Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Why the Affordable Care Act is Not Settled Law
|
Thursday, October 03, 2013
Why the Affordable Care Act is Not Settled Law
Gerard N. Magliocca
Here is my op-ed in the Washington Post.
Comments:
You could at least point out that an argument that a law is illegitimate because legislative chicanery allowed it to be enacted by simple majority rule is asinine.
"[I]t is not illegitimate for Republicans to use every lawful means at their disposal to stand in its way" is too dodgy. One can use every legitimate and lawful means to reverse any policy one opposes, no matter how "settled" it has been. `Separate but equal' was pretty well settled, scarcely challenged until Shelley v. Kraemer. Legitimate means then included civil disobedience since the Jim Crow laws were in such blatant disregard of the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and the duty to guarantee equal protection - a failure which the settled doctrine of the United States Supreme Court long accommodated. Even post-war in Sweatt v. Painter the Court merely said that the `equal' node of `separate but equal' should be heeded.
A more appropriate question for this moment is `Is it responsible to disrupt normal non-germane government operations as a wedge to gain an agreement to de facto amend or repeal a law that reforms the health insurance system and expands federal subsidies for those whose income is so low that the private market cannot accommodate them?' To that I suggest the answer is NO - even if you believe that such subsidies and intervention in the health care market are bad policy.
Agreed, at one time "separate but equal" was as settled as law gets, and yet, here we are. The concept of "settled law" is of no value.
And to that, the answer is yes, it is perfectly appropriate to use such tactics to abolish a law which is destroying the health care financing system, and having numerous other horrible effects advocates gloss over.
Brett says:
"And to that, the answer is yes, it is perfectly appropriate to use such tactics to abolish a law which is destroying the health care financing system, and having numerous other horrible effects advocates gloss over." Perhaps Brett can detail: (1) exactly how Obamacare is destoying the health care financing system [insurance industry] and (2) the other horrible effects advocates gloss over. Just saying doesn't make it so. Gerard is in the process of hyping his recently published book with an Op-Ed on what may be his next book. At Concurring Opinions Gerard frequently comes up with streams of consciousness posts on possible book subjects he may be considering, hoping - sometimes beyond hope - that one sticks - his latest being on what is "settled law," the subject of his Op-Ed. As I recall, there wasn't much sticking on his posts on Concurring Opinions on just what is settled law. Justice Sutherland is another recent recurring subject of Gerard's posts at Concurring Opinions that may prompt a future Op-Ed as Gerard pumps his new book on John Bingham. Realizing how busy it must be for a tenured constitutional law professor just preparing for and teaching students, Gerard's multi-tasking is amazing. Whether or not Obamacare is settled or unsettled, maybe Gerard needs a Zantac - presumably available under Obamacare. {I am aware that Zantac is available over the counter and doesn't work on sarcasm.]
Gerard:
More than half of Americans are opposed. But even more critically, congressional Republicans have withheld their stamp of approval. I would switch the emphasis here. The reason both Roe and Obaamcare are unsettled is because they do not have majority to supermajority support of the voters. The Republicans are responding to their constituents. After getting shellacked in the 2008 election, large swaths of congressional Republicans were ready to join or simply stand aside while the Democrats enacted Obamacare. What changed the GOP position was the rise of the Tea Party rebellion raising hell at town hall meetings and eventually by assembling hundreds of thousands outside the capital. Once again, there are large swaths of congressional Republicans ready to fund the President's preferred government. The GOP solidarity in demanding changes is born of fear of constituents that have been melting down their phones and servers demanding they do what they were elected to do. The anti-abortion, civil rights and anti-slavery movements similarly challenged the unsettled laws of their days. If the people do not care, their elected representatives will take the path of least political resistance.
The Daily Beastinadvertently reported on the dilemma faced by a GOP establishment caught between its power brokers and its voters during the Obamacare wars.
Imagine that! The voters are actually driving the train in one of our political parties for once in our democratic republic.
Imagine that! The voters are actually driving the train in one of our political parties for once in our democratic republic.
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 10:28 AM Too bad for you clowns that it's the minority of voters who are in favor of this stupidity.
Hell, not even a majority of Republicans approve of this stupidity.
"Do you approve or disapprove of partially shutting down the government over differences about the 2010 health care law?" Approve Disapprove Unsure/ No answer % % % ALL 25 72 3 Republicans 48 49 3 Democrats 12 86 2 Independents 21 76 3 http://www.pollingreport.com/budget.htm
BB:
The GOP did not shut down the government and its voters are blaming the other side. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57605822/poll-americans-not-happy-about-shutdown-more-blame-gop/ Get past the CBS spin and go to the actual data.
Blankshot, I posted actual polling data. Not even a majority of Republicans are happy with what you dumbfucks have done.
Did you even read that article? It destroys you.
Interesting. Particularly the question about compromise: 61 percent of DEMOCRATS think the President and Democrats should compromise, rather than sticking to their guns.
BB:
Once again, bypass the CBS Democrat media spin, go straight to the data and think for yourself. As I predicted, Republicans and Democrats are blaming the other party and the Indis are blaming both. The Democrat position is far worse than in 1995 after which the voters reelected the GOP Congress and Clinton then signed of on the GOP balanced budget plan. The GOP cannot politically lose this standoff so long as they continue to do what their voters demand.
Blankshot, read the polling numbers for blame. They don't support the idiocy you are posting in here.
44% blame Republicans 35% blame Democrats Only in some loony alternative universe is that good news for you.
BB:
The only folks the GOP needs to be concerned with are the voters who elect them. No one else matters politically.
Yes, assuming you plan to never control the Senate or White House again those are really great poll numbers for you.
BB:
If (unlike in 2012) the voters show up in the majority of the House districts held by the GOP, the Republicans will take the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016. Of course, those voters will not show up if the GOP is not working on their behalf.
Democrats have already compromised by cutting spending as part of the CR that was sent back to the House.
Giving in to extortionists/jihadis is no way of governing. Using the budget process to get what you couldn't achieve legislatively, electorally or legally makes the US ungovernable.
Agreeing to continue last year's sequester slowdown of the increase in federal spending is not a spending cut.
Congress has not actually cut spending since Eisenhower.
Only in the mind of an extortionist/economic terrorist can the Democrats saying "I'd prefer to have spending at $X, but I'll agree to spending at $Y" (where X > Y) not be considered compromise. But then again the ability to lie to oneself such that this is a "Democrat shutdown" is at the key feature of the extortionist's/terrorist's nihilistic world view.
Unknown appears not to be aware of the special definition of "compromise" here wherein Dems are trying to get everything they want unless they agree to "x" -- "x" being an open variable.
The wingnut version of compromise is "give us everything we want and we won't blow up the economy until we want something else."
mushr00m:
"You could at least point out that an argument that a law is illegitimate because legislative chicanery allowed it to be enacted by simple majority rule is asinine." And it wasn't even a 'simple majority'; it got 60% of the Senate.
then included civil disobedience since the Jim Crow laws were in such blatant disregard of the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment and the duty to guarantee equal protection - a failure which the settled doctrine of the United States Supreme Court long accommodated. Even post-war in Sweatt v. Painter the Court merely said that the `equal' node of `separate but equal' should be heeded. Cheap LOL Boosting lol欧服代练 Buy LOL Boosting
Post a Comment
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |