State-funded lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have always been a waste of taxpayer money.  Even if the states are allowed to bring these lawsuits in the first place–itself a dubious proposition–the law’s opponents will have a tough time assembling the five Supreme Court votes necessary to strike down health care reform when even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledges that Congress has the power to enact laws such as the ACA.

Today, the law’s opponents lost Roberts.

In a case called United States v. Comstock, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law allowing mentally ill sex offenders to be civilly detained after they have served their sentences if they “would have serious difficulty in refraining from sexually violent conduct or child molestation if released.”  Chief Justice Roberts joined the Court’s four moderates to form a majority, with Justices Kennedy and Alito each filing concurring opinions and Justices Scalia and Thomas dissenting.

So what does this have to do with health reform?  In upholding the civil detention law, the Court effectively rejected right-wing claims that Congress’ powers are too small to allow it to pass the ACA. The Constitution contains an enumerated list of Congressional powers which, although quite broad, are not limitless; and the right’s principal attack on the ACA claims that the power to enact a provision requiring all Americans to carry health insurance did not make the list of Congress’ enumerated powers.

One of Congress’ enumerated powers is the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states,” and even Justice Scalia concedes that this power to regulate interstate commerce includes sweeping authority to enact economic regulation.  Faced with such precedent,  the ACA’s opponents have not made the implausible claim that health care reform does not regulate economic activity–indeed, they would have a tough time doing so, after whining for months that the ACA would regulate “1/6 of the economy.”  Instead, they argue that Congress is not allowed to require Americans to purchase insurance because doing so would be an “unprecedented” means of regulating the national economy.  (Their claim that such laws are unprecedented, by the way, is false.)

As today’s Comstock opinion makes clear, however, when Congress exercises one of its enumerated powers, it is free to determine how it wants to do so–even adopting an uncommon or unprecedented means of achieving a legitimate end.  After Comstock, there is simply no force to the right’s claim that certain methods of regulating the insurance market beyond Congress’ enumerated powers:

We have also recognized that the Constitution “addresse[s]” the “choice of means” [] “primarily . . . to the judgment of Congress. If it can be seen that the means adopted are really calculated to attain the end, the degree of their necessity, the extent to which they conduce to the end, the closeness of the relationship between the means adopted and the end to be attained, are matters for congressional determination alone.”

In other words, so long as Congress has chosen an end that is within its power to regulate the national economy, it is allowed to choose what means it wishes to employ in advancing that end.  Congress unquestionably has the power the national health insurance market, so it is allowed to choose a method of doing so that conservatives don’t particularly like.

Since joining the Supreme Court in 2005, Chief Justice Roberts has bent over backwards to advance right-wing causes.  He voted to give banks and drug companies sweeping immunity from state law.  He opened the floodgates to unlimited corporate money in federal elections; and he even claimed that there should be no consequence when a wealth coal baron buys a judge in order to overturn an unwanted court decision.  So the fact that even Roberts rejects conservative arguments against health reform should tell the state officials pushing these lawsuits to stop wasting taxpayer money on frivilous litigation.

If you’re straight and your husband or wife dies, you have the power to decide what to do with your loved one’s body and how to carry out their wishes. However, if you are a gay man or woman in Minnesota — a state that doesn’t recognize marriage equality — you won’t have that option, thanks to Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R). Explaining his veto of the bill, Pawlenty simply said there “is no actual need” to give same-sex couples equal end-of-life rights. From his official statement on Saturday:

The bill addresses the categories of individuals who under the law shall be given priority for purposes of determining the disposition of the remains of a deceased person. Currently a person can, by executing a will, designate who shall be empowered to control final disposition of his or her remains. The bill therefore addresses a nonexistent problem.

Marriage — defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill.

Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of LGBT advocacy group Project 515, responded that Pawlenty’s “comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. … The language in this bill reflects closely language already used by Minnesota’s leading businesses.” Additionally, a person in a heterosexual marriage is not required to have a living will in order for his or her spouse to carry out end-of-life wishes, so it’s unclear why one should be necessary for same-sex partners. The bill would also have given “surviving partners the right to sue those responsible should their partner be killed.”

As a new Center for American Progress report on the needs of LGBT elders finds, Minnesota is considered a “legal stranger” state, where “same-sex partners (or members of families of choice) in these states effectively have no chance to be designated as surrogate medical decision makers for their incapacitated partners/loved ones.” LGBT elders therefore generally need an advanced health care directive (AHD), which includes a living will and a health care power of attorney:

In practice, to protect themselves, LGBT elders must remember to carry their AHDs with them at all times — if an individual is rushed to the hospital without these documents, a loved one can still legally be denied access (see sidebar on page 40). Finally, problems may arise when an elder travels out of state, as one state may not always recognize the health care directive of another state.

