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
I argued
a few days ago that the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s
insurance mandate reflects the anarchist-libertarian proclivities of its
principal theorist, Randy Barnett. But this
invites an obvious objection. The
challenge to the mandate is a freestanding argument. It does not expressly rely on its author’s
other views. Why think that there is any
relation between the two?
One important bit
of evidence comes from the questions that three Justices saw fit to ask at the
oral argument in March. Those questions
each presumed that something like Barnett’s philosophical views can be read
into the Constitution – and that there is a serious danger that they will
decide this case by relying on those views.
That is very bad news for anyone who is neither healthy nor rich.
You can read the rest of this post on Salon.com, here.
Incidentally, I'd like to acknowledge here the assistance of my friend and colleague Steve Lubet, who, in conversation, coined the term "tough luck libertarianism." It is, I think, an important contribution to the taxonomy of political theory. Not all libertarianism is tough luck libertarianism. Hayek and Friedman, for example, had no problem with redistribution. Neither would be welcome in today's Republican Party.