Will the Supreme Court rule that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional? Bill Bennett’s Morning in America: Constitutional attorney David Rivkin provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court second case on gay marriage. 1,100 federal statutes use the term “marriage” without defining it. At the time the laws were passed, marriage was assumed to mean “between a man and a woman.” Nine states permit unions between members of the same sex. The federal government has an interest in uniformity. Simultaneously, under the principle of federalism, the federal government should not overstep the police powers of the states. The Bennett-Rivkin discussion explains the issues in this case about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Did Supreme Court liberal justices disappoint gay marriage advocates? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin and Morning in America host Bill Bennett provide a cogent discussion about Day 1 of the Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage– specifically about California’s Proposition 8 which was struck down by the California Supreme Court. David Rivkin provides an in-depth analysis of key arguments. Justice Sotomayor’s question about limits on the definition of marriage goes to the heart of the problem.

Fines levied by the SEC against a corporation for long-ago wrongdoing do not protect current investors.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.  And JOHN J. CARNEY

Two weeks ago, a unanimous Supreme Court rebuffed the Securities and Exchange Commission Gabelli v. SEC. The SEC maintained that its enforcement actions for fines under the Investment Advisers Act weren’t subject to the five-year statute of limitations. This wasn’t the first time the courts have pushed back a federal agency for overreaching. It won’t be the last.

But the SEC’s audacity prompts a broader policy question: What good is accomplished by imposing monetary penalties on corporations, as the agency attempted to do in Gabelli? The answer is that when such penalties are sought by the government, they probably do more harm than good.

Read more »

By defining the mandate as a tax, one that will not be uniformly applied, the Supreme Court ran afoul of the Constitution.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

ObamaCare is being implemented, having been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in June in a series of cases now known as National Federation of Independent Business v. HHS. It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that the court took a law that was flawed but potentially workable and transformed it into one that is almost certainly unworkable. More important, the justices also may have created new and fatal constitutional problems.

ObamaCare, or the Affordable Care Act, was conceived as a complex statutory scheme designed to provide Americans with near-universal health-care coverage and to effectively federalize the nation’s health-care system. The law’s core provision was an individual health-insurance purchase mandate, adopted by Congress as a “regulation” of interstate commerce. The provision required most Americans to buy federally determined minimum health-care insurance, or to pay a penalty more or less equivalent to the cost of that coverage.

Read more »

Appellate and international attorney David Rivkin joins a panel at the Cato Institute’s annual publication of its review of the Supreme Court and its Constitution Day celebration in Washington D.C.

The following highlight’s David Rivkin and his remarks on the 2011 Supreme Court term review and health care law to the panel and audience members.

Appellate and international attorney David Rivkin joins a panel at the Cato Institute’s annual publication of its review of the Supreme Court and its Constitution Day celebration in Washington D.C.

The following segment highlight’s David Rivkin and his remarks on the 2011 Supreme Court term review and health care law.