Day one of SCOTUS hearings on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, does the government have the right to require you as an American to buy health insurance?
The High Court is slated to make a decision in late June. In an interview with Jon Scott, Constitutional Attorney David Rivkin explains what to expect and what the Justices are expected to say.
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is broad but not limitless.
(published in The Wall Street Journal, March 21, 2012)
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. AND LEE A. CASEY
On Monday, the Supreme Court will begin an extraordinary three-day hearing on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. At stake are the Constitution’s structural guarantees of individual liberty, which limit governmental power and ensure political accountability by dividing that power between federal and state authorities. Upholding ObamaCare would destroy this dual-sovereignty system, the most distinctive feature of American constitutionalism.
ObamaCare mandates that every American, with a few narrow exceptions, have a congressionally defined minimum level of health-insurance coverage. Noncompliance brings a substantial monetary penalty. The ultimate purpose of this “individual mandate” is to force young and healthy middle-class workers to subsidize those who need more coverage.
(Published in The Washington Post, March 12, 2012)
While we hold the military’s honor sacred, the government cannot penalize speech, whether true or false, simply because it might harm this honor.
Any law that seeks to protect the government’s reputation runs afoul of the most basic bargain of sovereignty, reflected in our Constitution. James Madison said, “The censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people.” In this context, it is doubtful that the government can ever be libeled by a citizen, any more than a citizen can libel himself. We don’t let the government sue for libel — only individual officials. And even if the government could be libeled, the First Amendment forbids laws banning speech that challenges or impugns the government’s reputation.
(Published in The National Review Online, February 29, 2012)
By David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Andrew Grossman
Theresa Riffey provides help around the home for her brother, a quadriplegic, and receives a small stipend from Illinois’s Medicaid program for her efforts, saving the state the cost of providing full-time care. Illinois law requires her to pay a portion of her check every month to an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear her case that asks on what basis, besides raw political power, a state may compel independent home-care workers and other similarly situated self-employed persons to support and associate with a labor union against their will. For the sake of workers’ First Amendment rights, it should take the case.
“Organized labor” brings to mind railroads, factories, and government offices, but the labor movement’s biggest recent gains have been in the home. Led by SEIU, unions and their political allies have pushed through executive orders and legislation in a dozen states to “organize” home-care workers, such as personal assistants and sitters, by deeming them state employees for collective-bargaining purposes alone.
A court case that could invite specious international damage claims to the U.S.
(published in The Wall Street Journal, Feburary 28, 2012)
By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY
This Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that should interest every U.S. company doing business overseas, and especially those operating in the developing world. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority raise the issue of whether corporations can be sued for violations of international law under U.S. statutes, including the Alien Tort Statute.
The ATS was adopted in 1789 by the first U.S. Congress. The statute permits suits by aliens in federal courts for certain alleged international-law violations, but it was moribund for nearly 200 years and its purpose remains opaque. The best guess is that Congress wanted to provide a means by which the U.S. could fulfill its international obligations to vindicate a very discrete set of damage claims by diplomats and other foreign nationals injured or abused by Americans.
David B. Rivkin Jr., an American appellate attorney, political writer and media commentator initiated the public debate on the constitutionality of the healthcare law known as ObamaCare.
Whether offering insight into the constitutionality of legislation or commentary on policy and critical issues facing America, David Rivkin offers an unparalleled view from his perspective as both a White House insider and outside counsel.
David Rivkin’s speeches draw on more than 20 years of experience in the forefront of constitutional law, and domestic and foreign policy. David is available for speaking engagements in 2012 on a limited basis. Please call (804) 353-5999 or email patsy@arnettandassociates.com.