Obamacare from a Conservative Legal Viewpoint
The July 20 [2013] meeting featured guest speaker Mario Loyola who authored the National Review cover story on the Supreme Court ruling on “Obamacare.” Mario Loyola granted that when the ruling came down conservatives expressed instant indignation and liberals expressed instant elation. However, he said, “instant indignation and instant elation are indicative of inverse understanding of the issues.”
Mario Loyola works for several think tanks, among them the Texas Public Policy Foundation. At the meeting, we were given offprints of his National Review cover story and his two papers for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In an interactive engagement with the audience, he addressed the premises and problems of both“Obamacare” and the recent Supreme Court decision.
When is a tax a penalty for inaction?
Can the government punish the choice not to act? (As a practicing Catholic, Mario Loyola hinted at a lot of subtext on free will and choice.)
Given the powers of the sovereign, what is a penalty for non-compliance?
What is “severability” and can it be valid?
Loyola offered his opinion that “three quarters of the dissent” was written in the chambers of Chief Justice John Roberts. My estimation is that Loyola apparently believes that like Justice John Marshall Harlan, the “great dissenter” famous for his devastating rebuttal of Plessy v. Ferguson, Roberts intended to lay the groundwork for a reversal of Obamacare, while nonetheless at the same time being bound by conservative constitutional theory to honor the 200 years of precedent in support of his majority decision.
That last was the iceberg under the water. Mario Loyola said that he went back and laboriously re-read every one of the Supreme Court decisions on severability back to Marbury versus Madison. Severability is the doctrine that the Supreme Court can rule a single clause of a law unconstitutional, while keeping the rest of the law intact. To Loyola, as to constitutional conservatives, that actually creates a new law, not passed by Congress and not signed by the President. I asked a question: “Given that the law is the statement of social contact between the citizen and the state, is it not true that in contract law, the fact that a single clause is invalid does not invalidate the intent of the agreement.” Mario Loyola said that this question caught him off guard and he would address it later, for which he did not get the opportunity.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation here and physically at 900 Congress Ave #400 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 472-2700. Read "Obamacare: A guide to the Issues" here. And read about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, a guide to the issues from the Texas Policy Issues website:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/center/tenth-...
Mario Loyola works for several think tanks, among them the Texas Public Policy Foundation. At the meeting, we were given offprints of his National Review cover story and his two papers for the Texas Public Policy Foundation. In an interactive engagement with the audience, he addressed the premises and problems of both“Obamacare” and the recent Supreme Court decision.
When is a tax a penalty for inaction?
Can the government punish the choice not to act? (As a practicing Catholic, Mario Loyola hinted at a lot of subtext on free will and choice.)
Given the powers of the sovereign, what is a penalty for non-compliance?
What is “severability” and can it be valid?
Loyola offered his opinion that “three quarters of the dissent” was written in the chambers of Chief Justice John Roberts. My estimation is that Loyola apparently believes that like Justice John Marshall Harlan, the “great dissenter” famous for his devastating rebuttal of Plessy v. Ferguson, Roberts intended to lay the groundwork for a reversal of Obamacare, while nonetheless at the same time being bound by conservative constitutional theory to honor the 200 years of precedent in support of his majority decision.
That last was the iceberg under the water. Mario Loyola said that he went back and laboriously re-read every one of the Supreme Court decisions on severability back to Marbury versus Madison. Severability is the doctrine that the Supreme Court can rule a single clause of a law unconstitutional, while keeping the rest of the law intact. To Loyola, as to constitutional conservatives, that actually creates a new law, not passed by Congress and not signed by the President. I asked a question: “Given that the law is the statement of social contact between the citizen and the state, is it not true that in contract law, the fact that a single clause is invalid does not invalidate the intent of the agreement.” Mario Loyola said that this question caught him off guard and he would address it later, for which he did not get the opportunity.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation here and physically at 900 Congress Ave #400 Austin, TX 78701 (512) 472-2700. Read "Obamacare: A guide to the Issues" here. And read about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, a guide to the issues from the Texas Policy Issues website:
http://www.texaspolicy.com/center/tenth-...
I have never understood or accepted the doctrine of "precedence" in court proceedings. My court case is unique, because it involves me, here, now. The law means what it says, not what some hoary ghosts said it meant a hundred years ago.
