One of the dissatisfactions that American colonists had with the mother country was the “bill of attainder” process then in common use, wherein the state could declare a subject to be in violation of the law and seize his property without the benefit of a trial. Bills of attainder are expressly prohibited under Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution.
Obamacare is now the law of the land, and it authorizes the state to seize property – in the form of financial penalties – from citizens who decline to purchase private health insurance.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers cites his exhaustive knowledge of the Constitution to declare that such forfeitures are a privilege of Congress through the “good and welfare” clause of the Constitution. Scrupulous study of the Constitution finds such a clause conspicuous by its absence. Moreover, a separation of powers issue arises when the legislature arrogates to the bureaucracy the right to make determinations of guilt without involving the judiciary.
It is one thing to for Alcee Hastings to assert that are no procedural rules that binds Congress in the making of its sausage. Quite another thing to make up the actual Constitution as you go along. Even for a Judiciary Committee chairman.
More substantively, Richard Esenback asks whether there remain any structural limitations on the power of Congress to insert itself into contracts between private parties, i.e., the citizenry and their health insurance companies:
The extent to which you are comfortable with this may turn on the extent to which you are comfortable with the centralization of authority and, in a world in which Congressional enactments are increasingly delegations of authority to bureaucrats, your confidence in the capacity of experts to “get it right.”
I am not very comfortable. I am not very confident.
And I don’t think I am alone. As the popular response to ObamaCare demonstrates, there is a strong tradition – both in public sentiment and (I think still in constitutional theory)- of structural limitations on federal authority.
Our nation still seems to cling to our longstanding notions regarding the limitation of federal power. Given the Founders rather clear intent on the matter, would it really be surprising to see this theory of the Constitution surface in new ways? Is it is possible that the ongoing transmogrification of Article I may lead to a doctrinal response? If courts can no longer hold Congress to a set of enumerated powers, will they seek to restrain federal authority in other ways? Might we see more rigorous judicial scrutiny of what serves the “general welfare” or what is “necessary and proper.”
Fertile ground for a needlessly antagonized US Supreme Court to plow.
I hadn’t thought of the Bill of Attainder approach to challenging this monstrosity.
But, other than a draft, which is sanctioned by Congress’ Article I authority to raise an army, can you think of any other mandate the federal government has imposed upon its citizenry that they are subject to merely by their existence?
The only other one I can think of, I *think*, is the right to public trial by a jury of your peers and you thus have the small tyranny of having to be eligible for jury duty, something the founding fathers thought would restrain the far greater potential of tyranny inherent in nearly any alternative form of judicial trial.
I hope I can look back at the comment to follow and be able to call myself crazy (temporarily, at least, but permanent is more likely): This bill is the begining of the end of an American citizenry and the end of the begining for creating a subject class that expects government to help it in every way, and surrenders every independence except the right to marry their own sex and every responsibility to get it. I can now imagine, but will not yet go so far as to predict, significant violence to armed revolution as this trend continues. The government impetus has reached critical mass and I don’t believe a Republican takeover of congress in November would make much a difference. Repeal is not a likely option. This bill is intentionally written like a metastasized cancer that riddles as many corners of American society as possible, with the most important off-shoot being the federal takeover of college aid. Sadly the far left figured it out, the Gramscian march through the institutions and destructive Saul Alinsky strategy has effectively yielded a corrosive tipping of the scales, one which propels us inevitably towards European style stagnation, libertinism and eventual fall. The proposed senate “fix” proves exactly the point behind this bill, get the cancer into the body and then change it at will, with the goal of a socialist single payer system being always the end in sight. The executive order that got the world’s shallowest conscience and flimsiest backbone Bart Stupak onboard? Doesn’t that strike anyone as dangerously close to a line item veto and the erasing of a separation of power between the branches? I don’t place much hope in the Supreme Court since activist judges already view the Constituion as a “living” document and use the bench to legislate what they want anyway. Given the structure of our government and the arc of our culture’s trajectory right now armed revolution I fear might just be the only way to restore a truly free country, and that is a scary thought that comes with no guarantees, especially since it would be more a civil war than the first American revolution which replaced rule from afar with local rule that featured much of the same common law tradition. Furthermore, as a young person, I genuinely fear my generation, that they are brainwashed into libertine, self absorbed louts eaters, who know only their country’s inflated sins from school and thus resent it shallowly and easily, have no appreciation for liberty, and would have no stomach to create a land of the free/home of the brave, two necessary sides of the same coin as Thucydides would explicitly remind us. You cannot create a republic centered on liberty based on a population that fears all risk in life, especially the possibility of failure, and looks to the Leviathin for relief and forced equality.
