Aiyana Stanley-Jones, seven years old, was shot during a police raid on her home in Detroit.

The police threw a grenade through a window and then entered as they sought a murder suspect.  Paramilitary weapons and tactics too often lead to unnecessary deaths and injuries.  Rep. John Conyers wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking him to monitor the case.  In that letter, Conyers cites the Cato work, Overkill. That’s a start, but Conyers should go to work in the Congress and stop the Pentagon practice of selling surplus military equipment to local police departments.  More here [pdf].

Update: Radley Balko has more on this incident here.

Grenades and Paramilitary Policing is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

The health care debate has illuminated how little regard many members of Congress have for the U.S. Constitution.

First, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said, “There ain’t no rules here… When the deal goes down … we make ‘em up as we go along.”

Then, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) claimed that the Constitution’s non-existent “Good and Welfare clause” grants Congress the power to compel Americans to purchase health insurance.

Now, Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) admits he doesn’t really care whether the Constitution grants Congress that power:

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution…

Rep. Hare: I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.

Off-camera: [Laughter.] Jackpot, brother.

Rep. Hare: What I care more about — I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.

Off-camera: You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold!

Rep. Hare: I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Now you tell me…

Off-camera: That’s the Declaration of Independence.

Rep. Hare: It doesn’t matter to me. Either one…

[Lots of childish sniping.]

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to…

Rep. Hare: I don’t know.  I don’t know.

Off-camera: That’s what I thought.

Of course, that doesn’t really capture how annoying both the congressman and his interrogators are.  So here’s the video:

Rep. Hare is channeling Chicken Little: because the sky is falling, we don’t have time to worry about the Constitution’s restraints on congressional power.  We all know how that story ends.  Indeed, true to the fable, there’s no convincing evidence that Rep. Hare’s solution would save the lives he thinks it would save, and it could even cost lives in the long run.  (Fun fact: Wikipedia reports that in early versions of the fable, Chicken Little is actually a hare.)

In addition to brushing up on their Chicken Little, Rep. Hare and his colleagues might want to rent A Man for All Seasons to remind themselves why it’s important to pay attention to what the law actually says:

Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Constitution, Schmonstitution — The Law Is What I Say It Is is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Zaid Jilani at the Center for American Progress put up a blog post titled, “College debate organizers unable to find any law professors to argue health reform is unconstitutional.” Indeed, it seems that none of the four panelists at the University of Washington Law School event had any issues with Obamacare.

Maybe the UW organizers, who couldn’t find anyone with the opposing view, are talking to the same folks who told John Conyers about the “Good and Welfare Clause.” Because, as I said before, it’s not that hard to find constitutional scholars who have problems with this legislation.

OK, look, I’ll make it easier:  I hereby announce that I am willing to travel anywhere at anytime to debate the constitutionality of Obamacare. Whoever sets up the debate has to pay my travel expenses, but that’s it.  Any takers?

Will Debate Constitutionality of Obamacare Anytime, Anywhere is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) was asked on Friday where in the Constitution Congress gets the power to force people to buy health insurance.  He said, “Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others.”

As it happens, there is no “good and welfare clause” — which Conyers should know, as both judiciary chairman and a lawyer.  But even if you excuse his casual use of constitutional language, what he probably means — the General Welfare Clause of Article I, Section 8 — is not a better answer.  What that clause does is limit Congress’s use of the powers enumerated elsewhere in that section to legislation that promotes ”the general welfare.”  (So earmarks are arguably unconstitutional, though you can make a colorable argument that, when considering a pork bill as a whole, with all parts of the country getting something, that monstrosity is collectively in “the general welfare” — maybe.)  In any event, the General Welfare Clause doesn’t give Congress any additional powers — and I’d be curious to know what the other “several clauses” are.

Conyers  also noted that, “All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know . . . they all say that there’s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.”  Well, Mr. Conyers, to start let me introduce you to three constitutional scholars — not fringe right-wing kooks or anything like that, but respected people who publish widely — who think Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Now will you try to “correct” the bill?

Here’s video of Conyers’s full remarks on the subject (h/t Jon Blanks):

And for a survey of the various constitutional issues attending Obamacare, see Randy Barnett’s oped from Sunday’s Washington Post.

Individual Mandate Is Constitutional – If You Rewrite the Constitution is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog

Rep. John Conyers believes that health care should be a constitutional right.  That sounds good, but what does that mean?  A right to the level of care provided by Great Britain’s National Health System?  Or to treatment in the finest hospitals and by the best specialists available in America?  And who must provide for this “right”?

Theodore Dalrymple explains why calling health care a right is a bad idea:

If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

Americans have a right to seek medical treatment of whatever kind they wish and to make treatment choices for themselves.  Good and generous people should help ensure that their less fortunate neighbors receive necessary medical care.  But no one has a “right” to force unspecified people to provide them with unspecified care.  Even if they did, they wouldn’t want to rely on the government to filfull that right.

A Right to Health Care? is a post from Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog