- Beretta leaves Maryland over gun laws, heads for Tennessee
- Neal Boortz defends Hillary Clinton for representing child rapist
- House task force to recommend National Guard on border, faster deportations
- Top federal judge uses pizza to explain complex Obamacare situation
- Obama, Biden overhaul job training programs
- Drought-plagued Californians turn to paint to keep lawns green
- ISIL now forcing Iraqi shopkeepers to veil mannequins in Mosul
- 11 parents of Nigeria’s abducted girls die
- Genetic mapping triggers new hope on schizophrenia
- Turkish P.M. Erdogan won’t speak to Obama, but he’ll take calls from Biden
Justices ‘took off their chains’ in health care questions
Question of the Day
“When you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?” Justice Kennedy asked.
The comment was a welcome one for the challengers.
Randy E. Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor who helped write the plaintiffs’ briefs, said they have argued all along that the individual mandate is an unprecedented overstep of federal power and that is why the justices can’t rely on past cases to make their decision.
“We have said all along that those cases do not control this case because this is fundamentally different,” Mr. Barnett said. “The whole tenor of the discussion really from all the justices was that those cases don’t tell you what to do here.”
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor, said the justices also may have stayed away from discussing past cases because the jurisprudence over the Commerce Clause is “something of a muddle.”
Over a long period of expanding the power of the Commerce Clause in case after case, the court periodically has stepped in and dialed back federal powers, he said.
That could be a positive sign for the challengers, he said, because the justices seemed to stay away from the weeds and instead pressed the administration on the very points it wanted to avoid.
“The court began where it should have begun with limiting principles,” he said. “And what was remarkable is that the administration seemed almost unprepared or unwilling to answer those questions with any clarity.”
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Outsiders abide by rules in Brown-Warren race
- Iran talks not set up, Obama’s camp says
Latest Blog Entries
TWT Video Picks
The president could pay the full price for ignoring Congress
- David Perdue defeats Jack Kingston in Georgia Republican Senate primary runoff
- IRS seeks help destroying another 3,200 computer hard drives
- D.C. appeals panel deals big blow to Obamacare subsidies
- Beretta moving to Tennessee over Maryland gun laws
- 'Straight White Guy Festival' supposedly set for Ohio park
- Gen. James Amos, Marine Corps commandant, slams Obama's handling of Iraq
- DEACE: How to go from civil rights icon to bigot in one quote
- LYONS: Small-arms treaty, big Second Amendment threat
- EDITORIAL: Obamacare in intensive care
- PRUDEN: A deadly enemy within exacerbating immigration crisis
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world
Fighting in Iraq