And expect within four years the military to start being curtailed significantly as has happened in every other massive welfare state to pay for this coming trainwreck. Who will replace us? It will be a chaotic nightmare. Everyone points to China but they’ll have a few decades of glory at best, if any, before their demographic crush of the most male dominated society ever witnessed in man’s history combined with an upside down age pyramid wreaks unintended consequences. Europe? Not a chance. The future may just belong to a clash between India and Islam. And, mildly, it will not be nearly as good as the Pax Americana we’ll have thrown away.
I hope and pray for an American resurgence somewhere other than through watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, but fear that the moment of truth as to who we are as a people may be inexorably coming upon us.
I believe that census participation is also constitutionally required. If “time is money,” than that represents a loss of property.
But, it *is* in the Constitution.
Just sent out my completed Census form yesterday.
Two answers:
1) One person lives in this Household
2) American
Looking forward to chatting with the young person when they come around (as they did at the last Census) about what I am legally bound to answer.
The “genius” of John Conyers, and unfortunately very many more of the Congress-critters of his ilk, lies solely in their ability to gain re-election for many cycles. It clearly does not extend to ‘the small stuff’ such as what that dusty old Constitution might really allow them to do. And that is the true reason we need to have Constitutional “originalists” on the Supreme Court. Otherwise, the jerks in Congress, both houses, not to mention a certain ex-constitutional-lecturer-in-chief, can seize on one phrase or another and decide that they can do anything they want so long as it’s defined as within “the good and welfare clause”. (Good for the pols and welfare for their supporters?)
There’s a saying about ‘exceptions gobbling up the rule’. Congressman Conyers should consider that (and I’m sure he will if only to be angry that Congress cannot do anydamnthing they want) if and when the Supreme Court acts, as it should but shows little backbone for doing, to curtail the intrusion of the Feds into e v e r y t h i n g .
Thinking out loud here, but if the Supremes are appointed by the President and affirmed by the Senate, who are no longer appointed by the States but by popular vote, how likely are The Supremes to consider the Constitution vs. the popularity of the moment or the movement under consideration?
To remain aloof, the Judiciary should be appointed by the Senate or the Executive and approved by the States under where they exercise jurisdiction.
But we screwed this whole thing up when we made the Senate a popularity contest rather than an office that protects the rights of the States, those being all not held by the Congress.
– Max
“Congresscritters” is one word. No hyphen.
However, to reduce the needless expenditure of 1s and 0s, I prefer to use the euphemism “Congers” — slimy, troglodytic, bottom-dwellers that ambush from behind, but will retreat post-haste when they face a genuine threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conger
Ronald Wilson Reagan Once told a story… (in 1964!)
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to.” In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Very Scary how much history repeats itself (I highly recommend reading the whole speech).
http://www.nationalcenter.org/ReaganChoosing1964.html
-JC
So correct! We are the last stop on the refugee express.
Be careful what you wish for. Finding the Personal Mandate unconstitutional does not invalidate the entire bill. All it would do is remove one of the more onerous sources of funding; it would do naught to change the onerous spending.
How much, exactly, do you want the productive class to be on the hook for?
Combine living tree doctrine of our betters in the Great White Up with internationalism, and what do you get? As US Grant said, “I believe at some future day, the nations of the earth will agree on some sort of congress which will take cognizance of international questions of difficulty and whose decisions will be as binding as the decisions of the Supreme Court are upon us.”. Or, as our current Dear Leader says, “What Washington needs is adult supervision.”
If Biblical inspiration can be overcome by modernists, why in the world should we stop at a dead-tree Constitution?
Interesting that one of the “see also” links on the “Living Tree” wiki entry is “moral relativism”…
Better yet, check out the note sent to Ann Coulter providing her with a warning about the ‘evolved’ definition of “free speech” in the Great White Up. Pretty soon words evolve to mean whatever the powers-that-be want them to; nothing more and nothing less, Alice.
