Blog

This auction from Frasers Autographs for £75,000 (about $123,000)  is almost worth it.

We have a very rare 1848 rice paper reproduction copy of the Declaration of Independence still preserved within the original publication “American Archives: 1776 Volume I” (fifth edition). In 1820 there were growing concerns about the condition of the Declaration of Independence and the surviving signers passed an Act of Congress to reproduce a facsimile of the original. Engraver William J. Stone of Washington was commissioned by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams to reproduce the Declaration. A copperplate facsimile was engraved from the original utilizing a wet-ink transfer process. The Declaration was moistened and ink was lifted directly from it and transferred to a clean copperplate, which was then engraved, creating a perfect copy of the original document. William Stone completed the task of engraving in 1823. However, during the ink transfer the original document was almost destroyed, making the Stone copperplate exceedingly rare as the only accurate replica of the original. Stone printed 201 copies on the same type of parchment as the original. Approximately 30 of these are known to have survived, 19 of which are in museums. The Stone copperplate was then placed in storage. Twenty years later, in 1843, Peter Force was commissioned by Congress to print a series of books that became known as the American Archives. The purpose of the nine-volume set was to create the founding documents of the United States. The Stone engraving was taken from storage and used to produce copies of the Declaration of Independence on rice paper. Printed in 1848, a copy of the Declaration of Independence was folded into the First volume of the 5th Series of books. After printing the plate was again retired, and is now displayed at the National Archives. It is estimated that there are now 250 of the Force rice paper copies in existence today.

A huge chunk of the users who watch my lectures on YouTube are not in Houston. It makes me very happy that students all over the country can learn from my videos.

I happened to have stumbled upon your page and you are a LIFE SAVER for property. I am taking property where I am having to teach myself. Needless to say my professor is …. What you do is incredible. I am so glad I found your page. I was wondering where in your video/lectures you discuss possessory estates? Thank you for what you do!!

 

In Paterson v. Colorado (1907), the Supreme Court upheld a contempt citation against a publisher of ”certain articles and a cartoon, which, it was charged, reflected upon the motives and conduct of the supreme court of Colorado in cases still pending, and were intended to embarrass the court in the impartial administration of justice.”

Here is the cartoon at issue in Paterson. From left to right, it references Justice Goddard, Justice Campbell, Chief Justice Garber, Justice Bailey, and Justice Maxwell. They are standing next to urns containing the “Ashes of other slaughtered democrats.”

H/T Professor Aaron Caplan

Ha! Alito said Scalito!

Before he was confirmed by the Senate, Alito was known to opponents as “Scalito” because of a perceived ideological alliance with his soon-to-be fellow justice. Even Alito had a slip of the tongue Monday in talking about it.

“I have great admiration for Justice Scalito – Justice Scalia – easy to make a mistake – but we don’t always agree,” he said.

And someone gave Justice Alito an Alito figurine?

Before the speech, an audience member gave Alito a small figurine of himself, leading Alito to joke that he was going to look for similar figurines for the rest of his colleagues. Then, he said, he’s going to take them into the Supreme Court conference room after hours.

“I’m going to put them all around the conference table and I’m going to live my fantasy,” he deadpanned.

It certainly is not a bobblehead. Maybe it is a figurine by Patric Verrone?

I’ve blogged before about Halbig v. Sebelius, which challenges the ability of the federal government to give health care subsidies through the exchanges they, and not the states, operates. I’ll put the statutory interpretation issues aside for the moment, and focus on the practical impacts of the D.C. Circuit holding that the feds can’t give subsidies in 35 exchanges. In short, Obamacare would be FUBAR’d.

The now-Ezra-Klein-less Wonkblog offers this analysis:

Without subsidies, the vast majority of people who participate in the new exchanges would find health insurance unaffordable. In legal terms, they would not be subject to mandate. In human terms, we cannot require people to buy coverage that they cannot afford.

Put simply, destroying the subsidies destroys the mandate, which in turn destroys the possibility of insurance market reforms. An verdict in favor of Halbig would therefore reduce the private health insurance market to what it was before health reform. The end result would be very costly insurance.

People with serious illness or injury would continue to seek coverage even without the subsidy. Such adverse selection would raise average premiums, driving away even more of the relatively healthy people one requires for a functional health insurance market for individual and small-group coverage. We’ve actually seen this movie before — in Massachusetts before Romneycare, in New York State before health reform passed.

And more numbers from Jon Gruber, an ACA supporter:

At one level, the results are obvious. Federal exchanges would virtually collapse without the subsidies. The particulars remain striking. This is what Gruber’s model predicts would happen to participants in the new exchanges who are now eligible for subsidies:

More than 99 percent would be deemed to have unaffordable coverage without the subsidy.

For the typical subsidized exchange participant, the full cost of an unsubsidized bronze plan would reach 23  percent  of income.

The typical unsubsidized silver premium would double, and would average 28 percent  of income.

If subsidies were withdrawn from federal exchanges, the estimated number of Americans without coverage would increase by 6.5 million.

I’ve made the point that striking down the subsidies while leaving Obamacare in tact would demolish the exchanges in 35 states.

Let’s look at this another way though. If you combine a successful challenge Halbig with Sissel v. HHS, the origination clause challenge, two of the core elements of Obamacare would implode–the exchanges, and the mandate. Both cases, if heard together during the October 2014 term, would combine to be a silver bullet and take down Obamacare in one fell swoop. There’s no way that these provisions could be severed. If the government is bound by their argument in NFIB, invalidating the mandate/tax/penalty/unicorn cannot be severed from the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions of the ACA. The entire thing must go. Ditto for the exchange subsidies.

But, let me douse some water on that theory. The Court had the power to stop Obamacare in 2012, before anyone relied on it. Assuming these cases would be resolved by the Court in 2015 when a lot (but not nearly as many as estimated) are relying on the law, what would the argument be in favor of complete invalidation? Of course, the politics and state of Obamacare can change a lot in the next 18 months. Yet, ask yourself, why would the Court do in 2015 what it could have done in 2012. Unless, the Chief takes a mulligan.