31 votes

The Word "Libertarian" is on the Front Page of the NY Times

The headline reads: "Libertarian's Pet Cause Reaches Supreme Court" [Note: the web headline is different]

It's about the Georgetown Professor (apparently a libertarian) who's behind the current suit against the individual mandate of Obama's health care law.

Of course the article is drivel, basically it mocks the idea that anyone would consider the law unconstitutional.

"Many of his (the professor's) colleagues, on both the left and the right, dismissed the ideas (of the law bring unconstitutional) as ridiculous - and still do."

No argument against the criticism of Obamacare, just "well it's obviously ridiculous, because...well, the law is constitutional because, uh, because, it is...and everyone knows that, so shut up."

Also, I didn't know Obamacare was our "pet cause," seems to me that's the GOP's pet cause for politicking purposes - disingenuously of course, if it were exactly the same but called Bushcare they'd support it.

Oh well, what else can you expect from the NY Times: all the drivel that's unfit to print.

I think this is an attempt to draw us into the debate on the side of the GOP - as if the heart of libertarianism were opposition to Obamacare. Now THAT is ridiculous.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Professor Barnett

Although I never met the man directly, I owe him a debt of gratitude. He was a professor at BU Law while I was an undergrad there. I was very involved in the BU College Republicans at the time. I knew I was a Republican because they claimed to be the "Party of Small Government". What I was beginning to realize was they did very little to actually back up that claim. Professor Barnett's son and daughter were also undergrads. There was no libertarian group on campus, so they formed one, Prof. Barnett being the group's faculty sponsor. I began attending and although it was a small group, we had great discussions and attended many lectures on libertarian theory. The path to my "libertarian awakening" was a long and winding one, but their campus libertarian group played a huge role in guiding me to the truth.

First they ignore you
Then they ridicule you
Then they fight you
Then you win

Barnett's loss on the Marijuana case is the big question.

Does he have another argument? In the comment section I found this very interesting and informative reply:

++++++++++++++

Eugene Gorrin
Union, NJ

I am very hopeful that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and its "individual mandate."

There is a strong possibility that the Court could uphold the health care law's constitutionality, not just with a 5-4 vote, but perhaps by a 7-2 vote with conservatives Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts supporting it.

The reason is the Court's 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich in which it upheld a federal ban on possession of marijuana grown in acordance with local law for personal, medicinal use - because the ban was part of a broader regulation of interstate commerce.

As the 6th Circuit wrote in upholding the constitutionlity of the health care mandate:

"If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption, indeed for self-medication, and if she could do so even when California law prohibited that marijuana from entering any state or national markets, it is difficult to see why Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care."

The opinion was authored by Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a known conservative.

The DC Circuit defeated a challenge to the mandate in Seven-Sky v. Holder and upheld the act's constitutionality under the Commerce Clause. The opinion was written by Judge Lawrence Silberman, another well-known conservative jurist appointed by President Reagan.
+++++++++

Indeed, loosing that marijuana case does not sound good for us libertarians or the Obamacare unconstitutionality. So I hope Barnett has a new argument up his sleeve.

What it will come down to is amendment to the Constitution itself, drafted and supported by us and signed by 2/3rds of the States. That amendment will be something like this (but I am not sure it will restrain the wide open backwards interpretation of the Commerce Clause)

Liberty Amendment: Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.

Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.

Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.

9 states have endorsed the Liberty Amendment. See more here: http://www.libertyamendment.com/

Ron Paul has supported it and likes it...(Dr. Paul has previously introduced this amendment in: 2007, 2005, 2003, 1999, and 1998).

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

A propos of the SCOTUS proceedings


This interesting article on the "General Welfare" clause of the Constitution was written in 1994 when the national debt had ballooned to $5 Trillion.

http://constitutionalawareness.org/genwelf.html

does newspaper/mag even reach 10% of US constituents these days

it's funny a marginal group is calling another group small and their issues 'pet cause'

Old people read the newspaper

People 60+ are mostly newspaper / 6pm national news watchers. What the biased media spews is what they follow. Many of these folks don't use computers, don't have email, no Facebook, have no clue what DrudgeReport is or who is DailyPaul. This is why Obamanasty threatened to stop SS checks during the debt limit fight. He knew the folks directly tied to SS paychecks would freak and start flooding the House telephone system... even though there was no way our President could do such a thing. And, due to the babyboomers... there are a lot of 60+'ers.

The Old Gray Lady

I can assure you that the NYTimes reaches 99% of the people who matter... Those that live east of the Hudson River, that is.

Paul Krugman, PhD, Ivy League

Dr. Paul Krugman

Welcome. Tracked you and the picture certainly does look like Paul Krugman,the Nobel Prize winning economist who is hardly a Ron Paul fan. Kudos on coming to our liberty party as yourself, Sir.

I am curious though. Why are you here when your articles seem to imply that you are against just about everything that we are for. Were you curious.

BTW..nice cat.

fonta

Thank you

Thank you for welcoming me. I've decided to come here to enlighten you all on economics since you seem so confused.

Let's begin your education with recessions. Recessions are not caused by the liquidation of an unsustainable cluster of investment errors brought about by inflation. That idea is wrong, wrong wrong! No, recessions are caused by "animal spirits". Got it?

Paul Krugman, PhD, Ivy League

Feel Taleb Backs Up His *Black Swans"

...better than you back up your *animal spirits* however, I have read more by him and will look up your *animal spirits* and give them an equal chance.

Saw a picture of Albert and his sister Doris Lessing. Did their spirits inspire you :)

fonta

This is a joke account, but I

This is a joke account, but I think it's funny, so I'll stop ruining your fun!

no joke

No joke. I can assure you that I take myself very seriously

Paul Krugman, PhD, Ivy League

That's sad

.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

Great Subject for Satire

...and I am sure you are serious. Probably nobody here would complain; however given:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/becoming-paul-krugman-how-a-g...

you might want to consider calling it out as satire, Timothy.

fonta

Flummoxed

Your advice has left me somewhat flummoxed (that means 'confused' for those of you who don't reside east of the Hudson). I suppose I didn't expect anyone here at the Daily Paul would be lacking in the intellectual capacity to understand that it is indeed I, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, PhD, Ivy League emeritus, and not some proletarian satirical facsimile. I mean, I went on the Daily Santorum and not one single zealot there questioned my authenticity.

Paul Krugman, PhD, Ivy League

Smug, arrogant, pretentious

Yup, you're an East Coast elitist. Too bad that can't make up for faulty reasoning. Since you seem to put so much value on accolades:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1...

A detailed critique of the "value" of your worldview:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/researchnotes/WorkingPaper-2.pdf

Sophistry will get you nowhere with us enlightened folk. (Sophistry: your lame style of "argument").

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself." - Thomas Jefferson

I'm Done

...but it was kinda fun.

fonta

As a libertarian, my "pet

As a libertarian, my "pet cause" is the dissolution of the United States government and the summary execution of the preponderance of its leadership for robbery, murder, and countless other general crimes against humanity.

Nuremburg 2.0

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

reedr3v's picture

I agree with your analysis. Another attempt

at marginalizing the profound philosophy of libertarianism.

which is nothing more than

which is nothing more than saying you ACTUALLY believe in human liberty. None of this "limited government" bullshit that EACH side pretends to worship as the civic religion when what they REALLY mean is government in any way needed to force society into THEIR ideal mould.

Indeed.

Our real "pet cause" is the abolition of that barbaric institution for organized aggression that they call "the State."

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."