TPMDC Constitution
Violence Against Women Act
How Republicans Have Gained The Upper Hand In The Fight Over The Violence Against Women Act
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and Houser Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)
An obscure parliamentary snafu has stymied Democrats' aggressive efforts to extend Violence Against Women Act protections to same-sex couples, illegal immigrants, and tribal communities, and provided the GOP leverage to keep those provisions out of legislation to reauthorize that law.
It has been weeks since Senate Democrats -- and several Republicans -- passed VAWA legislation, and left House Republicans in the tough position of arguing that the law's scope should not be explicitly widened. Last week House Republicans passed a narrower reauthorization bill, which the White House has threatened to veto, giving Dems what they believed to be an upper hand.
Typically, this ordering of events would give Democrats a great deal of leverage over Republicans, and possibly force them to agree to provisions that would alienate GOP voters by benefiting constituencies the base is hostile to.
"The House Republicans passed a bill that takes us backward in terms of protections for women," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared Thursday.
But instead of walking away with wins for gay, immigrant, and native American communities, or of messaging against GOP holding up VAWA, they hit a snag.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Violence Against Women Act
Paul Clement
How GOP's Lawyer Paul Clement Helped Defend 'Obamacare'
Paul Clement, the lawyer for the Republican-led states challenging "Obamacare," played a key role years ago, when representing the Bush White House, in expanding the same federal power that's now the constitutional basis for the health care reform law. Today his clients have different interests, and the 180-degree flip in his reasoning underscores an inconsistency in Republican views of the Constitution.
As the Bush administration's solicitor general in 2004, Clement argued before the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is broad enough to override state laws permitting medical marijuana patients to grow cannabis for personal consumption. Notably, two of the justices he won over in the the 6-3 decision were Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Obamacare, Paul Clement, supreme court
Health Care
Conservatives Bristle At Federal Court's Retaliatory Move At Obama
The legal battle over the constitutionality of the health care law was always going to be hard-fought. But in the aftermath of Supreme Court arguments, Republican-appointed appellate judges have taken the unusual step of publicly confronting President Obama after he bristled at the notion that the high court would overturn the law. That wouldn't be an unusual play for an elected politician, and indeed congressional Republicans have blasted Obama for politicizing the judiciary. But federal judges are supposed to stay above the political fray. And even conservatives are concerned that the circuit court judges stepped out of bounds Tuesday -- and made Obama's point about judicial overreach for him.
"I find all of this a bit incredible," said Brian Fitzpatrick, a professor at Vanderbilt University School of Law and former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care
Barack Obama
Obama Cautions Against 'Judicial Activism' On Health Care
President Barack Obama during his 2012 "State of the Union" address
In his first thorough comments since the Supreme Court began weighing the constitutionality of health care reform, President Obama launched an impassioned defense of his law on Monday, and cautioned conservatives against embracing the judicial activism the right claims to deplore.
"Ultimately I'm confident 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," Obama said at a Rose Garden press conference. "And I 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. 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 this court will recognize that and not take that step."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate
Health Care
Health Insurers Prepare For Post-Supreme Court Doom Scenario
Last week's Supreme Court oral arguments over the constitutionality of "Obamacare" raised a terrifying specter for the health insurance industry: What if a 5-4 conservative majority rules the individual mandate unconstitutional and severs it, while the rest of the law stands?
If that happens, then by 2014 insurers would be forced to sell insurance to all consumers, and not hike premiums based on peoples' pre-existing medical conditions -- but without a requirement that everybody enter the risk pool. That, experts believe, would create an inherently unstable system: Older, sicker people would buy insurance, healthy people wouldn't, premiums would rise, more healthy people would drop their coverage and so on until the market collapsed altogether.
America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) filed an amicus brief with the court asking the justices to also strike the coverage-guarantee provisions, if they determine that the mandate is unconstitutional. But according to an industry source, insurers are also readying themselves for the doom scenario.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Supreme Court
Health Care
Supreme Court Justices Struggle With Health Policy And Key 'Obamacare' Facts
In weighing the constitutionality of the health care law's individual mandate, and possibly in deciding what to do with the rest of the law if they strike that provision, Supreme Court justices will have to confront key questions of health policy: What purpose does the mandate serve? How connected is it to other measures in the law? If those other measures must fall, too, what's left? And is that new, diminished law the sort of policy that Congress might have passed if the mandate had proved politically infeasible in the first place?
