Law professor: Impeach Supremes if they overturn Obamacare

posted at 4:30 pm on April 4, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Like conservatives, law professor David R. Dow thinks it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court vote on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate will likely fall along partisan lines — but his disappointment stems from his utter conviction that the individual mandate is constitutional.

He’s so convinced of it that he thinks any Supreme Court justice who votes to overturn Obamacare should be impeached. He cites Thomas Jefferson’s call to impeach Justice Samuel Chase as an historical reminder that impeachment is and should be an option for justices who undermine constitutional values. I agree with him that impeachment of justices is itself constitutional — but what constitutional principles, exactly, would the Supreme Court be undermining if they vote against Obamacare?

Dow’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional is exactly what you would expect: If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do). This argument might make some sense if the activity for which Obamacare mandates insurance was something more than merely existing.

But Dow takes it a step further by arguing that the Constitution doesn’t just grant the federal government the power to regulate commerce, but that it also, in fact, grants the federal government the power to guarantee medical coverage for the poor and to implement a system to pay for it. He writes:

[C]ritics of the health-care law say the only reason the rest of us have to pay for medical services used by people who have no money is that laws require hospitals to treat people who come in for emergencies regardless of their ability to pay. In other words, the critics say, the only reason there is a social cost—the only reason the syllogism works—is because of the underlying laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor.

Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.

You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die. And if the Supreme Court strikes down the health-care law, that is exactly the ideology it will have to embrace. It will be saying that Congress cannot guarantee medical coverage for the poor and then implement a system to pay for it. In other words, the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.

The last time the court went down this path, saner heads prevailed. Oliver Wendell Holmes’s view was historically and constitutionally correct, and the court finally acknowledged this in a pivotal 1937 case, West Coast Hotel v. Parish. In West Coast Hotel, the court ruled that the Constitution safeguards not just individual liberty but community interests as well; and in matters of economics, it is the legislature’s job to strike the appropriate balance between those two. If the Roberts Court overturns the Affordable Care Act, it will be mimicking the discredited court of 1935.

All of this completely ignores that ours is a federalist government, with the powers not expressly granted to the federal government reserved to the states. Nobody has ever argued that the institutional mandate is unconstitutional at the state level — noxious to freedom-loving Americans, perhaps, but not unconstitutional. Ann Coulter famously pointed that out in her eye-opening article, “Three Cheers for Romneycare!” So, Dow might be right that that the Constitution provides government with the power to guarantee medical coverage and to implement a system to pay for it — but that power would exist at the state level. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate that as a power of the federal government — and the Constitution clearly reserves unenumerated powers to the states.

Just as Obama’s statement that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to declare a law unconstitutional was over the top, so, too, is Dow’s suggestion that the Supremes face impeachment if they overturn Obamacare. The nine Supreme Court justices are carefully considering an extremely weighty question and they all clearly take the responsibility seriously. It’s for us, at this point, not to issue premature accusations of judicial activism or calls for impeachment, but to let the Supreme Court justices do their job.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Obamacare was passed on 100% partisan lines to begin with. Not one Republican voted for it and it barely passed by 7 votes with even 34 Democrats voting against it.

America will be just another 3rd world craphole cesspit by the time Democrats are done with us. Which is a misnomer, of course, as Democrats will never be “done” with us. Ever.

FlatFoot on April 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Overturn Obamacare, and then Impeach OBAMA!

lhuffman34 on April 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Unlike silly examples involving broccoli and cell phones, that so-called “bootstrap” argument is sound. But here the critics drop their ideological mask as surely as the court dropped it in the Gonzales ruling. Their argument can be restated thusly: if you repeal laws requiring hospitals to treat the poor, you eliminate the constitutional basis for mandatory insurance coverage.

How much does anyone want to bet that Professor Dow is one of the Progs that argues that defencive medicine costs are insignificant?

Guess how much defencive medicine costs annually…at least?

$60 billion

Guess how much uncompensated emergency care in America adds up to annually?

About $40.7 billion, less than 3% of the country’s total health care spending.

Many private, for-profit hospitals undertake to treat up to 10% of patients for free every year as part of their community service. Law firms, in contrast, set their pro bono goals at 3-5% of total billable hours.

If Obamacare were about the uninsured straining the healthcare system economically, Democrats would have mandated that Americans only be required to carry major medical. Instead, they have demanded that everyone carry a “minimum benefits policy,” which will include asinine coverage for things like gender reassignment, sterilisation, mental health, drug treatment, etc. Some or all of these may be socially beneficial, but that’s not the point. The more that is required in basic policies, the higher the cost for everyone. Further, none of them is going to address ER uninsured visits.