Additionally, obtaining an AHD can be difficult, since many elders are unaware or do not have the means to secure one, and “medical providers and long-term care facilities often ignore or challenge the AHDs of LGBT people.” (HT: Joe Sudbay at AMERICAblog)

Cross-posted on ThinkProgress.

Our guest blogger is Akil Vohra, Counsel at Muslim Advocates, who is leading the Muslim Charities Works Program aimed to strengthen the Muslim nonprofit sector and reform hurdles to charitable giving.

President Obama is trying to bridge the divide that persists between the United States and Muslim communities here and abroad. During his groundbreaking speech in Cairo last June, Obama made an important commitment to American Muslims: reform charitable giving:

OBAMA: “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.“

American Muslims have applauded the President’s Cairo commitment and are eager to see results. Easing burdens on charitable giving protects religious freedom and builds bridges of goodwill between the United States and Muslims around the world. Extensive polling of those in Muslim-majority nations shows that charity not only creates goodwill between nations but also improves Muslim perceptions of America abroad.

For example, when a massive tsunami struck Muslim-majority Indonesia in 2004, those in the U.S. gave generously to help victims. This fact was widely reported in local media. Public opinion among Indonesians then dramatically swung in favor of the United States, with 65 percent of Indonesians expressing a favorable opinion as a direct result of American aid. At the same time, the number of Indonesians who held what might be perceived as anti-American views declined.

Indeed, humanitarian aid increasingly serves a critical national security objective. As the New York Times recently reported, the Obama administration is eager to move development assistance to the tribal areas and other regions of Pakistan where religious schools currently proliferate.

Yet, under current U.S. laws, charities that are America’s de facto goodwill ambassadors are hamstrung. If a teenage Al-Qaida recruit, or a child of an adult member, attends a newly constructed school built with U.S. aid, the charity and its donors would be in violation of the law and potentially subject to criminal prosecution. Clearly, that’s not what Congress and government regulators intended when they sought to stem the flow of money to Al-Qaida.

Specific laws, policies and practices adopted by previous administrations, bolstered by the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, stymie both security efforts and religious freedom. Adopted to fight terrorism financing, the Anti-terrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Executive Order 13324 and International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), have had the unintended consequence of erecting legal hurdles to well-intentioned charitable giving. These laws allow investigations, freezing of assets, and designations of charities without a full and fair opportunity to challenge the government’s allegations.

International donors face obstacles similar to those confronting charities working overseas. Current law prohibits any assistance—except religious materials and medicine—to a party on the government’s prohibited lists. Such laws discourage international charity by allowing donors, regardless of intent, to be prosecuted if their donation eventually ends up in a bad actor’s hands. These punitive laws dissuade donors from giving generously and charities from operating freely. Lastly, the numerous, disconnected government lists of prohibited groups, individuals and governments (at least five lists), make it impossible for individual donors and smaller nonprofits to provide charity, especially in times of humanitarian crises like earthquakes or tsunamis.

These restrictive giving laws, combined with continuing government scrutiny of the American-Muslim community, creates a climate in which donors are afraid to give and charities are afraid to operate. This phenomenon is well-documented in a recent report by the American Civil Liberties Union. Federal scrutiny of American Muslim travelers who donate to lawful U.S. mosques and charities is chronicled in a report by Muslim Advocates.

President Obama can take three discrete, concrete steps to begin the process of reforming charitable giving laws:

1) Direct the Treasury and State Departments to create a user-friendly, accessible database that would combine all the prohibited lists in one central location. Currently, these prohibited lists appear on two separate agency websites in a format that is difficult to navigate. Establishing a publicly accessible database would be a useful tool for nonprofits and donors when determining where they are sending their aid.

2) Provide protection for well-intentioned charitable giving. If a donor checks the proposed, above database and confirms that the entity to which they are giving is not on a prohibited list, the donor should not be subject to investigation or prosecution. The government can rebut the presumption by showing that the donor knew beyond a reasonable doubt that the organization was on a prohibited list.

3) Establish a presidential advisory commission on easing hurdles to charitable giving that would involve the American-Muslim community, the greater nonprofit sector, and government agencies to address other issues to charitable giving.

If President Obama wants to make strides in building bridges to Muslim communities abroad, he needs to build stronger bridges with Muslims at home. Reforming charitable giving is an excellent place to start.