If the Constitution can mean whatever someone wants it to mean at any given time, then as a document it’s worthless. Which suits a large group of relativists in this country just fine.
Dave is right — the personal mandate makes universal coverage slightly more palatable to the insurance companies. The argument is, that if you can buy coverage on your way to the hospital, it ceases to be insurance, and instead becomes shared cost — which is exactly what it will now be priced at. Just like the removal of annual and lifetime caps — the insurance companies don’t care what the rules are. They have oceans of actuaries that will merely refigure the rates, and present us all with the now higher bill.
During the campaign, Obama was able to present himself as the ultimate blank canvas — all of your hopes and dreams could be painted upon him. This bill is no different. People expect the evil insurance companies will roll back rates. NOTHING in this bill requires that. People expect that health care “costs” will come down. NOTHING in this bill requires that. People expect that the uninsured will now have unfettered access to care. NOTHING in this bill requires that. People expect that procedures that their insurers blocked in the past will now be approved. NOTHING in this bill requires that. What will happen when all of those truths become real?
Buying last minute coverage would be the logical move, though not the “socially responsible” one.
I read an article yesterday in which the author concluded that insurance will end up costing about $15k/person. In that case you’re better off paying the fines (under $2k/year) and out of pocket routine expenses while you’re healthy, and then buying the insurance “on the way to the hospital.” It’ll be interesting to see if that comes to pass.
Amen. And would it be effective to ask my associates now on the other side of the faculty aisle whether our esteemed University will continue our most generous private health plan – so as to plant the seeds of doubt?
Or would such lack of couth illustrate my personal failure in such an august institution of higher thinking, and promptly be forgotten – all for naught?
What say ye gentlefolk to this Don Quixote – to tilt or not to tilt?
Shall I “serenade our Louie [leftist] while life and voice shall last
[Or} pass and be forgotten with the rest
We’re poor little lambs who have lost our way
Baa, baa, baa
We’re little black sheep who have gone astray
Baa, baa, baa
Gentleman songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord have mercy on such as we
Baa, baa, baa
What say ye gentlefolk to this Don Quixote – to tilt or not to tilt?
When reality finally trggers their synapses, methinks *tilt* is what you’ll read on their faces — like unto the neon blinky on a ’50s-era pinball machine…
Yes, there is a general statement of purpose at the start of the document. But notice that it’s followed by a list of specific powers granted to the government.
Now, Why do that if the general statement gives all possible powers to the government?
It’s a puzzler, alrighty. I think one of the Federalist papers addressed it a while back, though.
I’m personally not a fan of the legislation, but this feels like grasping at legal straws.
Isn’t a Bill of Attainder defined to be aimed at a particular individual or group? eg, the contemplated but not enacted Wall Street “claw back” from earlier in the year. A mandate that effects everyone is definitely not that.
Also, legally speaking, this doesn’t seem terribly different from the mandate to carry automotive liability insurance.
Is there federal legislation mandating auto insurance? Remember that the Constitution heretofore was viewed as a document that enumerated the powers of the federal government as a way of limiting that government’s powers over the states and citizens.
Part of that whole “Tenth Amendment” thing:
AMEN!
Good point, Lex. Now I’m trying to think of any federal laws the require you to do something, as opposed to not do something. The best I can come up with is filing an income tax return.
I don’t think it’ll matter either way – even if this is found unconstitutional they can just recast the law. Instead of taxing you for not having insurance, they can raise everyone’s taxes and then give you a rebate for having insurance. That’s been well-established, and would have roughly the same effect.
Then again, maybe we’ll get really lucky and this will be the last straw, and force a re-evaluation of the constitutionality of the income tax. And monkeys might fly out of my butt.
The only federal law I can think of (aside from Brian’s contribution) is the requirement for every male citizen to register with the Selective Service upon attaining the age of 18. And given the absence of the draft, and given that the SS is in such deep standby they’ll need a backhoe to find it, I seriously doubt that more than half the newly-minted Junior Citizens even know the requirement still exists.
+1
But I admit to being brought up short by another of your esteemed audience that in view of April 9, 1865, the 10th Amendment is so passe’.
Since we are well on the way to the moral relativism you speak of, I expect the only way to bet is to listen to the oracle in her modern electronic reincarnation.
Oops, messed up on the tags there.
Je vous en prie!
Better?
Merci beaucoup, mon capitaine! Vous etes magnifique!
Driving is a “privilege”, therefore, if you want to drive, states can mandate auto insurance. Breathing isn’t a privilege although so-called legalized abortion now makes it so. But I digress. Mandating health insurance or exacting a monatery fine is tyranny. In keeping with best Marxist tradition. The Constitution is just a piece of paper that can be ignored in the hands of a majority elected by Useful Idiots.
Amen Brother! Preach it Captain.
Car insurance is regulated by the states. 48 out of 50 (+DC, I think) *require* some coverage if you’re going to drive a car, WI and NH do not have mandatory coverage laws.
Well, yeah. Obviously. The Constitution means exactly what it says in plain English, as understood by anybody with an IQ above, say, 90.
1. You can avoid buying autmobile insurance by choosing not to own an automobile. How do we choose not to by medical insurance…..?
2. Auto liability insurance is to prtect other people from injury you may do to them. There is no requrement to buy insurance to cover loss suffered by yourself.
Now a question: in view of the arguments in favor of the insurance mandate, is there any reason that the Congress, in order to do the public good of supporting the auto industry, can not require every househld in the US to buy a new GM car?
Every time someone goes to an ER without insurance, you pay. In fact, lots of folks without insurance, wait until they are critically ill to visit a doctor – an ER doc. Of course, what was a cheap visit before is now a big $$.
Hospitals/insurance companies don’t like to run on a negative profit plan (of course, they are a business), so to offset the loss your rates go up.
Forcing everyone to have health insurance is a bit of draconian measure to counter this cycle, but the idea is to save you money in the long run. I like spending less. If people never got sick, then I’d be for allowing folks to opt of coverage, but people get sick whetehr they want to or not…not a decision like driving a car.
Or this could be a way to lower the illegal immigrant population (like prosecuting mobsters on tax evasion), they are often the ones clogging the ERs at hospitals. If they’re getting hit with fines for no insurance, maybe they’ll just leave or no break-in to the country. Just a wild idea…
>> Or this could be a way to lower the illegal immigrant population
Wishful thinking. Adding a new fine on people that are already not paying taxes, and are already breaking the law by being here, will not make any sort of difference at all.
I heard an interesting approach to a Constitutional argument/lawsuit today. It was centered around the idea of “free association”, granted to us in the Constitution. The problem is that we no longer have the freedom NOT to choose to associate ourselves with a health insurance company. Hmmmm….
Got news for you, Brian. I can snort up a fifth a Chivas, hop in the pickup, grab 3rd gear in a powerslide around the back 40 with the seat belt hanging in the wind and Hank Williams blaring out the radio and there’s not a darned thing the FBI, CIA, US Marshalls, State Patrol or County Sheriff can do about it. My land, you see. When I’m on the State Roads, Post Roads, County Highways, Interestate Highways, and the like I have to abide by the rules of those who own them. They require insurance. In my case it’s good they don’t require safety inspections.
On health care, what to do about the Amish and Mennonites and Hutterites? They don’t believe in group insurance via outsiders, the colonies are self-insuring as part of their beliefs to be self-supporting. Be kind of interesting to see the IRS raid a bunch of 18th century farmers looking for money to pay for insurance they don’t want and won’t use. That there will be an interesting legal battle.
– Max
Max, that sounds like fun! Let me know next time you’re planning to do that – as long as we can use your car instead of mine.
Actually, they did raid them back in the late 50s or early 60s. I think I remember seeing something about it on the TV.
Max, better be careful and check your state laws. In Ky the courts have ruled that even privately-built roads on one’s own farm, if ultimately connected to the public roads are, in effect, considered legally a part of public roads. Case involved guy who had a drunken argument with his wife, hopped in his truck and drove down by his lake to park, contemplate his naval, and cool off. Wife called cops, who came, arrested him for DWI as key was in ignition while listening to radio. I think courts have interpreted it this way in Louisiana, also.
(Although both rural states, Ky & La. have, until very recently, been single-party (Dims) states with a long, “yellow dog” history of mindlessly electing anyone with the democrat label–in Ky Dims party voter registration outnumbers Repubs 2-1–who in all too many cases were closet liberals who populated the courts with uber-lib judges believing in endless expansion of state gov. power)
Only in Florida would we elect an impeached and removed federal judge like Alcee Hastings to the office of U.S. representative.
