The Hypocrisy of the "Skinny" Repeal: The Republicans Themselves Said It Would be Disastrous

Abbe Gluck

With two strikes thus far on more substantial Obamacare repeal efforts, the Senate seems headed for the so-called "skinny" repeal option, which it appears would repeal the individual insurance-purchase mandate, along with the employer mandate and the medical device tax, and leave everything else in place.

This repeal is hypocrisy of the highest order.  For starters, the repeal was supposed to fix what Trump likes to call the "Obamacare disaster."  What exactly is that disaster? If it's Medicaid, this bill isn't going to touch it. (And it's not Medicaid: It has been documented that the Medicaid expansion (whether you like that program or not)is working quite well. For additional proof, just look at all the GOP resistance to cutting it and the number of red states that have expanded their programs). The "disaster" is the insurance markets--premiums that are too high, not enough competition on the exchanges.  That "disaster" as I have detailed elsewhere, was a tragedy mostly of the Republican party's own making.   Legislation and litigation by the Republican controlled Congress sowed uncertainty into the insurance markets and shut off critical insurance stabilization funds that the ACA as drafted provided.

To be sure, the ACA isn't flawless. The amounts set to subsidize individual purchase of insurance were set too low originally (which is one reason premiums feel too high for many). But the Congress never fixed that either, and it sure isn't doing so now.

Instead, the skinny repeal would exacerbate the very problem the Republicans claim they are repealing the ACA to address. Health experts, republican governors, insurers, hospitals--you name it--agree that repealing the mandate will cause premiums to rise even further and insurance markets to descend into even more fatal instability.  Why?  You can't make insurance more generous without giving something back.  The ACA gives something to the American people at the insurance industry's expense: it changes the way the industry does business by requiring insurers to take all comers at essentially equal rates regardless of health risk. In return, it gave the insurers more customers and an expanded, healthier, risk pool.  Taking away the mandate without repealing the generosity puts the insurance industry in the position of having to find some way to fund this generosity or risk collapse. 

Of course, everyone  (read: voters) likes the generosity--no one wants to be turned away from health care because they have cancer or some other condition.  The Republicans are unwilling to take the direct heat for taking those benefits away from the American people, so they are going to further sabotage the insurance markets and hope the American people are sufficiently ignorant that they will blame it on Obama instead.

But don't take my word for it. If there are any doubts about what effect the skinny repeal will have, consider this statement from the Republican amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court in the 2012 (unsuccessful) challenge to the individual mandate. The brief argued the ACA could not survive without the mandate--that millions of Americans would lose insurance and access to care and that insurance premiums would rise dramatically. Twenty-seven of those Senators are still in the Senate. In their own words:

"The individual mandate is at the heart of the PPACA, and the remainder of the statute necessarily depends on its inclusion because without the mandate, the statute’s reforms cannot work as intended. Indeed, the proponents of the PPACA knew at the time Congress considered the legislation that without the mandate both the number of uninsured and the price of premiums would skyrocket. In short, without the mandate, Congress’ attempted solution to the twin problems of health care coverage and costs  disappears." Br. of U.S. Senators at 10.

(That's what the Congressional Budget Office said today, too. It projected the skinny repeal would cause premiums to rise approximately 20%  and 16 million people to lose insurance by 2026.)

To make matters worse, to satisfy Senate requirements concerning the amount of money the repealer must save, some have suspected the skinny repeal will also need to include a provision gutting the ACA's public health and prevention fund, and possibly also the community health centers fund, raiding that money to pay for the havoc the bill will wreak on the insurance markets.   Cutting public health and prevention money, throwing millions off the insurance rolls, and raising premiums--at the very same time Republican senators themselves have clamored for more funds to address the national opioid crisis?  At the very same time they claim to be rescuing America from a health policy disaster?

It's worse than hypocrisy. It's irresponsible.
Posted 11:14 PM by Abbe Gluck [link]

How Does This Work? The Senate and Health Care Reconciliation

David Super

     Now that the Senate, defying many pundits’ expectations, has voted to begin debate on a reconciliation bill to repeal large parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), it may be useful to review the procedural rules and tactics likely to shape this debate. 
















Posted 11:36 PM by David Super [link]

Trump as a Different Type of Failure

Guest Blogger

Read more »
Posted 3:25 PM by Guest Blogger [link]

Due Process of Lawmaking and the Obamacare Repeal

Abbe Gluck

                In 1976, former Oregon Supreme Court Justice Hans Linde published a provocative article--Due Process of Lawmaking--which suggested, among other things, that legislation that was the product of lack of deliberation or process could be constitutionally invalid. Today, the U.S. Senate is moving to a vote on a mystery Obamacare repeal the contents of which no one-- not even the Senators being asked to vote--knows.    

                So what will they do instead? Instead of having the hard debate about what a health care system really is supposed to do for its citizens  (this is the debate about the tension between solidarity and "every man for himself" that we have seen underlying some of the principled Republican resistance to earlier versions of the repealer), the Republicans are going to pass a bill whose content they don’t know and, if they cannot agree on such a bill, they are going to simply repeal the core components of the ACA without a replacement, throwing the insurance markets that they claim they are working to save from the “Obamacare disaster”  into even greater disarray. (For my previous documentation of how it was largely the Republican sabotage of the law, not the ACA itself, that caused the instability, please see here.)

                As for the unorthodox process, it is true, as I write with Anne O’Connell, that “unorthodox lawmaking” is on the rise.  The ACA was not the first bill to be passed using “reconciliation”--a fast-track procedure devised for the budget process that avoids a filibuster--and any potential ACA repealer won’t be the last.

                This is repeal for repeal’s sake.  It’s not about policy. It’s all about politics. And of course, it’s also about human lives.  What would Hans Linde say?


Posted 2:12 PM by Abbe Gluck [link]

No Recess Appointments?

Gerard N. Magliocca

Mao Zedong used to write poems to express displeasure with colleagues who were about to be purged. The President uses tweets. In the case of the Attorney General, though, there is a problem. How can the President get a new person confirmed without making all sorts of commitments to the Senate about the Russia investigation and other matters?

The answer is that he could wait until the Senate is in recess to fire the Attorney General and then make a friendly recess appointment who would not need Senate confirmation. But this is only an option if the Senate chooses to go into recess. Under the Supreme Court's decision in Noel Canning, the Senate can block recess appointments by holding pro forma sessions while in recess.

I think that the Senate Majority Leader should be asked whether the Senate will hold such sessions during the August "recess." If his answer is no, then he is giving his tacit approval to the Attorney General's replacement at that time by someone who not be vetted by the Senate.


Posted 10:21 AM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (21) comments

Death and the War Power

Mary L. Dudziak

Some time ago, I began thinking about how war death matters to the history of war politics and war power through musings on this blog. Responses to those posts -- even in the comments(!) -- were helpful and thought provoking. It has taken me a while to figure out the pieces of the resulting argument and how they fit together, but this inquiry is now the centerpiece of my current book project.

Today I've posted my first publicly available paper developing the argument that the distance of American civilians from the carnage of their wars matters to how we think about war powers, particularly the atrophy of political restraints. Here's the abstract:

Death and the War Power

In the vast literature on American war powers, attention is rarely paid to the product of war – the dead human body – and its impact on war politics and war powers. In legal scholarship on the war powers, the practice of war usually happens in the background. Presidents, Congress and courts are in the foreground. Killing in war is thereby a background phenomenon – an aspect of the social context within which the war powers are exercised. This Essay puts death at the center of the analysis. Drawing upon the insights of important recent historical works on death, I argue that the dead body has a political life. The political history of American war death recasts an important problem in the history of American war powers: the atrophy of political restraints on presidential power.

Using historian Drew Gilpin Faust’s idea of a “republic of suffering” in the Civil War as a point of departure, the Essay argues that the culture of American war changed when American wars became only foreign wars. The principal character of American civilians’ relationship to war death in the 20th century was distance from the carnage. Distance accomplished two things: first, a “republic” framed in relation to war death was lost; and second, the U.S. government could exert control over what civilians at home could perceive. Massive mobilization during World War II might appear to be a challenge to the argument that distance from the battlefield matters, so the Essay examines the American civilian experience with war’s violence during that war. Using censored and uncensored World War II casualty photographs, I show the way the very view of war death was managed by the U.S. government for the purpose of maintaining domestic mobilization. Civilians therefore engaged a curated view of death meant to enhance their support for the war effort.

The change over time in the civilian experience with war is not recognized in the literature about war and American law. Instead, legal scholars tend to use the Civil War as a more important historical example than Cold War conflicts, even though the Cold War era bears more resemblance to the present context (militarily and in the impact on U.S. civilians). Meanwhile, cultural distance from war death has increased, helping to produce the profound apathy that characterizes contemporary American war politics. This apathy enables the current legal structure of war authorization: Congress fails to act, and presidents rely on new interpretations of outdated authorizations, or their own constitutional power. Ultimately, I argue, a crucial and unexamined factor in the atrophy of political restraints on presidential power to use military force is the distance between American civilians and the carnage their wars have produced.
Posted 12:39 PM by Mary L. Dudziak [link]

Pardons Are For The Guilty

Gerard N. Magliocca

Tomorrow the Trump du jour will be whether the President might pardon his aides, his family members, or even himself. I want to make one observation about this; a quote from the Supreme Court's 1915 opinion in Burdick v. United States, which addressed the pardon power:

"This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. The former has no such imputation or confession."

Gerald Ford, the story goes, would carry this quote in his pocket and pull it out as a justification when he was asked about why he pardoned Richard Nixon.

We'll see if "All of This President's Men" are willing to, in effect, confess guilt.
Posted 9:56 PM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (52) comments

Fault Lines in the Constitution

Sandy Levinson

My wife and I have co-authored a book, directed primarily at 10-18 year olds, titled Fault Lines in the Constitution:  The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today.  It focuses very much on structural features of the Constitution, though rights appear in the context of chapters on habeas corpus and the broader problem of emergency powers.  The book will be published on September 1 by Peachtreec Publishers.  Cynthia and I will talk about the book at the National Book Festival in Washington on September 2.  

One of the central issues raised by the book, both explicitly and implicitly, involves civic education.  What should youngsters be learning about the Constitution?  Readers of Balkinization will not be surprised to learn that we believe that students need to learn far more about the structural aspects of the Constitution and, of course, to learn how crucial these aspects are.  My own hope is that student readers will ultimately argue as vigorously with one another about the presidential veto power or the allocation of voting power in the Senate as they do about the implications of the rights provisions of the Constitution.The general topic of civic education will be the topic of a major conference at the University of Texas on February 16-17.  I am organizing a panel on constitutional law casebooks and their implicit pedagogicalthursts with an all-star cast of casebook editors. There will also be a panel specifically on Fault Lines.  But most of the panels are being organized by my daughter Meira Levinson, who teaches at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and has written extensively on civic education; they will address some of the general problem of civic education in contentious societies and times like our own.  As we get close to the time, I will certainly set out the complete program. 

As part of our efforts to promote the book, we are posting columns on a blog site every couple of weeks of so, The most recent discusses the shooting at the Republican practice for the congressional baseball game several weeks ago and the potential implications had it turned into a genuine massacre of dozens of senators or representatives.  The Constitution is quite terrible with regard to "continuity in government," something we are all too confident is rarely brought up in those few civics courses that continue to be taught.  Indeed, it is interesting to note the consequences even of John McCain's illness, for his inability to vote would have doomed the bill with the loss of two Republican votes, given that the vote would then have been 50-49, whereas if McCain had been there, and voted yes to proceed with the debate, then the vote would have been 50-50, with Pence being able to break the tie. 



Posted 5:38 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

The Definition of "Emolument" in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523-1806

John Mikhail

Read more »
Posted 7:16 AM by John Mikhail [link]

It’s Time to Constitutionalize Opposition to the Planned Parenthood Exclusion, aka "Defunding"

Priscilla Smith

It looks like the current version of the Republican healthcare bill is a dead letter, but Repubs are saying a new version is due out today that will “appease both sides” of their party’s divide. here.

