Posts tagged supreme court

The most important reason for everyone to vote in two words: Supreme Court
VOTE!

The most important reason for everyone to vote in two words: Supreme Court

VOTE!

Per Bluman v. FEC, Romney should be disqualified as a candidate for taking money from foreign donors on foreign soil.

But don’t take my word for it.

Let’s ask the Supreme Court and their 9-0 decision in Bluman v. Federal Election Commission:

(a) Prohibition

It shall be unlawful for —

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make —

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;

(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or

(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434(f)(3)of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph 

(A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

2 U.S.C. § 441e(a).[fn2] The statute continues to define “foreign national” to include all foreign citizens except those who have been admitted as lawful permanent residents. Id. § 441e(b).

President Obama Speaks on Health Reform

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act ensures hard-working, middle class families will get the security they deserve and protects every American from the worst insurance company abuses. June 28, 2012.

Register to vote | Volunteer | Contribute

FLASHBACK: Bill O’Reilly In March: He’ll “Apologize For Being An Idiot” If Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform.

Hey Bill, we’re still waiting.

Thinking about not voting this year? It’s the Supreme Court, stupid.

Thinking about not voting this year? It’s the Supreme Court, stupid.

The Supreme Court can legitimately overturn Obamacare?” asks a headline on the French news site 9 POK . The article slowly walks through the legal rationale behind the court’s right to wipe away Congress’s legislation. “Sans précédent, extraordinaires” reads the article. In the German edition of The Financial Times, Sabine Muscat is astonished at Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument that if the government can mandate insurance, it can also require people to eat broccoli. “Absurder Vergleich” reads the article’s kicker, which in English translates to, “Absurd Comparison.” In trying to defeat the bill, Muscat writes, Scalia is making a “strange analogy [to] vegetables.
Obamacare on Trial: Case of the Century?
Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance, weaken the coverage for tens of millions more, and alter one-sixth of the economy. In those respects, obviously, it would be a highly consequential decision. But such a ruling could also have have far-reaching legal effects, the kind Bush v. Gore did not. At least in theory, the court could use this case to redefine the boundaries of federal power, in a way that the courts have not done in nearly a century.
What are the limits of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Defenders of the law claim that the individual mandate, which requires most non-poor people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, falls within its power to regulate commerce among the states. A long line of precedents suggests the defenders of the law are right.
Critics of the law suggest that the commerce power does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” which is their term for declining to obtain insurance for future medical expenses. A majority of justices could decide to adopt that reasoning. But, if they do, the justices will be drawing a distinction that the court has never recognized before.
What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so.
What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so. Here, too, the government has the power of precedent on its side.

Obamacare on Trial: Case of the Century?

Rejecting the Affordable Care Act could deprive 30 million people of health insurance, weaken the coverage for tens of millions more, and alter one-sixth of the economy. In those respects, obviously, it would be a highly consequential decision. But such a ruling could also have have far-reaching legal effects, the kind Bush v. Gore did not. At least in theory, the court could use this case to redefine the boundaries of federal power, in a way that the courts have not done in nearly a century.

What are the limits of the federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce? Defenders of the law claim that the individual mandate, which requires most non-poor people to obtain insurance or pay a penalty, falls within its power to regulate commerce among the states. A long line of precedents suggests the defenders of the law are right.

Critics of the law suggest that the commerce power does not extend to regulating “inactivity,” which is their term for declining to obtain insurance for future medical expenses. A majority of justices could decide to adopt that reasoning. But, if they do, the justices will be drawing a distinction that the court has never recognized before.

What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so.

What are the limits of the “necessary and proper” clause? The commerce clause isn’t the only place in the constitution the government claims to find authority for the mandate. It also cites the “necessary and proper” clause. Specifically, the government claims that the mandate is “necessary” for carrying out its plan to regulate the price of health insurance (a goal even the law’s critics recognize is, by itself, legitimate) and a “proper” means for doing so. Here, too, the government has the power of precedent on its side.