News Constitution: Static or Living and in it means?

[BobG]

The president may adopt parts of the law which do not violate the constitution while not enforcing the parts that do violate the constitution. Often, the president will issue a signing statement declaring such an issue.

I wouldn't give signing statements too much weight. Seeing as how the US Supreme Court will not consider them at all, it's hard to find precedents in court records regarding their view of signing statements, but, occasionally, a justice manages to sneak in a reference to signing statements.

From Scalia's dissent in Hamden vs Rumsfeld (page 114):

(Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President’s signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.)

A signing statement may be a public explanation of how the President intends to interpret and/or enforce a piece of legislation, but that doesn't mean the President's interpretation or procedures are correct. I guess signing statements at least make clear the President is trying to act in good faith, and to implement a piece of legislation as best he can without violating provisions of the Constitution, but that only helps him if he's impeached.

Debate over the legal significance of signing statements has gone on ever since the Reagan administration: Using Presidential Signing Statement to Make Fuller Use of the President's Constitutionally Assigned Role in the Process of Enacting Law.

It seems likely that our new type of signing statement will not be warmly welcomed by Congress. The novelty of the procedure and the potential increase
of presidential power are two factors that may account for this anticipated reaction. In addition, and perhaps most important, Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.

And, later, the theoretical questions that were left unanswered:

5. Theoretical problems. Because presidential intent has been all but ignored in interpreting the meaning of statutes, the theoretical problems have not been explored.

For example:
- In general, is presidential intent entitled to the same weight as legislative intent or is it of much less significance? As previously noted, presidential approval of legislation is generally just as important as congressional approval. Moreover, the President frequently proposes legislation. On the other hand, Congress has the opportunity to shape the bills that are presented to the President, and the President's role at that point is limited to approving or disapproving. For this reason, some may argue that
only Congressional intent matters for purposes of interpretation. If our project is to succeed, we must be fully prepared to answer this argument.

- What happens when there is a clear conflict between the congressional and presidential understanding? Whose intent controls? Is the law totally void? Is it inoperative only to the extent that there is disagreement?

- If presidential intent is of little or no significance when inconsistent with congressional intent, what role is there for presidential intent? Is it entitled to the deference comparable to that customarily given to administrative interpretations?

Given how the US Supreme Court has handled Presidential signing statements, the answer to the last question appears to be no.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

(Just a note - I think that the office of the President and the executive branch have been gaining too much power in the past few decades. I bring up DOMA because it's the most recent, well documented, and egregious example of the executive ignoring generally accepted constitutional procedure. The reason for this power gain is purely politically - we, the voters, have become complacent (or ignorant?) of much of the power consolidation happening. With DOMA specifically: I think the executive just 'ignoring the law' prevents any proper discourse on it's constitutionality. There are good balancing arguements between several facets of the constitution for and against the law, but the executive dictat prevents any legal conversation in the highest court and probably just makes the whole 'issue' worse and more muddled.)

If the President decides that a law is unconstitutional the President may instruct the Attorney General to not prosecute. You are mistaken in thinking that this prevents the law from being enforced or prosecuted, it is simply not enforced or prosecuted by the Attorney General. The cases will still go to court and if anyone finds the law worthy of protecting there will be a lawyer assigned to the case.

 

[skippy1729]

Congress and the president have the power to "amend" the Supreme Court; it is called the Judiciary Act of 1793. They could add justices to change the balance; usually called "packing the court". The threat of this usually causes them to fall in line as happened during Reconstruction and the New Deal.

