Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
3defense
6albion
2jesusandjohnwayne
Edmund Burke 360x1000
13albion
Tad Friend 360x1000
4albion
3albion
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
LillianFaderman
AlexRosenberg
2confidencegames
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
1lauber
7albion
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
499
Storyparadox1
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Learned Hand 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
2lookingforthegoodwar
1albion
storyparadox3
1empireofpain
2paradise
3theleastofus
3paradise
1transcendentalist
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1jesusandjohnwayne
12albion
1confidencegames
3confidencegames
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
1falsewitness
2transadentilist
2theleastofus
Gilgamesh 360x1000
1lafayette
4confidencegames
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
George F Wil...360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
1trap
299
lifeinmiddlemarch2
9albion
2gucci
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
11albion
2falsewitness
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
2lafayette
2defense
14albion
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
1gucci
6confidencegames
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
1defense
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
7confidencegames
5albion
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
5confidencegames
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
10abion
1paradide
2trap
11632
8albion'
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
storyparadox2
2albion
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
1theleasofus
399
199
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
1madoff
Originally Published on forbes.com on July 28th, 2011
______________________________________
Earlier this month I reported on the decision in the suit by Thomas More Law Center against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is derisively referred to as Obamacare.  The Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Act, but then went on to uphold it.  The constitutional question is whether as I would put it “Not doing nothing” (i.e. not buying health insurance) constitutes interstate commerce.  I understand the libertarian impulse behind the objection.  On the other hand, I don’t want to live in a society where we just let people die and I recognize the concept of “adverse selection” that insurance companies would face if they are unable to deny coverage to the people who really need insurance.
The Center is not giving up the fight and has filed a petition to the Supreme Court.  This issue falls barely within my beat because the enforcement mechaninsm will be a tax under the Internal Revenue Code on those who do not get a policy that meets minimum standards.  It is in the same section as the already effective tax on indoor tanning services, which I told you how to beat recently.  Quoting one of the dissenting  judges the petition indicates that the stakes in the case are very high:
If the exercise of power is allowed and the mandate upheld, it is difficult to see what the limits on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority would be.
So like the Defense of Marriage Act, this is another states rights case.  Of course the Left likes states rights when it comes to DOMA but not when it comes to health care.  The Right likes states rights when it comes to health care but not when it comes to same sex marriage.  Just like the slave states liked states rights when it came to tariffs, but not so much when it came to personal liberty laws that interfered with the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law.  When they let the Supreme Court handle that mess we got the Dred Scott decision and a few hundred thousand dead soldiers.  Hopefully the result in this case will be better.
In Massachusetts we have a requirement similar to that provided for in the Patient Protection Act enforced by an additional state tax.  We’ve also had marriage equality for several years.  So far the world hasn’t ended.  Incidentally, it was really, really hard to get fugitive slaves out of Massachusetts as the Anthony Burns incident showed.  Personally, I’m  100% for states rights and 100% for federal supremacy.  It just depends on what the issue is.