Give California a chance, if they haven’t done it already, they will jump at the first chance they get….
Everybody in Louisiana is jealous…we haven’t been holding up our end in the corruption derby as of late. Apologizes..
New Jersey continues to hold the moral high ground!
We only elect pols who accept bribes from the building industry.
People
Look on the bright side – if you are on the organ recipient waiting list, you will shortly have a lot more potential donors! This would all be a little more palatable if Congress and their staff members fell under the new law, but they don’t. I think history is filled with instances of “what is good for them, does not apply to us”. The “us’s” lost every single time.
Our founders had a good sound bite, “No taxation without representation“. How can such be updated to suit today’s problem?
“No representation without participation“? Not catchy enough.
But current kidney donors must be <65y/o, and it would not be in the Committee for State Security's interest to see that donation criteria become more lenient, considering the waste, fraud, & abuse, et al. And besides, where ya gonna find a healthy corpse? The future Marine O-plan?
The comparison to auto insurance – while popular among ideologues – is a logically flawed red herring. Lex pointed to the differences between state laws and a first ever federal requirement.
The more flawed parallel to auto insurance is rooted in who is harmed, and who is indemnified. It is necessary to point out that, in many states, liability insurance IS NOT mandatory. Financial responsibility, which may be satisfied by several means, is. Second, auto liability insurance is to indemnify others for the accidents that are your fault. To be a valid comparison to the bill passed this weekend, states would now have to require that you carry insurance to repair YOUR car to new in case of an accident.
So, other than the fact that (1) we are not talking about state laws, (2) insurance is just one of the ways to comply with applicable state laws, and (3) the indemnified are completely different in the two examples, it is pretty much the same.
Makes sense to some people.
Here is what I see happening. As soon as this is up and going, the Insurance companies will begin to fail. At that point, the federal Government steps in and becomes the de facto ensurer, and we get a national socialist health care plan. When that happens, then you can kiss goodbye to Tri-Care and the VA system,, since the Government will just move all of the military and veterans onto the government program.
This will give us veterans the quality of the VA combined with the compassion of the DMV.
Lovely.
+ the clairvoyance of the Fed, the personal touch of the IRS, and the scientific expertise of the NOAA
You forgot “the cost containment skills of the post office”
…of course, on time delivery and scheduling by AmTrak.
As soon as this is up and going, the Insurance companies will begin to fail.
AHIP and Big Pharma have learned, a bit too late, that bribing pols who won’t *stay* bribed is an exercise in futility.
Obie *warned* them that the original $150 million wasn’t good enough anymore, but did they listen?
Noooooooooooo…
I agree with Krauthammer, national health care was signed into law today.
The insurance companies are only the middlemen between you and the federal government. The feds establish what kind of insurance you will have, how much you will pay for it, oversee the collection of premiums and dictate how you are covered. The exchanges and the secretary solidify this.
It’s not the next step, it’s here now.
Oh you people are quite droll.
The constitution was essentially killed in 1865, and the Dems give it lip service when it suits them. Alas, the Reps haven’t been much better. Cornyn has already said that the Reps won’t run on full repeal.
Just like them, the left hands the Reps a bat to beat them with, and they lay it down. It’s time to clean the house of both parties. A Pox on both their houses.
QM- a.38 or.45 pox?
.45, and fire at least twice — when approaching a shambling, undead zombie-like monster one always wants to use the most gun available. If, like most government agencies, its death is really just a feint until the employees can be reassigned to other government union jobs, the second shot probably won’t actually kill it but might make you feel a little better.
Heck, empty the magazine. It’ll cost you a couple of bucks but that’s nothing compared to what you’re going to pay when they get up and go back to work.
– Max
I’m more of the mood of 0.50AE in a Desert Eagle myself. Choose your own Politician type insecticide.
Of course, if anyone just happens to have 7.62mm minigun just laying about in your garage unused, please bring it along. I’m sure it will come in handy along the way somewhere.
Reminds me of one of those “motivator” posters I can’t easily lay my hands on. Main title was “Why do I carry a .45?”
