During my trip to Mobile two weeks ago, I spoke with reporter Brendan Kirby of Lifezette about Unraveled. He published the interview in Q&A form. Here are the highlights (or lowlights depending on your perspective):

In his first book on the Affordable Care Act, “Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare,” Josh Blackman offered an insider’s account of the legal battle that resulted in a controversial Supreme Court decision upholding the health care overhaul.

The Houston College of Law professor in September published a follow-up, “Unraveled: Obamacare, Religious Liberty, and Executive Power,” which argues that the health system birthed by the law is unsustainable.

Blackman recently sat down with LifeZette and discussed why the law is failing so quickly, the legal battles that remain, and why he thinks the result ultimately will be more government intervention, not less. There is one major legal challenge still pending: Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell. A Supreme Court robbed of its deciding vote by the death of Antonin Scalia could not settle the issue — whether the government can force the Catholic nuns to cover contraception as part of their health insurance plan — putting the case in an open-ended limbo.

…

LifeZette: What is the most significant thing about Obamacare that most people don’t know?
Blackman: How quickly it’s falling apart. The people who designed it didn’t expect this to be a permanent solution. But what has been frankly stunning is that in less than three years, all the premises, all the assumptions, all the theories have collapsed. And it’s been, frankly, unbelievable how quickly the law has unraveled.

LifeZette: You say that Obamacare is like a cockroach or Keith Richards. What do you mean by that?
Blackman: It can’t be defunded [as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attempted with a partial government shutdown in 2013]. The only way to get rid of it is to repeal it in its entirety. So all these efforts to defund this, defund that — it won’t work. You actually have to repeal the bill.

LifeZette: Had President Obama not told his famous “Lie of the Year” as declared by PolitiFact in 2013, you’re convinced the law never would have passed?
Blackman: No. No. If people thought that they were going to lose their insurance, this bill could not have passed in its current form. It would be simply impossible.

[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]

On Monday, October 17, the Harvard Federalist Society chapter hosted me for a debate on whether the Senate has a duty to vote on Judge Garland’s nomination. Or at least it was supposed to be a debate. Despite the fact that many professors on the Harvard faculty are on record stating that the Senate has such a duty, the Chapter was unable to find a single person willing to debate me. The chapter also checked at other law schools, and no professor was willing to debate this topic.

Alas, I had to debate myself–or shadow-boxing as I called it. For the first few minutes of the event, I recounted the views of hundreds of law professors and others that the Senate has a duty to vote on Judge Garland’s confirmation. Here is a smattering of those views:

350 Law Professors: “This preemptive abdication of duty is contrary to the process the framers envisioned in Article II, and threatens to diminish the integrity of our democratic institutions and the functioning of our constitutional government . . . The Senate must not defeat the intention of the Framers by failing to perform its constitutional duty.” (From HLS: Elizabeth Bartholet, Daniel Halperin, Charles J. Ogletree, Laurence H. Tribe).

Martha Minow and Deanell Tacha: Hardly a day elapsed after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia before members of the Senate told President Obama to ignore his clear constitutional duty to nominate a successor — and declared they would refuse to play their constitutionally mandated role of providing advice and consent. Perhaps some senators are now suspending their own duties simply because Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz think this will help their races, advance their party, or hurt the opposing party … Article II of the Constitution is not ambiguous. It directs that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.” The senators swore their oath to the Constitution. An orderly process, adhering to these words of the Constitution, is not only what the law requires; it is essential to preserving the treasure that is our independent judiciary and rule of law. Let’s make sure this treasure survives this electoral season

President Obama –  “I have fulfilled my constitutional duty. Now it’s time for the Senate to do theirs.”

VP Biden – In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend.

Then, for the remainder of my time, I explained why no duty can be found in text, history, or practice. This is purely a political question.

Enjoy.

[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

On Thursday, October 13, the Northern Illinois Federalist Society Chapter hosted me for a debate on originalism with Professor Robert Jones. Professor Jones and I debated the constitutionality of DAPA last spring, so this was a fun reprisal. If you fast-forward to 34:45, you will see me do my best Khizr Kahn impression as I wave around my pocket Constitution and explain why we do not have a Democracy, but a Republic.

This presidential election cycle has been surreal. Initially I supported and advised Senator Rand Paul’s campaign, hoping that the “libertarian moment” had some legs. I was wrong. After Paul dropped out, I shifted to Senator Ted Cruz’s campaign. My hope was that the American people could get behind a constitutionalist who has professed a belief in federalism and the separation of powers. There too, I was wrong. But following Cruz’s defeat, I was done. A few days after the Indiana primary, I wrote a piece for National Review, titled “Trump’s Constitution of One” (I drafted it well in advance, and was holding it for the right moment). In the article, I laid out in painstaking detail why I thought Trump was dangerous to our constitutional republic, even assuming he keeps his promise to appoint from his list of Judges. Five months later, nothing Trump has said or done has convinced me otherwise.

With that background, I am proud to join a list of “Originalists Against Trump.” Unlike many of these lists–which are based on general political grievances–this group focuses on areas within my competency: the President’s constitutional obligations and powers. On these fronts, Trump is utterly unqualified to be President. Make no mistake–I am dreading a Clinton Presidency. In quite predictable ways, she will move the country even further away from the original understanding of our Constitution. During the last debate, when asked about criteria for appointing a Supreme Court Justice, she didn’t even mention the Constitution. This wasn’t inadvertent. However, as bad as she will be, the arbitrary and capricious Trump will destroy our Republic in unpredictable ways. I am compelled to quote from a piece authored by Jeremy Rabkin and John Yoo in National Review.

In 1952, the National Archives in Washington arranged to put an original parchment text of the Constitution — along with an original parchment text of the Declaration of Independence — on public display. Because of the Cold War concerns about nuclear attacks, the Archives designed the display cases to slide down into a bomb-proof vault below the building. Even if the Soviets launched nuclear devastation on our nation’s capital, the Constitution would still be safe for future generations. Perhaps we should admire that level of devotion to the Constitution. But we have a stronger preference for avoiding nuclear war. We also want to avoid trade wars and the end of American alliances that are decades old. In short, we are unwilling to entrust our nation’s foreign and security policy to a Trump administration.

Here is the full “Originalists Against Trump” statement:

On September 29, 2016, the NYU Federalist Society Chapter hosted me and Prof. Sam Estreicher for a discussion on the future of the Supreme Court. My goal was to discuss the impact of Justice Scalia’s passing on last term and this term, and to pivot to what will likely happen to the Court’s precedents after the upcoming election. Please read David Lat’s thorough writeup for more details.