-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Liberals were saying the same thing before oral arguments that they are saying even louder now: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is so obviously constitutional that the Supreme Court simply must uphold it. When the solicitor general couldn’t articulate a coherent constitutional defense of the law or even competently answer entirely predictable questions about it, the subject was changed to “judicial activism” and power plays by right-wing justices (some of whom will be hailed as wise men if they do in fact vote to uphold Obamacare).
Let’s examine the high quality arguments that only ideology can keep the justices from finding persuasive.
Here we have James Fallows citing an email from a Dutch reader with an elementary school understanding of American politics. That emailer worries that “Scalia’s ‘originalism’ is being demonstrated to be fundamentally hollow and partisan,” without giving any sense he even knows what originalism means. Fallows himself concludes “real-world circumstances have changed so dramatically in the past 230+ years that the practical-minded drafters of the Constitution would never have suggested that the details of their scheme should be applied, unaltered, in the 21st century.”
Of course, that’s not originalism either. What is at issue here is whether the American people, through the process of ratifying the Constitution and its amendments, every understood themselves to be giving the federal government the powers it is now asserting. That’s not the same as saying the air force is unconstitutional because the Founding Fathers didn’t have planes.
This was sublime constitutional reasoning compared to this Slate piece invoking Dr. Seuss in defense of Obamacare:
It helps me to recall that even Dr. Seuss’ creatures were able to overcome their short-sightedness. One day, the Sneetches got “really quite smart” and recognized that belly star or not, “Sneetches are Sneetches.” Were we to come to a similar conclusion, the Affordable Care Act would have nothing to fear.
If that helps you to recall, be my guest pal.
And for the win, we have the president asserting the following: “I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld.” That is, in essence, the constitutional argument here. The should be clause, the latest emanation or penumbra, joins the commerce clause (redefined as a power to regulate everything) and the necessary and proper clause (redefined as a mandate to pass any old law Congress wants) as a get-out-of-jail-free card for federal pols exercising unenumerated powers.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/04/03/the-sneetches-constitution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Inside the Gates of Eden
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Steve in Ohio| 4.3.12 @ 12:42PM
Horton: "A person is a person, no matter how small."
Do you think we'll ever see a liberal quote that great Dr. Seuss line?
Mike 3/505| 4.3.12 @ 1:42PM
+1
A Grin without a Cat| 4.4.12 @ 12:05AM
?
ncatty| 4.3.12 @ 1:08PM
My understanding is that they voted last week, a justice has been appointed to write the decision, and the opinion will be published in June. Assuming that Kennedy voted with a majority striking all or parts of the Act, does anyone have an opinion on whether he can still go wobbly?
The Bruce| 4.3.12 @ 11:36PM
Any thing is possible, and if there's a Justice that can be depended on to go wobbly, it's Kennedy.
LiveFreeOrDie| 4.3.12 @ 1:46PM
Is anyone surprised? If they don't like the constitution, amend it. Oh wait, can't do that without an overwhelming majority in favor. Since they hold extremely narrow, hypocritical and nonsensical positions they will never gain that kind of support. The left-wing cannot defend any position in practical terms based in law. The left is a lawless group seeking to regulate every aspect of your life to suit their way of thinking with no regard for freedom. This ideology must be defeated no matter who is trying to promote it.
While the country breathes a sigh of relief, Obama seems to think he can use the SCOTUS rejection as a primary point in his re-election campaign? He's incorrigible.
David W| 4.3.12 @ 1:47PM
I think we should address a document that is way overdue for a rewrite, after all it is over 2000 years old and times have changed. The "thou shall not lie", "thou shall not commit murder", and "thou shall not commit adultery" surely are on the liberal list of things to remove from the "Ten Recommendations" ("Ten Commandments" for us stupid conservatives) from God.
PattyMor| 4.3.12 @ 3:29PM
How are the Justices going to uphold this monstrosity, when his attorney couldn't defend it?
SpiralArchitect| 4.3.12 @ 6:27PM
The Constitutional Scholar POTUS, aka the usurper, cannot understand the function of the SCOTUS.
Just one more thing to add to the historical list of can not's this great leader posseses.
WL| 4.3.12 @ 6:49PM
Spiral Achrhitect...
I know exactly what you mean by "Constitutional Scholar"...and the irony intended...
But doesn't it get on your nerves when people refer to the Bamster as having taught "constitutional law" or something along those lines??? AS IF he knows anything or cares anything about it. His exploits were nothing more than being picked out of a crowd to be externally groomed and controlled to be a puppet....THATS IT.
PERIOD.
The Bruce| 4.3.12 @ 11:32PM
"Fallows himself concludes 'real-world circumstances have changed so dramatically in the past 230+ years that the practical-minded drafters of the Constitution would never have suggested that the details of their scheme should be applied, unaltered, in the 21st century.'"
Unaltered? Perhaps he's unaware of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution of the last 230+ years.
Occam's Tool| 4.3.12 @ 11:58PM
An advocate as erudite as a combo of Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd...the intellectual firepower of the Obama administration is spellbinding...