Subtitle: “Because they don’t make a .46″
Would racial reparations be a Bill of Attainder?
Under current US Law, a child is not responsible for the debt of his parents. I wonder if that would apply to funding their medical bills as the Boomers retire and join those covered under Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare?
Doubtful. The first thing to fall would be Social Security.
I was thinking of retiring in Brazil, leaving this behind. I am now wondering if instead I should stick around and send my kids to Brazil. Or New Zealand.
– Max
Has anyone ever attended a government auction, where they auction off to the highest (yet very lowball) bidder, personal and real property siezed for tax delinquency?
Never been to one, but I believe those are subsequent to a judicial process including a determination of guilt.
Not necessarily. Check the classified section of any local paper and you’ll find a list of properties up for auction — seized for non-payment of real estate taxes.
Last time I was home, the public notice section had expanded from a page-and-a-half to six pages — 8-point font, too — just in Trenton, NJ. And the “Help Wanted” pages had shrunk from a separate sixteen page section to a four-page insert…
“Help Wanted” was down to six, count’em, six ads amounting to about 4 column inches last time I looked here. Of course this is FL, where teh Real Estate Crazy got really crazy. We’re up to 17% unemployment in this county officially, prolly more like 25% actually.
I don’t think so. I recently participated in a county tax-lien sale of real estate, but I am not too familiar with the federal process.
Nevertheless, extended non-payment sets the process in play, without court order.
This link may help.
Purely administrative, Lex. Once you owe, and fail to pay, the collections branch of the IRS has almost unlimited power to seize assets. Never see the inside of a court room as long as there is no criminal act. (like failure to file, fraud, etc.)
Anyone read Eugene Volokh at the Volokh Conspiracy? Go here: http://www.volokh.com
Look for the entries by Orin Kerr and Johnathan H Adler. Very interesting reading on the topic of this thread.
Volokh and his other bloggers are very much worth the read.
thanks,
Phalanx08
MaxDamage,
You don’t live in Pennsylvania do you? Under PA law you can be busted for DUI for driving a vehicle on your own property. You can be busted for DUI for cutting your grass with a riding mower if you have been drinking.
In PA children can be held financially responsible for their parent’s debts if the debt is nursing home expenses and the child lives in the State. They will garnish the child’s income to get payment.
Jim, by the Grace of God I do not, and thank you for pointing out the state of private property rights in that once-loved State.
You should consider leaving. South Dakota is full, but, for a friend of Lex, I can make a few calls.
– Max
Quite another thing to make up the actual Constitution as you go along.
Why should they care about making stuff up? They don’t care about the original document to begin with.
I too agree with Krauthammer that nationalized health insurance was made the law of the land yesterday.
And speaking as someone who has now been told they will need another hip replacement to go with the one I got last year – I’m starting to think about getting it in the next 2 years rather than waiting the 5-7 we were hoping for. Then again, on a nationalized plan I’ll likely have that wait anyway.
GIven the unconstitutional nature of the bill it can’t be called “law.” Congressional Fiat is the term you are looking for and the FedGov’s tame courts have generally upheld such illegality. The courts themselves are lawless.
My dear Sir, how can you make such an intolerant statement? Why I seem to recall that “natural law” has gone the way of the dodo in modern jurisprudence. I have heard that modern law schools no longer regard Blackstone as highly as our founding fathers did. When it comes to law, can’t you be a bit more “positive“?
Mr. BillK – good use of the word positive. So what does that make Originalists?
thanks,
Phalanx08
Apropos of today’s political situation, I just finished Orson Scott Card’s “Hidden Empire.” It and the preceding book “Empire” are very relevant, IMHO. The statement on page 322 of “Hidden Empire” is particularly to the point that many of us will be considering in the days, weeks, and months ahead.
If any of you read the book(s) and would care to discuss the ideas, my email is: plquandt@comcast.net.
-Paul
At the office today some of the more perky, youthful ladies were bemoaning the extra tax now added to indoor tanning by this bill. For you see, their skin has not seen the light of the sun since last September, and thus artificial means are necessary, almost mandatory, to maintain that youthful glow.
It was then that it struck me. It was a tax on young white females. Which, if one follows the laws of economics, is sure to make them more scarce!
I don’t think that’s going to go over well come Ladies Night at the Sons of Norway Lodge.
– Max