Exclusive: The questions asked by the Republican partisans on the U.S. Supreme Court suggest they will overturn the Affordable Care Act. Instead of a serious debate about health care and the Constitution, they clowned around with silly what-ifs about mandating broccoli-eating and requiring burial insurance, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The Republican justices on the U.S. Supreme Court behaved more like Fox News pundits than serious jurists weighing the constitutionality of an important law addressing the health of the American people. On Tuesday, they posed silly hypothetical questions of the sort that might boost TV ratings among Tea Party viewers but had little to do with the Constitution.
Based on their goofy and hostile questions, the Republican majority seems poised to strike down the core of the Affordable Care Act, the so-called individual mandate, an idea that ironically originated with the right-wing Heritage Foundation, was enacted by Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, and only became a bête noire when President Barack Obama embraced it.
Broccoli, a vegetable known for its nutritional properties
Now, despite the Constitution’s grant of broad powers to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, the five Republican partisans on the Supreme Court appear ready to kill the health reform law in the midst of a presidential election and deliver a body blow to Obama’s reelection hopes.
The core of their objections to the law was that if Congress can mandate Americans buy health insurance, it can do all sorts of other crazy things, like make people buy cell phones, broccoli, automobiles and burial insurance. (Or maybe make them wear funny hats and clown noses.)
Of course, what the Republican majority is ignoring with its bizarre questions is that there must be the political will for a majority in Congress to undertake any such legislation and that the President must sign the bill into law. The Constitution also gives Congress a virtually unrestricted power to regulate interstate commerce.
But rather than deal with practical political realities or even the intent of the constitutional framers, four of the Republican justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy asked prejudicial what-ifs, the sort that could be applied to discredit virtually any legislation or legal argument.
Basically, they were asking: What if the most extreme and nutty interpretation of every law and ruling were applied mindlessly in every conceivable instance?
Yet, surely, they would not like it if such a goofball approach were applied to their prized rulings, like the 2010 Citizens United case which opened the floodgates for billionaires to spend whatever they wished for negative ads to tilt elections. What if one person possessed all the money in the United States and bought up every minute of advertising time on every TV and radio station? What then?
And what if the Republican logic in Bush v. Gore that all states had to have equal voting standards and machinery in every precinct were applied to all elections? Then virtually every elected official in the United States would be in office illegally and thus every law ever passed in the United States must be thrown out, possibly along with the justices of the Supreme Court who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Gee, what if?
Naturally, that would be crazy talk, but really no crazier than the notion that Congress and the President would willy-nilly enact legislation requiring everyone to eat broccoli. That is reminiscent of the old right-wing canard that granting equal rights to women would force unisex bathrooms.
The one Republican justice who didn’t ask silly questions was Clarence Thomas, who as usual sat silently during the oral arguments. But his no vote on the law is considered a sure thing, since his wife has been out publicly rallying opposition.
It was Chief Justice Roberts who suggested that the government might require Americans to buy cellphones to be ready for emergencies. Alito asked about forcing people to buy burial insurance.
Scalia tossed in the notion of the government requiring Americans to buy broccoli or automobiles. “If the government can do this,” Scalia asked, “what else can it not do?”
“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Kennedy asked. (Okay, it was my idea to throw in the funny hats and clown noses.)
U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. tried to answer the silly questions by making the obvious point that enacting the insurance mandate would not open the door to these other notions because healthcare is a unique product, one that virtually every American will need in his or her lifetime.
“Virtually everyone in society is in this market,” Verrilli said, noting that if someone without health insurance gets sick the costs are transferred to everyone else. To prevent that a burden equal to about $1,000 per American family the Obama administration has argued that Congress was within its rights to establish a system for regulating health insurance including the individual mandate.
But Verrilli’s reasonable responses didn’t stop the Republican justices from behaving like pundit-wannabes eager for a slot on Fox News.
There is, of course, the possibility that the Republicans were just showing off, giving Verrilli a hard time for the benefit of the Tea Partiers. It is true that in past cases, Roberts, Scalia and Kennedy have supported the federal government’s broad authority in regulating commerce.
And, sometimes, the justices don’t always vote in line with their public questioning. But it would seem odd for the Republican justices to ask their loony hypothetical questions in what looked like a bid to create public support for rejecting the individual mandate and then disappoint their right-wing constituency by upholding it.
[For more on the Court’s health-care debate, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Are the GOP Justices Political Hacks?’]
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there.
I read your article GOP Justices Clown Over Health Care and could not agree more.
I know my request is a long shot but I am asking if you would be willing to sign my petition below asking for sanction of Justice Scalia for stating it would be cruel and unusual punishment for him to read the Affordable Care Act. Is it not his job to read the laws he is about to rule on? It matters not if one agrees or disagrees with the law we should expect our justices to at least make the appearance of informing themselves of the actual law as opposed to talking points. He showed his lack of knowledge of the law by saying things were in the law that in fact are not in the law.
Again, I know I am asking more than I should but if you would sign this petition and forward it to others of like mind I would be grateful.
Denis Johansen
1724 192nd Pl
Knoxville IA 50138
[email protected]
[641] 828 6943
Subject: sanction Justice Scalia
Hi,
During the oral hearings on ACA Justice Scalia stated it would be cruel and unusual punishment for him to read the law he is going to rule on because it is too long. Add to that statement his continual use of Republican talking points without referencing law shows his disregard for thoughtful judicial judgment.
That’s why I created a petition to U.S. Supreme Court, which says:
“We feel it was irresponsible for Justice Scalia to state he would not read the ACA that he is going to rule on. We feel he should recluse himself from the decision making process as he has already stated he will not read the law before he makes judgement.”
Will you sign this petition? Click here:
http://signon.org/sign/sanction-justice-scalia?source=c.em.mt&r_by=4030203
Thanks!
It seems to me that the so called “Individual Mandate” of our healthcare reform is in the same ballpark as compulsory auto liability insurance and Social Security payroll deductions. Why has the constitutionality of those two long standing policies not been taken to the Supreme Court?
… I should have added that I am a strong supporter of Universal Healthcare. My question above merely assumes the current reforms are better than what we had. I’d support removing the mandate if those opting out would only receive healthcare they could pay for themselves…
The analogies don’t seem silly to me at all.
I think any time you have a mandate for a private sector service it should be stopped right there. This includes car insurance and many other things. Further, I was waiting for far more substantive discussion about
a) why is it considered necessary for health care to be serviced via private insurance and pharmaceutical companies?
b) what is the advantage of a private system over a tax-funded universal non-profit model?
Again, mandating service via private for-profit agents and/or using public funds to underwrite risk (Fed Reserve, FNM loans, student loans etc. etc. ) seems to be a way to guarantee monopolies, promote inflation – which destroys the savings and long-term wealth of working families. Indeed, the reason health care coverage is so expensive and needed is because people are not earning nearly enough for their labour and too often are surviving from pay check to pay check despite working 40+ hour weeks.
I moved to South America. Here, as in Asia, the cost of medical treatment is very reasonable, and of as good or better quality than in the US. It was like this in the US too until they started Medicare in 1965. When the government gets involved in anything, it’s time to get out of town. The more involved they get, the worse it will be.
Upholding of Obamacare will simply reverse 200 years of common law. A contact musdt be voluntarily entered into. Obamacare is a forced contract which is an oxymoron.
Further, heath care is not a right based on the principles of John Locke – specifically, that of natural law. No man has the ability over another man to have free speech (unless he is of course, mute – but that is beside the point). But health iss partly choice, by the fact that personal effort and work may obtain better health than others. Therefore, it is immoral to require a person who works hard on his health to pay for others that squander theirs.
Charles is a simple fool if he thinks this is about decency. If were were truly decent, then we would just give everything away. And that would reduce our average standard of living. God gives his gifts unequally, Charles. That’s just the way is is. At least I have (for the time being) the right to choose to whom and what I am benevolent and philanthropic. And if Charles thinks “murder” is not providing healthcare, then I suggest he be lobotomized.
