Coherence from Cohen, some sobering questions from Richard Cohen no Egypt, from the Washington Pos [1]t:
Egypt’s problems are immense. It has a population it cannot support, a standard of living that is stagnant and a self-image as leader of the (Sunni) Arab world that does not, really, correspond to reality. It also lacks the civic and political institutions that are necessary for democracy. The next Egyptian government – or the one after – might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval.
Be careful for what you wish.
Amusing Mandate, a winning idea from South Dakota, from the Argus Leader [2]:
Five South Dakota lawmakers have introduced legislation that would require any adult 21 or older to buy a firearm “sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense.”
The bill, which would take effect Jan. 1, 2012, would give people six months to acquire a firearm after turning 21. The provision does not apply to people who are barred from owning a firearm.
Granted the bill is not going anywhere, nor it prove its purported points. States have the constitutional ability in invoke individual mandates. The federal government does not.
The bill would be absolutely constitutional. Think of it as why the several states can arm their militias. While such a law would never become enacted in New York State, I find the thought of the state actually passing such a progressive law quite amusing. Senator Chuckles Schumer and Da Mayor Blomberg would absolutely soil their nappies.
Obama v Obama Care, White House staffer Stephanie Cutter thinks the individual mandate of Obama Care is constitutional, from the White House [3]:
Today’s ruling – issued by Judge Vinson in the Northern District of Florida – is a plain case of judicial overreaching. The judge’s decision contradicts decades of Supreme Court precedent that support the considered judgment of the democratically elected branches of government that the Act’s “individual responsibility” provision is necessary to prevent billions of dollars of cost-shifting every year by individuals without insurance who cannot pay for the health care they obtain. And the judge declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the “individual responsibility” provision. This decision is at odds with decades of established Supreme Court law, which has consistently found that courts have a constitutional obligation to preserve as a much of a statute as can be preserved. As a result, the judge’s decision puts all of the new benefits, cost savings and patient protections that were included in the law at risk.
Cutter is not arguing the law. Rather Cutter is seemly deeming that the ends of Obama Care are noble, so therefore the means are constitutional. Problem is that during his campaign, Cutter’s boss, Barack Obama argued otherwise, via Ed Morrissey, Hot Air [4]:
She’s[Mrs Clinton] have the government force every individual to buy insurance, and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance. It’s that they can’t afford it …
Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody buy a house, and that, you know, and that would solve, you know, the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.
Now I’ll be the first to admit that Obama is not all that smart. However, he did claim to have been a professor of constitutional law.