March 31, 2012
In a victory for the principles embedded in the Magna Carta, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has signed into law the bill that would allow citizens to resist government employees engaged in illegal activity. This means that a citizen who uses reasonable force against a police officer either in self-defense or in order to resist an illegal search will not (or should not) be prosecuted.
The new law is a response to the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. State of Indiana, which established the principle that “there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.”
Opponents are worried that the new law (which really just reaffirms an old principle) will lead to an outbreak of violence against police. But the law is hardly a blank check for citizens to attack cops. It simply recognizes that the right to self-defense does not go away if the assailant is wearing a government uniform.
March 29, 2012
Providing an antidote to this:
Schiff explains how the recent rise in stock prices is purely due to Bernanke’s inflation and warns of a future crash worse than the one in 2008:
March 28, 2012
Today the court heard oral arguments about what should be done if it finds Obamacare’s individual mandate unconstitutional. The first option is to just nullify the offending provisions, and to leave the thousands of pages of remaining legislation in tact. The second option is to strike down the entire law, since the law won’t work the way Congress intended it to without the individual mandate. (Not that it would work the way they thought it would with the mandate, either.)
Damon Root explains how the day went on Reason TV:
The take away quote: “If I was in the Obama administration, I would not be comfortable with how the last three days went.”
March 27, 2012
According to Intrade, there is a 53.1% chance the Supreme Court will rule the individual mandate unconstitutional.
I am cautiously optimistic. As expected, it appears that Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are lining up against the law, while Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor are supporting it. But during questioning today, the critical swing vote, Justice Kennedy, appeared quite skeptical of the Obama administration’s arguments.
Nonetheless, Kennedy is the swing vote for a reason–he’s a wishy-washy moderate who changes his mind a lot. The future of American health care–and, in large part, American constitutional jurisprudence–rests on his shoulders.
March 26, 2012
Friday was the second anniversary of the passage of Barack Obama’s signature health care law. Since then, insurance premiums have increased by an average of $2,200 per year, even as people have been moving into more economical plans with less coverage. (Obama promised that premiums would decrease by $2,500 during his first term.) It is true, insurance premiums had been rising at roughly 5 percent per year before Obamacare, but the yearly increase has jumped to 9 percent since the law was passed. Most of this increase is directly attributable to the health care law’s new regulations, particularly the new rules that require insurance companies to allow parents to keep their children on their plans until the “child” is in his late twenties and to provide coverage to children regardless of preexisting conditions. These regulations essentially transform insurance companies from private entities offering a free market service into semi-private agencies that distribute government-mandated benefits. Once the entirety of the law comes into effect, the only way for the government to cut soaring medical costs will be through rationing. This central planning will be carried out by the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will be in charge of determining what health care treatments insurance companies must cover and at what price.
It’s true that the American health care system was already heavily-regulated before Obamacare. It’s true that most Republicans are being inconsistent by denouncing the individual mandate while at the same time defending Medicare and Medicaid. And it’s true that the Supreme Court–nine unaccountable government lawyers with lifetime tenure–should not be the sole judge of whether a law is constitutional. Nonetheless, it will be a tremendous practical victory for liberty if the court strikes down this fascist program. And it will be a serious blow if the court rubber stamps it.
Tomorrow, the court will hear the opposing arguments for the central question in the case–whether the individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine, is constitutional. (Of course, it’s not.) A ruling is expected in June.
March 25, 2012
That promises to bring the federal government’s finances into balance…in 2040.
March 24, 2012
Or, more accurately, the countless tragedies perpetrated by government agents that get a tiny fraction of the attention showered on the Trayvon Martin case. Grigg explains:
The familiar cast of prejudice profiteers and racial ambulance chasers – who failed to be moved by the racially charged police murders of Manuel Loggins and Kenneth Chamberlain — has helped turn the killing of Trayvon Martin into a public works project. But the ideology that has propelled this issue to the top of the media agenda isn’t a variant of racial collectivism: It is the even more murderous doctrine of government supremacism, under which Zimmerman’s lethal actions would be considered entirely appropriate if he had been swaddled in a State-issued costume.
Read the rest.
March 23, 2012
Covering Paul Ryan’s big government budget, the phoniness of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, and what ‘conservative’ should mean. Watch: