Guest Post: Obamacare on Trial

We've got another guest post this week, as friend of the blog and Notre Dame law student Stephen DeGenaro is here to judge the likely fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which is currently being argued before the Supreme Court. The other Steve and I will sound off in the comments on the political ramifications of the Court's decision, but first, we'll hear about the legal side of things. Without further adieu...

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: WILL IT STAND?
By Stephen DeGenaro

The PPACA case that the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments for this week is one of historical proportions. Beyond the substantial importance of the subject matter (health care), the case is noteworthy for the amount of time the Court is dedicating to it. The four separate parts of the case have been granted a total of six hours for oral arguments over the course of four days, a length of time this country has not seen since Brown v. Board of Education.

Out of the four issues, the most polarizing one is the constitutionality of the individual mandate because the Commerce Clause is the single most utilized power under Article I of the Constitution. Additionally, it is the one most discussed because of the political implications of an individual mandate. A lot of media attention is given to the individual mandate by both sides of the issue. But sadly, the majority of arguments out there concerning the individual mandate are more often than not political arguments and not legal ones. Matt has graciously invited me to elaborate on what the legal issues behind the mandate are, and I will try to provide some insight into this case, while highlighting an important theme: politically unfavorable does not necessarily equate to illegal.

'Joe the Plumber' and Other Republicrazies

I linked to this on my facebook page yesterday as well but I wanted to do a longer post here because I think it's a window into just how far off the rails the Republican party has gone.

Earlier this week former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich tweeted:

"To describe the GOP crackup as extremists vs. moderates is inaccurate. It's really right-wing fanatics vs. mere extremists."

When you consider the fact that the Republican rank-and-file has largely coalesced around a budget proposal that would essentially eliminate the federal government in the long term except for defense spending and entitlements, while cutting taxes even further on the wealthy, I'd already say Reich has a point.

What this is really about, though, are the more radical elements of the GOP base, as represented this week by Samuel Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, the erstwhile Ohioan who has gone from instant celebrity during the 2008 presidential campaign to conservative activist to candidate for Congress. In an appearance on CNN, Wurzelbacher was asked a question about a statement he made in 2010 that he would "not allow homosexuals anywhere near his children."

Guest Post: Are Young People Selfish?

This post comes to us from CONFLICT REVOLUTION friend and loyal reader Kate Bermingham. Kate was asked to contribute her thoughts to the blog after sharing a very interesting piece of writing by Georgetown Professor Patrick J. Deneen, who essentially argues that while today's young people are more tolerant of individual differences among our peers, we are less likely to feel an obligation toward anyone else but ourselves. Very provocative stuff - here's Kate to break it down:

An apt diagnosis of the prevailing ideology of today’s young, educated elite, Patrick Deneen’s recent article “Campus Libertarianism up, Civic Commitment Down” raises an essential intellectual distinction that has a profound political -- and moral -- implication. Substantiating his observations with UCLA’s annual survey of college freshmen, “Today's students,” Deneen observes, “demonstrate an overall disposition toward ‘live and let live,’ in both the social and economic realms.” Many have, it seems, embraced a laissez faire posture toward the world around them – materially and culturally.

In contemporary America, mainstream politics (which arguably includes libertarians since the Tea Party surge and the semi-ironic worship of Ron Paul) are simply estranged members of the same philosophical family, descendants of Lockean political theory. Even the many sides of the debates that animate this blog largely belong to the same dysfunctional philosophical family: Liberalism (sorry, Steve). We believe that the discrete individual is the most fundamental unit of society and that political rights thus belong not to families, institutions, or communities – but to men, created equal. Unsurprisingly, we find agreement about this on all sides of the American political aisle for, as G.K. Chesterton first observed, Americans are a creedal people. This means to be American is not to be of a certain ethnicity, religion, or ancestry – but to be of a certain worldview – the one articulated in our founding documents.

An underappreciated element of HBO's Game Change

Just had an opportunity to watch Game Change, the HBO adaptation of Mark Halperin and John Heilemann's postmortem on the 2008 presidential campaign. The book devoted about a third of its attention to John McCain's now infamous selection of Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, but it was enough to highlight several unflattering details about Palin, including the fact that she apparently didn't know the difference between North and South Korea.

Needless to say, Palin and her followers didn't exactly approve of the book. So its no surprise that the much-publicized release of the movie this weekend drew similar disapproval from conservatives, with Palin's Political Action Committee referring to the film as "a work of history that never happened."

But let's forget for a second whether or not the movie's dialogue was 100% true (it wasn't, because it was in a movie, and even movies with the most factual fidelity take liberties with their scripts). The movie, like the book, is based on the accounts of individuals closely involved with the campaign, and interprets those accounts accordingly. Parsing over every detail in the film obscures the real points that can and should be taken away from it.

An Absurdly Broad Definition of Religious Freedom

Today the United States Senate defeated legislation that would have allowed ANY employer or health insurer, religious or secular, to opt out of providing health care coverage to which they have a moral objection.

Blunt Amendment Defeated in Senate (POLITICO)

The amendment, pushed by Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Scott Brown (R-MA) has been in the works for a few weeks now, and is obviously a response to the Obama administration mandate that religiously-affiliated organizations provide free coverage for contraceptive services to their female employees. It failed on a mostly party-line vote of 51-48, with three Democrats voting with the GOP and one Republican crossing over to the Democratic side.

It remains to be seen whether the Republicans will continue to push their case that religious freedom apparently gives anyone the license to refuse to do anything with which they disagree. Under this amendment, a Fortune 500 company with a pro-life CEO could theoretically decide that none of their company's female employees should have contraception, because it's against the CEO's beliefs. A business leader who is a Jehova's Witness could decide not to cover blood transfusions. Some Christians believe in "faith healing" - the idea that any medical treatment at all is wrong and that ailments should be cured through prayer. Could they get away with not providing health care coverage at all?