Skippy

 

[russ_watters]

So this has been getting more coverage on Fox News over the past few days because of its spin, but here's an op-ed on CNN on some quotes from Obama that seem to show a disregard for the power of the judicial branch:

In what must be the most extraordinary statement of his presidency, Barack Obama on Monday blasted the possibility that the United States Supreme Court might overturn the Affordable Care Act. Obama said the court would take an "unprecedented, extraordinary step" if it overturns the law, because it was passed by "a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority, but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House, and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party, the most astonishing thing about Obama's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

It is hard to know what could have been going through Obama's head when he said this, but I highly doubt that he misunderstands the role of the courts. It is possible that it is just an overreaction to nervousness about the possibility that his most significant accomplishment could be nullified just in time for his re-election bid. For that to happen would all-but be an official ruling that Obama's concept of government is un-American. But what if it is more than just an emotional mis-statement? What if it is a display of arrogant disregard for the court's power? It appears to me that Obama is starting to pile-up a pretty solid list of acts that at least appear to overstep his authority (I say "appear" because until someone tries to stop him, might makes right):

-Potentially illegal recess appointments.
-Probably illegal closing of the Yucca Mountain repository (court case currently on hold for procedural reasons).
-Ignoring the War Powers act regarding Libya (not a big deal since it is probably unConstitutional).
-Instructing the justice department not to enforce certain drug laws.

But unfortunately, Obama has been able to make Supreme Court appointments and at least one, Sotomayor, has made statements in line with the disregard for the Constitution that Obama displayed above (discussed at length in several threads at the time of her appointment). It follows pretty logically: if justices can just re-interpret the Constitution through a modern lens, why not just skip that step and let the legislature or the President do it its/himself? For that matter, why bother with the other two branches at all? If the Constitution and the law can be whatever Obama wants them to be, we may as well just disband them!

 

[mheslep]

... if justices can just re-interpret the Constitution through a modern lens, why not just skip that step and let the legislature or the President do it its/himself? For that matter, why bother with the other two branches at all? If the Constitution and the law can be whatever Obama wants them to be, we may as well just disband them!

That last consequence is forgotten I think by the Constitution-is-in-the-way crowd: take away the Constitution and then the US President and Congress retain the same authority as American Idol winners.

 

[Gokul43201]

...if justices can just re-interpret the Constitution through a modern lens...

I have a hard time understanding exactly what this means. Justices are constantly interpreting the Constitution through a modern lens, aren't they? With things like the internet and communications and such.

 

[russ_watters]

I have a hard time understanding exactly what this means. Justices are constantly interpreting the Constitution through a modern lens, aren't they? With things like the internet and communications and such.

I may have worded that a little too weakly: the issue of judicial activism as discussed in this thread and others is more than just applying freedom of speech to the new medium of the internet - applying the original intent to a new application. It is deciding that the original intent itself is now obsolete and knowingly disregarding it or finding a loophole that enables ignoring it. Currently, the catch-all loophole appears to be the interstate commerce clause. Let me pose a hypothetical to demonstrate:

Given the broad regulatory powers currently interpreted to be allowed by the ICC, why was it necessary to pass the 18th Amendment to ban the sale of alcohol and would such a thing be considered necessary today?

 

[mheslep]

Tuesday a Federal Appeals Court judge took issue, in court, with the President's Monday remarks:

Smith: Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?

Kaersvang: Yes, your honor. Of course, there would need to be a severability analysis, but yes.

Smith: I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect…that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed “unelected” judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed — he was referring, of course, to Obamacare — what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress.
That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority or to the appropriateness of the concept of judicial review. And that’s not a small matter. So I want to be sure that you’re telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases.

Kaersvang: Marbury v. Madison is the law, your honor, but it would not make sense in this circumstance to strike down this statute, because there’s no –

Smith: I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday…a letter stating what is the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president, stating specifically and in detail in reference to those statements what the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review. That letter needs to be at least three pages single spaced, no less, and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president’s statements and again to the position of the attorney general and the Department of Justice.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/03...-circuit-whether-it-supports-judicial-review/

 

[BobG]

It is hard to know what could have been going through Obama's head when he said this, but I highly doubt that he misunderstands the role of the courts. It is possible that it is just an overreaction to nervousness about the possibility that his most significant accomplishment could be nullified just in time for his re-election bid. For that to happen would all-but be an official ruling that Obama's concept of government is un-American.

Or his comment was based on the calculation that having the Supreme Court strike down the law in its entirety could motivate more pro-Obama voters turn out in hopes of placing more liberal justices on the court.

That may be a miscalculation. Striking down the law in its entirety may help him (I'm not sure how much it would, if any), but striking down just the individual mandate would be a disaster for him.

A heavy majority dislikes the idea of an individual mandate, while a heavy majority approve of the part that prohibits insurance companies from denying health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. The latter can't stand without the former. Striking down just the individual mandate means Obama would have to oversee a Congress dismantling the ACA or else oversee the financial disaster of an ACA that can't bring in the money necessary to make it work.

On the other hand, http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/01/howard-dean-striking-down-individual-mandate-will-help-obama/ seem to have just the opposite take on the situation than I do, so who knows? (Of course, Dean doesn't actually explain how ACA could work without the individual mandate.)

Regardless, the decision will have an impact both on Obama's reelection hopes and on the future of the US Supreme Court.

 

[SixNein]

Tuesday a Federal Appeals Court judge took issue, in court, with the President's Monday remarks:



http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/04/03...-circuit-whether-it-supports-judicial-review/

Are federal judges vetting political speeches now days?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is hard to know what could have been going through Obama's head when he said this, but I highly doubt that he misunderstands the role of the courts.

It looks like rhetoric. Obama was also initially publicly supporting the bill of attainder against the people receiving bonuses from the bailed out banks. I think he is simply saying what he feels, or was written into his speech, without much regard for whether or not anyone is going to realize the legal ramifications. Rhetoric is not about being precise, or even factually accurate, which is why I hate speeches and rarely listen to them.

Are federal judges vetting political speeches now days?

That was my thought. The judge is obviously pulling some partisan shenanigans. There is no legal basis I am aware of for the judge to bring the content of the speech into the court room. The only basis I can imagine is that the AG is essentially representing him in court but I can only imagine that would extend to public statements regarding the specific case.

 

[Vanadium 50]

This Federal judge was hearing a case, Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius, where the issue came up. While it certainly looks like the judge was having a hissy fit, he wasn't having an irrelevant hissy fit.

By the way, this is a very interesting case. This law improves American's access to health care by banning physician-owned hospitals and prohibiting them from taking Medicare patients. There is a very interesting Fifth Amendment component to this, and an even more interesting question on standing.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's the full transcript of the remarks, relevant piece quoted:

With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.

The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand[2], that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate[3].

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress[4]. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint[1] -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step. [annotated by me]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...ident-obama-president-calderon-mexico-and-pri

Most of the comments on Obamacare itself appear to be scripted, but his comments on the court appear to me to be off-the-cuff. Particularly the part at the end about the conservative position on judicial activism - it is kind of a mess. His characterization of the conservative complaint on judicial activism[1] appears to me to be backwards - that typically it would be a failure to overturn an unconstitutional law that constitutes judicial activism. At the same time, he's saying he now supports exactly the position he is criticizing!

Still, even in the parts that appear scripted, he makes some poorly conceived comments:

[2] Justices need to consider the practical utility of the law? That's precisely the conservative complaint against judicial activism. The judicial oath is to the constitution, not to practicality. It does not matter if the law is functionally good or not, what matters is if it is constitutional. That's the judiciary's mandated. It is Congress's job to make useful laws.

[3] Referencing "the political debate" in the same paragraph as #2 says that the USSC should be ruling on the political debate itself. Wow. So much for the independence of the judiciary!

[4] No, it was not passed with a "strong majority".

 

[BobG]

By the way, this is a very interesting case. This law improves American's access to health care by banning physician-owned hospitals and prohibiting them from taking Medicare patients. There is a very interesting Fifth Amendment component to this, and an even more interesting question on standing.

Actually, it just does the latter (prohibits them from taking Medicare patients). (Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius)

It's intent is to address the conflict of interest created when a physician refers his patients to specialty facilities which he owns. It's a practice similar to a physician prescribing a drug and then selling that drug to his patient - a practice that's already prohibited.

There is no law prohibiting a physician from self-referrals. Physicians can buy an MRI machine, suddenly start giving MRI's to an extremely high percentage of his patients (and charging them for those tests), and no law is broken. Or, a physician can refer a patient to a specialty department in the hospital that he owns (or partially owns), and charge the patient for services without the patient even knowing about the physician's ownership of the specialty service.