No arguments were presented as to the relative value or merit of the product Americans would be compelled to purchase, namely Allopathic medical care. Your government-mandated ‘healthcare’ will get you all the chemotherapy, toxic vaccines, psychoactive drugs and statins you want, but Big Pharma and Big Insurance won’t allow any alternative medicine to see a dime of profit. It is the Jeffersonian understanding that ‘laws’ of this nature are unenforceable, null and void from their conception or inception.
Without fail the people I encounter who support Obama-Care are some of the most uninformed and or cognitive challenged people I’ve ever had the displeasure of talking with. The fact that most of them refer to Obama-Care as “Free health care” is your first clue that these people are idiots.
This article, as well as many of the replies provide a perfect opportunity to witness and study the stupidity of liberals.
At least they didn’t scream, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!”
Really stupid article but what else to expect from this site ? ALL the justices made light during questioning to one degree or another, not just the “GOP” ones. This legislations true goal was to end up with a government run single payer system. Nothing like taking a worldwide failre where implemented and making it our own. The poor are covered by medicaid. Seniors by Medicare. Most folks with decent jobs have health insurance now but will eventually lose it if this Obamination is not struck down. Lets focus on decent jobs that the government is not paying for (ie we are paying for) to get folks insured and allow interstate competion by private ins companies. Of course, that would not cost a few trillion dollars once the benefits actually start to flow.
The health care mandate is so unconstitutional it is luodoucrous.
It negates the right to property. Those rights are the right to the “free use” and the “free disposal” i.e. your money is yours to use ot not to use for whatever you damn well please.
It does not provide for the compensation for the forced use of private funds for a public purpose – see the fifth amendment
It forces you to provide documents ( a tax return) which can be used to impose penalties on you. This is contrary to the prohibition against “self incrimination” provided by both the 4th and 5th amendments.
It is a bill of attainder and imposes punishment outside of the court system. By punishing outside the court system, it negates all due process rights. You do not get accused, you do not face your accuses, you cannot present evidence in your favor to a jury of your peers.
It negates the retained “right of the people” to impose “all punishments” in a court of law. Under English Common law even the smallest fee MUST be imposed by a jury. Judges had that power stripped from them way back in the days of the Magna Carta (see amercements) by revolution and force of arms, by revolution and force of arms against King Charles and his Star Chamber, by revolution and force of arms against King George and his Admiralty Court judges during the Revolutionary War and is protected in the State and US Constitutions by your right to trial by jury and codified in the 10th Amendment as a “right retained by the people”.
It is not too much to say that the government depriving the people, the source of power, of one of the ways that serves as a check on abusive government, is a usurpation of power. Usurpation of power generally falls under treason and not felonious conduct.
George, you have confused the Constitution with autism.
Rights are not unlimited. Every right is balanced by other rights. Your right to property is balanced by the right of the rest of us to have you contribute to the common defense and the maintenance of a just and stable society. That’s what taxes are about.
Nor does the ACA force people who are unable to pay for insurance to pay. It imposes a small penalty on those who willfully refuse to get insurance even though they can do so.
You do not know what a bill of attainder is, ACA applies what it demands of the individual to the individual and not to some vague public purpose, and English Common Law is irrelevant. The Magna Carta was written by a king primarily for nobles. It also holds that debts owed to Jews can be evaded, says that a woman’s accusation can’t be accepted except for the murder of her husband, and establishes the Church of England as the only accepted church. You on board with those provisions? I would also encourage you to read the American Constitution, which defines treason. It is not what you claim it to be.
With as many obvious mistakes as are in your post, perhaps it would make sense for you to learn the real history of this country and its Constitution.
I will not be holding my breath, but please consider it as constructive advice.
“Autism is a developmental disorder that appears in the first 3 years of life, and affects the brain’s normal development of social and communication skills. ”
I think that someone has communication skill issues.
