Dellinger, a former acting Solicitor General, has filed a brief on behalf of the Senate and House Democratic leadership in the case that will be argued before the Supreme Court next week.
Let's look carefully at how he purports to debunk this "myth":
Showing posts with label Walter Dellinger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Walter Dellinger. Show all posts
March 24, 2012
February 3, 2011
"There's a misimpression out there that... federal agents arrive in black helicopters dressed in fully equipped armed ninja costumes, kick down your bedroom door and drag you off at the point of bayonets to an insurance agency."
... hyperbolized lawprof Walter Dellinger at yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. (Video here.)
In fact, what -- all that happens is that for those who are not otherwise exempted and -- when they're filling out their federal income tax return, if you're not maintaining minimum coverage, you have to pay an additional 2.5 percent, much less than Social Security. That's all that happened.I thought the point of worrying about approaching slippery slopes is that we would otherwise accept one incremental intrusion after another and never see fit to draw the line and, thus lulled, we would lose our liberty.
So in that sense, this great intrusion on liberty doesn't approach any slippery slopes or exceed any understood limits in our legal culture.
January 7, 2009
The Senate must seat Roland Burris.
Says Walter Dellinger, who was a Supreme Court law clerk (for Hugo Black) when the Supreme Court decided the Adam Clayton Powell Jr. case (Powell v. McCormack):
There is still a separate question whether Burris can get into court (as I noted last Thursday). Dellinger says:
It absolutely does not mean that the other branch can simply carry out its political will.... something you'd never guess from watching Harry Reid.
In Justice Black’s view, one of the worst abuses of power in England resulted from parliamentary majorities wrongly refusing to seat dissident legislators. That experience makes me very wary about the Senate’s barring a person from taking a seat unless its authority to do so is clear. Here it is not.Dellinger notes that Blagojevich is the governor, he has the appointment power, and he has exercised it:
The charges that he sought bribes to appoint certain candidates to the Senate do not automatically render illegal other official acts of his office like signing laws or pardoning criminals. And because there is no evidence that a bribe was solicited from, or proffered by, Mr. Burris, his appointment is presumptively lawful.The idea of delaying and giving the Illinois legislature a chance to impeach Blagojevich makes no sense, because Burris has been validly appointed, so he's in until the term is up in 2010.
Nor do the other arguments against Mr. Burris’s appointment hold up. The contention by the Democratic leadership that Mr. Burris can be denied a seat because the Illinois secretary of state refuses to sign his appointment papers is without merit — it would confer upon secretaries of state absolute veto power over governors’ appointments.
There is still a separate question whether Burris can get into court (as I noted last Thursday). Dellinger says:
The Supreme Court decision in the Powell case did leave open the possibility that a Congressional decision finding that a member was not properly elected — in this case, appointed — might be a “political question” immune from judicial review.Exactly. When the court finds a case nonjusticiable under the political question doctrine, it is because it reads the Constitution as committing a particular constitutional question to one of the political branches of government. It is decidedly different from rejecting a Constitution-based claim on the merits. It is saying that some other branch of government is the final authority on the meaning of a part of the Constitution, and that indeed means that the nonjudicial branch that has this responsibility must look at the Constitution and figure out what it means and then follow it.
But that some reasons for denying Mr. Burris this seat might not be subject to review by the courts means that the Senate should take more care, not less.
It absolutely does not mean that the other branch can simply carry out its political will.... something you'd never guess from watching Harry Reid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