As for the Constitution, likewise it means what it says, and what the *men who wrote it* say it says, not what some SCOTUS hack dreamed up in the past century.
O.o
Judges MUST judge each case uniquely on its merit as it pertains to the law.
""A prisoner brought to trial can defend himself only if there is an objective principle of justice recognised by his judges, a principle upholding his rights, which they may not violate and which he can invoke." - Hank Rearden
The law depends upon what the law says, not what a judge said five or fifty years ago they law says.
We already have court-shopping, and we have lawyers spending millions of their clients money searching for interpretations down the years of just exactly how many angels may dance upon the head of a pin. If that's justice, then so was the court in Lilliput.
"The book of Genesis describes Noah as being uncovered. Would you improve upon Holy Writ and put breeches on him?" - Michelangelo Buonarroti "The Agony and the Ecstasy"
We already know that the progressives would indeed put breeches on Noah, simply because the Bible describes him as being uncovered. Had it described him as wearing breeches, I am confident the leftists on the bench would demand his breeches be removed, simply to put their stamp upon the work.
Likewise, vain men, progressives and others with agendas convince some half-drunken lout of a judge that the law can be convoluted to mean something other than what it means, and a century later we're stuck with his craven, dishonest corruption of the Law.
If you want an example of the results of precedence, look at all the blood spilled among Christians alone over the years, as corrupt men defined and redefined the Holy Word of God, the Good News, the Gospel, not for a better understanding of His Word, but for their own aggrandizement and illicit profit. And the doubts and questions remain as the Bible was written and re-written, language changes alone being cause for tremendous changes in the meaning of the words spoken by Jesus.
So, no, the law means what it *says*, not what some judge said it meant under a different set of circumstances in a different era.
In 1934, the SCOTUS ruled that a sawed off shotgun did not qualify as a military weapon under the 2nd Amendment (why this would matter is more reason for rejecting "precedence"). In 1945 my father was issued one to guard a coal dump. Did the meaning of the 2nd Amendment change in 11 years? Should a man arrested for owning a sawed-off shotgun in 1946 be bound by the precedent set in 1934, in another case under other circumstances, simply because bad decisions must be given preeminence for no better reason than seniority?
you are assuming we a re a statutory-based country. We are a common law country. Most of criminal and contract law was developed by judges and was animated by Locke's Natural Rights-in the US even more closely followed Blackstone. so, in this system, judges were more constrained by natural rights theory. Precedence was essential because we didn't have statutory rules for every case. for instance, the contract interpretation rule that ambiguity is held against the drafter is not statutory but based on reason/logic. it would not be a better world to make laws that would cover every possible situation. those countries that try to (Spain, France, Italy) do not have a better legal system.
I could easily see this breaking the system and our going back to plans the tie people to particular jobs and paying customers carrying the irresponsible people who don't have money or carry insurance -- a huge victory for "conservatives".
I wish they had found other fixes.
the first line of your msg "you can insure by group" is rub. You have to find some way to make everyone in the group pay. Or you have to find insurance products that cover the risk of a lifelong illness.
The Bar Tender says,"So what will it be Mr. President?"
And he is not an illegal alien, even if according to the legal theories of Condercet and Puffendorf he is not a "natural born citizen" of the United States. His mother was a citizen and based on that, he claims U.S. citizenship.
Presidents have had many religions, eventually even Catholic, though not yet Jewish. If he is actually a Muslim, he apparently chooses not to practice; and that, too, is his choice. The Constitution actually forbids any religious test for office, so his religion is irrelevant. I am reminded of the people who claimed that John Kennedy should not be President because he would be taking orders (commands, not ordination) from the Pope. We seem to have had less problem with our Masonic presidents. From whom did they take orders?
His religion is not irrelevant; it's merely not a factor of his being President. His religion is very relevant, as is the religion of every President including Kennedy and Nixon. It determines your moral compass.
"Masonic" is not a religion. Anyone can be a Mason who acknowledges God's existence.
Freemasonry is probably philosophically most compatible with objectivism.
While Obama is not a practicing Moslem, his formative years were spent in a very Moslem country, making his world-view apparently more compatible with Islam than with Christianity, based upon his actions and rhetoric.
What a horrible thing to say about your husband! (duck/run away...)
just teasing.
hey, did you enjoy that quote investigator website?