“The Magna Carta was written by a king primarily for nobles ”
“The authorship of the Magna Carta is not entirely known. Some historians believe that a document called the “Articles of Barons†formed the basis of the Magna Carta. The consensus is that these articles were worked into a final document by a group of learned men, most likely headed by Stephen Langton, William Marshal, and Robert Fitzwalter.”
“establishes the Church of England as the only accepted church.”
There was the church in England, that was part of the Roman Catholic church and submitted to the authority of the Pope. The Church of England separated from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534 and became the established church by an Act of Parliament in the Act of Supremacy.
“With as many obvious mistakes as are in your post, perhaps it would make sense for you to learn the real history of this country and its Constitution.
I will not be holding my breath, but please consider it as constructive advice.”
“Pot Kettle Black”
Charles you are confusing your lack of knowledge with my lack of knowledge.
My property is MY property and is there to support ME and MY wishes and not YOU and YOUR wishes. If you want property to support you and your wishes then “get a freaking job”.
A Bill of attainder is “A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.” Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist
No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. – 5th Amendment
As for English Common Law not being applicable to US law, you are so ignorant you should crawl under a rock and stay there out of shame. The US Supreme Court and other courts have used Blackstones Commentaries as a basis for their decisions on numerous occasions. Blackstone states that rights fall into 3 groups, the right to personal security, personal liberty, and personal property. The right to property are further split into the free use, enjoyment and disposal of that property.
The US Supreme Court has further sated that a person cannot be forced to use his property for the benefit of others.
Since you believe that [property should be held in common I invite you to emigrate to North Korea. The last starving holdouts of “Communists”. May you starve there in peace. I find I get no “enjoyment” from my property supporting leeches like yourself.
Additional proof that it is pointless to attempt to reason with extremists:
You say: “get a freaking job†as if that were clever. It is not. It is what passes for clever among people who do not have anything clever to say.
You cite Rehnquist for what a bill of attainder is. Why not simply cite the dictionary? It is not an obscure term of the law, and I certainly know what it is. You are misusing it. A bill of attainder does not apply to a class of people, nor is insurance a punishment–as the requirement that you get insurance to drive proves. Insurance is required because it guarantees that if you screw up, the victim of your recklessness is compensated. In this case, those of us who are not deadbeats are financing the deadbeats who don’t get insurance but do get care.
I also know that English Common Law informs US law. But it is subordinate to US law.
There is a takings clause in the Constitution, which is what I assume you mean by asserting that a person’s property cannot be used for the benefit of others. You evidently are unaware of Kelo v. New London, in which the current insane Supreme Court said it was fine for the city of New London to seize private property (with inadequate compensation) to build a shopping mall. It’s the so-called “conservatives” who steal property, not those of us who understand the balance of rights in the Constitution.
“Love it or leave it” (emigrate to North Korea) is the last refuge of the demagogue. I will not deprive you of your pathetic shelter.
And, as I said, there is no reasoning with extremists, particularly those who know so little.
Give me a break ,a human is not a vehicle,walking down the street poses no danger to anyone. And the extremist are the little nazi’s who want to legislate life itself.
According the US Supreme Court in Cummings v. Missouri – 71 U.S. 277 (1867)
3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.
4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally.
Not dumbass, does or does no the mandate inflict penalties on that class of people that choose to have health insurance?
and again, one of the reasons bills of attainder are forbidden, is that according to English Common law, as interpreted by the Founding Fathers, is that a breach of a law is a CRIME and that the only proper venue to punish a crime is a JURY TRIAL. Punishment by faceless bureaucrats working for the IRS does not constitute a jury trial.
Jury trials has been repeatedly cited by the Supremes as a requirement for a deprivation of property and even showed up in trial for the expulsion of Chinese workers in the 1800’s
Wong Wing v. United States – 163 U.S. 228 (1896) “but when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.”
As for incomplete compensation of property to build a shopping mall, the judge should probably be imprisoned for aiding in the theft of property.
