Constitutional Law

Glenn Reynolds and Randy Barnett Talking Constitutionality of Individual Mandate

|

On the latest Instavision, Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds talks with Georgetown's Randy Barnett (read his Reason archive here) about whether the individual mandate for health insurance is constitutional. And whether that will inform the law that finally gets pushed upon us. And whether we are doomed when it comes to limiting the size and scope of government and expanding the same when it comes to freedom and liberty. About 13 minutes.

About 13 minutes.

NEXT: Big Brother on Your Trail

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. All these discussions are interesting, but they’re unnecessary, as there is one simple answer:

    The individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional.

    There. Now we can get on with more important stuff.

  2. Constitution?

    We don’t need no stinking Constitution. Just shut up and obey, you mindless peons…its for the children, afterall.

  3. Nick, just get it over with and quit your position with Reason and start working for Torture Supporter Glenn Reynolds.
    This constant linking to neo-con websites is getting annoying.

    1. Exactly. “Obamacare will bankrupt us! But we can still afford to invade and indefinitely occupy Canada. And New Zealand. And Monaco. And Ecuador. And…”

  4. The really sad thing is, its not hard at all to justify the individual mandate based on SCOTUS precedent.

    This case is going to put the SCOTUS nose-to-nose with the fact that they have already pretty much signed off on the idea that our national government is no longer one of limited enumerated powers. I’m not at all sure that five of them will have any problem with that.

  5. Aye, Jay, no True Scotsman libertarian would ever link to Glenn Reynolds.

    1. An occasional link would be ok, but Torture Supporting neo-con Glenn Reynolds is linked daily from what is supposedly a libertarian website.

  6. I seriously don’t understand why Reynolds gets linked to. Here’s a guy who said on 9/11:

    Now, if he (G.W. Bush) wants to nuke Baghdad, there is nobody to say him nay — and damned few who would want to. That’s a danger if he goes off half-cocked, but I don’t think there’s much risk of that.

    He’s accused people who opposed the war he longed for in Iraq of supporting Al Quaeda. And he just recently said:

    If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I’d do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible.

    Why would Reason want people to associate this despicable war-monger with libertarianism? He’s as much of a libertarian as Eric Dondero.

  7. Now, if he (G.W. Bush) wants to nuke Baghdad, there is nobody to say him nay — and damned few who would want to.

    A comment on the apparent unanimity of support for a massive armed response when the towers fell. What’s the problem with that?

    That’s a danger if he goes off half-cocked, but I don’t think there’s much risk of that.

    A comment on how the President needs a robust opposition (true, yes?), and a statement that he didn’t think Bush would go off half-cocked. And, as it happens, he didn’t.

    I don’t get it.

    If I were the Israelis, not only would I bomb Iran, but I’d do so in such a way as to create as much trouble for China, Russia, Europe and the United States as possible.

    Taken out of context, its hard to know what he was getting at, but I don’t think its irrational of the Israelis to make a preemptive strike against a proto-nuclear Iran, and do it in a way that creates the maximum problems for the people who refused to take effective action to prevent a radical Islamist regime from getting nukes.

  8. A comment on the apparent unanimity of support for a massive armed response when the towers fell. What’s the problem with that?

    There was a “unanimity of support” for using nuclear weapons (or even massive armed response) against a particular city when nobody knew who attacked us? Seriously?

    A comment on how the President needs a robust opposition (true, yes?), and a statement that he didn’t think Bush would go off half-cocked. And, as it happens, he didn’t.

    Well, he thankfully didn’t use nuclear weapons, but he did immediately start to plan to attack Iraq without even knowing there were such things as Sunni and Shi’a Muslims. That’s pretty “half-cocked.”

    but I don’t think its irrational of the Israelis to make a preemptive strike against a proto-nuclear Iran, and do it in a way that creates the maximum problems for the people who refused to take effective action to prevent a radical Islamist regime from getting nukes.

    That’s probably because none of your family members are in danger of being blown to bits or burned alive because a country that’s not invaded anyone might have a weapon (in the years to come) we don’t think it should have. Should we bomb Saudi Arabia if they start a nuclear program?

    It takes a leftist’s faith in government and a profound disconnect from the horrors of war to believe in bombing people out of fear of what another country might do.

    There’s no difference between the statist who thinks government can and should educate and provide healthcare for every citizen and the statist who thinks government can and should use massive violence against any state it considers a potential, theoretical threat.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.