Randy Barnett argues in the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare goes to far in threatening to withhold money from the states. Given the space limitations of a newspaper op-ed page, it is perhaps understandable that the discussion does not quite persuasively distinguish the 7-2 South Dakota v. Dole decision. The Governor Tim Pawlenty amicus brief (filed by CEI's Hans Bader and Sam Kazman) in the McCollum litigation does a better job, arguing that South Dakota and Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman require more concrete terms than the PPACA provides, and thus courts are not given the "clear and informed choice" between participation and non-participation that the Supreme Court says it requires. I haven't seen any other discussion of Pennhurst in the context of health-care reform, so CEI's outlier position is either brilliant or crazy.
Obamacare litigation: the Pennhurst argument
- Epstein on providing for the poor
- More on vice-presidential vetting
- New Podcasts: Reactions to the Obamacare decision
- The implications
- Live Stream Event: What the ObamaCare decision means
- The decision (with apologies to Lebron James)
- Two senses of federalism
- Winning the battle, but losing the war (for expansive federal government power)?
- The ACA, Intrade, and other tea leaves
- New Podcasts: The constitutionality of Obamacare
- Obamacare Debate Complete: The participant with the most compelling argument was...
- New MI report: Epstein and Hyman on PPACA
- Coming next week: featured discussion on PPACA
- Supreme Court TV?
- Obamacare oops II