The Health Care Bill and Judicial Review

With the momentous signing of the Health Care Bill taking place not all that long ago, a whole host of legal challenges are waiting in the shadows, the most prominent of which is a group of state attorneys claiming that they will challenge the law. Another set of challenges will likely come from the states that pass laws that invalidate the health care legislation within their borders. I figured it might be interesting to collect and organize some information as to whether or not any of these claims may or may not have merit.

Lawsuits will likely challenge the law through the Tenth Amendment, claiming that the bill does not adequately fit within Article I Section 8 of Congress' power, primarily addressing the mandated insurance. Does Congress have the power under its ability to regulate interstate to mandate the public to purchase health insurance? Probably... It all depends if you consider health care part of interstate commerce. I read a few articles from those who believe it is not. They basically argued that 1) health care transactions rarely, if ever, take place in multiple states; and 2) that health care isn't traditionally a commodity that can be considered to be part of commerce. I would disagree, but the argument has a bit of merit. I don't see the Court overturning this law via that route. They've upheld crazier laws under the commerce clause (see Wickard v. Filburn which basically says that Congress can regulate anything as long as it has the slightest impact on interstate commerce). As for the states trying to nullify the law by passing legislation... it ain't the 1850s anymore. I guess they just don't believe in the Supremacy Clause. I also had a time where I didn't believe in Santa Clause, so I won't blame them.

Health Care Bill and Politics

I've seen a multitude of responses to the health care bill. On Facebook, a person was preaching how the American people are willing to always fight for what they believe in and will never give up. Stupid me... I thought she was in favor of the bill. Or... I generally responded to my friends with a high five. Good enough.

Whatever the response, I believe that passage of the bill makes this upcoming election far more interesting. If it didn't pass, I felt the Democrats were going to get beat up pretty badly in the midterm election. They may still get beat badly, but the health bill could help a great deal if the media coverage goes well. I've already noticed that it came off quite favorably during the ABC special report I received after it passed. It's difficult to claim that stopping insurance companies from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions is a bad thing (same goes for letting children stay on their parents' plan until they're 26). A Republican just won't likely look great telling that information to large groups of people. I see Republicans trying to play down the bill in the upcoming elections and Democrats doing the opposite. Either way, this was a major win for Obama in particular. I can't see him losing the next presidential campaign after this.

The Lumina Lives

Coming this summer, the new, HD DVD equipped, Chevy Lumina! Two classic products, coming back in one fantastic product! Get one today!

The Federalist Papers

Last night, I finally made it to Federalist paper No. 1. I started reading the book a few weeks ago. I've taken my time making it through the introduction which is extraordinarily long. Moreover, I've only been reading the book before bed and even for a future law student the read is slow. However, the first entry, written by Hamilton, I feel is an adequate window into political arguments today.

Federalist paper No. 1 is an introduction to the arguments that will be made over the series. If you're unfamiliar with the Federalist papers (which I won't make you feel bad about because I couldn't have told you precisely the arguments made until I read this), it begins with a criticism of the Articles of Confederation and then a defense of the new Constitution. It's a bit more complicated than that, but this description will do for now.

Now, to take a small break, I recently read an article about how the Tea Party is bringing a debate about the Constitution and Originalism to the forefront of American political discourse (big words big words big words). Basically, people are actually talking about what makes our country... well... our country. That two-hundred-some-year-old piece of paper all of the sudden may have meaning again to the general public.

In a way, I'm glad that that people may start thinking about government and the founding fathers. However, I hope that if and when this discussion takes place, people actually do a little research about it. I imagine that the typical hype will be over the first ten amendments (which generally people can name standing on their head), but I want people to look further than high school civics if possible. I don't want people to assume that they understand the (for example) Second Amendment just because they know what it says. People need to understand why it was written to begin with. The Federalist Papers would be a good start.

Public schools and food

My coworker, Emily, wrote a great blog post yesterday regarding school lunch in Minneapolis public schools. You can find it here. Moreover, I also spent a bit of time reading a TIME Magazine article about school lunches in Paris, France and you can find that here. The two articles don't cover the same topic, so don't skip either if you have an opinion about what America's students are putting in their bodies. However, I did see a connection between the two that spoke to me as an educator and purveyor of goodness (just thought of that, woo!). Our school lunches are not helping our students build healthy eating habits. Now, I hate to judge too much, because my school also had school lunches that were relatively unhealthy (at least they could be). However, I should have learned how to eat healthy and take care of myself in school. That's a school's job. To teach. To prepare. I've spent five years slowly adjusting my eating habits to be healthier. I'm not done with that plan yet, but I've made headway. However, I feel I'm a bit of anomaly when it comes to self improvement (anomaly... not the only one). I am consistently trying to improve myself in ways that I see fit without any external pressure. I'm trying to eat healthier, but no doctor has talked to me about my cholesterol or heart rate. That's just me. Not every student is like that and they will continue their bad eating habits for far longer than they should.

With that in mind, the TIME article explores the school lunches of Paris and finds that their approach to meals is treating the meal with respect. By that I mean that their children take time everyday to enjoy a meal with multiple courses; the food is prepared with quality ingredients and the school suggests what should be eaten for dinner to supplement the lunch. That's a big step above the cheese sticks our students eat every two weeks. We don't need to copy the model set in Paris, but I'd love to see our students to love some delicious, non-processed foods. I think students deserve a chance to have vegetables that taste good without ranch. I don't expect this to happen, but hopefully someday we'll face up to it.

Intelligent Inquiry: Let me play Scrabble while I drive... It's in the Constitution

Lawmakers Consider Tougher Distracted Driving Rules
From MPR

Driving while texting is dangerous. I've done it. Not often, but I have. I've never thought it to be safe. I don't even like talking on the phone while I drive. A number of times, I've ended a conversation with someone while using an on ramp because I know I can't focus enough while on the phone. Bravo Minnesota legislature.

However, I have a few questions. Like... why wait until 2010 to enact a law like this. Oh yeah, cell phones were so much safer 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 years ago. Moreover, what about eating, reading, and insert activity here in cars? Legislation probably already exists, but still... just now cell phones are a risk. I'm so glad that our legislature is on the ball.

I feel like these sort of obvious issues are the only thing the two parties can ever agree on anymore. Issues that are so obviously a problem that only Hitler could possible oppose the passage. However, leave even the smallest room for contention and the whole thing blows up. I'm surprised a right to clean your gun while driving isn't being included in the bill. "Oh... second amendment... blah blah... founder's intent... I was at new country con 1781 dude..." I suppose I should get over the way modern politics play out, but maybe I shouldn't. Maybe none of us should. I don't know about the rest of my readers, but I get really sick of nothing getting done. I get sick of hearing the same damn story every year about how the MN state legislature is going to need extra time to figure out our state budget. It's gotten old, and I'm not old. Although, if I continue caring about this, I will probably considerably shorten my life and therefore, I am potentially rounding out the end of my life right at this very moment.

Water or Ice?

I learned a new game the other night as I took a run. Yuki was spending time with our neighbor, so only I shoved off for a good jog. I left about 7PM, and given that I'm a thinker, I began thinking about ways to pass the time. Well, eventually the sidewalk taught me its own game... water or ice? I was amused by the idea of this game because not only is it entertaining, but it also has depth. See, as you run, you are obviously trying to guess whether or not the patch of H2O you're coming upon is water or ice. The complexity comes in when you realize that in some situations you want it to be ice, and in others you want water. For instance, you see a thick layer of what you believe is ice. Oops! That was actually water! Now your shoe is wet. In the other case, you may see a thin later on the sidewalk that shines in the moon/street light. Oh goodness, you better pray it's water. The game can only be played at night and you must live in a neighborhood where only a maximum of 75% of the sidewalks are cleared. I only lost the game a few times (more on the water side than ice...), but overall it was fun. Actually, that was a lie. I took a shorter run than I wanted to simply because I had to play the game. Now, for those who read to the end of the post, you get to find out that I've been accepted to Hamline law school and William Mitchell law school. All in the same day. No word of scholarship of William Mitchell, but Hamline is doing me a favor the same way that John Marshall would. I need to look at their programs before I make any decisions. Water or ice?

Intelligent Inquiry: The Definition of Psycho

Supreme Court To Hear Chicago Gun Rights Case : NPR

I'm against concealable weapons. There, my bias is out of the way. I don't thing that the Constitutional grounds for banning firearms is solid for either side (for or against), but if there was ever a compelling reason to continue banning them; this guy (Otis McDonald) wins:
"who grew up on a farm in Louisiana shooting rabbits and squirrels. McDonald says he now wants a handgun to fend off youngsters in his Chicago neighborhood."
So, a man who used to shoot small animals wants a handgun so he can shoot at kids.

In a way, I don't even care to talk about the Constitutional issue at hand. Even though it includes so many of my favorite topics: incorporation, federalism, and personal liberty. In the article, Alan Gura, McDonald's attorney, argued "if you can buy contraceptives and that's your way of extending your personal security, then one must assume that the right to buy a handgun for defense purposes is also going to be secured as an aspect of liberty." I don't know what kind of lawyer this guy is, but he's trying to pull a false comparison on... well I don't know... but in this case the reader/listener. For it to be true, pregnancy would have to somehow be comparable to death (which for some, I guess it may be). In any case, Mr. Gura would be remiss if he played that card at today's oral arguments.