That's a troubling reality for reform supporters.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Constitution, Donald Verrilli, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Insurance, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court
Health Care
Conservatives Struggle With Key Anti 'Obamacare' Argument
Justice Antonin Scalia
For the challengers' constitutional attack against the individual mandate in President Obama's health care law to withstand scrutiny, they need to maintain two key questionable arguments.
The first is the plaintiffs' claim that the law's mandate and the penalty enacted to enforce the mandate are fully distinct. Their challenge depends on the court viewing the mandate as a command, and not part of a more general incentive.
Relatedly, they claim that the command itself is meant to draw non-participants into a market they may not want to enter. For this to fly, they have to contend that the market the government is regulating -- or that Congress intended to regulate -- is the market for health insurance and not the much broader market for health care services.
This has become a central point of contention, and it could be an issue on which the court's decision turns. And yet squaring the challenger's argument with the history and purpose of the health care law presents opponents of the law with a question they've had a very hard time answering.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Constitution, Donald Verrilli, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Paul Clement, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Wednesday's Supreme Court arguments over the fate of the president's health care law were defined by the same themes that marked the first two days: Liberal justices directed their toughest questions on the challengers, while conservative justices relished the opportunity to tie the administration's lawyers in logical knots.
That may seem unsurprising -- why wouldn't the same ideological divisions that have dogged the law for two years carry over into the high court, all the way through six hours of oral arguments?
But Wednesday's arguments weren't about the controversy at the center of the legal challenge -- can the government compel people to buy health insurance? They were about the court's discretion to interfere with the rest of the law, and a decades-long understanding of the relationship between the federal government and the states. Most legal observers assumed the issues at stake on Wednesday were no-brainers. So the fact that the conservative justices once again aligned -- at least rhetorically -- in sympathy with the challengers suggests just how tempted they are to swing for the ideological fences.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Medicaid
Health Care
The Remaining Health Care Arguments: Fewer Fireworks, Possibly Bigger Consequences
After Tuesday's explosive arguments over the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law threw conventional wisdom about the Supreme Court's likeliest course of action out the window, it would be easy to conclude that highest-stakes issue was behind us.
It's not.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Medicaid, Supreme Court
Health Care
After Rough Day In Court, An Optimistic View For Supporters Of 'Obamacare'
The snap reactions to today's Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law's individual mandate gave reform supporters a collective case of heartburn. The conservative justices seemed broadly hostile to the law's requirement that everyone carry health insurance. President Obama's Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely panned by experienced court watchers for stumbling at key moments. Jeffery Toobin -- a seasoned vet of the high court -- called it a "train wreck" for the Obama administration.
Here's some antacid.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Anthony Kennedy, Constitution, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Walter Dellinger
Health Care
John Roberts May Have Tipped His Hand On 'Obamacare' Reasoning
In a little-noticed exchange Monday, conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts may have tipped his hand that he's entertaining the possibility that the health care law's individual mandate can be upheld on a constitutional basis that's different from the one supporters and opponents have made central to their arguments.
For over a year now, observers and experts have assumed that the court's final decision will hinge on the extent of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But the justices could also upend that conventional wisdom, and in a worrying sign for the plaintiffs on Monday, Roberts unexpectedly highlighted one way they could do that.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Taxes
Supreme Court
Justices Skeptical That Health Care Mandate Is A 'Tax'
The Supreme Court kicked off oral arguments over President Obama's health care law Monday by dedicating 90 minutes to the one issue on which the White House and the Republican challengers agree: The justices should hand down a speedy ruling on the constitutionality of the law this summer, rather than punt it to 2015 or beyond.
Lawyers for the Obama Justice Department and for the 26 Republican-led states challenging the law agreed that an old statute called the Anti-Injunction Act -- which forbids people from challenging taxes in court unless they've already been assessed by the government -- does not apply in this case. The Supreme Court enlisted outside counsel to make the opposite case.
