Could 1st-year contract law derail ObamaCare?

February 29, 2012

Oh, this is interesting, to say the least. The Institute for Justice has filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) in the ObamaCare case soon to be heard by the Supreme Court. The crux of their argument is that the mandate compels the individual to agree to a contract, but, under centuries old (1) precedents and principles of contract law, all contracts must be voluntary and no contract made under compulsion is binding.

Here’s video of the IJ’s Elizabeth Foley, a constitutional law professor (2), explaining the issues at hand:

And here’s the crux of their argument:

As IJ’s brief shows, the principle of mutual assent, under which both parties must consent for a contract to be valid, is a fundamental principle of contract law that was well understood during the Founding era and is still a cornerstone of contract law today. Indeed, contracts entered under duress have long been held to be invalid. Yet the mandate forces individuals to enter into contracts of insurance that would never be valid under this longstanding principle.

If the U.S. Supreme Court fails to strike down the individual mandate, there will be nothing to stop Congress from forcing people into other contracts against their will—employment contracts or union membership, for example. If we still have a constitutional republic in which the federal government’s powers are limited, then the Court should strike down this law.

I have to say, this looks like a solid line of attack, albeit I’m not a lawyer. But, if it’s true this attacks a fundamental, longstanding, hoary  principle of law, this may be what it takes to push Kennedy and one other moderate-to-liberal justice to strike down the mandate.

Any legal eagles in the audience care to read the brief and comment?

via Hot Air, where Ed has some good commentary.

Footnotes:
(1) Seriously. Not only does it cite cases from the early Republic, but even from English case law of the 17th century. Made my History-geek heart flutter with delight, it did. 
(2) A real one, unlike the current president.

UPDATE: Fixed the broken link to the amicus brief, thanks to Conservative Woman in the comments.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Global warming headline of the year

February 28, 2012

And it’s only February:

Yes, so powerful is the effect of a trace gas that serves mainly as plant food, that it can make the world cooler while simultaneously causing dangerous warming. Call it a one-stop shop for natural disasters, all of which can be reliably blamed on Mankind, and the only solution to which is greater governmental control (1) over our economies and daily lives.

Next up: man-caused climate change causes sun to rise in West and Barack Obama to become a fan of the free market.

Global warming — is there nothing it can’t do?

And is there any way the climate alarmists could make themselves look more fatuous and desperate? Why, yes, there is.

Hat-tip to  WUWT, which notes the headline has since changed, probably out of embarrassment. And here’s a link to the original Georgia Tech press release, which climate-hysteric “journalists” predictably screwed up.

Footnote:
(1) Especially by transnational bureaucracies answerable to no one and supported by global taxes. Winning!

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) And the winner is… Barack Obama for “The Con Artist!”

February 27, 2012

I didn’t watch the Oscars last night; I long ago grew tired its overbearing combination of narcissism, pretentiousness, and boredom. I do know “The Artist” won for Best Picture, and Jean Dujardin for Best Actor, however.

I think the latter may have been a bit of a robbery, though. I mean, how can anyone top Barack Obama’s performance “The Con Artist?”

Hey, the man’s won a Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing, so why not an Oscar, too? Maybe they can give him a special award at next year’s show, to help him celebrate his retirement.

via Ed Morrissey

PS: Read all about it at The Daily Caller.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


(Video) Another reason to vote for Obama: the Chevy Volt

February 25, 2012

Great satirical commercial from ObamaVolt2012:

via Pirate’s Cove

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The proper way to apologize to President Karzai

February 25, 2012

You may have heard of a recent ruckus in Afghanistan after American forces burned some Qurans that prisoners were using to transmit coded messages. (1) In the ensuing demonstration of Muslim maturity and Afghan civility, two Americans were killed. So, President Obama did the proper thing (2) and apologized abjectly and profusely to Afghan President Karzai. (3)

This inspired YouTube user KiraDavis422 to issue her own apology. I think it’s something we Americans need to hear and think deeply about.

(Mild language warning.)

Food for thought, isn’t it?

via jkinlosangeles

RELATED: Max Boot, an analyst and writer I deeply respect, thinks Obama’s apology was proper. I respectfully disagree, at least with the groveling nature of it.

Footnotes:
(1) In violation of proper procedure, meaning they did it where the savages could find out.
(2) From a self-abasing, American-declinist, “smart power” point of view, at least.
(3) Whom we put in power and only remains in power (and alive) because of us. We apologize for that.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


The Sharia state of Pennsylvania

February 24, 2012

This is absolutely disgraceful:

A state judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed an assault and harrassment case against a Muslim defendant who admitted attacking the victim. Magistrate Judge Mark Martin, a veteran of the war in Iraq and a convert to Islam, ruled that Talag Elbayomy’s sharia defense — what he claimed was his obligation to strike out against any insult against the prophet Mohammed — trumped the First Amendment free speech rights of the victim.