We’ll see about that. Maybe they’ll add back in coverage for preexisting conditions, reduce by a million or two the number of people who will lose health care. We’ll find out. What I doubt will change is the way the bill guts health care provided for women. First, they will undoubtedly mess with the preventive services package, gutting the required coverage for contraception or creating a refusal clause you could drive a truck through. Think women shouldn’t have sex unless they would welcome a pregnancy? No problem. Sign here. How about prenatal and delivery services for those women who get pregnant? Is “maternity” care still on the chopping block? We’ll see.

One thing you can be sure of though is that the new version of the healthcare bill will “defund” Planned Parenthood. The Republicans claim they are “defunding” Planned Parenthood because they don’t want to support Planned Parenthood’s abortion care. Of course, the federal government doesn’t fund abortions, or even Planned Parenthood in any case. They cover non-abortion services for women on insurance programs like Medicaid and in block grants like Title X, and Planned Parenthood is an eligible provider of preventive services. In fact, Planned Parenthood is one of the best providers around of prenatal care, preventive health services, cancer screenings, vaccines, and primary care for kids. In many areas of the country, it’s the only provider of those services. Blah Blah Blah.

You’ve heard it all before – at least I hope you have. The main message we hear is that Planned Parenthood is great health care, vital for many women in the country. Your daughter, sister, wife, mother, cousin have probably gone there if you haven’t gone yourself. There are not six degrees of separation from you and Planned Parenthood. You are closer to PP than you are to Kevin Bacon that’s for sure. It’s a great message; I have nothing against it; it’s true; it probably tests well in focus groups, etc.

But one thing you don’t hear about is that making Planned Parenthood or any otherwise eligible medical provider ineligible to provide covered health care services in a federal program because they provide constitutionally-protected abortions using their own non-government funds is, you guessed it, unconstitutional.

I don’t mean that I think it is unconstitutional or that current case law should be interpreted as saying it is unconstitutional. No. The claim that defunding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional is far from off-the-wall, because the Supreme Court has already said that it is unconstitutional. In 1986, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a Court of Appeals decision that held unconstitutional an Arizona law that “defunded” Planned Parenthood because it provided abortions with its own private funds. Babbitt v. Planned Parenthood of Cent. & N. Ariz., 479 U.S. 925 (1986), aff’g mem., 789 F.2d 1348, 1350 (9th Cir. 1986). In Babbitt, the Supreme Court held that a state cannot withhold family planning funds from an organization that uses its own non-state funds to perform abortions.

Read more »
Posted 2:14 PM by Priscilla Smith [link]

Gunner Gorsuch

Gerard N. Magliocca

Linda Greenhouse's op-ed in today's New York Times essentially accuses Justice Gorsuch of being a gunner. A gunner, for those who don't know, is a derogatory term for a first-year law student who acts like a know-it-all and talks nonstop in class.

Is this a fair characterization? Sort of. I think Greenhouse is being too harsh when she calls Justice Gorsuch the President's judicial "avatar." (Though that may have been a title selected by the editor rather than by her.) And I think we can cut Gorsuch some slack--he's new on the job.  Even the most experienced judges find that learning the highways and byways of the Supreme Court takes a few years. Still, so far I do find the new Justice's prose rather grating.

Here is a small example. In his dissent in Pavan v. Smith, Justice Gorsuch says twice that the Court's summary reversal of the Arkansas Supreme Court was inappropriate because the state court reached its decision in good faith. Early on he says that the opinion below "did not in any way seek to defy but rather earnestly engage Obergefell." Then at the end he says that the Arkansas Supreme Court should not reversed summarily "for seeking faithfully to apply, not evade, this Court's mandates."

With respect, these statements are preposterous. Justice Gorsuch has no idea if the Arkansas Supreme Court was "earnestly" or "faithfully" trying to apply Obergefell. What I assume he meant was that the Supreme Court should presume earnestness or faithfulness and thus not use summary reversal as the method of review of a lower court judgment. These, though, are two very different concepts.

Furthermore, a little digging shows that the trial judge in Pavan, who was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, was not so confident in the earnestness and faithfulness of those Justices and said as much. The State Supreme Court then admonished him in their opinion for criticizing them.

My point is that Gorsuch's conclusion was reasonable in saying the case did not warrant summary reversal and should be full briefed and argued. His way of explaining that--pretty imprecise.

Posted 3:06 PM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (31) comments

"For a Generation"?

Mark Tushnet

Posted 6:38 PM by Mark Tushnet [link]

Complicity: Internal and External View, or, "Well, Mussolini Made the Trains Run on Time"

Mark Tushnet

Posted 11:59 AM by Mark Tushnet [link]

Sex and the Constitution

Andrew Koppelman

Posted 11:02 AM by Andrew Koppelman [link]

How Could Religious Liberty Be a Human Right?

Andrew Koppelman

A growing number of scholars think “religious liberty” is a bad idea. They oppose religious persecution, but think that a specifically “religious” liberty arbitrarily privileges practices that happen to resemble Christianity and distorts perception of real injuries. Both objections are sound, but religious liberty is nonetheless appropriately regarded as a right. Law is inevitably crude. The state cannot possibly recognize each individual’s unique identity-constituting attachments. It can, at best, protect broad classes of ends that many people share. “Religion” is such a class. 

I develop this argument in a forthcoming article in the International Journal of Constitutional Law, now available on SSRN, here.
Posted 10:32 AM by Andrew Koppelman [link]

Carl Schmitt in Contemporary U.S. Legal Theory

Mark Tushnet

Posted 3:36 PM by Mark Tushnet [link]

Some Legal Realism About Legal Theory

David Pozen

Read more »
Posted 11:24 PM by David Pozen [link]

"I Don't Care About My Dignity"

Gerard N. Magliocca

The President's recent tweets made me think about Andrew Johnson's ill-fated campaign for Democrats during the midterm elections of 1866. Johnson's conduct during what was termed "the swing around the circle" was widely seen as an fiasco because he got into shouting matches with hecklers and made several wacky statements ("Why don't you hang Thad Stevens?") When some of the President's supporters told him that some of his comments were undignified, the President was heard by reporters to reply "I don't care about my dignity," which became a national headline.

Two years later, one of the articles of impeachment against President Johnson alleged that comments such as these were a high crime and misdemeanor. Article Ten stated:  "Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof" did "make and declare, with a loud voice, certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces . . . amid the cries, jeers, and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing." [I love the touch about "with a loud voice."] Article Ten concluded with the following:

Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office. 

Hail to the Chief.


Posted 9:59 PM by Gerard N. Magliocca [link] (31) comments

That Syria War Power Debate, Continued

Deborah Pearlstein

Posted 12:15 PM by Deborah Pearlstein [link]

A Realistic Theory of Law

Brian Tamanaha

At any time, but particularly in critical times like these, it can be useful to step back and take a clear-eyed historical view of the development of law. My new book, A Realistic Theory of Law, presents law as complex of social institutions that develop in relation to surrounding factors. Chapter Five, Law in the Age of Organizations, is particularly relevant to contemporary events. Therein I distinguish three government uses of law: to maintain government power, to structure and carry out internal operations, and to pursue initiatives and achieve objectives in the social arena. These government uses, I assert, "are influenced by people occupying offices with their own interests, ideas, and objectives, as well as externally by interests seeking to control or shape the activities and objectives they carry out." Here is the Cambridge description of the book:

This book articulates an empirically grounded theory of law applicable throughout history and across different societies. Unlike natural law theory or analytical jurisprudence, which are narrow, abstract, ahistorical, and detached from society, Tamanaha's theory presents a holistic vision of law within society, evolving in connection with social, cultural, economic, political, ecological, and technological factors. He revives a largely forgotten theoretical perspective on law that runs from Montesquieu through the legal realists to the present. This book explains why the classic question 'what is law?' has never been resolved, and casts doubt on theorists' claims about necessary and universal truths about law. This book develops a theory of law as a social institution with varying forms and functions, tracing law from hunter-gatherer societies to the modern state and beyond. Tamanaha's theory accounts for social influences on law, legal influences on society, law and domination, multifunctional governmental uses of law, legal pluralism, international law, and other legal aspects largely overlooked in jurisprudence.

