Does Ought Imply Can with Obamacare?

Posted: December 29, 2013 by socklessjoe in Conservatism, Ewww - taste this!, Liberal Fascism, Obama's Fault, Op/Sped

Little help here from the lawyery types…

In philosophy, there’s a moral principle that “ought implies can“.  Put otherwise, it means that in order for some action to be obligatory, it must be possible for the agent to perform that act.

Is there a similar principle in law?  If the Congress enacted a law requiring the executive to provide a free unicorn to each citizen (or some non-zero subset of citizens), could that law be considered Constitutional?  Clearly it is impossible.  Wouldn’t impossibility imply unconstitutionality?

Similarly, Obama’s defense of his endless improvisations that substantially alter the law seems to be that the law is impossible to implement.

I hope you can see where I’m going with this.

Any such principle, law nerds?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s