Latest Article: Criticizing Netanyahu, Barak on Iran is a luxury Israel can't afford

(Published in Haaretz, May 14, 2012)

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And Karl r. moor

While the Israeli political scene is no stranger to strident criticisms directed at senior government officials and their policies, the recent attacks on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak over their policies toward Iran are a dangerous luxury.

Numerous retired security officials who do not lack a private voice or influence within a small nation. including former Shin Bet head, Yuval Diskin, ex- Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, and Former IDF Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, have launched broadsides against the current Israeli government’s dire assessments of the Iranian threat and the best ways of dealing with it.

They were followed by a more subdued critique, proffered by the IDF’s current Chief of General Staff Benny Gantz, who opined that the Iranian threat was not all that imminent and the Iranian regime, warts and all, was a rational strategic actor. These criticisms were reinforced by more openly political attacks, which came from Labor Chairwoman Shelly Yacimovich and Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Despite some differences in style and substance, the basic arguments of all these naysayers are that Messrs. Netanyahu and Barak have greatly exaggerated the extent of the threat posed by the Iranian nuclear weapons program, downplayed the efficacy of the global diplomatic and economic pressure on Tehran and overestimated the extent to which an Israeli military strike is a viable strategic option. While the precise modalities of these Israeli contretemps over the Iranian policy are unusual, they are not unprecedented.

Read more...

David Rivkin on the Constitutionality of ObamaCare

Excerpts from "ObamaCare and the Limits of Government," The Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2011, by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether ObamaCare is constitutional, granting certiorari in a case brought by 26 states shortly after that law was enacted in March of last year [2010]. In so doing, it will be ruling upon the very nature of our federal union. . .

As we argued two years ago in these pages, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is unconstitutional. First and foremost, the law requires virtually every American to have health insurance. Congress purported to impose this unprecedented "individual mandate" pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but the requirement is not limited to those who engage in any particular commercial or economic activity (or any activity at all). Rather, the mandate applies to everyone lawfully present in the United States who does not fall within one of the law's narrow exclusions. . .

Under our Constitution's system of dual sovereignty, only states have the authority to impose health and safety regulations on individuals simply because they are present. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Constitution denies to the federal government this type of "general police power." Federal legislation must be grounded in one of the "enumerated" powers the Constitution grants to Congress—such as the power to regulate interstate commerce. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted that power broadly (especially since the 1940s), it has consistently held that the Commerce Clause has limits.

If Congress can require individuals to buy or otherwise obtain and maintain health insurance simply because they may be said to impact commerce by their very existence, without regard to any particular activity in which they have chosen to engage, then there is no limit on federal power. For example, if Congress can require you to buy health insurance because your lack of insurance may, at some point in the future, impose costs on the wider economy, then on the same theory it can require the purchase (or sale) of virtually any good or service, since the failure to have or use the relevant product can always be said to have some economic impact.

Both the trial judge and Court of Appeals in Florida et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services duly struck down the mandate as outside the scope of Congress's legitimate authority. It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court will overturn that decision. To do so would require it to junk nearly 200 years of its own jurisprudence and create a federal government of unprecedented and uncontrolled power.

In Case You Missed:

David Rivkin on Happening Now on Fox News, March 26, 2012

David Rivkin w/ Paul Gigot of the Journal Editorial Report, March 24, 2012

"The majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative politically. They believe in the principles of political and economic freedom, and want to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. They believe in accountability from leadership and government, and from themselves. People who believe in the value of work and innovation, and who are accountable to their family and employer, are the core of this great country's strength." David Rivkin holds the beliefs and values of country, and his mission is to protect them.

Today, the extreme political and social elements have seized media attention and consumers are being fed a continuous stream of news with only marginal significance. Controversies and sensationalism attract viewers: by the time we have grown weary of one controversy, another one is served up to garner attention. These controversies serve to distract us from the real issues facing our country: the continued erosion of economic and political freedoms. If you are more concerned about the latest celebrity's personal relationships than whether your congressional representative has even read the legislation upon which s/he has voted, you are at risk for being unaware of important changes in government.

The unmet need that David Rivkin strives to fulfill is to base viewpoints and recommendations on the constitution and the law, for that is what protects us from tyranny. Instead of a values-only discussion, David Rivkin will provide objectivity and reason. But don't expect David Rivkin to be free of emotion: David Rivkin is passionate about his country, his freedom, and his purpose."

As a dedicated appellate attorney, political commentator, and frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin has been on the forefront on key constitutional law cases and has helped shaped legal thought and American policy for more than 20 years.  Mr. Rivkin is an enthusiastic speaker and debater that will provide your organization a memorable event.  Mr. Rivkin is currently booking 2012 engagements now. Engage with David Rivkin today.