Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.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
Bernard Harcourt harcourt at uchicago.edu
Scott Horton shorto 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 princeton.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.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
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Charlie Savage informs me that a website, Lawyer News and Information, lifted the entire text of my Newt Gingrich post and republished it without my permission. As a result, a copy of the post is preserved here, even though Blogger ate the original yesterday due to a malfunction.
For the time being at least, I do not intend to sue. ;-) Unauthorized appropriation of intellectual property has pulled Blogger's chestnuts out of the fire.
But wait, am I violating the copyright laws by deliberately linking to a post that is a willful infringement of copyright and sending my readers there? Probably not-- after all, it is my copyright. But what the hell, I'll just copy the post from the infringing site myself and violate (my own) copyright a second time. And if Lawyer News and Information then wants to send me a demand letter, I think it would be very interesting litigation.
* * * * *
Newt Gingrich and the activity/inactivity distinction
What gives? Well, let Ed Haislmaier of the Heritage Foundation try to explain it for you:
Ed Haislmaier, a health care policy expert at the Heritage Foundation (the conservative think tank that first championed the mandate), said he did not have enough information to comment on Gingrich’s past approach to health care reform. Haislmaier did, however, note that there is a distinction between taxing individuals for not buying insurance and requiring them to post a bond, as Gingrich proposed. While the former is a penalty for not getting coverage, “what [the latter] is saying is you have to pay your bills if you get care,” he said.
A bond, as Haislmaier noted, is exactly what Romney initially proposed while he was governor of Massachusetts. Romney ended up signing off on a more traditional mandate only after it was passed by the state legislature.
OK, but requiring people to post a bond (rather than pay a tax) if they don’t purchase health insurance is regulating inactivity, too, isn’t it? I mean, as I understand the constitutional challenge to the health care bill, the person who is forced to post a bond because they won’t buy insurance isn’t doing anything, right? And, to quote my friend Randy Barnett, isn’t such a proposal an “unprecedented”expansion of the commerce power? Posted
by JB [link]