Yes, you read that correctly.

Read the rest of McCarthy’s post,which includes a link to video of the judge’s stupid remarks. PJM’s Bryan Preston has quotes from the judge’s dressing down of the victim, which includes this beaut:

“Having had the benefit of having spent over 2 and a half years in predominantly Muslim countries I think I know a little bit about the faith of Islam. In fact I have a copy of the Koran here and I challenge you sir to show me where it says in the Koran that Mohammad arose and walked among the dead. I think you misinterpreted things. Before you start mocking someone else’s religion you may want to find out a little bit more about it it makes you look like a dufus and Mr. (Defendant) is correct. In many Arabic speaking countries something like this is definitely against the law there. In their society in fact it can be punishable by death and it frequently is in their society.

Wait, let me get this straight: Is Judge Martin saying that, since it was okay for the Muslim to assault the victim, which is clearly against our law, it would have been okay in the judge’s view for the Muslim to kill him? After all, the guy insulted Muhammad and hurt the Muslim defendant’s feelings. Sharia says kill the guy, so why not go all the way? (1)

Newsflash for Judge Martin: they’re called “unalienable rights” because they are inherent from birth in all men, “endowed by their Creator.” They are universal, even if Islamic countries are too benighted to realize it.

And then there’s this little thing called the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

…which has been incorporated into state law for centuries.

I don’t care if this guy dressed up as “Muhammad the transvestite” and shouted at the top of his lungs that Islam’s “prophet” committed lewd acts with the dead. (2) It is immaterial that the Muslim defendant’s feelings were hurt; the victim had the right to act like a jerk, and the defendant had no right to assault him.

The only way “free speech” matters is if we protect speech even when we or others find it offensive. Whether it offends religion, country, or your favorite TV program, it doesn’t matter. As long as it does not directly and deliberately incite violence, it is protected speech.

And it is appalling that an American judge, one who both as a judge and as a soldier swore oaths to protect and defend the Constitution and those very same unalienable rights, should trample on the right to free speech in a fit of cultural relativism.

I’m not sure what the law is in Pennsylvania is for removing a judge, but somebody needs to start working on this jackass’ case right now.

Footnotes:
(1) In fact, in the biographies of Muhammad and canonical hadiths (his sayings and deeds), we know for a fact he had people assassinated for criticizing him.
(2) Which he may well have.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


I may have to turn in my “Irish” card

February 24, 2012

My ancestors left Ireland to escape oppressive tyrants, so I can well imagine what they’d be thinking now at hearing the news that an Irish city wants to erect a statue to murderous tyrant Che Guevara:

A major and innovative monument to the Irish-Argentinean revolutionary, guerilla, doctor, writer, and politician Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara, has taken a step closer to becoming a reality this week.

The Galway Advertiser understands that City Hall’s arts officer James Harrold will commission a scale model of the proposed monument to be made. This will then be presented to the Galway City Council’s Working Group on Public Arts for consideration, and later city manager Joe O’Neill for final approval. The approval of city councillors may also need to be sought.

The idea to erect a monument to Che Guevara comes from a proposal made by Labour councillor Billy Cameron, an ardent admirer of the revolutionary, that a monument be erected in Galway and that the project be undertaken in conjunction with the Cuban and Argentinean embassies to Ireland.

The proposed monument has been designed by Simon McGuinness and it is understood that it will feature the iconic image of Che created by the Irish artist Jim Fitzpatrick, commonly seen on posters and T-shirts.

Pardon me while I hurl. Billy Cameron is either an ignorant fool, or he approves of Guevara’s crimes. Regardless, he’s a disgrace. Here’s an example of the man Galway would honor:

“When you saw the beaming look on Che’s face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad,” said a former Cuban political prisoner Roberto Martin-Perez, to your humble servant here, “you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara.” As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che’s second-story office in Havana’s La Cabana prison had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his darling firing-squads at work.

Hey! I’ve got an idea for Cameron and the other Galway commissars councilors! Don’t stop with Che Guevara, honor his soul mates, too: Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Nicolae Ceausescu, and Kim Jong-Il! Why, there are so many you could build an entire park dedicated to psychopathic, murdering bast… er… “gentlemen.”

Go ahead. Cover your city in glory. Idiots.

I’ll leave the last word (and a hat tip) to Fausta:

There should be no room in a beautiful city like Galway, in a free country like Ireland, to honor a mass murdering sociopathic racist Communist whose aim in life was to destroy the very freedoms and rights the Irish have struggled so hard to attain throughout their history. To build this monument, with the aim of making it a tourist attraction, is an insult to the very ideals of the Irish nation and the city of Galway.

Exactly.

UPDATE: No Pasarán is incensed.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,744 other followers