While there is no law prohibiting that practice, the government discourages it by limiting services it will pay for. The government won't cover charges for self-referral (via Medicare, etc), limiting the profitability of the practice.

There's an exemption for situations where physicians are partial owners of entire hospitals, based on the rationale the physician's share of any profits obtained by referring patients to 'his' hospital becomes too diluted to influence his medical decisions. Physicians have taken advantage of that exemption by starting small specialty hospitals that only provide a few services. Essentially, they've moved their specialty services out of the hospital so they can receive reimbursement from Medicare for referring patients to the 'hospital' owned by the physcian. Congress saw that practice for what it was and repealed the exemption, with this court case challenging the constitutionality of the repeal being the result.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Actually, it just does the latter (prohibits them from taking Medicare patients).

I think that's technically true, but I also believe that being Medicare-qualified is a necessary condition for hospital liceneure.

Also, yes there is already a law restricting self-referrals, the Stark Law, passed in 1989. I say "restricting" rather than "prohibiting" because a blanket prohibition won't be in anybody's best interest. The very fact that you bring this up illustrates the question being discussed - is it the Court's job to rule on whether the law is constitutional or unconstitutional, or is it to rule on whether a law is a good law or not?

One of the interesting things about this case is that it's the Government's position that one reason (#3) to ban these hospitals is that they "undermine public hospitals". I am very interested in seeing the outcome here. If this is affirmed that the government can ban private agencies that compete with public agencies, this could potentially have a very large impact: the government would have the power to ban private or even parochial schools, for example.

 

[mheslep]

This Federal judge was hearing a case, Physician Hospitals of America, et al v. Sebelius, where the issue came up. While it certainly looks like the judge was having a hissy fit, ...

From my little observation of and personal experience with the courts, if anything is to provoke a sharp and immediate response it is a challenge to their independence and authority by a plaintiff, which the President did on Monday. It would indeed be inappropriate for a sitting judge to find a microphone or write an editorial to respond to the plaintiff; the place for such a response is from the bench, and this judge did so. If the inappropriate/overreaction characterization has been earned by anyone, it was the President, not this judge.

 

[russ_watters]

CNN is currently running an editorial calling the homework assignment a hissy-fit and a disgrace: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/opinion/toobin-court-assignment/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Sure, it supports my position, but I'd cut them a little slack here, at least on asking the questions, if not the homework assignment itself. The problem facing the courts is that they are supposed to be mute, which makes them defenseless against political rhetoric. Yes, the court is being partisan here, but it is Obama who pulled the court down into the mud. Judges don't hold press conferences to respond to the challenge in kind, so instead they responded in their official capacity. This is better, imo, than free-form rhetoric as it requires the Obama admin to carefully prepare their position and explicitly state it on the record. In other words, it pulls the argument out of the mud and puts it into the more civilized setting of the courtroom.

 

[jim hardy]

i just hate to see the insurance industry being handed the power to tax.

Might US vs Butler apply to the mandated participation and penalty?

 

[BobG]

One of the interesting things about this case is that it's the Government's position that one reason (#3) to ban these hospitals is that they "undermine public hospitals". I am very interested in seeing the outcome here. If this is affirmed that the government can ban private agencies that compete with public agencies, this could potentially have a very large impact: the government would have the power to ban private or even parochial schools, for example.

I wouldn't expect to see #3 affect much outside this particular case, and definitely not have the effect of banning private or parochial schools. People that send their kids to private and parochial schools still have to pay taxes that support the public school system regardless of whether they utilize the public school system or not. In fact, people with no kids at all have to support the public school systems.

On the other hand, something like this case could affect proposals for school voucher systems where people would be refunded part of their taxes in order to pay someone other than the public school system to educate their kids. (And if that ever happens, then I'd expect people with no kids to be the next group of outraged citizens.)

It's not unconstitutional for the government to decide to spend tax money where they see it doing the most good (even if they're wrong about how much their decision will actually help the general public). I would be shocked if the physicians won their appeal. I expect the district court to uphold the Texas court's decision that already denied the physicians' claim.

