Today in Sophisticated Constitutional Analysis

Highly principled opponent of “judicial activism” Tom Maguire continues to believe that activist judges should strike down health care policies he doesn’t like.   You will be surprised to know that he does not offer a constitutional argument for why this policy should be held unconstitutional.    He does, however, have the kind of really bad slippery slope argument you might think would be confined to blog comments sections:

Hmm. If Congress next obliged me to buy a Checy Volt, why couldn’t they argue that almost everyne participates in the transporttion market at some point?  And clearly, my decision to buy Japanese, or Korean, or a gas-guzzler, affects other markets.

This logic is very compelling. Similarly, if Congress exempt mortgage interest from taxation, nothing could stop Congress from giving a $50,000 tax credit to anyone who bought a Chevy Volt, paid for out of tax increases to everyone else. So, apparently, Maguire believes that the mortgage interest deduction is unconstitutional. After all, otherwise a really dumb law that would never be enacted could also be considered constitutional. And don’t get me started on the fact that nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from declaring war on Canada — since that policy makes no sense, there must be some justification for the judiciary overriding the powers of Congress and the President.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think that the Constitution does not actually prohibit all public policies that Tom Maguire considers unwise.