According the US Supreme Court in Cummings v. Missouri – 71 U.S. 277 (1867)
3. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.
4. These bills, though generally directed against individuals by name, may be directed against a whole class, and they may inflict punishment absolutely or may inflict it conditionally.
Not dumbass, does or does no the mandate inflict penalties on that class of people that choose NOT to have health insurance?
and again, one of the reasons bills of attainder are forbidden, is that according to English Common law, as interpreted by the Founding Fathers, is that a breach of a law is a CRIME and that the only proper venue to punish a crime is a JURY TRIAL. Punishment by faceless bureaucrats working for the IRS does not constitute a jury trial.
Jury trials has been repeatedly cited by the Supremes as a requirement for a deprivation of property and even showed up in trial for the expulsion of Chinese workers in the 1800’s
Wong Wing v. United States – 163 U.S. 228 (1896) “but when Congress sees fit to further promote such a policy by subjecting the persons of such aliens to infamous punishment at hard labor, or by confiscating their property, such legislation, to be valid, must provide for a judicial trial to establish the guilt of the accused.”
As for incomplete compensation of property to build a shopping mall, the judge should probably be imprisoned for aiding in the theft of property.
Not dumbass, does or does no the mandate inflict penalties on that class of people that choose to have health insurance?
should be
Now dumbass, does or does no the mandate inflict penalties on that class of people that choose “NOT” to have health insurance?
Idiots do vex me.
You are all nibbling at the crust, and missing the pie. The Constitution of the United States grants the inalienable right to Contract, thereby adjunct to the Right to NOT Contract. So does every State in the Union. This is basic and accepted Uniform Commercial Code and Constitutional Law. Take away the right to Contract/Not Contract and you’ve lost all your rights. Simple. Do I need to tell you what that means?
No, Stephen, you have missed the point.
All rights are subject to balancing by other rights. Your right not to buy healthcare is balanced by my right not to be forced by your negligence to pay for your care–and also not to participate in your murder when your recklessness comes due.
We murder 40,000 people every year for not having health insurance. Probably hundreds of thousands are maimed or suffer needlessly. Many of them are unable to obtain health insurance because of pre-existing conditions, unemployment, or other factors beyond their control. The ACA, for all its faults, would at least spare those people.
What you think the Constitution says is ludicrous and ahistorical. We force children to be educated. We force them to take vaccines (except under narrow exemptions). We force adults to submit to military service if necessary. We force people to pay taxes. All of these things are necessary for the conduct of a society.
I don’t doubt that this wretched, despicable, partisan Court will once again abuse its powers to commit murder by medical neglect. But let us be clear: they are doing so to enhance the profits of business. Not for liberty.
“We murder 40,000 people every year for not having health insurance.”
Then you (plural) should be charged and added to the millions incarcerated.
I am very glad that I do not live in the land of the free.
“We force children to be educated. We force them to take vaccines (except under narrow exemptions). We force adults to submit to military service if necessary. We force people to pay taxes. All of these things are necessary for the conduct of a society.”
They are not necessary for the conduct of a society, Society existed and functioned well, long before (as it will after) this nonsense. Please do not claim your preferences as “necessity”.
If you wanted to give me proof that it is pointless to reason with extremists, you have done so.
You have argued that societies can exist without any government at all, including no military, no prevention of communicable diseases, and no education of the young (except what the rich choose to provide to their offspring).
Your problem is that none of those societies exist in the 21st century, with the sole exceptions of countries in a state of complete anarchy… for that is what it means to have no government.
But, as I said, it is pointless to reason with extremists.
Verilli was entitled to say of the wotifs advanced by Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia: “With respect, judge, that is mere sophistry.â€
Sophistry is defined as a false/fallacious argument designed to deceive. The Sophists taught Athenian lawyers the techniques 2500 years ago, and were denounced by Socrates as morally bankrupt and by Plato as charlatans.
