Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: grampster on July 11, 2012, 09:55:53 AM
-
I haven't seen this notion brought up anywhere. I wonder whether the SCOTUS decision to declare unconstitutional the .fed gov mandate to the states that they must fund an expanded Medicaid under Obamacare or lose all Medicaid funding, can be interpreted to mean that the .fed gov may no longer impose unfunded mandates on the states or to threaten the witholding of certain funds if the states do not comply with any sort of .fed gov mandate?
-
If it limits government and/or expands liberty it is considered a narrow ruling with very limited applications.
If it expands government authority over the individual it is considered a broad ruling with wide ranging consequences across all of society.
:laugh:
:'(
-
If it limits government and/or expands liberty it is considered a narrow ruling with very limited applications.
If it expands government authority over the individual it is considered a broad ruling with wide ranging consequences across all of society.
:laugh:
:'(
This is actually a very good rule of thumb.
I remember taking my judicial ethics exam, I had only studied for it that morning. I simply chose the choices that seemed to present the worst possible option from an actual ethics standpoint. Passed with flying colors.
-
This is actually a very good rule of thumb.
I remember taking my judicial ethics exam, I had only studied for it that morning. I simply chose the choices that seemed to present the worst possible option from an actual ethics standpoint. Passed with flying colors.
This often applies to the actual ethics section of the Bar exam, as well. Although some of the questions can be pretty darn subtle.