Friday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Two links on the PP sting, here and here.
  2. The (do you believe in) the sanity clause returns.
  3. The individual mandate.
  4. The crux of why power to tax isn’t used as a defense of the mandate but the commerce clause is.
  5. An Orthodox man and the Super Bowl.
  6. Speaking of Orthodoxy … some notes regarding the East and evolution.
  7. Kodachrome no more.
  8. Someone is forgetting that the left prefers social entitlements to science programs.
  9. Some notes on the Coptic situation.

4 responses to “Friday Highlights

  1. Frances Fox Piven defies death threats after taunts by anchorman Glenn Beck

    OMG is that how you know her? Are you a closet Beck fan?

    BTW, the article mentions that Piven is “honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America.” Funny that you tried to hold her up as an example of how the Democrats are socialists — how dishonest.

  2. The crux of why power to tax isn’t used as a defense of the mandate but the commerce clause is.

    Interesting in that the constitutional argument against the health bill fails for both reasons. 1. It’s an income tax which is well within the Constitution 2. The commerce clause is a more difficult argument to make because you have to bring in the ‘necessary and proper’ clause. That doesn’t make it less valid, only harder to make. Nonetheless, it’s unfortunate that rhetorically the administration doesn’t want to argue that actual taxes were part of the health bill but they were.

  3. Boonton,
    Did you read the Kuznicki rock crushing piece? It seems to me you haven’t.

    If the lawyers from the Admin don’t use the tax argument … isn’t it relevant for the case in court? Are the judges expected to evaluate cases based on arguments not made by the defense?

  4. Are the judges expected to evaluate cases based on arguments not made by the defense?

    Yes, technically the White House doesn’t even have to defend a law that comes under Constitutional attack in the courts and sometimes the WH doesn’t….this happens sometimes when you have a new President take office and there’s an old law he doesn’t like but doesn’t have the sway to get Congress to repeal it. That doesn’t mean the case in the courts goes to an automatic win. A law can be upheld or rejected on the basis of arguments that neither side thinks to make.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>