Audio Clips

16 April 2012

Food Trucks, Freedom to Innovate

Jeffrey Dermer is fighting to keep mobile food vending from being stamped out by crony capitalists who don't like competition.  Keep it up, Jeffrey!  You can find previous ReasonTV coverage of this issue here.

12 April 2012

Art Laffer on Economics!

This clip with Art Laffer is great and he's absolutely right: it's not Republican, it's not Democrat, it's economics!

11 April 2012

Who Determines the Constitutionality of a Law?

Tim Sandefur of Pacific Legal Foundation, one of my favorite people on the planet, did an interview recently with Armstrong and Getty (two more of my favorite people).  I excerpted just a bit of the interview because I thought Tim made a GREAT point that the Supreme Court is not the only bulwark of the Constitution.

06 April 2012

Great Explanation of the Unconstitutionality of Obamacare

Randy Barnett argued the case against Obamacare recently at a CATO Institute event.  It was well-reasoned and seems so obvious to me that I truly struggle to understand where the defenders of Obamacare are coming from.

05 April 2012

04 April 2012

Is Economics a Science?

This is a great, concise explanation of why economics is not a science in the same way that physics and chemistry are sciences.

03 April 2012

Obama Tells Supreme Court It Shouldn't Contradict Congress

Um...correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the history of the Supreme Court just one long line of laws being overturned?  In what way would this be an "unprecedented step", Mr. President?  For a law professor, you don't seem to know much about the history of the Supreme Court.

 Damon Root of Reason wrote the following today:

Obama’s Bogus Complaint About Health Care and Judicial Activism
Damon W. Root | April 3, 2012

 James Madison once described the judicial branch of our government as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." The idea is that the courts are uniquely situated to protect both individual liberties and unpopular minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Judges do this (if they do it) by striking down democratically-enacted laws.

President Barack Obama apparently has a different opinion about what the courts should do. Here’s what he said yesterday, in response to a question about last week’s oral arguments on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its controversial individual mandate:

Ultimately I’m confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected congress. And I just remind conservative commentators that for years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. An unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident this court will recognize that and not take that step. 

Is it really so unprecedented for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by a democratically-elected group of lawmakers? In the 2005 case of Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in order to recognize habeus corpus rights for prisoners held as enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay—a decision cheered by then-Sen. Obama himself. Among the justices who signed on to that opinion was Stephen Breyer, who had this to say about the ruling in his recent book Making Our Democracy Work: “One cannot characterize Boumediene as a case that followed Congressional directions or implemented Congress’s broader purposes.”

No, one cannot characterize Boumediene as an example of judicial deference. But so what? Sometimes Congress’ broader purposes run counter to the text and history of the Constitution, and in those cases, it’s the responsibility of the courts to say so and strike the law down.