Why Obama Wants the Contraception Mandate to Go to the Supreme Court: President Obama wants the contraception mandate to go to court. He wants it to go all the way to the Supreme Court, even if he is not re-elected. His ace in the hole? Something called "content-based underinclusion."
You will do as you are told by government because, well, scholarly sounding gibberish.
From the Comments:
We are losing our sanity. If the government funds the arts (which it does) must it grant money to everybody who says he's an artist? No. Will that under-include certain artists? Yes. Why? Because the funds are not infinite, therefore they have to be administered or else someone like myself can demand a cottage in Cape Cod to inspire my seascape paintings. (Even though I can't paint, whose to say I'm not an artist -- government does not license artists). So the under-inclusive argument is nonsense when it comes to subsidized speech since the administer must apply a subjective criteria as to who gets the grants. Funding the arts falls under promoting the general welfare so it is not unconstitutional.
The above also applies to contraceptives. Just like a plumber who claims he's poet, a woman can claim anything that can affect "reproductive health". Does that mean we have to subsidize it so as not to under-include? Only if the money is infinite. But it isn't; it has to be administered so the government is forced to ration the scarce money. Therefore perfectly constitutional. This is what happens when we let law schools produce the smartest people on...
No comments:
Post a Comment