‘Are you serious? Are you serious?’

Earlier this week, an editorial in the Wall Street Journal recapped former Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s famous response when a journalist questioned her about the Affordable Care Act. Pelosi was asked what part of the Constitution allowed the federal government to require Americans to buy health insurance, and she responded “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Too often, when public officials are asked to explain how their proposals comport with the Constitution, they respond with a Pelosian mixture of irritable gesturing, sputtering, and diversionary contempt.

That Journal editorial nicely summarizes what’s at issue in our home-distillery case: we argue that the federal ban on distilling beverage alcohol in or near a home cannot be consistent with the Constitution. As the editorial says:

The Supreme Court is doing an originalist cleanup job on decades of sloppy jurisprudence, and is the amazingly stretchy Commerce Clause up next? A federal district judge recently ruled that two U.S. laws that prohibit home distilling can’t be enforced, because they exceed the enumerated powers granted to Washington under the Constitution (Hobby Distillers Assn. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau).

The editorial, which celebrates our recent win in district court, contains a nice summary of the constitutional controversies involved. It’s worth a read – especially if constitutionally limited government is important to you – or if you just want to have a more sophisticated response to constitutional questions than Nancy Pelosi.