We just released a new Issue Paper that tackles the perennial question: how much are we taxed here in Colorado? Many on the Left presume it’s not enough. When our researcher Anthony Gonzalez really dug into it and looked at the whole picture (state AND local taxation), Colorado it turns out sits right in the middle of the nation at 26th. Take a look at our first Issue Paper of 2012, How Colorado’s Tax Burdens Rank Nationally.

In his latest blog post, our Constitutional scholar Rob Natelson shares his thoughts on the recently signed into law National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Many believe the NDAA codifies the Executive Branch’s ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without trial. What does Rob think? Check it out here.

Keep your eyes on this developing story: Democratic lawmakers are putting RTD’s toes to the fire on building out the Northwest corridor. RTD made a promise many years ago and the folks up in the Longmont area have been paying for a rail system that has yet to be delivered. How long can RTD hold out? How long will the Northwest corridor take it? Time will tell…

Finally, there is a really cool economics fundamentals class being held at our building this Saturday the 11th. I encourage all of you to take a look at the details here. For those still not on Facebook, here is some information:

Are you a liberty activist who loves free markets, capitalism and limited government – but have a difficult time describing its myriad benefits and merits when talking with others?

Then this is the educational training course for you!

Liberty on the Rocks is looking for leaders in the liberty movement (current or future) who are interested in obtaining insights into the basic fundamental principles of free market economics by attending a half-day educational course in Denver. **Tickets to attend are $10**

On Saturday, February 11th from 1:30-6:30pm, Liberty on the Rocks will present an exclusive hands-on, discussion and activity-driven economics session. During this half-day course, attendees will learn and/or better understand:

-The role economics plays in the advancement of liberty

-How to make the case for freedom from an economic and philosophical perspective

-How prices work in a market place

-Different ways of looking at public policy from an economic perspective

-The essential arguments for why socialism can’t work

RSVP today by purchasing tickets at: http://denver.libertyontherocks.org/economic-freedom-session/

Email Amanda Muell for even more info.

Keep it up everyone!

Since federal Medicaid funds are a huge portion of all states’ budgets, the effect is to subordinate state fiscal policy to the whim of federal officials. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Stay tuned for details and PDF of the other amicus. It will focus on the unconstitutionality of the individual health insurance mandate. Word is, Rob and Dave work their magic on the Commerce Power and the Necessary and Proper Clause. I also hear that they plan to sit down for an iVoices.org podcast with my main minion Justin Longo on both briefs. I’ll post the brief and the podcast here when they come out.

Until then, say NO to bullying.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.
Congress affirms that—
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 23 1541 note);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who—
(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or
(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 11 107–40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

Yesterday the Senate rejected an amendment by Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have stricken the detention provisions, and required the Executive branch to submit a report (within 90 days) on the the legal and practical issues involving detention, and required Congress to hold hearings on the detention within the next 45 days after receipt of the report.

The bill also includes provisions to prevent civilian trials of prisoners currently held at Guantanamo. The Obama administration is threatening to veto the bill, although the objections appear to involve Guantanamo-type issues, and not the expansion of the executive’s detention powers. [Note: The bill version quoted above is the version as passed by the House and sent to the Senate. It is the latest version available on Thomas. The numbering for some sections may be different in earlier versions of the bill.] Kudos to Senator Udall, one of the few genuine civil libertarians in Congress, for taking the lead on this issue.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that, according to Senator Carl Levin, it was the Obama administration which told Congress to remove the language in the original bill which exempted American citizens and lawful residents from the detention power. See the C-Span video of the debate on the floor of the Senate, at 4:43:29. This is not the Obama I caucused for in Feb. 2008.

I’d like to point out his blog post for this week that completely eviscerates the cover article on our Constitution by Richard Stengel in Time Magazine. In it, Rob deconstructs some points Mr. Stengel was trying to make in regards to the meaning of our Constitution. As an expert on the meaning of the Constitution, Rob was able to point out the many flaws in Mr. Stengel’s points. The Time Mag article is instructive as I believe it reflects many people’s thinking about our founding document. As such, Rob wrote an entire book exploding many of the common myths that Mr. Stengel repeats tirelessly in the article. To keep yourself from making many of these popular mistakes, keep following Rob’s work on constitution.i2i.org.