If Roberts et al persist, Verilli might say: “With respect, judge, you are putting yourself at risk of being described in the media as a morally bankrupt charlatan.â€
Commerce Clause From the US Constituition:
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes
Also:
“The Commerce Clause Power is often amplified by the Necessary and Proper Clause which states this Commerce Clause power, and all of the other enumerated powers, may be implemented by the power “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The Necessary and Proper Clause is the final clause of Article I, section 8.” (Wikipedia)
You know, there doesn’t appear to be any restriction there to prevent Congress from requiring every American to eat a serving (or more!) of broccoli every day (assuming broccoli was involved in interstate commerce). It would only take a democratic process in which a member in the House of Representatives introduces the law, garners a second, has the appropriate Hearings and enlist other co-sponsers, have a majority of 435 Representatives vote for it, send it to the Senate where (after more Hearings) more than 60 Senators would have to vote for it and then send it to the President who would have to sign it into law. I think Justice Scalia may be onto something here; the passage of the REQUIRED BROCCOLI EATING ACT is just around the corner. Justice Scalia attended Georgetown University as an undergraduate and obtained his law degree from Harvard Law School. How proud they must be…
The Necessary and Proper clause is intended to grant the government or its department executing a particular LAW that is “Constitutional” to be enforced without further congressional action. The actions taken by the agency are necessary and proper to obtain the specific result intended by the lawmakers. It does not grant legislative powers to the department or agency to add new meaning or clauses to the law. Unfortunately our executive branch is misusing this concept in order to have its various departments implement regulations that would normally require congressional approval.
51 not 60 Senators are needed to pay as bill in the Senate. It is only because Republicans have recently threatened to filibuster every bill proposed by Democrats that 60 have been needed to stop filibusters.
Speaking of burial insurance, what mandate exists to bury corpses? If a poor person dies, shouldn’t we just let their body rot in the streets? Why should the rest of us be forced to pay to bury it? We didn’t die!
Simple decency, of course, is the mandate to care for the dead. But simple decency has not led us to prevent the 40,000 deaths every year that result from lack of insurance. Simple decency has been extinguished, especially from the Supreme Court, with the Perjury Twins, Thomas and Alito, mocking the very notion of the Court being about truth or justice.
We are living in a cartoon. We can do nothing but mock the “artists” who are drawing it.
I’d say that the public health threat posed by having piles of dead bodies rotting in the street is a big argument in favor of burial of corpses.
We have known since GHWBush that the GOP doesn’t like “broccoli”, so we shouldn’t have expected a serious debate. The justices are hiding behind ridiculous “what ifs”.
They don’t like to eat their peas either.
LOL! No peas for me either and don’t want them forced down me. The unaffordable care act was NOT good enough for our own members of congress/senate/or even the supreme court and president as they rejected “Obamacare” for themselves. By executive order president Obama has allowed Unions who advocated in favor of “Obamacare” to opt out from it. Do you at least wonder why that is? Most corporations(eg:McDonalds,GM,etc) also advocated for the unaffordable care act, yet they don’t wish to be participants in it and were afforded the OPT OUT option. If it is good enough for the peasants of society why would or should these bigwigs be “Allowed” to reject it for themselves? The solution is simple and that is to allow people to purchase insurance in other states thus enabling competition instead of only being offered a few choices of ones state with no other options given.
Most people that I have heard about on this issue are against the mandate for moral reasons unrelated to the clown antics of the KRATS on the scotus. the insurance compaies, already huge profiteers, should not be given every person’s last dime for “healthcare”.
As for destroying Obama’s reelection, he made no attempt even to have a public option, made a deal with big pharma, and deserves no respect. The whole 99% of the USA will lose if Repugs win, but that is all part of the acts of SCOTUS and political control of judiciary.
And the individual mandate is very close to a poll tax.
Paying actual taxes for Medicare for all is a much better idea, and constitutional too–unlike the poll tax that Robert Parry seems to have confused with interstate commerce.
I really don’t want to live (reside) much longer in this confederacy of dunces.