Why did Justice Ginsberg do this interview in the first place?

First, did she really think Egyptians would honor the opinion of a woman, an American, and a Jew? Isn’t that a hatred trifecta for Egypt’s vaunted Muslim Brotherhood as well as the “Arab Street”? Remember what happened to Lara Logan during the “Arab Spring” demonstrations? Why consent to an interview at all? Did she really think she’d reflect well on herself, the Supreme Court, or our country with this interview? It ended up being rather the opposite, I’d say.

Second, if Justice Ginsberg really must draw back that Wizard-of-Oz-like SCOTUS curtain, could she at least have shown a bit more respect and praise for the Constitution that she swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Evidently not.

Said Ginsberg to the Egyptians:

I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary … it really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.

Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.

Well, thank you, Madame Justice. I had no idea how inferior our Constitution was to Europe’s, Canada’s, and South Africa’s. And how noble and courageous you have been to suffer our dusty old Constitution so stoically for nearly 20 years.

But perhaps I do the Justice an injustice. What is it that Ginsberg finds so attractive in those other constitutions? Given her comments, I infer it must have something to do with what she means by “human rights”. So I looked first to the South Africa Constitution since Ginsberg singled it out as a “great piece of work.” It’s available online.

The first thing I noticed about the SA Constitution (1996) is its sheer size. The US Constitution is only 4400 words long, but the SA Constitution is over 43,700 words long. Much more stuff. And more means better? Anyway, it’s so big that I could never have read it all, so I focused mainly on Chapter 2, the SA Bill of Rights.

Our American Bill of Rights is rather short — just those first ten tersely worded amendments. The SA Bill of Rights is over 4600 words long and contains 33 major headings. Among these are many noble and proper declarations somewhat like our own, but there are others — namely, the ones that I presume Justice Ginsberg admires. Three in particular declare the following (with my emphasis added) as the supreme law of the land in South Africa:

24. Environment — Everyone has the right:

(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and

(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that

(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

…..

26. Housing:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.

27. Health care, food, water and social security:

(1) Everyone has the right to have access to:

(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

(3) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.

Isn’t this nice? What’s not to like? It sounds like an Occupy-Wall-Streeter’s paradise. It sounds like the promises made whenever socialism has been sold to a hopeful and unsuspecting populace. It reads as does the European Union Constitution, where attempts to deliver on promises like these threaten to collapse whole economies and lead to massive civil unrest.

Note that nowhere in the SA Constitution does it say that SA “rights” are to be conferred by any means other than those of “The State”. At virtually every turn, The State is the implied guarantor, provider, and benefactor.

However …

Note also the remarkable Item (2) in italics under Headings 26 and 27 above. The phrase “within its available resources” is a convenient way for The State to renege on the associated promised right. I interpret that clause in italics to mean: If we cannot squeeze enough money from selfish South African ‘makers’ to cover our promises to South African ‘takers‘, then this ‘human right’ may not be fulfilled after all. The State has few resources of its own, you see. So if these promises don’t come true, please remember to blame the selfish ‘makers’, not The State.

Note also the use of the interesting phrase “progressive realization”. What do they mean by “progressive”? It could mean gradual, which gives the state a way to put off demands for all these guaranteed freebies. Or it could mean Progressive in the political sense, which implies heavy taxation on those wealthy makers and little or no taxation on the takers. Either or both can help prolong The State’s hold on power.

So I’m left wondering whether Justice Ginsberg admires those SA Constitution human rights promises or those weasel-worded escape phrases. Perhaps it’s both(?).

Of course our own Bill of Rights is fundamentally different. Ours is about what the Federal Government cannot do to us rather than what it must do for us. To a Leftist like President Obama, we know that sounds like a defect — he’s told us so. But Conservatives know that the American approach has led to the most prosperous populace, at all economic levels, in the history of the world. And similar approaches have worked well in other places (albeit to varying degrees) such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile.

On the other hand, where the Left has had free reign and made the grandest of promises, like those in the South African Constitution, the results have been horrific beyond belief. Just listen to people who have lived through it in the 20th century (here, here, and here).

Scanning through the South African Constitution I found several other areas that may have attracted Justice Ginsberg’s admiring eye. To limit the length of this article, I’ll include just one more … namely, an amazing provision in “Chapter 1, Founding Provisions” that reads:

6. Languages

(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.

(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.

(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.

(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.

(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and (iii) sign language ; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.

In short, South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok, but perhaps this too won Justice Ginsberg’s approval?

Well …

The Left, including Barack Obama, still loves to portray its socialist leanings as some sort of new, forward-looking, if-only-we’d-try-it philosophy of government that will finally bring us all social justice and fairness. But given its cataclysmic failures and atrocities in the 20th century, I’d say that Leftism and Socialism are both long past their sell-by date.

—————————————————————————–

The road to serfdom begins with the belief you can overcome natural differences to create a tie at the finish line of life.
Herbert London

Some state lawmakers committed to striking down the federal takeover of health care – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) – have moved forward with establishing PPACA insurance exchanges at the same time the United States Supreme Court will be deciding the law’s fate.

Why? The answer we have heard over and over again is that they are establishing PPACA exchanges in their states in order to preserve state control and flexibility over the exchange. However, this answer is refuted by a review of the law.

The President’s health care law says it all: “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.” The very language of PPACA makes clear that any so-called state control or flexibility the states think they have is at the mercy of the federal government.

It’s sort of like a retractable leash. You can walk your dog on such a leash and give them some slack to run around, but ultimately, you can pull your dog in at any moment.

Likewise, with PPACA exchanges, as long as the president and his officials are holding the exchange leash, Arizona and other states establishing state exchanges will leave their sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens at the mercy of the federal government.

It makes no sense for a state that is part of the multi-state lawsuit challenging PPACA that is currently before the Supreme Court to both oppose the statute and enforce it at the same time. But beyond being contradictory, PPACA exchanges are detrimental to the fight against the law enabling them. Over the last several weeks court briefs supporting PPACA specifically cite the fact that states are moving forward with exchanges as evidence that exchanges can survive with or without the law’s mandate that all Americans buy insurance.

With oral arguments scheduled in the Supreme Court in late March and a decision expected in June, it is not too late for states like Arizona to reverse course, as Wisconsin did last month, by sending back the federal exchange grant money they have received and stop exchange implementation activities.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: States must protect the health care freedom of their citizens by saying no to federal health insurance exchanges

Goldwater Institute: States damaging their own case with insurance exchange moves

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2012
CONTACT: Sen. Russell Pearce

Ban Amnesty Now president says America’s highest court will not turn back on states’ rights

PHOENIX—Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 and newly-appointed president of America’s largest grassroots anti-illegal immigration organization, said today the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on Arizona’s contested SB1070 legislation was great news for every legal U.S. citizen.

“When the activist judges in lower federal courts bowed to Barack Obama’s whims and put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens, undermined the Rule of Law, they followed in the president’s footsteps in perpetrating a great injustice against our nation, our citizens Constitutional rights and the state of Arizona,” said Pearce.

“We are a nation of fifty sovereign U.S. states, not a nation of 50 subservient states to be dictated to by a Big Brother leviathan. When the Supreme Court rules, I expect that Washington will learn an important lesson in its proper role, not just on immigration but in its role in governance,” Pearce said.

“We send far too much money to Washington for this to be the treatment we get in return. Sovereign U.S. states and legal U.S. citizens were never meant by our Founding Fathers to become penniless orphans in some Twilight Zone version of a Charles Dickens story, begging for scraps from an all-powerful, dictatorial federal government which waves full ladles of nourishment above our heads but never pours anything into our bowls,” said Pearce.

“When the Court rules, I expect power to return to the states, and Ban Amnesty Now by then will be working diligently to pass SB1070-style legislation in all 50 states, like Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia already have” he said. “The president can sue every state if he pleases, or he can get out of the way while we do the job Washington won’t in protecting our great nation from illegal aliens.

“I fully expect we, the legal citizens of Arizona and America, will win in the Supreme Court on SB1070, just as we did with Arizona’s Employers Sanction Law, the toughest in the nation, which goes after illegal employers and protects American jobs and was upheld five-to-three in the Supreme Court,” said Pearce.