The justices appeared broadly skeptical that the law's fine imposed on Americans who fail to carry health insurance qualifies as a "tax."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Barack Obama, Clarence Thomas, Constitution, Elena Kagan, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court
Affordable Care Act
The Most Radical Part Of The Health Care SCOTUS Challenge
The U.S. Supreme Court chamber (Associated Press)
It hasn't received nearly as much attention as the other main legal challenge to the health care law. But next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether the Affordable Care Act's expansion of the Medicaid program is too coercive to states, and thus violates the Constitution.
If upheld, the states' far-reaching argument could invalidate decades of government programs. The law requires states that accept federal matching funds for Medicaid to expand that program to cover everyone under 133 percent of the poverty line. That may sound like an onerous burden for state governments, many of which are already stretched extremely thin. But the federal government will be picking up most of the tab for the expansion. So the argument essentially boils down to this: The new Medicaid funds Congress is giving us to insure more of our residents is too good an offer to pass up, and should therefore be struck down.
"What they're basically saying is, you're making us a deal that we can't refuse because it's such a good deal. And therefore it's unconstitutional," Tim Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, and supporter of the health care law, told TPM. "I mean just to state the argument shows how ridiculous it is."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Affordable Care Act, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Health care lawsuits, Medicaid, Supreme Court
HCR/SCOTUS
What's In A Mandate? Why SCOTUS May Take A Pass On 'Obamacare' -- For Now
When the Supreme Court convenes next week to hear arguments about the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, the first issue they will consider is the basic character of one of the law's crucial features: the requirement that uninsured Americans either purchase coverage or pay a fine to the federal government.
Better known as the individual mandate, it's the provision of the health care law at the heart of the GOP's constitutional complaint. The plaintiffs -- the 26 states suing over the law -- contend the individual mandate exceeds Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, and the court's ruling on that issue could have the most sweeping legal impact, perhaps upending decades of Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
But before they get to the question of whether the individual mandate is an unconstitutional expansion of the Commerce Clause, the justices have agreed to consider whether they even have the power to take up this case, since the mandate does not go into effect for another two years. And that decision will ride on a fine distinction: Is the individual mandate a tax or is it a penalty?
The arguments they will hear, and the decision they ultimately reach, will determine whether the court can proceed to rule on the merits of the law, or whether they must punt on the substance until after the mandate takes effect in 2014. Either decision would place several key actors in awkward political predicaments without any easy escape routes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Insurance, John Roberts, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare
HCR/SCOTUS
Supreme Court Prepares To Determine Fate Of U.S. Health Care System
Shutterstock /stefanolunardi
In one week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on a legacy-defining case for President Obama as it determines whether a crucial piece of his signature legislative achievement meets constitutional muster. The health care reform law's path to the high court has underscored a climate of supercharged partisan politics, and the highly anticipated decision expected this summer, in the dead heat of presidential election season, will help determine the trajectory of the nation's health care system.
The main question facing the justices is whether the law's requirement that Americans purchase insurance falls within the limits of federal power under the Constitution. They'll also hear arguments on whether, if the mandate is deemed unconstitutional, other aspects of the law such such coverage guarantee also need to be struck down. There's a chance that the court will punt the case to after 2014 under a law that says a tax may not be challenged in court until it is being collected.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama, Constitution, HCR/SCOTUS, Health Care, Individual Mandate, Obamacare, Republicans, Supreme Court
Recess appointments
Obama's Recess Appointments Dilemma Is About To Get Worse
President Barack Obama
Despite making several key, contentious recess appointments since Congress left town, the Obama administration is still operating with scores of vacancies, including an unexpected hole at the top of the Office of Management and Budget.
But their options for filing those vacancies are likely limited, unless President Obama is willing to dial his use of the recess appointment power up even further.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Labor, National Labor Relations Board, OMB, Office of Management and Budget, Recess, Recess appointments, Richard Cordray
Richard Cordray
Cordray Gets Cracking Even As GOP Complains
President Barack Obama announces the appointment of Richard Cordray as the nation's chief consumer watchdog at an event in Shaker Heights, OH on January 4, 2012.
