tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post59641206584279807..comments2013-10-31T02:50:19.090-07:00Comments on The Audacity of Reason: Judge Steeh: participation in the "health care market" through abstentionRyan T. Darbyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06536296607286554798noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3358107861621380505.post-38840526743422354282010-10-08T09:13:12.035-07:002010-10-08T09:13:12.035-07:00Are you still obsessing over what the written Cons...Are you still obsessing over what the <i>written</i> Constitution means? Have you not learned to abstract from the words of that old rag the majestic principles that will arrive us at the golden shores of utopia? Let's stop bothering with those fusty old Founders. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the cappuccino of loafers and miscreants. <br /><br />Randy Barnett at Volokh pointed out a key passage from Steeh's ruling:<br /><br /> “The Court has never needed to address the activity/inactivity distinction advanced by plaintiffs because in every Commerce Clause case presented thus far, there has been some sort of activity. In this regard, the Health Care Reform Act arguably presents an issue of first impression.”<br /><br />If the Court has never addressed this issue, and since the Constitution itself certainly does not go so far, then why in the world has Steeh failed to follow the Constitutional doctrine <i>as it now exists</i>, which would require him to hold that the individual mandate is not authorized by the Constitution? And liberals wonder why their judges get called "activists."Tim Kowalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02196125161888520769noreply@blogger.com