While 6 of the 10 provisions of SB1070 were upheld, four main provisions of the contested SB1070 were blocked from implementation by lower courts, including:

(1) requiring law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal alien;

(2) creating a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers”;

(3) permitting the arrest of an illegal alien in which there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and,

(4) making it a crime for illegal aliens to solicit, apply for or perform work.

“America is greater than any one man, than any one president,” said Pearce. “I believe the court will rule on the side of law, our Constitution, and states’ rights, and that we will prove our nation can indeed work again. This will be an important ruling, an important milestone, in a long road ahead to restoring the rule of law, America’s economy, political and national security.”

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 11, 2012
CONTACT: Andrew LeFevre

Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board’s Decision to Immediately Suspend Their Mexican American Studies Program

Phoenix, AZ, January 11, 2012 – Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement regarding the action by the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) governing board to immediately suspend their Mexican American Studies Program:

“Last night, by a 4-1 vote, the governing board of the Tucson Unified School District resolved that ‘All Mexican-American Studies (MAS) courses and teaching activities, regardless of funding source, shall be suspended immediately.’

I am very encouraged by the swift and decisive action taken by the members of the governing board last night to address the issues that I raised in my final ruling on January 6, 2012 of the district being in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.

I am currently reviewing the official resolution that was adopted by the governing board and, upon consultation with TUSD representatives, will make a determination on appropriate method to verify their compliance with A.R.S. § 15-112.

I look forward to working with Superintendent Pedicone and other TUSD leadership to find ways to improve their schools and to provide a quality education for all TUSD.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2011

Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on Administrative Law Judge’s Decision that the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Program is in Violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 

Phoenix, AZ, December 27, 2011– Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement on the decision of Administrative Law Judge Lewis Kowal that affirmed the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD’s) Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 as per his ruling from June 15, 2011:

“I was very pleased to receive Judge Kowal’s decision today affirming the ruling that I made on June 15 that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.

In my role as State Superintendent of Public Instruction I have a legal responsibility to uphold the law and a professional imperative to ensure that every student has access to an excellent education.

Upon taking office on January 3, 2011, I was faced with the immediate circumstance of the Tucson Unified School District being found in violation of A.R.S. §15-112 by the outgoing Superintendent. Instead of making a snap decision on the matter, the Arizona Department of Education, at my direction, conducted an intensive investigation, spanning many months, of TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Department (MASD) and its program.

In the end, I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation – a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District. The Judge’s decision confirms that it was the right decision.

I will be issuing my final ruling regarding the matter in the near future after a thorough and deliberate review of the Judge’s decision.”

###

The somber anniversary of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death, murdered in the line of duty in Arizona, the weapon used to murder him was provided to the criminals through the illegal cross-border networks by the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice through their  heinous FAST and FURIOUS scheme.

Brian Terry: SEMPER FI:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0jTJq_VfS8

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 13, 2011
CONTACT: Richard Cullen

WASHINGTON (DC) Congressman Ben Quayle (R-AZ), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, released the following statement Tuesday calling for the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:

“Fast and Furious was a fundamentally flawed operation. Since its implementation, U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and numerous Mexican citizens have been killed by criminals using weapons that were allowed to ‘walk’ during the program. These weapons continue to pose a grave threat to people living near the Southern border. These facts alone signify a lack of leadership and control within the Justice Department that warrant the removal of those people who authorized and failed to supervise this damaging operation.

“When the incredible failures of Fast and Furious came to light, Attorney General Holder and his subordinates chose the route of evasion over forthrightness. They provided documents to Congress only when compelled to produce them with subpoena. These documents revealed that on February 4, 2011, senior officials at the Justice Department, the ATF and the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office responded to an inquiry by Senator Charles Grassley with a letter that contained categorically false information. Ten months later, the Justice Department was forced to rescind that letter—a move the attorney general acknowledged is extremely rare. During last week’s testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the attorney general refused to take responsibility or hold any of his subordinates accountable for their handling of Fast and Furious. Mr. Holder himself called the operation ‘wholly unacceptable’ and ‘fundamentally flawed.’

