A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare

[terp]

A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare

I don't know anything about this guy, but obviously Constitutional sounds a bit crazy. I mean he's saying that it is Constitutional based on past SCOTUS decisions regarding the Commerce Clause. He then goes on to say that fears about this power expanding in other ways are unfounded. But, wouldn't this just become another precedent for some other unforeseen power grab?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I recognize that many persons believe the health mandate is very bad legislative policy. But the appropriate judicial response to such a complaint has long been clear. The Court was admirably forthright about the point in its ruling in Munn v. Illinois in 1876: “For protection against abuses by the Legislature, the people must resort to the polls, not the courts.”

So, the courts have no role in overturning unconstitutional laws, and we should hope that, in some point in the distant future, a new legislature will overturn this law, even though the precedent for doing that is slim and none.

Very few laws ever go away.

Meh.

Just another pointy headed academic who is going to throw up clouds of rhetoric to get their point across: i.e. that the fedgov is all powerful and the CC gives it authority to do pretty much whatever it wants.

If that's the case, why not stop fucking around and just dissolve the states, since they're nothing but prefectures of the fedgov.

 

[terp]

Not only that. But laws tend to be seeds(concept shamelessly stolen from Dan Carlin) The law as passed takes on a life of its own and is used in ways that were not intended. Look at the Patriot Act. Its intent was to fight terrorism. But now it is used more often in drug cases.

 

[angelatc]

A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare

I don't know anything about this guy, but obviously Constitutional sounds a bit crazy. I mean he's saying that it is Constitutional based on past SCOTUS decisions regarding the Commerce Clause. He then goes on to say that fears about this power expanding in other ways are unfounded. But, wouldn't this just become another precedent for some other unforeseen power grab?

One of the libertarian law blogs I read reached almost the same conclusion. That if the law is upheld, it will be because of the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause.

 

[angelatc]

So, the courts have no role in overturning unconstitutional laws, and we should hope that, in some point in the distant future, a new legislature will overturn this law, even though the precedent for doing that is slim and none.

Very few laws ever go away.
.

Yep. That's why I don't really give a rat's ass if Obama gets to appoint all 9 SCOTUS judges. If we weren't intent on electing officials who pass these laws, it wouldn't matter. The days of thinking of the Court as our last defense against tyranny vanished a long time ago.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Not only that. But laws tend to be seeds(concept shamelessly stolen from Dan Carlin) The law as passed takes on a life of its own and is used in ways that were not intended. Look at the Patriot Act. Its intent was to fight terrorism. But now it is used more often in drug cases.

And they know this, beyond a shadow of doubt.