Tag: unconstitutional

An Unconstitutional Tax Bill in Virginia?

By
David Boaz

My long-ago colleague Norman Leahy, once a young research assistant at the Cato Institute, has an op-ed in the Washington Post today. I wonder where he got the idea that an act of the legislature is invalid just because it violates the state constitution.

Those praising the Virginia General Assembly’s transportation compromise may not realize that the bill runs afoul of the plain language in the state’s constitution.

Virginia’s constitution is clear that the General Assembly can impose only uniform taxes across the state for similar activities. But the bill that emerged from the House-Senate conference committee last weekend upsets the historic balance between localities and state government; it contains new provisions about taxation, some of which would effectively set up a two-tier system for residents in certain parts of the state. It’s difficult to see how some of these provisions could survive legal challenge….

As a constitutional matter, these local tax provisions could probably be struck down without affecting the rest of the legislation.

But few should know better than Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) that state legislators don’t have the power to impose a discriminatory local tax. He was the state’s attorney general when his office defended before the state Supreme Court the General Assembly’s previous attempt at a transportation tax package. The court rejected the argument.

 

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Law and Civil Liberties, Tax and Budget Policy

ObamaCare in Four Words

By
Caleb O. Brown

Cato Senior Fellow Randy E. Barnett argued on behalf of Angel Raich at the Supreme Court in 2004. It was the last big case at the High Court dealing with broad federal assertions of power under the Commerce Clause. On Friday at the Cato Institute’s new F.A. Hayek Auditorium, Barnett laid out the four words that define ObamaCare’s individual mandate: unprecedented, uncabined, unnecessary, and unconstitutional.


Barnett and I chatted for a bit about whether Antonin Scalia is bound to uphold the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) based on his opinion in Raich.

You can watch the full event from Friday here.

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Health Care, Law and Civil Liberties, Tax and Budget Policy

Alaska’s Parnell Becomes 2nd Gov. to Refuse to Implement ObamaCare

By
Michael F. Cannon

The Associated Press reports that Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce that he will not be implementing ObamaCare:

“The state of Alaska will not pursue unlawful activity to implement a federal health care regime that has been declared unconstitutional by a federal court,” Parnell told the Juneau Chamber of Commerce, to applause, Thursday.

The AP included a couple of interesting comments from ObamaCare supporters Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington & Lee University, and Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

Jost described Judge Roger Vinson (to whom Parnell referred) as “one renegade judge,” when in fact two federal judges have struck down ObamaCare’s individual mandate as unconstitutional.  (Since only two federal judges have upheld ObamaCare, who’s to say which pair are the renegades?)

Jost also called Alaska an “outlier” among states, while the AP reported, “Neither [Pollock] nor Jost knew of any other state taking action similar to Parnell.”  Jost and Pollack should know that Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) had already refused to implement ObamaCare.  (Here he is telling an approving audience of Cato supporters.)  Ironically, the AP story overlooking Scott’s leadership appeared on the Miami Herald web site, which had previously reported that Scott even returned to the federal government the ObamaCare money that his predecessor Charlie Crist accepted but hadn’t spent. Scott may not be enough company to keep Parnell from being an outlier.  But Jost should also know that dozens of governors who are implementing ObamaCare are also hoping the Supreme Court will strike it down as unconstitutional.  Parnell and Scott are outliers for their courage, not because they oppose ObamaCare.

The news about Parnell came as the U.S. Department of Justice filed a motion asking Judge Vinson to clarify that his declaratory judgment “does not relieve the parties of their rights and obligations under [ObamaCare] while the declaratory judgment is the subject of appellate review.”  Ilya Shapiro and I clarified that issue in our oped, “President Should Heed Court and Stop Implementing ObamaCare.”

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Health Care, Law and Civil Liberties

Not a Good Week for Obamacare

By
Michael D. Tanner

It has not been a good week for Obamacare.  Another court ruled that the bill was unconstitutional, while it took a party-line vote in the U.S. Senate to avoid a legislative repeal.  Meanwhile, chipping away at the legislation began, with the Senate voting to repeal one of the bill’s most unpopular provisions, a requirement that businesses file 1099 tax forms on even small purchases.  Supporters of the bill are bailing as fast as they can, but the ship is sinking rapidly.

