Outside the Beltway

So, we’re safe from that broccoli mandate, right?

In his ruling on the ObamaCare cases, Chief Justices Roberts reached back to a judicial philosophy with roots in men like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Felix Frankfurter.

There is another explanation for the sometimes confusing nature of the dissent in the ObamaCare case.

Either the majority and dissenting opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius were among the sloppiest in Supreme Court history or the Chief Justice switched sides at the 11th hour.

While it upheld the Affordable Care Act today, the Supreme Court also placed some clear limits on Congressional power. That’s a good thing.

Chief Justice Roberts: “Although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior.”

Chief Justice Roberts sided with a majority in upholding the individual mandate and, indeed, all but some trivial portions of the Affordable Care Act.

Thanks to a surprising decision by Chief Justice Roberts, the Affordable Care Act has survived the Constitutional challenges against it.

With the Supreme Court’s decision imminent, many supporters of the PPACA are starting to second guess the Obama Administration’s legal strategy.

Yes, it is too hard to amend. A few quick thoughts on the subject.

If we taught the Federalist Papers more rigorously would that lead to a shared view of the constitution?

Unsurprisingly, the Department of Justice confirms that it supports Marbury v. Madison

What we are seeing at the moment is the expected political churn that accompanies something as big as the PPACA case

The White House and its allies have already declared war on a decision that won’t even be rendered until three months from now.

This week’s hearings in the Supreme Court caught many proponents of the Affordable Care Act off guard.

It seems to have been a rough day for the individual mandate at the Supreme Court.

The Solicitor General was unprepared to answer the most predictable question on the ObamaCare insurance mandate.

By the end of today’s first day of hearings on the Affordable Care Act, the Justices seem eager to take the consider the case on the merits.

Starting tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court dives into the most significant case that has been before it in many years.

Requiring a religious institution to comply with civilian laws is not a violation of religious liberty.

Not surprisingly, most of the Republican candidates for President aren’t too keen on reducing the excessive growth in Executive Branch power.

The Supreme Court will decide on the Constitutionality of the President’s health care law by June 2012.

The PPACA now has a 3-1 record in US appeals courts.

Where do we stand after 224 years?

Both Virginia lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act have been dismissed by a Federal Appeals Court.

A new look at Clarence Thomas’s 20 years on the Supreme Court, from a critic, is surprisingly positive.

The Eleventh Circuit has struck down the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’ enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause.

The constitutional purists in the Tea Party apparently do not understand either bicameralism nor separation of powers.

A Federal Appeals Court says the full body image scanners showing up in airports are Constitutional.

The first Appeals Court decision on the Affordable Care Act was a victory for the government.

How many Texas politicians does it take to screw in a non-communist light bulb?

Another appellate panel heard arguments on the Constitutionality of the health care reform law this week.

The 4th Circuit has asked for supplemental briefs on an issue that could put a quick end to the lawsuits against the Affordable Care Act.

Thanks to an appearance on Hardball we’ve got another story about a 47 year old law.

The first round of appellate arguments over the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act took place today in Richmond, Virginia.

It’s not the size of your government that counts — it’s what you do with it that matters.

Yet again: to the Commerce Clause!

Judge Gladys Kessler upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, but she did so by essentially ruling that the Interstate Commerce Clause means whatever Congress wants it to mean.

The Affordable Care Act has been ruled Constitutional in Holder v. Mead.

Predicting (after a fashion) what the SCOTUS will do with the PPACA and a return to the Commerce Clause and the activity/inactivity disucssion.

Taking a dive into Mark Levin’s view of Federalism.

Arizona looks to be the latest state to try to revive the discredited doctrine of nullification.

It seems to me that inactivity can have just as profound affects as activity and likewise that it is rather difficult to argue that health care isn’t part of interstate commerce.

A second Federal District Court judge has declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the appeal of a far-reaching Commerce Clause case may indicate rough times ahead for challenges to ObamaCare

Constitutional ambiguity is as old as, well, it’s as old as the Constitution itself