“The fact that he hasn’t fired a single person shows that Attorney General Holder is more concerned with protecting himself and his political appointees than holding individuals accountable for Fast and Furious. I have refrained from calling for his resignation until he had a chance to testify before the Judiciary Committee. Asking for a cabinet member to resign is a serious step and one I take very seriously. After reflecting on last week’s testimony, the operation, and Mr. Holder’s handling of the fallout, I have lost all confidence in his ability to lead the Justice Department. I call for his immediate resignation.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 13, 2011
CONTACT: Amy Rezzonico

PHOENIX (Tuesday, December 13, 2011) — Attorney General Tom Horne has found evidence that the Quartzsite Town Council has violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et. seq.) in connection with the conduct of Town Council meetings and dealings with a member of the public.

In a letter to the Quartzsite Town Attorney, Horne notes that on June 28, 2011, while addressing the Council, Quartzsite resident Jennifer Jones was removed from the meeting by a vote of the council. She had turned her back on the council and was addressing the audience, which the council reasonably could object to. Public bodies can eject members of the public for disruptive conduct, but they must first give a warning, which the council failed to do.

The second violation occurred on July 10, 2011 in which the Council convened an emergency meeting on at the Town Hall to discuss disruptions during previous meetings. The Council locked the doors to the meeting room and did not allow any member of the public to attend its meeting. Excluding the public from this meeting violated the Open Meeting Law.

In the third and related violation, the Attorney General notes that the Council did not fully comply with the posting requirements for emergency meetings. As of December 9, 2011, the minutes of the emergency meeting were not posted on the Town website.

The final violation involves the failure to comply with posting requirements for Notices and Minutes.

The Council did not post minutes for the July 10, 2011 emergency meeting. In addition, the Council failed to post minutes for a number of its meetings labeled as “work sessions.”

As a remedy, Horne is recommending that:

1. The Council will discuss the concerns listed in this letter with its legal counsel in open session during a properly noticed public meeting.
2. Each member of the Council and staff will participate in a training session with counsel from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns regarding the requirements of the Open Meeting Laws.
3. The Council will be subject to oversight by the Attorney General’s Office for a period of twelve months.

View a copy of the letter to the Town here.

###

For Arizonans who want to follow the latest in the on-going investigation of the FAST and FURIOUS Obama Administration’s Justice Department’s appalling scheme to provide U.S. weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

Committee on Oversight & Government Reform

http://issues.oversight.house.gov/fastandfurious/

 *****

PHOENIX – Governor Jan Brewer today lauded the U.S. District Court’s decision to throw out a lawsuit brought against her for commemorating an Arizona Day of Prayer.

The suit was lodged in March 2010 by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The out-of-state group challenged the constitutionality of the Governor’s Arizona Day of Prayer proclamations in 2009 and 2010, as well as a separate Day of Prayer proclamation issued for the state budget on January 17, 2010.

The U.S. District Court today granted Governor Brewer’s motion for dismissal on the grounds that the Freedom from Religion Foundation failed to demonstrate injury and, therefore, lacked standing to sue.

Statement by Governor Brewer:

“I commend the U.S. District Court for dismissing this baseless lawsuit for what it is – a futile attempt to stifle an American right and tradition. This was not the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s first failed attempt to put an end to recognized days of voluntary prayer, and it may not be its last. But citizens of every race, background and creed have been coming together in voluntary prayer since our nation’s founding, and will continue to do so against this organization’s best efforts. I thank the Court for allowing Arizona to continue commemorating this important right and custom.” 

###

In September, my colleague Mark Flatten released an investigative report showing that Phoenix and other Arizona cities spend millions of dollars every year to pay employees to perform union work on city time. Less than three months later, we are going to court on behalf of Phoenix taxpayers to put an end to the practice of union “release time.”

Our case takes on the city’s contract with the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA), which provides an estimated $900,000 in annual release time for police union work, including lobbying. The provisions take six full-time officers off the streets – giving them full pay, benefits, and overtime for union work – in addition to providing thousands of additional release-time hours for the union to dole out at its discretion. Altogether, more than 40 police officers can be released from some or all of their law-enforcement duties by the union.

