The Patriot Post Brief 3-26-2012

________________________________________
The Patriot Post Brief 3-26-2012
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
________________________________________

The Foundation

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another." --Thomas Jefferson

Essential Liberty

"On Monday, ObamaCare will get its first of several days before the Supreme Court. All nine justices (no recusals) will hear six hours of argument spread over three days. Here's what to expect: Monday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. -- The Court will hear 90 minutes of argument on whether a federal tax law bars any challenge to the mandate requiring all individuals to purchase or obtain health insurance. ... Tuesday, March 27, 10:00 a.m. -- The Court will hear two hours of argument on the main event: the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate that requires all Americans to buy a health insurance policy or be subject to a penalty imposed by the IRS. ... Wednesday, March 28, 10:00 a.m. -- The Court will hear 90 minutes of argument on the issue of severability: can any part of the ObamaCare Act survive if the Court were to strike down the individual insurance mandate or any other part of the law? ... Wednesday, March 28, 1:00 p.m. -- The Court will hear a final hour of argument examining the constitutionality of ObamaCare's expansion of the federal Medicaid program. ... As always, the sessions will not be televised. However, the Court has promised to release the audio file of the oral arguments by 2:00 p.m. on Monday and Tuesday, and by 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday. And no, I don't know how you can get a ticket to get in to hear the arguments other than by standing in line with everyone else for what will be the most important case decided by the Supreme Court since Brown v. Board of Education. It will be a momentous week for the interests of liberty, freedom, and the preservation of a constitutional republic." --Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky1

Government

"Whether or not the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) proves to be constitutionally valid, it is based on mistaken premises, faulty economic analysis, short-sighted politics, and seriously flawed health policy. ... The strongest constitutional law arguments against the PPACA's individual mandate begin with the essential point that it is unprecedented and not bound by any limiting principle. It seriously threatens the concept that enumerated powers under the Constitution set some limits on the scope of permissible federal authority. ... But the mandate is troubling for other reasons. Defining and implementing a mandate entails many additional rules regarding exactly what it requires, how to carry it out, and who pays for it. Once we presume government is ultimately responsible for guaranteeing every American has purchased the required health insurance, we also guarantee a permanent and ever-more-intrusive role for politicians and their favored interest groups in translating that goal into practice. ... Insurance mandates that conscript more individuals to pay for new, expanded coverage can act like a tax to help fund additional health spending. ... Not surprisingly, an individual mandate has the least support from those it is purported to help: people who currently do not enroll in public coverage or employer-sponsored insurance or purchase individual coverage. Trying to force people to buy insurance they cannot afford or coercing them into paying more for coverage than its perceived value remains politically difficult." --American Enterprise Institute's Thomas P. Miller2

For the Record

"The Institute for Justice, a libertarian public interest law firm, has focused on this fact: The individual mandate is incompatible with centuries of contract law. ... The brief, the primary authors of which are IJ's Elizabeth Price Foley and Steve Simpson, says Obamacare is the first time Congress has used its power to regulate commerce to produce a law 'from which there is no escape.' ... Throughout the life of this nation it has been understood that for a contract to be valid, the parties to it must mutually assent to its terms -- without duress. In addition to duress, contracts are voidable for reasons of fraud upon, or the mistake or incapacity of, a party to the contract. This underscores the centrality of the concept of meaningful consent in contract law. To be meaningful, consent must be informed and must not be coerced. Under Obamacare, the government will compel individuals to enter into contractual relations with insurance companies under threat of penalty. ... Furthermore, although the Constitution permits Congress to make laws 'necessary and proper' for executing its enumerated powers, such as the power to regulate interstate commerce, it cannot, IJ argues, be proper to exercise that regulatory power in ways that eviscerate 'the very essence of legally binding contracts.' ... IJ correctly says that if the court were to ratify Congress' disregard for settled contract law, Congress' 'power to compel contractual relations would have no logical stopping point.' Which is why this case is the last exit ramp on the road to unlimited government." --columnist George Will3

The Gipper

"It doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. ... The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment." --Ronald Reagan4

Political Futures

"If Mitt wins the nomination, as seems very likely, I will enthusiastically support his candidacy. For my friends who have hesitation on that score, I'd just ask you to keep four things in mind: Justice Scalia just turned 78, Justice Kennedy will turn 78 later this year, Justice Breyer will be 76 in August, and Justice Ginsburg turned 81 about a week ago. We wish them all well, of course, but the brute fact is that whoever we elect as president in November is almost certainly going to choose at least one and maybe more new members of the Supreme Court -- in addition to hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives for decades to come. If you don't think it matters whether the guy making those calls is Mitt Romney or Barack Obama, I think you're smokin' something funky." --columnist Andrew McCarthy5

Opinion in Brief

"We're constantly told that the way to fix the country is to dethrone the left and right and empower the middle. ... What if instead the solution is to disempower the national elites who think they've got the answers to everything? Federalism -- the process whereby you push most political questions to the lowest democratic level possible -- has been ripe on the right for years now. It even had a champion in Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and Ron Paul still carries that torch. The main advantage of federalism is more fundamental than the so-called 'laboratories of democracy' idea. Federalism is simply the best political system ever conceived of for maximizing human happiness. A one-size-fits-all policy imposed at the national level has the potential to make very large numbers of citizens unhappy, even if it was arrived at democratically. ... A left-right federalist compromise would make America a happier, freer, more prosperous and interesting country. It would also dethrone those in both parties who think they know what's best for more than 300 million Americans." --columnist Jonah Goldberg6