Robert Levy and Edward Fallone debate: "The ObamaCare Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional" May 1, 2012

Robert A. Levy, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Cato Institute, will argue for, and Edward Fallone, Associate Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School, will argue against, "Resolved: The ObamaCare Insurance Mandate Is Unconstitutional", at a Tuesday, May 1, 2012, Noon luncheon at the Milwaukee Athletic Club, 758 North Broadway, Milwaukee. The debate is presented by the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapters of the Federalist Society with the Milwaukee Lawyers Chapter of the American Constitution Society.

For those with reservations, the cost is $20.00 ($15 for students,teachers, judges, clergy and employees of non-profits). You may reserve through the Milwaukee Federalists by email. There will be a $25.00 charge at the door for those without reservations. Seating is limited. Refunds cannot be given to those who choose not to attend.

Mr. Levy was the featured speaker at the Milwaukee Federalist Society's February 18, 2009 and April 22, 2008 events.

May 1st is Law Day, first proclaimed by President Eisenhower in 1958.

First Health Care, Now Immigration: How the Government Fumbled Its Latest Supreme Court Case

Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic

Mulligans, two?

Steven Hayward at Powerline draws a parallel.

Richard Epstein points to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s killer question in the oral arguments over the Obamacare mandate last week: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Where have we heard something like that before? That’s right—in Citizens United.

Prior to the prospect raised last week of the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare, Citizens United is the modern case that gets the most ire from the Left. ...

What people forget is that Citizens United was reargued, because the Justice Department also could not give a coherent answer to a killer question, this time from Justice Alito, as to whether the campaign finance laws that prohibited the distribution of Hillary, the Movie wouldn’t also allow the Federal Election Commission to regulate the distribution of books near election day. Then-solicitor general Donald Stewart answered Yes, notwithstanding that pesky little First Amendment thingie.

Alarmed, the Court ordered the case reargued, specifically expanding its scope to ask whether certain previous cases that provided the basis for Stewart’s answer had been erroneously decided and should be overruled. During the second oral argument, a new solicitor general—Elena Kagan—was asked the same killer question, and answered: “No [we can’t regulate books]; the government’s position has changed.”

Via KausFiles, Mulligan v. Maryland:

Reargument! Give the stunned liberal legal intelligentsia time to regroup. Send Solicitor General Verrilli to the showers and bring on someone better. ...

Why Won’t They Listen?

William Saletan reviews The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt