nos-trum. pronunciation: \nos'-trum\. noun. Etymology: Latin, neuter of noster our, ours.
1. a medicine of secret composition recommended by its preparer but usually without scientific proof of its effectiveness.
2. a usually questionable remedy or scheme.
See here for more discussion.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

15 States Suing ObamaCare; More To Follow?

The constitutionality of ObamaCare is questioned by some.  Democrats say "Of course it's constitutional", of course.

It would be odd if any Democrat questioned the constitutional merit of something they voted for.  In the states, the battleground is shaping up slowly, with Attorney's General (AG)  filing suit, mostly Republicans.  States with Democrat AG's are not.  In those states with a Democrat AG, if the Governor or state legislature is Republican, there's great pressure to join the suit.

Several states are potentially supportive of the suit, but either think there's no need to pile on, or are sitting safely on the sidelines.

You would think the question of whether the health care reform law is constitutional would be a serious discussion on the merits, but it's shaping up as politics.

However, one accusation is surely untrue.  Democrats have alleged that there are no constitutional scholars who even credit the question.

So, I went looking for reputable academics who have written that there is a serious question whether the law can withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Here is the list of constitutional scholars I found:

Ilya Shapiro, George Washington University
Sanford Levinson, Univ of Texas
Randy Barnett, Georgetown Law School
Roger Pilon, Georgetown Law School
Richard Epstein, Univ of Chicago
Lee A. Casey, George Mason University
Michael McConnell, Stanford Univ
Jonathan Turley, George Washington Univ
David Kopel, Denver Univ Sturm College of Law
Rob Natelson, Univ of Montana
Kris Kobach, University of Missouri

A couple of these are Adjunct Professors, but Levinson is co-author of a standard textbook on the US Constitution.
All have concerns, objections, or opinions that could undermine health care reform.  So, the allegation is bogus that there aren't constitutional scholars who think elements of the new law cannot stand.
Important note:  while the Constitution is almost sacred in this country, very few even know what it says.  But think back to when it was written:  the authors were rebelling against an oppressive government.  They wanted to ensure that their new government could not become all-powerful.  So, unlike some other countries, our governing document says (in common language) that if the Constitution doesn't specifically give the federal government the power in a given area, then they are prohibited from trying to exercise that power (it's reserved to the states).  There's nothing in the Constitution that says they can make you buy a product (health insurance).  Some scholars have other issues.
I don't know where this will end up, but clearly there's a question that needs answering.

No comments:

Post a Comment


What I'm Reading - Updated 3 May

Blog Archive