific jurist who will be greatly missed.

Published in: on January 13, 2011 at 3:40 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Weak Liberal Case For The Individual Mandate

Although I remain skeptical of the chances of lawsuits challenging the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, one compelling question is gaining traction among the commentariat.  As Jennifer Rubin frames it: “If the government can force you to buy insurance, is there any limit to its power?”  Or as Megan McArdle put it: “On a reading of the commerce clause that allows the government to force you to buy insurance from a private company, what can’t the government force you to do?”  I asked it myself here.

I have been looking for the liberal answer to this question without much luck, until today.  Writing at The American Prospect, Adam Serwer notes that when “[a]sked about the constitutional basis for the individual mandate, some liberals mumble quietly about legal precedent before making the compelling policy argument that without the mandate, you can’t preserve the private insurance market and ensure affordable universal coverage,” then takes a crack at it himself.  Actually, Serwer further illustrates the conundrum by not being able to make a meaningful rejoinder.

Instead, Serwer simply declares health care to be a federal problem begging for a federal solution:

Without some kind of federal mechanism, you can’t preserve the private insurance market and ensure affordable universal coverage. States that impose mandates will bear the costs of providing insurance for those that don’t. This is why Hudson’s argument that the commerce clause doesn’t give the government the authority to regulate economic “inactivity” in this context rings hollow — you can’t actually choose not to participate in the health-insurance market, because deciding not to buy health insurance drastically affects everyone else.

This is not correct.  We have a private insurance market and no federal mandate now.  What you cannot have without the mandate is a new kind of market — one that Serwer undoubtably prefers — that requires insurers to take on new insureds who have pre-existing conditions.  But that does not mean that in every instance “choos[ing] not to participate in the health-insurance market . . . drastically affects everyone else.”

Moreover, the same can be said about everything.  More demand or less supply in a market economy impacts the prices everyone else pays.  It is called the law of supply and demand.  Look it up.  So that cannot be the basis for Commerce Clause authority, or Congress would have authority over everything.

Serwer then moves on to, essentially, the penumbra of the Commerce Clause, citing Yale law professor Jack Balkin:

“The Founders’ logic was that the enumerated powers are to map on to areas where you need a federal solution,” Balkin says. “You couldn’t do this with cars, you couldn’t do this with cell phones, you couldn’t do this with Cuisinarts. [Health] insurance is special.” Conservatives worried about a “food mandate” might remember that unlike health insurance, the price of food doesn’t go up dramatically when someone waits until they’re starving to eat.

Ah, health insurance “is special.”  That is not much of an argument. 

And in any event, the previously mentioned law regarding supply and demand means that the price of food does go up dramatically when many want to eat it and supply is limited.  Or, for example, when they use corn as fuel for cars.

Again, Serwer must assume one part of Obamacare to support the second part — if you require insurers to take on new insureds who have pre-existing conditions, then you need to get everyone into the pool or the system will go bankrupt.   But a problem created by Congress cannot be used as a bootstrap to expand Congress’ power over citizens.  The power has to be in the Constitution.  Where is it, and what limits are there if it allows the individual mandate?  Serwer still has not answered the question he set out to address.

So he retreats back to policy arguments and chest thumping about how darn nice liberals are:

The real difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals admit that in the pursuit of a fairer and more equitable society, they make judgment calls about the balance between freedom and providing for the general welfare. 

I disagree with the notion that liberals alone “make judgment calls about the balance between freedom and providing for the general welfare.”  But let’s stick to the question at hand.  If the government can force you to buy insurance, is there any limit to its power? 

That question will remain unanswered.  Serwer instead falls back behind Professor Balkin, who more or less handwaves about tea partiers, general welfare, and taxes:

“Liberals should take a page from the Tea Partiers and wave their pocket Constitutions around and ask, what part of regulating commerce between the states don’t you understand?” Balkin says. “What part of tax and provide for the general welfare don’t you understand?”

The problem, of course, is that the Congress is attempting to regulate non-participation in intrastate commerce.  And the individual mandate is not a tax.  President Obama himself said so, rather emphatically.  What part of “it’s not a tax” don’t you understand, Professor?

It seems the real difference between liberals and conservatives (at least on this question) is that conservatives think the Constitution imposes limits on government power, and we should adhere to them.

Published in: on December 17, 2010 at 4:38 pm  Comments (1)  

If Obamacare’s Individual Mandate Is Constitutional, What Limits Are There On Congress’ Power?

Glenn Reynolds has posted ”[a]n honest question for lefties” from Radley Balko that I think is really important to consider as we continue the discussion of Obamacare and the Commerce Clause:  “If your answer is no, that is, that the Constitution puts no real restraints on the federal government at all, why do you suppose they bothered writing and passing one in the first place?”

I would also ask a slightly different question as well:  

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional, what limits are there on Congress’ power to compel Americans to act, or to refrain from acting?

  • Can Congress prohibit a woodworker from building bookshelves for his own use in his own home?  
  • Can Congress prohibit a woodworker from building bookshelves to give to his neighbor, for free, for use in her home?
  • Can Congress require Americans to purchase an apple a day, to keep the doctor away? 
  • Can Congress prohibit Americans from growing their own apples, to protect apple growers?
  • Can Congress prohibit Americans who grow their own apples from giving extras away to friends and neighbors?
  • Can Congress require all Americans to participate in 30 minutes of cardiovascular exercise per day?
  • Can Congress require all Americans to buy a bicycle, to foster good health?

If Obamacare’s individual mandate is constitutional, I believe that the answer to each of these questions is yes.  And if the answer to these questions is yes, we no longer live in a country with a constitutionally limited government.

Published in: on December 15, 2010 at 11:03 am  Comments (3)