As a side note, the cover images were drawn by my artist daughter. It is my first book with a cover that conveys the content.
Posted 11:32 AM by Brian Tamanaha [link]

Two Essays on Constitutional Rot

JB

I have posted two connected essays on the phenomenon of constitutional rot on SSRN; the essays began as posts on this blog. Each approaches the problem of constitutional rot from a slightly different angle.

Here are the abstracts:


Constitutional Rot and Constitutional Crisis


May 15, 2017

The first hundred days of Donald Trump's presidency led many commentators to ask whether the United States was in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Drawing on previous work written with Sanford Levinson, this essay explains why that is not the case. Trump's demagogic rise to power, however, suggests that a different phenomenon is at work: constitutional rot.

When politicians disregard norms of fair political competition, undermine the public's trust in government, stroke polarization, encourage mutual fear and hatred of fellow citizens, and repeatedly overreach to rig the political system in their favor, they cause the system of democratic and republican constitutionalism to decay. The decay of norms that maintain a democratic republic is the phenomenon of constitutional rot. Many claims about "constitutional crisis" during Trump’s presidency reflect a growing recognition of the constitutional rot in our nation’s political institutions.

The essay explains the differences between constitutional crisis and constitutional rot and how the two are connected. Whereas constitutional crises normally occur over brief periods of time, constitutional rot is often a long and slow process of change and debilitation, which may be the work of many hands over many years.

The election of a demagogue like Trump is evidence that our institutions have seriously decayed, and judging by his presidential campaign and his first hundred days in office, Trump promises to accelerate the corruption. The constitutional system in the United States may well be able to survive even Donald Trump’s misadventures. But Trump’s rise to power, his conduct of the presidency, and the inability (or unwillingness) of members of Congress to stop him, are signs that all is not well in American constitutional democracy. At some point, if we put too much weight on our democratic institutions, they will snap. There is currently no actual constitutional crisis in the United States. But if constitutional rot continues, we are living on borrowed time.

* * * * *

Constitutional Rot

June 14, 2017

Constitutional rot refers to the decay of features of a constitutional system that maintain it as a healthy republic. Constitutional rot has been going on for some time in the United States, and it has generated the country's current state of dysfunctional national politics. Constitutional rot has made American politics increasingly less democratic, less republican, and more oligarchical.

The causes of constitutional rot are four interlocking phenomena, which we might call the Four Horsemen of Constitutional Rot: (1) political polarization; (2) loss of trust in government; (3) increasing economic inequality; and (4) policy disasters--important failures in decisionmaking by our representatives, such as the Vietnam War, the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis. Each of these four phenomena exacerbates the others. In addition, America's inadequate response to globalization has hastened constitutional rot.

As a political system becomes increasingly oligarchical, it also becomes less equal, more polarized, and generates greater distrust, both of government in general and of political opponents. People not only lose trust in government, but in other people who disagree with them. Political opponents appear less as fellow citizens devoted to the common good and more like internal threats to the nation.

When people lose faith in government, they are likely to turn to demagogues who promise to make everything right and restore former glories. The rise of Donald Trump, who has many of the traits of a traditional demagogue, is a symptom of constitutional rot, rather than its cause.

Constitutional rot not only allowed Trump to gain power; he also has incentives to increase constitutional rot to stay in power; for example, by increasing polarization, and sowing distrust and confusion. Many of his actions as president—and his media strategy—make sense from this perspective.

Moreover, Trump, like many populist demagogues before him, has maintained populist rhetoric while abandoning any serious effort at pushing for genuinely populist policies. Once populist demagogues take power, they often discard the people who helped put them there; instead, they substitute new backers who are easier to deal with and/or pay off to stay in power.