By the way, in contradiction to the assumptions of Obamacare proponents, visits to ERs for expensive treatment for non-emergency conditions increased by 9% after MittCare was enacted in Massachusetts.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Can’t Obama just declare martial law and appoint himself poofter in chief for all eternity?

tom daschle concerned on April 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Well….you tell me Tom.

NapaConservative on April 4, 2012 at 5:51 PM

What a stupid law professor.

Roy Rogers on April 4, 2012 at 5:51 PM

To hell with this liberal dope. Obviously, if this bum had his way there’d be but one branch of government and it would be occupied by the little dictator.

rplat on April 4, 2012 at 5:55 PM

Obama may have actually helped the conservative movement yesterday when he told the Supreme Court that they would uphold the law.

He already knows the conservative justices are gone, but even if you are a liberal justice, how would you like to be made to look like a lapdog of the administration? They may take his speech personally and they have plenty of constitutional ground to rule against him. No one, especially the Supreme Court, wants to be told how they are to vote. The liberal members of the court may vote with the conservatives to spite the president for his, um, audacity. If they vote with him, they get pegged as presidential stooges. I don’t think Obama thought that through very well.

Dow is pretty stupid. Stupid means he doesn’t seem to understand that the house, which would do any impeaching, would never get that far because Republicans are the majority in the house. Overturning a law is not an impeachable offense either. The best I can make out is he’s angry and throwing anything out there. Best not to pay attention to him.

zonataman on April 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

Obama doesn’t need something as drawn out as impeachment. Just like he declared the US Senate in “recess”, he can declare theses Justices “unsuitable” and pick some people who won’t mess up his big plans.

gaius on April 4, 2012 at 5:59 PM

I think I’ll just start calling myself a “law professor.” I mean, why not? If ObaMao and this Dow idiot qualify then apparently so can just about anyone. And, just like ObaMao, I expect everyone to just take my word for it! lol

cicerone on April 4, 2012 at 6:01 PM

Dow should just deem the justices impeached. If it was good enough for the Speaker of the House, why not some lowly law prof?

Exit question: Assuming Obamacare is upheld, should the dissenting justices still be impeached? Have fun explaining that one, chief.

pwh on April 4, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Impeach justices who rule the wrong way.
Provide mental treatment to people who deny global warming.
Send the IRS after conservative non-profits.
Anybody else see a pattern here?

morganfrost on April 4, 2012 at 6:07 PM

A law professor no less gives you an idea how far from reality our educators have fallen and they are in a teaching role, a sad fact.

mixplix on April 4, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Left-wing constitutional law professors — first Obama, then this clown. Ptooey!

Scriptor on April 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM

“All of this completely ignores that ours is a federalist government, with the powers not expressly granted to the federal government reserved to the states.”

Not exactly. I quote the complete amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Owen Glendower on April 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Hilarious, from NRO:

Jonah, this is rich. The author of the piece — one David R. Dow — is listed as both a professor of law and of history. Which is what makes this goof especially hilarious:

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

Salmon P. Chase, at various times governor of Ohio, senator, and treasury secretary before becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was but a twinkle in old Ithamar Chase’s eyes in 1805. He wouldn’t grace the world with his presence until 1808.

The justice Professor Dow is looking for is Samuel Chase. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and chalk this one up to his copy editors?

BTW, David Dow used to be head of the Texas Defender Service, and is a staunch anti-death-penalty advocate. I guess all those cert. denials by SCOTUS have finally gotten to him.

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Pretty Fishy! Sorry, someone had to do it.

Salmon was an interesting character. He was born here in NH but never achieved anything of note in this State. He was born in Cornish, the cool little town which would later become the home of St. Gaudens and J.D. Salinger. As I recall the house he was born in is still standing, but that’s about it.

He was also later a huge hero to the US Coast Guard. They named one of the main buildings at The Academy after him and a USCG Cutter still bears his name.

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Too bad there are other ways to pay for health care, and insurance is not the be-all, end-all of ways to do it. Insurance isn’t even a good way to do it as it gets you too many bureaucrats… which is only a step better than government bureaucrats doing it, and that isn’t hot at all.

How about just paying for it directly?

What about paying for doctors visits before you need them and having vouchers for guaranteed service? What if you did that years before you needed it?

