The following is an op-ed I wrote for KSL’s Statecraft page, posted on August 2, 2013. Over the last few months, members of Congress and their staffs have been worried about losing their health care subsidies and being forced to participate in the Affordable Care Act insurance exchanges, as the rest of us will be […]
What is the role of the Supreme Court, anyway?
“The Constitution, though it dates from the founding of the Republic, has powerful meaning and vital relevance to our own times. The constitutional protections that this case involves are protections of structure. Structural protections—notably, the restraints imposed by federalism and separation of powers—are less romantic and have less obvious a connection to personal freedom than the provisions of the Bill of Rights or the Civil War Amendments. Hence they tend to be undervalued or even forgotten by our citizens….”
Exaggerated Claims: Swallow at Supreme Court to “ensure” unconstitutionality of Obamacare?
In short, the email walks through a loose timeline for the Affordable Care Act (also known as “Obamacare” more colloquially), putting Swallow at each crossroad of the legal battle. But for him, and Utah, Obamacare might not have made it before the Supreme Court.
Except that isn’t quite how it happened. We’ve already learned that Idaho had passed a law that gave standing to challenge Obamacare, and that Utah jumped on board. Sincerely, of course, but not necessarily crucial to the fight against the Affordable Care Act. It was important politically, but not really legally.
Now, Swallow’s campaign is claiming that he was at the Supreme Court to “ensure” the law was found unconstitutional. It’s a claim that stretches the truth. [Cont…]
Obamacare before the Supreme Court: “The Emperor Has No Clothes!”
In a case of “the Emperor has no clothes,” the justices played the part of the skeptic to the Obama Administration’s protestations of Obamacare’s constitutionality. With the oral arguments on constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act over, let’s take a look back at the reactions to the arguments: [cont…]



RSS - Posts