The freshly recess-appointed head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dismissed concerns about the legitimacy of his recess appointment, and says he'll discharge his duties as the nation's top consumer watchdog as if he'd landed in the director's chair in a less contentious way.
"I have been appointed as the director of the Bureau," Cordray said at a Brookings Institute event Thursday. "It's a valid appointment. But I will leave those details to others."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Recess, Recess appointments, Richard Cordray
Tea Party
Study: Tea Party Members Cultural Dispositions 'Authoritarianism, Fear Of Change, Libertarianism And Nativism'
What are the four primary characteristics most associated with those Americans sympathetic to the Tea Party? "Authoritarianism, ontological insecurity (fear of change), libertarianism and nativism." So says one of the many findings in a study presented to the American Sociological Association on Monday.
The academic study, Cultures of the Tea Party, purports to break down the cultural attitudes of Tea Party loyalists, through a mix of polling data and interviews with tea partiers at a gathering in eastern North Carolina. The study's lead author is Andrew J. Perrin, an associate professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, with co-authors Steven J. Tepper, an associate professor of sociology at Vanderbilt University, Neal Caren, an assistant professor of sociology at UNC, and Sally Morris, a doctoral student in sociology at UNC.
The study used polling of North Carolina and Tennessee, conducted by Public Policy Polling (D) in the Summer of 2010, and determined the cultural dispositions by measuring the responses of tea partiers to set questions. After PPP surveyed over 2,000 voters who were sympathetic to the Tea Party, researchers then reinterviewed almost 600 in the fall of 2010. Those interviews included everything from personality based queries like "Would you say it is more important that a child obeys his parents, or that he is responsible for his own actions?" to more political ones, like "Do you think immigrants who came into this country illegally but pay taxes and have not been arrested should be given the opportunity to become permanent legal residents?" The study also incudes interviews and short responses with ten participants at a Tea Party rally in Washington, NC.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Tea Party
Evolution
Perry Says Texas Public Schools Teach Creationism... Which May Be In Violation Of The Constitution
Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX)
Campaigning in New Hampshire Thursday, Texas Governor, and GOP Presidential candidate Rick Perry claimed that Texas public schools teach both evolution and creationism in their science classes.
Perry described evolution as "a theory that is out there," telling a young child questioning him that "it's got some gaps in it." That's why, he said, "in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools. Because I figure...because I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
There's just one problem with that: in 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools is an unconstitutional violation of the Establishment Clause.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Rick Perry
Health care lawsuits
11th Circuit: Health Care Law's Individual Mandate Is Unconstitutional
In a split decision, a three-judge panel on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that the health care law's individual mandate exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers and is therefore unconstitutional. However, unlike the district court ruling preceding this case, the judges found the mandate to be "severable" and thus holds that the rest of the law can stand.
In a joint opinion, Judges Joel Dubina -- a Reagan appointee elevated to the circuit court by George H.W. Bush -- and Frank Hull -- a conservative Clinton appointee -- "concluded that the individual mandate exceeded congressional authority under Article I of the Constitution because it was not enacted pursuant to Congress's tax power and it exceeded Congress' power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Health Care, Health Care Repeal, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate
Barack Obama
Obama Not Ruling Out Invoking Constitutional Nuclear Option In Debt Talks
During Wednesday's first Twitter town hall, President Barack Obama made his feelings about the debt ceiling situation pretty clear. Using charged language, he said it should not be "used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies." However, the president sidestepped a question about whether it was a good idea to invoke the 14th Amendment to pay government obligations if Congress refuses to raise that debt ceiling -- but he didn't rule it out.
As the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling looms closer and closer, liberal academics -- and even some Democratic members of Congress -- have begun questioning whether the legislative branch actually has the power under the Constitution to force the federal government to default on its debts.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: 14th Amendment, Barack Obama, Constitution, Debt, Debt Ceiling, House Republicans, Twitter, Twitter townhall
Debt Ceiling
Schumer: Obama May Not Need Congress To Avoid Default -- But Congress Needs To Act
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
On a conference call with reporters Friday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) acknowledged that President Obama may not need Congressional authorization to avoid a default on the national debt. But he noted, too, that the Constitutional debate on this question isn't ripe enough yet for Obama to take an end run around Congress, even if Republicans refuse to increase the national borrowing limit.
