Cato’s Michael Cannon nicely summarizes what I think likely are the sentiments of most freedom-loving people regarding the D.C. Circuit’s decision to grant en banc review of the Halbig decision on Obamacare…. which presents an opportunity to link…
… to this EconLog post from not long ago by David Henderson. I suggest my own related thought experiment to the one David offers in that post. Imagine one word – a single, a mere, a tiny, lone two-letter word – excluded from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, so that it reads:
Congress shall make law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
If Linda Greenhouse is correct, arguing over the exclusion of such a minuscule part of a grander document would be petty and annoying and oh-so-bothersome to those who wish to rule unencumbered by legal niceties such as the actual texts of legislative and other legal and government documents.
Shikha Dalmia explores the connection between the U.S. military and U.S. immigration policy.