Then there are charity medical care services in which the poor don’t have to pay, although they are asked for what they can afford if they can afford it. Doctors doing free work… why don’t we allow a write-off on taxes for that?

What happens when doctors stop taking insurance and you have to sign a contract not to bring a malpractice suit against them? Low cost and you get all the risk on your own shoulders, wouldn’t that be a good way to do things?

Insurance requires a lot of overhead to process forms,not just at the companies but at the practices, as well. One of my doctors spends approx. 4 hours per week on the phone to the insurance companies on claims… that eats into the practice as well. You would have that and more with any sort of mandatory insurance as fraud would also expect to go up with all those new people on insurance…. insurance is very high cost and high overhead compared to charity, pay as you go, pay ahead (most likely with smaller costs the further ahead you buy), and just simply signing a form not to sue and paying cash on the barrel.

How about we start getting rid of the idea that letting someone else pay for the cost of medical care is a good idea?

ajacksonian on April 4, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Wasn’t this kind of rhetoric totally OK when Newt said it a few months back?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Wasn’t this kind of rhetoric totally OK when Newt said it a few months back?

libfreeordie on April 4, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Please define “Judicial Activism” for our Dining and Dancing Pleasure. And give us some examples of same while you’re at it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2012 at 6:37 PM

How about we start getting rid of the idea that letting someone else pay for the cost of medical care is a good idea?

Yes, and for a beginning–even though it should have been done 20 years ago–let’s make it possible to buy personal health insurance across state lines.

Some states mandate such a high level of coverage that the cheapest policy costs over $1,000 per month. In other states, you can buy catastrophic coverage for less than half that amount…but only if you live in that state. This is preposterous.

Too bad Congress didn’t have the stones to defy the special interests and make this possible 20 years ago. If they had done so, our current–and undeniable–problem with the number of uninsured people in this country would be one hell of a lot smaller.

Owen Glendower on April 4, 2012 at 6:37 PM

In other words, the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it.

Well, duuh!

OldEnglish on April 4, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Liberals just can’t help themselves. First the reconciliation loophole, then the individual mandate, then drone killings, now this? How nearsighted and solipsistic can you be? Do we have to spell it out for you?

THIS IS A PRECEDENT. EVERYTHING IS A PRECEDENT. IF YOU DO SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER BEFORE BEEN DONE, THE PRECEDENT IS SET. IT WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU, PROBABLY WITHIN FOUR YEARS.

HitNRun on April 4, 2012 at 6:43 PM

With professors like this, no wonder there are so many useless stupid lawyers out there.

Where does this idiot teach? I want to make sure my son does not go to that law school.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2012 at 6:49 PM

So, it is ok to impeach a judge, a president, a congressman who is unconstitutional? Then if the law is found unconstitutional, then all of them (the whole shooting match) is impeached? HELL YEAH! Throw the bums out. Wipe DC clean and start over with fresh blood. Move the capitol to the center of the country; as in dead center. Kansas. See how far the finger-in-the-air liberals go there. Wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit. DC sucks.

Molonlabe2004 on April 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM

ROTF,,,,

So Sota-baby thumbs down and he would support impeaching her? Let me guess the answer to that.

Limerick on April 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM

America will be just another 3rd world craphole cesspit by the time Democrats are done with us. Which is a misnomer, of course, as Democrats will never be “done” with us. Ever.

FlatFoot on April 4, 2012 at 5:50 PM

They will be done when the “craphole” is full.

Molonlabe2004 on April 4, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Please define “Judicial Activism” for our Dining and Dancing Pleasure. And give us some examples of same while you’re at it.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2012 at 6:37 PM

Judicial Activism: A neologism crafted by conservative activists within the federalists society to delegitimize judicial decisions that disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution.

Examples: Conservative judicial politics from the mid-70s forward, initially comes to prominence during the school busing struggles.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM

So, it is ok to impeach a judge, a president, a congressman who is unconstitutional? Then if the law is found unconstitutional, then all of them (the whole shooting match) is impeached? HELL YEAH! Throw the bums out. Wipe DC clean and start over with fresh blood. Move the capitol to the center of the country; as in dead center. Kansas. See how far the finger-in-the-air liberals go there. Wouldn’t hurt my feelings one bit. DC sucks.

Molonlabe2004 on April 4, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I like it! If Obummerscare is declared unconstitutional – EVERY congressperson who voted for it and the President who signed it get impeached. Works for me.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Mr. Dow is just another obama-sphincter, emitting noxious fumes.