Topics: 
Government and Politics, Health Care, Law and Civil Liberties, Regulatory Studies

Heritage and Prop. 19

By
Tim Lynch

Over at the Huffington Post,  I scrutinize a recent Legal Memorandum published by the Heritage Foundation on the Prop. 19 ballot initiative.

Here is an excerpt:

The Heritage memorandum claims that if Prop 19 were approved, it would conflict with the federal criminal statute, the Controlled Substances Act and thus “invite litigation that would almost certainly result in [Prop 19] being struck down” as unconstitutional. This legal claim is dead wrong. While it is true that the supremacy clause of the Constitution makes it clear that federal law will override a conflicting state law, that clause simply has no application here. The federal law on marijuana remains in force, but that does not mean that a state government is under any obligation to assist the feds. As the Supreme Court noted in New York v. United States (1992), the state governments are neither “regional offices nor administrative agencies” of the federal government. Let’s take another example. Suppose Congress were to criminalize, say, cotton candy–would California be in violation of the Constitution because its police agents are not now empowered to arrest people producing and possessing cotton candy? No. Nor could Congress compel the California legislature to move against cotton candy producers and consumers. Here again is the Supreme Court: “Even where Congress has the authority to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.” (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 166 (1992)). Prop 19 is consistent with the constitutional principle of federalism.

For additional Cato scholarship on drug policy, go here and here.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties

The Unbearable Vagueness of “Honest Services Fraud”

By
Ilya Shapiro

Cato adjunct scholar Tim Sandefur, who authored an amicus brief in the case of Skilling v. U.S., writes on his home blog:

Today, the Supreme Court decided the case of Jeffrey Skilling, the CEO of Enron, who had been convicted of the crime of “honest services fraud.” The statute, however, is so vague, that nobody knows what the term “honest services fraud” actually means. Pacific Legal Foundation (joined by our friends at the Cato Institute) filed a brief in the case arguing that statutes that are so vague violate the constitutional guarantee of due process of law—and that the constitutional protection against vague laws should apply in the business realm the same as anywhere else. Vague laws are dangerous because you cannot know what they prohibit and cannot therefore avoid breaking the law. It is unfair and unconstitutional to hold vague statutes over their head in such a way.

Unfortunately, the Court has in the past been reluctant to apply it outside the regular criminal context, on the theory that businesses are wealthier and can afford expert legal advice. But in a case like this, even the experts have no idea what the statute actually means. The federal circuit courts are in disarray as to what it means. And nobody should be convicted under a statute that is so broadly and vaguely worded, that even the prosecuting lawyer can’t tell you what that law actually means.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Topics: 
Law and Civil Liberties

The Economist: “Efforts to Challenge Obamacare Are Gaining Momentum”

By
Michael F. Cannon

From a recent news item in The Economist:

[M]illions of Americans…think that Barack Obama’s health-insurance laws must be overturned…[P]olls suggest that many Americans still dislike them…

At the federal level Republican leaders in Congress have jumped on every bit of negative news—for example, a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that the reforms will cost more than originally forecast—as just cause for overturning them…

The real action is outside Washington, though. Virginia, Utah and Idaho have outlawed the new individual mandate, which will require everyone to purchase health cover, and other states are looking at similar measures. Elsewhere, opponents have taken to the ballot box. Missouri will hold a referendum in August on the matter. Perhaps half a dozen other states may see a constitutional amendment blocking Obamacare on the ballot in November.

Critics have also filed various lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of health reform. In the most prominent nearly two dozen states, almost all led by Republicans, have banded together. Their chief legal argument is that the new individual mandate is unconstitutional. On May 14th the National Federation of Independent Business, a trade group representing small companies (who worry especially about the costs of compliance with the new law), declared that it too would join in.

Repeal the bill.

Topics: 
General, Health Care

Pages