I asked Schumer, a lawyer, whether, in his view, the administration had the power to continue issuing new debt even if Congress fails to raise the debt limit. He acknowledged that the question's been discussed, but said the White House probably shouldn't go there just yet.
"It's certainly worth exploring," Schumer said. "I think it needs a little more exploration and study. It's probably not right to pursue at this point and you wouldn't want to go ahead and issue the debt and then have the courts reverse it."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: 14th Amendment, Chuck Schumer, Constitution, Debt, Debt Ceiling, Default
Constitution
Bush-Appointed Former Scalia Clerk Upholds Constitutionality Of Health Care Law On Appeal
President Barack Obama
For the first time, a Republican appointed federal judge -- part of a three-judge circuit court panel -- has ruled that the individual insurance mandate in President Obama's health care law is constitutional.
The Sixth Circuit appellate court panel -- the first appellate court to rule on the question -- dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that levying a penalty against people who choose not to purchase insurance exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers. The justices also dismissed the underlying argument that the provision amounts to "regulating inactivity."
The development represents a significant victory for the Obama administration, which is facing numerous challenges to the mandate from individuals, conservative interest groups and Republican governors. A number of district court judges have ruled on the question already, and in a striking pattern, all Republican-appointed judges have ruled against the administration, and all Democratic judges with the administration. Today's development upends that trend.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, George W. Bush, Health Care, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate
John Ensign
DOJ Access To Ensign Emails Could Determine His Legal Fate
Former Sen. John Ensign's (R-NV) legal fate may hinge on a gray area of the law governing the separation-of-powers between the legislative and judicial branches of government.
The Senate Ethics Committee's decision to hand over all of its evidence in the case against Ensign to the Justice Department - which includes hundreds of e-mails as Reuters' Murray Waas reported Thursday -- has raised new questions about the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution and whether it can prevent DOJ prosecutors from using those e-mails and other documents obtained in the panel's investigation that ended the Nevada Republican's once promising political career.
Topics: Constitution, Cynthia Hampton, Doug Hampton, John Ensign, Justice Department, Senate Ethics Committee, speech and debate
Michele Bachmann
High Schooler Challenges Michele Bachmann To Constitutional Facts Test
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Is Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) smarter than a 10th grader? One high school sophomore wants to find out, throwing down the gauntlet and challenging the congresswoman to a debate and test on the U.S. Constitution.
In a letter to Bachmann, New Jersey high schooler Amy Myers wrote that she was troubled by Bachmann's, "factually incorrect, inaccurately applied or grossly distorted," facts about the United States. As a result, Myers wrote, she hoped to test her own knowledge against Bachmann's, to see who really knew more about the Constitution and the country.
"Rep. Bachmann, the frequent inability you have shown to accurately and factually present even the most basic information about the United States led me to submit the following challenge, pitting my public education against your advanced legal education," Myers wrote.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Amy Myers, Constitution, Michele Bachmann, Minnesota
17th Amendment
The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws
Republicans say they've found the problem in America -- and that problem is the basic framework of the Union as we know it today.
A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with.
The proposed constitutional amendment, a tea party favorite, is being touted by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) in the Senate and co-sponsored by Sens. John Barasso (R-WY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In the House, Reps. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Paul Broun (R-GA) are leading the charge.
The goal, according to proponents, is to stop the tyranny of Washington over the economy and circumscribe other federal powers.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: 17th Amendment, Constitution, John Barrasso, Mike Enzi, Morgan Griffith, Nullification, Orrin Hatch, Paul Broun, Rob Bishop
Barack Obama
Obama On Birther Issue: 'We Don't Have Time For This Silliness"
President Barack Obama
President Obama, in a rare public appearance on a personal issue Wednesday, scolded the media and those consumed with trying to prove he was not born in the United States.
"I know that there's going to be a segment of people for which, no matter what we put out, this issue will not be put to rest ... ," Obama told reporters. "We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We've got better stuff to do. I've got better stuff to do. We've got big problems to solve. And I'm confident we can solve them, but we're going to have to focus on them -- not on this."
