Conservative Legal Scholar: Congress Can Regulate Inactivity, And Has

Conservative Republican, and NYU Law Professor Rick Hills pours cold water on conservative celebrations about the Florida ruling on the Health Care Law:

Hills frames the question this way: If the federal government can't tell people they don't have the right to refuse to buy insurance, then why was it okay for the federal government to regulate people's "pacifism," i.e., their refusal to fight in wars? Why is it okay for the government to regulate people's refusal to serve on juries?

"If you can regulate inaction to raise juries, and you can regulate inaction to raise an army, then why isn't there equally an implied power to conscript people to buy insurance, to serve the goal of regulating the interstate insurance market?" Hill asks.

The draft was held up as constitutional by the Supreme Court, but not under the "commerce clause" or the "necessary and proper clause," which are being used to defend the individual mandate. But Hills said the larger point stands: Congress has the power to ban inaction.

"If the draft is constitutional, it's constitutional to ban inaction," he said. "Congress can ban inaction, assuming that it's necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce."

This would seem to make sense to me. First off, uninsured people are expensive- to the rest of society. So their inactivity has great impact on the rest of us- raising our premiums, raising our taxes, and adversely impacting our care most likely. Sure, there are those who don't buy insurance and take immaculate care of themselves- a minority of them. For the most part though, they are impacting the commerce of us all, or interstate commerce. The argument that inactivity isn't a part of interstate commerce is pretty weak to me, especially in this specific case.

Nelson In Trouble, The Democratic Majority Is Even Worse

Ben Nelson trails both of his tier one opponents for 2012. He trails the Attorney General of Nebraska by 11%, but he trails the Treasurer by only 4%. While these are bad numbers, he can hang his hat on not being Blanche Lincoln levels of bad.

There's a larger context to this. Democrats can pretty much write off North Dakota at this point, barring a recruiting coup and a GOP nominee that isn't acceptable, and of course a strong President. Montana Republicans got their one and only House member to challenge Senator Tester. Republicans are lining up for battle in Virginia and Missouri. Democrats still aren't completely out of the woods in Pennsylvania and Ohio. They may have to spend in California and Connecticut too. So basically, they have three really, really in danger, two in for the fight of their life, two they still have to watch, and two more they have to spend on. And I didn't count in Minnesota and Florida, both races which could get interesting. If the Democrats lose 4 seats, they lose the Senate. They do have some places to go on offense, namely Nevada and Massachusetts right now, and possibly places like Maine and Indiana if the Tea Party goes after those Republicans. Still though, the current map is tough.

Scenes From Egypt

PA House Republicans Attempt To Deny Minority Rights

Not The Best Choice Of Words

Tea Party members like to see themselves not as insiders. They will have a lot of say in the 2012 Republican Primaries. Well, Governor Haley Barbour just made an "oops."

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) spun a possible problem with his resume into a positive if he decides to run for president, the Naples Daily News reports.

Said Barbour: "I can't deny I'm a Washington insider. But I think people want someone who can get things done."

Yeah, drop that talking point, ASAP.

Heritage Foundation: Regulate Nothing

So the Heritage Foundation wants Darrell Issa to investigate regulations. Not some regulations. Basically everything for the last few decades. Some of their list:

Individual health insurance mandate
Employer health insurance mandate
Minimum health insurance benefit standards
All future Consumer Financial Protection Bureau regulations
Limiting debit card fees
Transparency for shareholders
Credit card regulation
Incandescent light bulb phase out
Broader energy efficiency standards
Fuel efficiency standards
Carbon pollution regulation
Auto tailpipe standard
Renewable fuel standards
Low-income housing promotion
Corporate accounting requirements
Net neutrality
Corporate media ownership rules
Dairy price controls
Domestic sugar subsidization

If you want the whole list, it's here. Sure, some of these make sense. I mean, domestic sugar subsidization? Really? But for the few on this list that could be dropped, look at the other, scary things they want to do. Get rid of fuel efficiency standards? Corporate media ownership rules? Minimum health insurance benefit standards? Credit card regulation? These are things that greatly help the American people. They are also necessary. It is scary and dangerous that a group like the Heritage Foundation would want to wage an assault on them. It's ideology at it's scariest worst. It only furthers the image that the Republican Party simply exists to carry out the whims of business.

Charlotte It Is

President Obama will accept the Democratic nomination in Charlotte, North Carolina for the 2012 Presidential Election. Charlotte was chosen over Cleveland, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.

I would have liked to see Cleveland get the nod, as Ohio is a great swing state (plus, the contrast with the idea everyone snubs Cleveland). With that said, North Carolina was perhaps the most impressive win of the 2008 Election. If he carries North Carolina in 2012, he is overwhelmingly likely to win. Charlotte's a great city, and is doing quite well. All in all, not a bad pick. 

DeMint Leads In South Carolina

IF Jim DeMint runs for President, PPP says he leads his home-state of South Carolina, a key contest in the race for President. If he doesn't run, Mike Huckabee has the early lead. From their article:

DeMint is certainly well liked with the Republican base in his home state, sporting a 77/12 approval breakdown. But they're closely divided on whether he should go for the White House or not, with 40% of GOP voters expressing support for such a move but 37% opposed and 23% not offering an opinion. Because of that tepidness toward him running for President he just narrowly leads the primary in the state. 24% of voters say DeMint would be their top choice, followed by 20% for Huckabee, 17% for Mitt Romney, 12% for Sarah Palin, 10% for Newt Gingrich, 4% for Ron Paul, 3% for Tim Pawlenty, and 2% for Mitch Daniels. DeMint wouldn't be able to count on a blowout victory on the home front.

If you take DeMint out of the equation Huckabee is the biggest beneficiary. He would lead the state with 26% to 20% for Romney, 18% for Palin, 13% for Gingrich, 7% for Paul, 4% for Pawlenty, and 3% for Daniels.

This is bad news for Palin and Gingrich. Do the math here: Huckabee leads Iowa and South Carolina, Romney leads New Hampshire and Nevada. Romney would be favored in Michigan. This only really leaves Florida in play, and why would they do any better there? DeMint running could cut Huckabee's candidacy down at the knees by taking South Carolina, but he'd hardly be a lock there. All in all, bad news for Palin and Gingrich.

Update On Egypt

Bi-Partisan Consensus: Time For Mubarak To Go Away

You know it's time for something to happen (or maybe it's the huge storm?) when Mitt Romney and John Kerry agree on something. Yeah, both are from Massachusetts and both ran for President, but they agree on basically nothing. Except for the situation in Egypt.

John Kerry wrote an op-ed in the New York Times calling for Mubarak to step down on nationalistic grounds. Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Mubarak should step down in the interest of his nation, and because the people no longer consent to his governance. Kerry went so far as to say Mubarak and his son must both not run for President this year.

Mitt Romney became the first 2012 potential Presidential candidate to call for Mubarak's departure, but at the same time said the President was right to not call for it explicitly. Romney's statement seemed to mirror Congressional Republican statements, which seemed to stress unity with the President.

Be careful folks. Hell might freeze over.