tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post1191310622787290620..comments2024-03-15T03:16:46.386-04:00Comments on Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist: ObamaCare Lynchpin is UnconstitutionalThe Constructivisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07242149985581771922noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-4511031485407710652011-01-27T10:37:53.898-05:002011-01-27T10:37:53.898-05:00Dear Objectivist,
My name is Bill Hawthorne and I...Dear Objectivist,<br /><br />My name is Bill Hawthorne and I am a political blogger. Just had a question about your blog and couldn’t find an email—please get back to me as soon as you can (barbaraobrien(at)maacenter.org)<br /><br />Thanks,<br />BillBill Hawthornehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17899793626412072727noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-59185902063852773982011-01-12T10:45:45.436-05:002011-01-12T10:45:45.436-05:00FDR doesn't get the credit for the massive har...FDR doesn't get the credit for the massive harm he caused to the Constitution that he deserves. His attempt to regulate the U.S. economy and the Supreme Court's approval involved a wholesale rewriting of the Constitution. I wonder if the rest of the world views Justice Owen Roberts (switch in time saves nine - although not obviously correct) as a Constitutional disaster.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-10393630231837808052011-01-12T10:41:49.309-05:002011-01-12T10:41:49.309-05:00There is an interesting issue as to whether Scalia...There is an interesting issue as to whether Scalia or Thomas is the best Justice. The former's disgraceful opinion in Gonzales v. Rauch (extending the Commerce Clause to intrastate marijuana matters) and cheerleading the law in Lawrence v. Texas ends the issue. Thomas is more principled and better able to adhere to originalist reasoning.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23061971.post-9483224566067977172011-01-12T10:38:53.008-05:002011-01-12T10:38:53.008-05:00The legal-reasoning problem here is a tricky one. ...The legal-reasoning problem here is a tricky one. You have a roughly 70 year history of a court that has interpreted a Constitutional provision in a way that conflicts with the language of the provision, the structure of the Constitution, and inte intentions of the ratifiers. You now have to decide whether to extend the reasoning of this purposeful misinterpretation of the statute. On approach is to not extend the clause to economic inactivity as it is neither required by precedent and is completely at odds with the original Constitutional provision.The Objectivisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00416501145750028695noreply@blogger.com