TPM SLIDESHOW: There's The Birth Certificate: TPM's Best Of The Birthers
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Constitution, Donald Trump, White House
Constitution
Fox's Carlson: The Constitution Is Too Old To Deal With Terrorists (VIDEO)
In Gretchen Carlson's mind, the Constitution maybe just a little too outdated to enable the government to deal with terrorists.
On Fox & Friends this morning, the co-host made that statement during a discussion centering on last night's House passage of the extension of the Patriot Act's provisions. And after Fox judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano explained how the controversial provisions work, Carlson chimed in with a perspective that would make a civil liberties advocate cringe.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Andrew Napolitano, Constitution, Fox News, Gretchen Carlson, Patriot Act
Health Care
Mississippi Judge Tosses Health Care Reform Challenge -- But Doesn't Address The Key Question
The Obama Administration is quietly trumpeting the fact that a federal judge in Mississippi tossed out a lawsuit Thursday challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform law.
By definition, it's good news for the White House. But the judge in question didn't rule on the legal question that is at the heart of the constitutional challenges to the new law.
It was a strange suit, filed by the lieutenant governor of Mississippi, Phil Bryant, acting in his capacity as a civilian, along with several other individuals. And unlike the other challenges to the law, including the one by many state attorneys general, which allege that the law's individual mandate exceeds Congress' Commerce Clause powers, this lawsuit was brought on 10th Amendment grounds.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, Health Care, Health care lawsuits
Health Care
Republicans See Opportunity To Capture Health Law If SCOTUS Strikes Mandate
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
An interesting dynamic is taking shape in Congress as health care lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate wind their way up to the Supreme Court.
One potential outcome -- and the one that Republicans are hoping for -- is that the Supreme Court will invalidate the mandate and sever it from the law, leaving an unstable health care policy in place.
Theoretically, Congress could just change that mandate in a way that would easily pass constitutional muster -- simple tweaks that could pass in a matter of days and leave the implementation process largely unmolested.
But for that to happen, Republicans would have to play ball -- and that would mean giving up new-found leverage to really undercut the law. Don't fool yourself into thinking they'd give up that power willingly.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bob Corker, Constitution, Health Care, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate, Orrin Hatch, Republicans, Supreme Court
Health Care
Yet Another Dem Alternative To The Health Law Mandate Emerges
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Here's another change Dems are considering to the individual mandate in the health care law in the wake of Tuesday's federal court decision.
Rep. Peter Defazio (D-OR) proposes that people be allowed to opt out of the insurance mandate altogether -- but if they do, they will not be allowed to free-ride on the new health care system.
Under his plan, a person opting out "must file an 'affidavit of personal responsibility' with the state exchange. Such a filing will waive their rights to: 1) Enroll in a health insurance exchange; 2) Enroll in Medicaid if otherwise made eligible; and 3) Discharge health care related debt under Chapter 7 bankruptcy law," DeFazio wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Health Care, Health Care Implementation, Individual Mandate, Insurance, Peter DeFazio
Health Care
Democrats Explore Alternatives To Health Insurance Mandate
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Most Democrats believe, or say they believe, that the courts will uphold the individual insurance mandate as constitutional -- and slice off one prong of the GOP attack on the health care law.
But they're also exploring their options.
One plan is modeled on an existing incentive built into the Medicare prescription drug benefit: Create an open-enrollment period for people who want to buy health insurance, and assess a penalty on anybody who tries to enter the insurance market after that window closes.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Health Care, Health Care Implementation, Health care lawsuits, Individual Mandate, Insurance, Republicans
Health Care
Florida Judge Voids Entire Health Care Law
President Barack Obama
A federal district court judge in Florida ruled today that a key provision in the new health care law is unconstitutional, and that the entire law must be voided.
Roger Vinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, agreed with the 26 state-government plaintiffs that Congress exceeded its authority by passing a law penalizing individuals who do not have health insurance.
"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," Vinson writes. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void."