Perhaps most interesting to me in the article is when Dave points out that one of the cases addresses an area of constitutionality that none of the others does. In most instances, the legal challenge is meant to take on Obamacare’s individual mandate via the Commerce Power and/or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But in Seven-Sky v. Holder, the plaintiffs are challenging the mandate on First Amendment grounds! Turns out, the mandate to buy “Western style” health insurance infringes on some people’s religious freedoms. I’ll let Dave explain,

All the Seven-Sky plaintiffs are individuals who, for one reason or another, have religious objections to using the standard services of western medicine. The PPACA contains no exemption for such people… They argue that the mandate violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion, as protected by a federal statute called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That 1993 law provides that the federal “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.

Isn’t that fascinating? Obamacare has some waivers and exemptions – mostly for friends of the White House and some religious groups like the Amish – but none for these folks. It will be interesting to see which of these cases the Supreme Court decides to take up. I will be doubly interested if the SCOTUS decides to take this particular First Amendment case.

Scary huh?

Well, you should be scared. Dave decided to assemble a legal team for his amicus that would make any pro-health control apologist shake in their penny loafers. He called upon the authors of the book The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause – Gary Lawson, Guy Seidman, and our Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies Rob Natelson. It’s like the modern day version of Captain Planet, except in this case they combine their powers for good rather than a bunch of feel good green mumbo jumbo.(But Dave does have a pair of those tight red skivvies).

If you want to read the amicus, you can download the PDF here. Or for a brief overview of the arguments, you can check out the press release we sent out earlier today. Dave gives a great summary of the arguments found inside the brief:

A just-filed amicus curiae brief from the Independence Institute undercuts one of the key legal defenses of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The brief shows that the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution does not grant Congress additional power to impose an individual mandate to make people purchase health insurance from corporations favored by Congress.

The amicus brief was filed in the case of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, a 26-state suit against Obamacare. The State of Colorado, represented by Attorney General John Suthers, is one of the plaintiffs in the case. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral argument on June 8. The federal government is appealing
from a district court decision that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, and that the entire PPACA is therefore void.

The Obama administration argues that the constitutional power of Congress “To regulate Commerce…among the several States” means that Congress can force people to engage in commerce by buying a particular type of health insurance they do not want. As the district court observed, never in the history of the United States has the power to “regulate” commerce been interpreted to include a power to compel commerce.

So as a fallback position, the Obama administration argues that the individual mandate is authorized by the constitutional power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers….”

The Independence Institute brief explains why the administration’s argument about the Necessary and Proper Clause is wrong:

The word “necessary” was simply an affirmance of the well-known legal principle that the express grant of a particular power also included lesser, unstated, incidental powers. For example, the Constitution’s enumerated power to establish post offices also includes the lesser power to punish crimes committed against postal employees.

The individual mandate does not meet the legal test for “necessary.” The power to compel the purchase of a product is as great or greater than the power to regulate voluntary commerce. Thus, the mandate is not a lesser, incidental power.

Secondly, the individual mandate is not “proper.” The intended, widely-understood meaning of “proper” was to reiterate the requirement that federal laws be impartial. For example, during the debates over ratification of the Constitution, participants recognized that a law chartering a commercial monopoly would be “improper.” A law to create a monopoly would favor the monopolist at the expense of consumers. The individual mandate is even more improper: With a monopoly, citizens can still choose not to purchase the monopolist’s product, but the individual mandate compels citizens to purchase products from an insurance oligopoly.

The Independence Institute brief was written by Independence Institute Senior Fellow Robert G. Natelson, Research Director David B. Kopel, and Boston University Law Professor Gary Lawson. Natelson and Lawson are co-authors of the 2010 book The Origins of the Necessary and Proper Clause, the most in-depth historical examination of the clause.

President Obama declared today’s 41st annual Earth Day proof of America’s ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn’t include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.

Almost makes Al Gore seem like a conservationist.

I’ve previously defended President Obama’s enthusiasm for golf, but the picture of the American President going on television to announce his predictions in a college basketball tournament, while America’s interests and long-term security are in imminent peril, is disconcerting. Whatever Barack Obama’s virtues, Hillary Clinton was right: he was not ready for the 3 a.m. phone call; and it appears that he never will be.