Pork-Chop on April 4, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Funny, I’m the exact opposite. If they approve the mandate, the SC is dead to me and no longer holds any validity but as a group of 9 robed thugs. I don’t care about impeaching them, thats pointless if they’re voting to uphold the insurance mandate. The best way to fight them is non-compliance, aka nullification.

oryguncon on April 4, 2012 at 7:00 PM

libfreeordie on April 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM

So you’re so biased and ignorant you can’t even use something as simple as google to get a definition?
Here’s just one from http://definitions.uslegal.com/j/judicial-activism/

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges’ own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent “trustees” on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.

Try again libtard – you failed miserably on your first attempt.

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Judicial Activism: A neologism crafted by conservative activists within the federalists society to delegitimize judicial decisions that disagree with their interpretation of the Constitution.

Examples: Conservative judicial politics from the mid-70s forward, initially comes to prominence during the school busing struggles.

But liberals now can use it, which makes it OK.

libfreeordie on April 4, 2012 at 6:54 PM

I added the last part. It was curiously omitted.

Chuck Schick on April 4, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Comrade Obamov does not appreciate judicial or legislative “interference” when he is carrying out his role as self-appointed lawgiver.

cicerone on April 4, 2012 at 7:05 PM

And if they uphold it conservatives will be screaming about being ruled over by unelected judges. I’ve heard these same arguments made here by conservative commenters.

Two sides of the same coin, both extreme, reactionary, absolutely partisan, unbalanced, and wrong.

Boomer_Sooner on April 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM

dentarthurdent on April 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM

And this is the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.:

“Judicial philosophy which motivates judges to depart from strict adherence to judicial precedent in favor of progressive and new social policies which are not always consistent with the restraint expected of appellate judges. It is commonly marked by decisions calling for social engineering and occasionally these decisions represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.”

Sounds terribly conservative to me…

//

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Ann took a lot of heat from misguided fellow Conservatives for pointing out the obvious: at the STATE level there was nothing in RomneyCare that violates the Constitution.

On her official chat board I ended up endlessly debating that with many of her long time followers who were claiming she’d ‘lost her mind’ or something.

manofaiki on April 4, 2012 at 7:19 PM

Erich66 on April 4, 2012 at 7:09 PM

School busing and Roe v Wade come immediately to mind.

OldEnglish on April 4, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Try it! I dare you!

Glenn Jericho on April 4, 2012 at 7:38 PM

This Dow guy is a fool of the kind only academia can produce.

Pretty much a fisking of his column here.

Just keep in mind the last thing this Dow clown says:

Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.

And its counterpoint by Bill Pitt Jr.:

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.

CPL 310 on April 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Law professor: Impeach Supremes if they overturn Obamacare

No. Impeach this law instructor/ community organizer when he continues his abuses of power.

petefrt on April 4, 2012 at 8:18 PM

All of this completely ignores that ours is a federalist government, with the powers not expressly granted to the federal government reserved to the states. Nobody has ever argued that the institutional mandate is unconstitutional at the state level — noxious to freedom-loving Americans, perhaps, but not unconstitutional. Ann Coulter famously pointed that out in her eye-opening article, “Three Cheers for Romneycare!” So, Dow might be right that that the Constitution provides government with the power to guarantee medical coverage and to implement a system to pay for it — but that power would exist at the state level. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate that as a power of the federal government — and the Constitution clearly reserves unenumerated powers to the states.

Sound analysis. RomneyCare is unquestionably noxious, and Romney’s enthusiasm for it should be a disqualification for any further public service.

But it does not violate the U.S. Constitution per se, because the Constitution does not address such things on the state level. For a voter looking at Romney’s record, that might be cold comfort. For SCOTUS, which is actually concerned with the Constitutionality of the law, it’s vitally important.

tom on April 4, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Maybe I missed it. Tell me where it says you can impeach USSC justices.

But I know where it says we can impeach Øbama.

Bring it.

petefrt on April 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM

So, if the vote is 6-3 to overturn, or heavens, 7-2 or higher, does that mean the impeachment mandate applies to the lefty supremes as well?

stukinIL4now on April 4, 2012 at 8:42 PM

So, not only does it appear this clown professor perhaps have some inside info passed on to him from the WH or some SCOTUS leaker, but perhaps he’s also fishing for a court appointment from Obama, should something open up before his term is up.

drfredc on April 4, 2012 at 8:47 PM

It would be interesting to see if the Feds could make me buy auto insurance if I have a driver’s license. I think not because
a) the license is issued by a State
b) I don’t have to utilize federal highways
c) I don’t have to own a car (States only require the purchase of insurance for those who own a car and drive it on public roads).

