constitutional interpretation
Dahlia Lithwick and Adam Liptak have good articles about yesterday's oral argument in Bond v. U.S. The substantive issue of the case is whether a law implementing the 1993 Chemical.
D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler issued the latest ruling, reinforcing the partisan trend. Her opinion is a very solid piece of work, and provides a good account of the.
I have an article up at the Prospect on the hot new trend in arguments that policies that Republicans supported until Obama started supporting them represent a massive threat to.
Group A: People who argue that the individual mandate in the ACA is unconstitutional because it must be unconstitutional to force people to "purchase a private product" irrespective of its.
There's a lot of egregious hackery in Vinson's opinion yesterday. The Wall Street Journal has crossed some of Vinson's hackery with some of its own. I'm not sure if this.
As expected, Vinson struck down the mandate, and also argued that it couldn't be severed. My initial thoughts are up on TAPPED. The short version is that it probably doesn't.
I have some thoughts inspired by Jon Cohn's article about constitutional challenges to the ACA. The short version is that I doubt that even a scenario where the Supreme Court.
I remember when I used to joke about Republicans bringing back Hammer v.Dagenhart. [Update: more explanation here.] Senator Mike Lee provides the punchline himself. It's worth mentioning here that, Lee's claims.