Randy Barnett reflects on the Obamacare win loss win
“In terms of what this means for the future, the future depends on what future courts want to do…. Number one, if future justices want to protect the enumerated powers scheme, they won’t have a super-bad precedent standing in their way, which they would have if we had lost on the Commerce Clause, and number two, they’ve got a tremendous precedent for the idea that the enumerated powers scheme means something and is legally and judicially enforceable, and that the Necessary and Proper Clause is also a constraint, or it’s not a blank check for government. And that’s a huge accomplishment.”
What to read next
A trial court in Marin County, California, handed down a tentative ruling in Cherk v. County of Marin, rejecting the Cherk family’s argument that it was unconstitutional for the County to force them to pay $40,000 into an “affordable housing” fund.
Before making a decision, most organizations take into account the costs and benefits of a proposed action, and will change course if the costs outweigh the benefits. Unfortunately, the federal government takes a different approach…
When the Cherk family applied for a permit to split their large residential parcel into two lots, the County of Marin demanded they pay $40,000 into the County’s “affordable housing” fund as a condition of the permit. The Cherks objected, but got nowhere with County officials and ultimately paid the fee under protest.
One of the most contentious federal regulations published in recent decades is the ill-fated and ill-legitimate “waters of the United States” or “WOTUS” rule that was issued by the Corps and EPA over the objections of Corps experts who argued the EPA misrepresented the science and misapplied the law.