Health Insurance law survives challenge

BLUF: US District court judge rules the individual mandate is a constitutional method of the government to control costs.

I will check out the actual decision as soon as i have a chance but according to the story it seems the judge found that absent the mandate some people would wait until they were sick and then get insurance (duh).

If that is an accurate then I have a philosophical problem with it. In short it penalizes one group (those who dont buy insurance) in order to deter another group. It presumes that all people who dont buy insurance will engage in the conduct they want to dissuade.

Also it was never really in doubt why the government made the individual mandate, but rather can the government regulate non-activity. The story kind of glosses over the logic supporting the decision, whch is another reason I can’t wait to read the full decision.

Story is here.

Guns, Licensing, State Encouraged killing?

First: I really enjoy the blog I’m linking too here. It is often funny and simply fun to read. And I do this for entertainment first and foremost.

Over on the BL1Y Blog there is a very short post, with only a few comments (as of now), that raises some excellent questions.

For those of you living not only under a rock, but wearing earplugs and blinders also, there was a school shooting in Texas.

In the comments of the above first post, which was about a defensive use of a firearm, BL1Y said some stuff that got me thinking.

I think the best solution is to just increase the licensing requirements to include regular gun safety classes, and perhaps even a competency test, similar to a driving exam. If we’re going to let you carry a gun in public, I think we can also demand that your aim be okay. I’d also be in favor of criminalizing possession of a firearm while intoxicated.

I have heard these many times. I’m not going to rehash the arguments of why driving a car is not the same as using a gun (rights vs. privileges). I have a few more interesting things in mind.

Continue reading

Self-Defense

So, two kids (12 and 13) throw bricks at a house, get scared of when the owner (a 68-year old woman) returns.

They come back and throw bricks at her!

She pulls out her gun and returns the courtesy they are showing her.

Problem#1 :

Continue reading

Climate Change Criminals

We live in a very interesting world. A few days ago Ken Lammers over on CrimLaw posted a piece discussing the internet meme of that moment “You have no Quran“-Man. Mr. Lammers brought up the excellent point that one should not be granted nobility for their actions if there is no risk of punishment.

I disagreed with Ken a little on the particulars of this incident, but otherwise I agree 100% with Mr. Lammers on what makes an act of civil disobedience noble.

Now we have a similar situation (at least some will find it similar) which you can read my opinion about after the jump…

Continue reading

Questions we have to ask

Having been deployed to overseas locations a few times there are some questions I have to ask in the whole movement to eliminate the congressional ban on homosexual service.

Yes, it is a congressional ban. Don’t ask, Don’t tell was the military’s way of complying with an order from the President to find a policy which would allow homosexuals to serve, even though Congress wrote a law which he signed saying they couldn’t. The best the military could come up with was DADT, a compromise between not actively enforcing a law, but not just ignoring it either.

For those who doubt that I refer you to Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10. You can read it here. In short Congress, and the President decided a few things. Continue reading

The rich man’s burden

NOTE: Prof. Henderson’s original blog posts have been deleted, along with all comments to them. Cached copies of the blog posts are here, after the jump.

Over the past few days there has been an interesting series of comments going on in the blogosphere. A law professor, Todd Henderson of the University of Chicago, was seeking to make a point about how proposed changes to the tax code are inherently unfair. Or maybe he was trying to talk about the inherent waste in government spending. He kind of mentioned both, but never really bothered to talk about it in a way that works.

Instead he basically talked about how he may have to let his maid or gardener go is his tax bill goes up. Interestingly he also says he must have these (the house cleaner at least) due to other concerns, which means he wouldn’t actually fire anyone if his bill goes up, he would simply look for sufficient work to maintain his lifestyle.

Any way, back to his postings and attempts to make his point. Continue reading

RICO, on my MTV??

It is more likely than you think.

Actually MTV is being sued with references to the RICO act not for the first time, but at least a second time this year.

Continue reading