Only a few years ago, Phoenix voters agreed to raise their sales tax to hire more police officers and firefighters. Would they have done so knowing that much of the revenue would wind up as a union giveaway? Moreover, PLEA itself confesses that release-time means less money for police officer salaries.

Beyond endangering public safety, the release time is an unconstitutional subsidy. The Arizona Constitution prohibits gifts to individuals or private entities by subsidy or otherwise. In 1984, the Court upheld a school district’s release-time provision because the cost was minimal and the duties imposed were significant. Here the cost is massive and the benefits are negligible.

With cities and their taxpayers struggling in a tough economy, release time is an obvious place to save money. Union members should pay the costs of union activities — if they desire them. Passing those costs along to taxpayers is an illegal charade that should quickly end.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Cheatham v. Gordon

Goldwater Institute: Money for Nothing: Phoenix taxpayers foot the bill for union work

Goldwater Institute: Turken v. Gordon (CityNorth subsidy case)

Arizona Supreme Court: Wistuber v. Paradise Valley School Dist.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 1, 2011
CONTACT: Tasya Peterson

PHOENIX – Governor Jan Brewer today commended the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for affirming the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the challenge to SB 1070 that was filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. In August 2010, Federal District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the Escobar challenge for lack of standing.

“I am pleased with today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit affirming the dismissal of this case challenging SB 1070,” said Governor Brewer. “I’ll continue to defend the State of Arizona’s duty and obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.”

Escobar is a Tucson police officer who filed a lawsuit claiming that enforcement of SB 1070 would violate the rights of Latinos. He alleged that he may be subject to civil liability for violating the rights of others in enforcing the Arizona immigration law, and additionally asserted that he would be subject to discipline by his employer and potential civil lawsuits if he failed to enforce SB 1070. The Federal District Court dismissed Escobar’s case, a decision now affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Arizona Legislature enacted SB 1070 primarily to require that Arizona’s law enforcement officers cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Special protections were included in the law to safeguard against racial profiling. SB 1070 was duly-passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brewer in order to protect the citizens of Arizona from the federal government’s failure to enforce the immigration laws.

###

On November 14, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the 26-state lawsuit against the President’s healthcare law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Court granted 5 ½ hours for oral argument, including two hours of argument on the individual mandate and 1 ½ hours on severability, which addresses whether, in the event the mandate is found unconstitutional, the entire Act must be stricken as well.

The severability issue is a critical consideration for states like Arizona, which are suing over the law’s constitutionality while at the same time moving forward with implementing other parts of the law, specifically the law’s health insurance exchanges. This undermines the idea that if the mandate is found unconstitutional the whole law must be thrown out.

The federal district court that first heard the lawsuit brought by the states found the mandate unconstitutional and not severable from the remainder of the statute, and thus struck down the entire Act as unconstitutional. The judge explained that to sever the mandate from the remainder of the Act would require “reconfiguring an exceedingly lengthy and comprehensive legislative scheme,” including “going through a 2,700 page Act line-by-line, invalidating dozens (or hundreds) of some sections while retaining dozens (or hundreds) of others.”

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal court’s decision on the mandate, but disagreed on severability. The Circuit court held that the “stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Act’s provisions” and their “lack of connection to the Mandate” cut against non-severability. The Supreme Court will now decide the issue.

For its part, the Obama Administration has maintained that the mandate is closely linked to the guaranteed issue and community ratings provisions, and that they must also go if the mandate is found unconstitutional. The Goldwater Institute argued in its lawsuit challenging the Act that the establishment of health insurance exchanges and increases in Medicaid eligibility are also linked to the Act’s overall reform scheme and that the entire Act must be stricken.

Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the severability issue, states like Arizona must return federal exchange money they have received and cease from establishing health insurance exchanges. Efforts to stop the federal takeover of healthcare must not be placed in jeopardy by the states voluntarily complying with a law that they are at the same time challenging as unconstitutional.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Ten Resons Why Arizona Must Reject Health Insurance Exchanges

Arizona Republic: A welcome mat for ‘Obamacare’ in Ariz.

U.S. Supreme Court: Granting of Cert