Health Care Question

Mon Mar 22 15:48:07 PDT 2010

While this takes us far afield I am not going to let Reynolds go by undefended
Reynolds accurately says that polygamy tends to the patriarchical principle.  In other words it is the enemy of women's safety and well being.  For those educated on the facts of polygamy, criticizing the decision is tantamount to standing up for women's inequality and mistreatment.  
 Reynolds was rightly decided, which is one reason it has been followed over 130 times

Marci  
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ira (Chip) Lupu" <iclupu at law.gwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 18:05:54 
To: Sanford Levinson<SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>; Nelson Lund<nlund at gmu.edu>; CONLAWPROFS professors<CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: Health Care Question

In answer to Sandy's question ("Would Chip offer any decision of the US Supreme Court as "worth a riot"?), only Dred Scott pops quickly to mind -- worth a Civil War (which riots in the streets sometimes become).  Other good candidates?  Plessy? The whole set of 19th century Mormon cases, beginning with Reynolds v. U.S.?

Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW 
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg

---- Original message ----
>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 16:01:06 -0500
>From: Sanford Levinson <SLevinson at law.utexas.edu>  
>Subject: RE: Health Care Question  
>To: "Ira (Chip) Lupu" <iclupu at law.gwu.edu>,Nelson Lund <nlund at gmu.edu>,CONLAWPROFS professors <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
>
>Had anyone known what the consequences of the Bush Presidency would be, I certainly hope there would have been serious rioting in Florida and elsewhere.  Not a single person I know predicted that the Bush presidency would take the particular tack in did; he had not been that bad (or partisan) a governor of Texas, and everyone assumed that he would be a similar president.  He was not, and the country will spend decades recovering from the disaster.  Shrill this may be, but I'm happy to defend it as a completely accurate statement of the facts.  
>
>Would Chip offer any decision of the US Supreme Court as "worth a riot"?  Or is it our duty always to accept the views of the politically well-connected, ideologically saturated lawyers who happen to serve on the Court?  (This is my reply to Marci.  I am well aware that not all Republicans or Democrats think alike. But it's a good first approximation with regard to the current Court on all too many issues, including the "federalism" that Marci is devoted to.)
>
>sandy
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira (Chip) Lupu
>Sent: Monday, March 22, 2010 2:58 PM
>To: Nelson Lund; CONLAWPROFS professors
>Subject: Re: Health Care Question
>
>This discussion is getting awfully shrill.  Rioting in the streets over a decision on the constitutionality of the health care bill?  Please.  
>
>Permit me to offer a story.  I was on a brief vacation in Broward County, Florida, on that day in December, 2000, when the Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore II that the election was over, and that Florida should stop its recount.  What was so striking to me was that everyone on the beach, and on the streets, and in the restaurants, were very quiet -- everyone went about his or her business as if nothing had happened.  No doubt, inside the Washington Beltway, where I work, everyone was going crazy.  Outside that Beltway (and outside the legal academy), people take very large political decisions quite in stride.
>
>By the way, re: affirmative duties to act -- read U.S. v. Miller re: the laws of Virginia, NY, etc, compelling able-bodied men to acquire (at their own expense) arms and ammunition for use in the state militia. 
>
> 
>Ira C. Lupu
>F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
>George Washington University Law School
>2000 H St., NW 
>Washington, DC 20052
>(202)994-7053
>My SSRN papers are here:
>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 15:38:16 -0400
>>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu (on behalf of Nelson Lund <nlund at gmu.edu>)
>>Subject: Re: Health Care Question  
>>To: CONLAWPROFS professors <CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu>
>>
>>   Presumably, then, rioting in the streets should also
>>   be an appropriate response if the Court does not do
>>   that? Or should one's view of the propriety of
>>   rioting in the streets differ depending on whether
>>   one agrees with the legal merits of the Court's
>>   decisions? Or on one's views of the merits of the
>>   legislation at issue? Or one's views of what is
>>   "transcendentally important"? Or on whether the
>>   decision was made by Republican judges?
>>
>>   Nelson Lund
>>   George Mason
>>
>>   Sanford Levinson wrote:
>>
>>     I confess I find it also a bit bizarre that the
>>     discussion proceeds as if it is totally irrelevant
>>     that a 5-judge Republican majority  will be asked
>>     to set aside, on the basis of remarkable
>>     controversial (and, for many of us, entirely
>>     dubious) theories of the Constitution, the most
>>     important piece of domestic legislation in almost
>>     fifty years.  I think it would be a far more
>>     remarkable piece of interventionism than even the
>>     Old Court in 1935-36 in terms of the invalidation
>>     of a truly central (indeed, transcendentally
>>     important) piece of legislation.  Would there be
>>     rioting in the streets if the Court did that?  I
>>     certainly hope so.
>>
>>      
>>
>>     sandy
>>
>>      
>>________________
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>>
>>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.