The United States still retains many structural advantages that might allow it to halt and reverse constitutional rot, including an independent judiciary, a free press, and regular elections. In fact, Trump's presidency likely represents the end of an enervated political regime, and not the necessary future of politics. Although the present situation looks bleak, the next several election cycles offer the possibility of political renewal if Americans can rise to the challenge.


Posted 11:19 AM by JB [link]

Your Travel Ban Isn't Safe Yet, Mr. Trump

Corey Brettschneider

Here is my piece for the New York Times today about the travel ban.





Posted 11:14 AM by Corey Brettschneider [link]

Is Now a Good Time to Go Back to that Presidential War Power Debate?

Deborah Pearlstein

Read more »
Posted 10:10 PM by Deborah Pearlstein [link]

Taxes, program cuts, and reconciliation: the path forward

David Super

     In two recent posts, I discussed the procedural and political context for efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s revenue provisions and reduce federal spending on health care assistance.  This legislation does not, however, exist in a vacuum.  It is part of, and interacts with, congressional Republicans’ broader policy agenda centered on steep cuts in taxes and social programs.  This post explains how Congress’s procedural rules will shape those initiatives.





Read more »
Posted 8:36 AM by David Super [link]

Constitutional Rot-- A Discussion on MSNBC

JB

This evening Ari Melber had a segment on my speech to the Yale Law School Alumni, "Trumping the Constitution," which analyzes Donald Trump's rise to power as a symptom of long-term constitutional rot in our political institutions.

Melber did a good job of summarizing several key themes in the speech in only a few minutes, and then followed it up with a panel discussion.
Posted 8:42 PM by JB [link]

This is not the health care bill you were looking for. Move along.

David Super

Read more »
Posted 8:39 AM by David Super [link]

Ending Medicaid As We Know It: The Court's Role

Stephen Griffin

Perhaps the Senate's health care bill will be a political fizzle but if it passes, we should at least mark the Supreme Court's role in permitting Republicans to advance a proposal that would make one of the biggest changes to the welfare state ever -- ending the role of Medicaid as an entitlement program.  As this WaPo story notes, with respect at least to Medicaid, the Senate bill is consistent with an aim Republicans at the national level have had for years.  They have wanted to cap federal Medicaid spending either through block grants or per capita limits.  As the story says, the Bush 43 administration made a run at a block grant proposal.  But it doesn't say why it didn't pass.

In the past, proposals to cap Medicaid usually ran afoul of the nation's governors, and on a bipartisan basis. Medicaid is jointly funded by the state and federal governments.  Governors know what would happen if federal spending is capped -- they will be left holding the bag for a lot of very ill poor people.  This is particularly the case during recessions when state revenues decline sharply yet budgets must still be balanced due to constitutional mandates.  In fact in many past recessions, including the Great Recession of 2008, states requested and got additional money from Congress to cover the gaps that opened up in state budgets for financing Medicaid.  Governors are sensitive to this issue because they know they will be blamed for all the poor people who can't get medical care when state revenues decline.  And if the Senate bill passes, that result is probably guaranteed in the next recession.

You might figure that governors would oppose the Senate bill and some (including some Republicans) do oppose it.  But my sense is GOP governors in particular are not speaking with one voice this time around.  They aren't because the Court created the option, unforeseen by Congress, of not expanding Medicaid in NFIB v. Sebelius.  If all states had expanded Medicaid, they all would be in the same position with respect to the Senate bill, which is a very bad one, as it rolls back the expansion.  Parenthetically, I haven't seen much commentary on how the different parts of the ACA are intended to work together.  Reverse the Medicaid expansion and more poor people will show up at emergency rooms, recreating the cost shifting problem that the ACA tried to solve.  In any case, GOP governors in non-expansion states appear to be supporting the House and Senate bills.  The unity that characterized governors in the past on Medicaid has been broken. For that, we have the Supreme Court to thank.
Posted 4:38 PM by Stephen Griffin [link]