Arizona’s proposed law would have frightening unintended consequences.
Will more prominent, respected conservatives come out of the woodwork to defend Obamacare’s constitutionality? This is the fifth.
"The individual health mandate surely passes constitutional muster under settled judicial principles. The Constitution’s Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority “to regulate commerce … among the several States.” The Court’s precedents establish without question that Congress may regulate intrastate economic activities that Congress (not the Court) reasonably concludes have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The existence of such congressional authority is especially clear when the challenged provision itself is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme that regulates interstate commerce.”
- Henry Paul Monaghan, A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare
Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress
Could one simple argument have saved Obamacare? Jeffrey Rosen and Jonathan Cohn discuss the Supreme Court case.
"In the oral arguments over the constitutionality of health care reform, John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy seemed at times to be looking for a reason to uphold the law despite their doubts. Unfortunately, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli didn’t give it to them."
-Jeffrey Rosen, One Simple Argument Could Have Saved Obamacare. Too Bad Verilli Didn’t Make It.
Did a 2006 TNR article help convict one of the worlds biggest arms dealers?
"Editor’s Note: Russian arms dealer Victor Bout was convicted last November of four counts of conspiracy to kill U.S. citizens and provide material support to terrorists. Last week, Bout’s lawyer filed papers requesting that the judge dismiss the indictment—and cited this January 2006 TNR article as a reason.”
- Douglas Farah and Kathi Austin, Air America
Read Jeffrey Rosen’s article on the many sides to the Supreme Court hearing on Obamacare, and for continuing coverage follow Jonathan Cohn’s blog.
"There is plenty of blame for this situation to go around: You can blame the lawyers and politicians on both sides; you can even, in some respects, blame the Supreme Court justices themselves. But, whoever is responsible, it’s clear that the two-year litigation marathon over health care has served to cloud and confuse what should have been a fairly straightforward constitutional debate."
- Jeffrey Rosen, Obamacare At The Court: Contortions All Round
Miss the TNR Google+ Hangout on the SCOTUS healthcare hearing? Catch the video here.
How does judicial philosophy affect the Supreme Court?
”Living Originalism, the culmination of this work, succeeds in providing an endlessly engaging theory of constitutional law that wrestles with the field’s most urgent concerns in a way that accounts for nuance without sacrificing clarity. That is no meager achievement.”
- Justin Driver, Ignoble Specificities
Will the Supreme Court’s decision on health care reform come down to a “limiting principle”?
"Roughly speaking, the conservative argument goes like this. By forcing people to get insurance or pay a fine, the government is not regulating commerce, as the government claims. After all, somebody who has chosen not to get health insurance is, by definition, not engaging in commerce. If the Court agrees that the government can nevertheless compel that person to take some kind of action, the critics say, the Court would be granting the federal government nearly unlimited power. There would be nothing to stop the government from, say, making people buy broccoli or a General Motors car. Washington would have a blank check to do anything it wants."
- Jonathan Cohn, “Is There a Weak Link in the Government’s Case for Obamacare?”
Photo courtesy of Nola.com
""He has his hand in his waistband," George Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher in Sanford, Fla., shortly before he shot and killed Trayvon Martin. “He has something in his hand.” Presumably Zimmerman thought that “something” was a gun. But Martin was unarmed.”
-Timothy Noah, Trayvon Martin’s Imaginary Weapon