 

[BobG]

i just hate to see the insurance industry being handed the power to tax.

Might US vs Butler apply to the mandated participation and penalty?

I agree. Somehow, including the insurance companies in this makes it appear that we still have private medical care instead of socialized medical care?

Obviously, deciding the government would be the health insurer for everyone and raising taxes to fund that would never have passed for several reasons. But inserting insurance companies into the process just makes the process even more expensive (the insurance companies have to pull in a profit on top of whatever the cost of health care is), plus raises some constitutional questions the government may well lose.

 

[russ_watters]

This story was in the news section, not the op-ed section of USA Today:

Other presidents took on high court before Obama

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washin...supreme-court/54065008/1?loc=interstitialskip

So Obama is keeping company with Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR? Really? Let's examine them a little more closely:

1. Jefferson challenged the court before judicial review was established, federal authority was still actively being figured out and fought over and there was a legitimate possibility of dropping into civil war. I'm not sure Obama really wants to go there.

2. Lincoln. Yeah - there was a Civil War.

3. FDR. The left's other hero. He threatened to add to the quantity justices to the court who agreed with him in order to change the balance because they kept ruling his actions to be unConstitutional. It may have been technically legal, but it couldn't possibly violate the spirit of separation of powers any more thoroughly. And this is the fight Obama is fighting. But IMO, this doesn't stack up with the other two and the current situation doesn't stack up to FDR's. This isn't the Great Depression and we're not just coming out of an industrial revolution. And even if we were, the other two examples were ones where the very existence of the country was at stake. That isn't the case today, nor was it during the Great Depression.

Also:

It wasn't the first time Obama had opposed the high court in public. The last time, it was directly in front of them: He criticized the justices' decision paving the way for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent political ads in his 2010 State of the Union Address, as six justices watched from the front two rows.

Right, so he went to the unprecedented length of inviting the USSC to the state of the union address (which isn't done) so he could publicly call them out. I guess we should have seen this one coming! And he shouldn't now complain that he's starting to irritate the judiciary.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wouldn't expect to see #3 affect much outside this particular case, and definitely not have the effect of banning private or parochial schools.

I think it's interesting because this is, as far as I know, the first time the government has made the argument that they have the authority to prohibit anyone from competing with them. And while you may be right that they wouldn't go after private or parochial schools, at least not right away, there's a difference between an action that the government cannot take and an action that it simply chooses not to take.

I wonder what the management of FedEx or UPS thinks of this? The USPS needs money, and most of it's package shipping business has gone elsewhere. Under this legal theory, its problems could be solved easily.

 

[BobG]

I think it's interesting because this is, as far as I know, the first time the government has made the argument that they have the authority to prohibit anyone from competing with them. And while you may be right that they wouldn't go after private or parochial schools, at least not right away, there's a difference between an action that the government cannot take and an action that it simply chooses not to take.

Technically, the government isn't prohibiting physician owned hospitals from competing with larger hospitals. From http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/6:2010cv00277/123207/111/0.pdf?1301712489:

Section 6001 does not prohibit physician owners from building or expanding a hospital
on their property. See 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. Plaintiffs could lawfully complete their projects and continue to bill Medicare for health services as long as those services were not the result of a physician-owner’s referral. See id. Plaintiffs could also lawfully continue to self-refer when patients or their private insurers will be billed. See id. The only value Plaintiffs have lost, under the law, is the ability to bill Medicare for self-referred patients, and as discussed below, that does not constitute an impermissible taking.

In practice, yes, the government can definitely handicap competitors just because the government is such a large customer. It's already hard for UPS, FedEx, et al, to compete against USPS when the USPS can lose money and still stay in business. It's already hard for private/parochial schools when attendance means paying for both public schools (via taxes) and private schools (via tuition).