[Emphasis added]
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Barack Obama, Constitution, George W. Bush, Health Care, Health Care Implementation, Health care lawsuits, Repealing health care, Roger Vinson, Ronald Reagan, White House
Antonin Scalia
Dem Reps. Back Scalia's Attendance At Tea Party Constitution Event
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
Critics of conservative Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia were quick to raise red flags Monday after he emceed a member seminar on the Constitution at the behest of Tea Party caucus leader Michele Bachmann. MSNBC hosts Lawrence O'Donnell and Rachel Maddow, in particular, suggested his visit was a symptom of the increasing politicization of the Court -- particularly among its conservative members.
But Monday evening, two progressive members who attended the seminar vouched for Scalia and the event, and dispelled the notion that anything untoward happened.
According to Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), who addressed reporters just outside the forum, the event was "incredibly useful, partly just to get the sense of Justice Scalia as an individual."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Antonin Scalia, Constitution, Jan Schakowsky, Jerrold Nadler, Michele Bachmann, Supreme Court, Tea Party
Michele Bachmann
Bachmann: America Was Founded On Diversity (VIDEO)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) had an interesting take this weekend on America's first European settlers, who she said "had different cultures, different backgrounds, different traditions."
"How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups all across the world," she said. "It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status."
"Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?" she asked.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Michele Bachmann
Filibuster Reform
Joe Biden: The Key To Filibuster Reform?
Vice President Biden
This week, a group of Democratic filibuster reformers will face the first big test of their effort to invoke the "Constitutional Option" -- a process by which members can change the Senate rules by a majority vote. The theory underlying their efforts is that the previous Senate's rules aren't really valid until the new Senate has intentionally adopted them.
That's leading to confusion over whether they're truly on the path to invoking the Constitutional Option -- and that, in turn, means Vice President Joe Biden might have to weigh in and settle the dispute.
Here's the issue under contention.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Constitution, Constitutional Option, Filibuster, Filibuster Reform, Jeff Merkley , Tom Udall
Bill Maher
Bill Maher To Tea Partiers: 'The Founding Fathers Would Have Hated Your Guts' (VIDEO)
Bill Maher
Bill Maher has some tough words for the tea party: "the founding fathers would have hated your guts."
And Maher thinks tea partiers would have hated the founding fathers, too.
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Bill Maher, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Louie Gohmert, Tea Party
Gabrielle Giffords
Flashback: Giffords Read First Amendment On House Floor
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)
In an eerie coincidence, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), who was shot today at a meet-and-greet with constituents in Tucson, participated in this past week's reading of the Constitution from the House floor -- specifically reading the First Amendment, which protects among other things the right of citizens to peacefully assemble and petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: Constitution, Gabrielle Giffords
Mike Fitzpatrick
Reps. Sessions And Fitzpatrick Pen Apology For Swearing-In Snafu
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA)
Perhaps chastened by all the trouble they caused, Reps. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who cast invalid votes on the first day of the 112th Congress because they missed the formal swearing in, are sending a written apology for their gaffe to every member of the House tonight.
In the letter, the Congressmen write:
[W]e are deeply committed to fulfilling our role in our constitutional democracy by maintaining the integrity of the People's House. Our absence on the House floor during the oath of office ceremony for the 112th Congress -- while not intentional -- fell short of this standard by creating uncertainty regarding our standing in this body.
Another excerpt reads:
While we immediately took steps to rectify the situation, we understand that our error allowed the integrity of this great legislative body's proceedings to be called into question," they write. "We regret that this incident adversely affected House proceedings and apologize for any individual inconvenience our actions may have caused.PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)
Topics: 2012, Constitution, House of Representatives, Mike Fitzpatrick, Pete Sessions
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart Roasts The House's Reading Of The Constitution (VIDEO)
Jon Stewart
Jon Stewart was excited to hear that the Constitution would be read in its entirety on the House floor yesterday, but he ended up being less pleased with the results.
"Well, you've done it," Stewart said last night. "You've managed to make the reading of one of our nation's most treasured and sacred founding documents and combined it with the efficiency of the DMV and the dramatic chops of family members who demand to be called to the bima during your bat mitzvah."
PERMALINK | COMMENTS | RECOMMEND RECOMMEND (0)Topics: Birther, Constitution, House of Representatives, Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