Robbin Hood on April 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM

Volokh has some egg-on-face on this one:

http://volokh.com/2012/04/04/judicial-activism-for-me-but-not-for-thee/

MilesLibertatis on April 4, 2012 at 8:53 PM

The only justice who is deserving of impeachment is Kagan who failed to recuse herself; an act in clear violation of statute given that she wrote the defense for Obamacare while she was a public employee.

AZfederalist on April 4, 2012 at 9:08 PM

With a small handful of exceptions, my professors left me with the impression that the statement is true:

‘Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’

avgjo on April 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM

Well….you tell me Tom.

NapaConservative on April 4, 2012 at 5:51 PM

That would be a bit of a constitutional hurdle for the bamster. My guess is that he and the racist black caucus are intentionally inciting retribution over Trayvon Williams incident to declare martial law.

antipc on April 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM

antipc on April 4, 2012 at 9:25 PM

Haven’t you heard, it’s now spelled Trayvon™®©.

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM

I graduated from UH Law Center and know Professor Dow. He’s relatively popular among the law students – it’s a law school after all, and every bit as liberal as you’d think it is despite being in Texas (in fact, Houston is a relatively liberal city overall).

I couldn’t stand the guy. He’s one of those profs who knows he’s well-liked and that nothing will happen to him if he acts like a liberal tool, and so he always feels free to interject his bias into the curriculum.

Needless to say, that kind of crap isn’t what I thought I was paying for when I signed up.

Good school for the cost, though. I was able to translate my JD into a solid partner level position in seven years. Conservatives shouldn’t have to put up with that though, it’s just wrong.

Blacksheep on April 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM

With a small handful of exceptions, my professors left me with the impression that the statement is true:

‘Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’

avgjo on April 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM

And those who can’t teach, teach others how to teach.

Didn’t want to leave your aphorism imcomplete….

;-)

cane_loader on April 4, 2012 at 10:04 PM

‘Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’

avgjo on April 4, 2012 at 9:22 PM

And those who can’t do or teach become critics.

farsighted on April 4, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Maybe I missed it. Tell me where it says you can impeach USSC justices.

But I know where it says we can impeach Øbama.

Bring it.

petefrt on April 4, 2012 at 8:27 PM

U.S. Constitution

Article II, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office. The President, Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.

Any convicted by impeachment is immediately removed from office. The Senate may also choose to bar the removed official from holding any federal office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.

Article III, Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Resist We Much on April 4, 2012 at 10:31 PM

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2012 at 9:29 PM

My bad, I don’t generally seek the enlightenment of the LSM.

antipc on April 4, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Simple, this falls under the “give me liberty, or give me free s^^t” amendment.

southsideironworks on April 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Actually I think it’s……

“Keep the liberty, just give me the free $h!+”

and what time was American Idol on again?

VikingGoneWild on April 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM

AZfederalist on April 4, 2012 at 9:08 PM

“IMPEACH EARL WARREN ELENA KAGAN!”

sixties flashback . . .

BigAlSouth on April 5, 2012 at 6:20 AM

Dow’s argument that the individual mandate is constitutional is exactly what you would expect: If you are going to voluntarily do something (e.g. drive a car), the government can make you purchase a product (e.g. insurance) provided it has a good reason for doing so (e.g. making sure you can pay for any damage you do). This argument might make some sense if the activity for which Obamacare mandates insurance was something more than merely existing.

So, if I choose to not own a car and choose to ride my bike or take public transportation instead I’ll still be forced to buy auto insurance to help cover the costs of other auto driver’s or be fined like the way Obamacare works?

Cherokee on April 5, 2012 at 8:07 AM

And you professor, can stick it in your ear, or the orifice of your choice.

rplat on April 5, 2012 at 8:17 AM

Resist We Much on April 4, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Thanks!

petefrt on April 5, 2012 at 8:34 AM


It was 1830, and Andrew Jackson, the founder of the Democratic Party, had signed the “Indian Removal Act of 1830.” The Democrats were pretty rattled that the heathens had prospered, especially the “Five Civilized Tribes.” The Trail Of Tears it was dubbed, for after the Supreme Court had ordered Jackson to stand down, the Army marched in and literally stole everything the “Five Civilized Tribes” had built (These tribes were the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee-Creek, and Seminole).” Article from The American Thinker website (4/5/12).