And, yes, in practice, the restrictions on self-referral do gut many small, physician owned, specialty hospitals because such a huge percentage of their customers only go to those hospitals because of the expert advice of their doctors (who just happen to own the hospital they're sending their patients to). There's at least the appearance that these doctors could be scamming their patients (and the government's Medicare program), while companies such as UPS, FedEx, private schools, parochial schools almost certainly are not scamming their customers.

 

[russ_watters]

In that case, there may be the appearance of a scam, but the individual mandate is just an attempt to fix a flawed private business model. Many young people forgo insurance (I did it) because they are healthy, which makes costs go up for everyone else. So forcing everyone to get health insurance - and at a much higher rate for the young, who now can't buy it cheaply due to the elimination of the insurance company's incentive to charge them less - brings down the average cost of being insured.

So if the government can pass a regulation on busines just because it makes good business sense to the government (as if we should generally trust the government's business sense?) what is to stop them from applying that to other areas? Some hypotheticals:

-Solar panels are expensive partly due to the lack of economy of scale due to the relatively small size of the market. So if we just require all homeowners to buy solar panels for their homes, we can bring down the average cost of solar panels. Makes good environmental sense too.

-GM is doing better now, but if we drop back in time a couple of years, the problem facing them was too much legacy pension and healthcare costs for the sales they have. Easy solution? Require everyone with a driver's license to buy one new Chevy every 7 years. More Chevys on the road means GM is better able to deal with their fixed costs. And it's a job creator too!

-America needs a President who is a uniter, not a divider because working together to achieve national goals will make life better for all of us. So to encourage national spirit, I'd force every American to buy an American flag. And a red, white and blue armband and a pair of jackboots too. Er...wait... nevermind.

 

[Office_Shredder]

and at a much higher rate for the young, who now can't buy it cheaply due to the elimination of the insurance company's incentive to charge them less - brings down the average cost of being insured.

Because people don't get to choose which insurance company they purchase insurance from?

-Solar panels are expensive partly due to the lack of economy of scale due to the relatively small size of the market. So if we just require all homeowners to buy solar panels for their homes, we can bring down the average cost of solar panels. Makes good environmental sense too.

There are already tax breaks for purchasing solar panels. There is no difference between being given a tax credit for buying solar panels and being taxed for not buying solar panels.

 

[russ_watters]

Because people don't get to choose which insurance company they purchase insurance from?

I'm not sure what you mean.

There are already tax breaks for purchasing solar panels. There is no difference between being given a tax credit for buying solar panels and being taxed for not buying solar panels.

In the last line of the balance sheet the numbers are the same, but how you get there matters enough, at least politically, that Obama chose not to formulate it that way. Obama's way, while more likely to be unConstitutional, was seen as less politically problematic for him. Ironic.

Still, because they are functionally the same, I think they should be considered in the same logical analysis. Democrats tend to default to the conclusion that since one is Constitutional, the other should be too -- without actually considering the logic under which it is Constitutional. So my question is this: do democrats actually believe that the framers intended that the government could tax people whatever it wants and use that money for whatever it wants?

 

[SixNein]

From my little observation of and personal experience with the courts, if anything is to provoke a sharp and immediate response it is a challenge to their independence and authority by a plaintiff, which the President did on Monday. It would indeed be inappropriate for a sitting judge to find a microphone or write an editorial to respond to the plaintiff; the place for such a response is from the bench, and this judge did so. If the inappropriate/overreaction characterization has been earned by anyone, it was the President, not this judge.

I think you are misrepresenting Obama due to partisan ideology. The president hasn't taken action to challenge the authority of the courts. If he were to ignore the supreme court after the ruling, that would be a challenge.

Right now we are talking about nothing more profound than partisan politics.

The comedy of our current political environment is that Romney would probably rule about the same as Obama.

 

[mheslep]

Have I or anyone else said he took action?

 

[SixNein]

Have I or anyone else said he took action?

a challenge to their independence and authority by a plaintiff, which the President did on Monday

Ask yourself one thing: Do you think Obama is prepared to disobey the courts? Of course not. So what are you left with? Politics...

 

[lisab]

Ask yourself one thing: Do you think Obama is prepared to disobey the courts? Of course not. So what are you left with? Politics...

This...+1.