Skip to Content

Dave Eldred

St. Paul, MN
Commenter for
4 years 1 week

Recent Comments

Posted on 04/02/10 at 09:05 pm in response to Kelliher downplays gender issue, touts her experience as key in DFL battle for gubernatorial endorsement

Still can't get over the debacle that was the legislative session for Kelliher last year. How am I supposed to look by that? That was her big chance to show she could play on the statewide stage, and it quite simply did not go well.

Everything else being equal, I'd love to see a woman as governor -- but here, I don't think all things are equal.

Posted on 03/26/10 at 11:39 am in response to Flap over Gitmo lawyers overshadows other ethical issues

Mr. Schletzer, you echoed the thoughts that I had as I read this piece. Ms. Kersten and many others cast themselves as patriots, but it is clear by their own words that they want to get rid of the Constitution. The Twin Cities attorneys who represented Gitmo detainees are highly regarded in the legal community and are not naive. Comments such as Ms. Kersten's call into question not only her motives, but truly, her intelligence as well.

There is a reason the U of M Law School...

Posted on 03/24/10 at 04:27 pm in response to Is the health care legislation unconstitutional?

I hear you, Mr. DeFor, and without question, over the last 200 years, the supreme court has expanded the definition of commerce. That said, it has pushed back in recent years, striking down VAWA and the Gun-Free School Zones Act -- it found that neither violence against women or guns in schools implicated interstate commerce. So, there are limits.

Posted on 03/24/10 at 03:29 pm in response to Is the health care legislation unconstitutional?

Mr. Tester, I certainly agree that at the end of the day, that all of the debate regarding constitutionality by any but nine people is fruitless, as those nine are the only ones who ulimately get to decide what is and isn't constitutional. That said, I'm willing to bet a beer that even this conservative court does not overturn this legislation.

Posted on 03/24/10 at 02:47 pm in response to Is the health care legislation unconstitutional?

Unlikely, Mr. Defor, because the supreme court is unlikely to find that the mere ownership of property implicates interstate commerce. There are limits to the comerce clause: for example, in recent years, the Violence Against Women Act was struck down because the court found that violence against women was not closely connected to interstate commerce. It is highly unlikely the court would find that the mere ownership of property is enough to regulate under the commerce clause.

Mr....

Posted on 03/24/10 at 10:59 am in response to Is the health care legislation unconstitutional?

Thanks for this, Eric. A great primer on why these claims that the bill is unoconstitutional are nothing more than political posturing.

Posted on 03/24/10 at 10:57 am in response to Update: Gov. Pawlenty asks Attorney General Lori Swanson to review 'legal issues' of federal health-care reform

With all due respect, Ms. Thompson, Mr. Hintz is right: this is simply not unconstitutional. The Constituion gives the federal goverment taxing powers; that is precisely what they are doing to "enforce" (although that really isn't the appropriate word) the individual mandate. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

If you can make out a case for why that isn't so, I would be interested in hearing it.

I press because in the last few months, I have heard all sorts of claims...

Posted on 03/23/10 at 09:59 am in response to Update: Gov. Pawlenty asks Attorney General Lori Swanson to review 'legal issues' of federal health-care reform

Interesting, John. Turns out TPaw wants something for nothing, just like everyone else.

The individual mandate is key to keeping costs in line. If the healthy people aren't in, costs will continue to go up. Whether you like insurance companies or hate 'em; that's just a fact.

I'd also like to hear him explain what part of the bill is unconstitutional, because it isn't the individual mandate.

I find it disgusting that Republicans have taken on the mantle of defending...

Posted on 03/16/10 at 11:41 am in response to Capitol communications snafu over bonding bill prompts pointed question: Who's misreading whom?

So you're saying that TPaw pulled one over on Kelleher and the DFL?

In other news: is the sky still blue?

Posted on 03/13/10 at 11:55 am in response to Petters and Hecker cases: Who will pay their lawyers?

I'm a bit distrubed by the number of people who feel that certain people are not entitled to the legal defense guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

The problem, in my eyes, is not that rich people generally get a good legal defense. The issue is that the indigent frequently do not, thanks to underfunded public defenders who are overwhelmed with work. That is the problem that needs to be solved.