Cherokee on April 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM

“You don’t have to pull the analytical thread of that reasoning very hard to see that it boils down to an argument for allowing the poor to die.”

If this professor would come out of his ivory tower every now and then, he’d know that the poor already have, or are eligible for, health care insurance. Hey prof, ever heard of Medicaid? In my state, it includes dental and vision, something a lot of plans that cover those of us who actually work for our coverage, do not.

It’s too bad we can’t impeach tenured moonbat professors and make them come out here and work for a living.

Russ in OR on April 5, 2012 at 8:59 AM

If there’s a serious movement afoot to impeach Obama, let’s remember 1999. There simply weren’t enough Republicans in the Senate to kick Clinton out. I’m not really fond of the Senate having the power to remove the President from office, such a move would seemingly always be split down party lines unless the alleged crimes were heinous enough to disgust enough people in the President’s own party. (And even THEN they might hold their nose and vote “innocent”, if the price was right.)

I know changing the law would be tricky, what with the delicate system of checks and balances and all that. I initially thought the Supreme Court should determine the president’s fate… but since the president appoints the SCOTUS justices, he’d just stack the deck in his favor before doing any shenanigans. I guess I’m just wishing there was a way we could “politics-proof” the impeachment process.

TMOverbeck on April 5, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Is that Dow guy actually an attorney? Because while he throws Jefferson & Samuel Chase’s names around to allegedly bolster his argument, the facts do the opposite. Chase’s impeachment (he was later acquitted in the Senate)was in the early 1800s and actually led to the setting of limits on impeachment powers (bribery, treason & other high crimes & misdemeanors are the only thing you can be impeached for) AND, in fact, strengthened the independence of the judiciary (i.e., you can’t impeach a judge because you don’t like the way he rules — IOW, the exact opposite of what Dow is advocating).

How these people are even able to put their pants on in the morning without help, much less be allowed to influence the masses, many of whom have no legal expertise, is mind-boggling to me.

Dark Star on April 5, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Bring on the impeachment proceedings! It will be a great show. I can’t wait to watch lawyers, congressmen, and senators exposing their beliefs and watching the blood spilled.

itsspideyman on April 5, 2012 at 10:19 AM

I graduated from UH Law Center and know Professor Dow. He’s relatively popular among the law students – it’s a law school after all, and every bit as liberal as you’d think it is despite being in Texas (in fact, Houston is a relatively liberal city overall).

I couldn’t stand the guy. He’s one of those profs who knows he’s well-liked and that nothing will happen to him if he acts like a liberal tool, and so he always feels free to interject his bias into the curriculum.

Needless to say, that kind of crap isn’t what I thought I was paying for when I signed up.

Good school for the cost, though. I was able to translate my JD into a solid partner level position in seven years. Conservatives shouldn’t have to put up with that though, it’s just wrong.

Blacksheep on April 4, 2012 at 9:32 PM

The moon-battery described to me by my children from their college professors made me regret the money I sent to send them to school. And this was allegedly a “christian college” mind you.

The entire education system in this country is a grand farce, and conservative children are viciously attacked by it.

SilverDeth on April 5, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Dow might be right that that the Constitution provides government with the power to guarantee medical coverage and to implement a system to pay for it — but that power would exist at the state level. Nowhere does the Constitution enumerate that as a power of the federal government — and the Constitution clearly reserves unenumerated powers to the states. (Emphasis supplied)

Might be right? Please. He would be absolutely right if, like Coulter, he directed his argument to the states. The only restrictions on governmental authority are those found in the constitution, mostly in the amendments. Those amendments do not restrict the states from requiring insurance so the states can require insurance if their constitutions do not block that power.

This business that the court has not acted in nearly a century to reign in congressional commerce clause activity proves only that such action is long overdue. It’s high time that pendulum starts to swing the other way. We are well on our way to 20 trillion examples.

EconomicNeocon on April 5, 2012 at 10:41 AM

IMPEACH OBASTARD for violating his Oath of Office, TO PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!

Colatteral Damage on April 5, 2012 at 5:06 PM

They, meaning the lefties, better watch their mouths and shut up or the wrath of law will descend upon them and all records will be opened to the Supreme Court, the FBI, CIA and Congress and the whole mess will be carted out of power and some will end up in jail.

mixplix on April 6, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Comment pages: 1 2