A Letter from Jesus?

So there is a supposed letter from Jesus (sometimes called "A True Letter of Jesus Christ") that one can find posted on some web pages which I stumbled upon. I am going to put its full text here for reference; I apologize for the considerable length, but as someone searching for information on it may search for specific text from it, it would be useful to include it in full for that reason.

If you want the quick version that doesn't require any scrolling: There is no evidence it is real, and its claim of being approved or blessed by Pope Leo XIII is false too, as he actually condemned it.

For those curious in the more in-depth explanation, let's begin. But first I want to post the full letter, because if the hope is that someone looking for information will stumble across this blog post, I'd better post the whole thing. Skip past all of the italics if you want to see my commentary. Here's the letter:

A True Letter of Our Savior Jesus Christ
Consecrating the Drops of Blood which Our Lord lost on His way to Calvary.

Copy of a letter of the Oration found in the Holy Sepulchre of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Jerusalem, preserved in a silver box by His Holiness and by the Emperors and Empresses of the Christian Faith.

St. Elizabeth, Queen of Hungary, with St. Matilda and St. Bridget, wishing to know something of the Passion of Jesus Christ, offered fervent and special prayers, upon which there appeared to them Our Lord Jesus Christ who spoke to them in the following manner:

I descended from Heaven to the Earth in order to convert you.

In olden times people were religious and their harvests were abundant; at present, on the contrary, they are scanty.

If you want to reap an abundant harvest you must not work on Sunday, for on Sunday you must go to Church and pray to God to forgive your sins. He gave you six days in which to work and one for rest and devotion and to tender your help to the poor and assist in the Church.

Those people, who brawl against my religion and cast slurs on this Sacred Letter, shall be forsaken by Me.

On the contrary, those people who shall carry a copy of this letter with them shall be free from death by drowning and sudden death. They shall be free from all contagious diseases and lightening; they shall not die without confession, and shall be free from their enemies and from the hand of wrongful authority, and from all their slanderers and false witnesses.

Women in peril at child-birth will, by keeping this Oration about them, immediately overcome the difficulty. In the houses where this Oration is kept, no evil thing will ever happen: and fourty days before the death of a person who has this Oration about him or her, the Blessed Virgin will appear to him or her. So said St. Gregorius.

To all those faithful who shall recite for 3 years, each day 2 Our Fathers, Hail Marys, and Glory Be’s, in honour of the drops of blood I lost, I will concede the following 5 graces:
1.The plenary indulgence and remittance of your sins.
2.You will be free from the pains of Purgatory.
3.If you should die before completing the said 3 years, for you it will be the same as if you had completed them.
4.It will be upon your death the same as if you had shed all your blood for the Holy Faith.
5.I will descend from Heaven to take your soul and that of your relatives, until the fourth generation.

Be it known that the number of armed soldiers were 150; those who trailed me while I was bound were 23. The executioners were 83; the blows received on my head were 150; those on my stomach, 108; kicks on my shoulders, 80. I was led, bound with cords by the hair, 24 times; spits in the face were 180; I was beaten on the body 6666 times; beaten on the head, 110 times. I was roughly pushed, and at 12 o’clock was lifted up by the hair; pricked with thorns and pulled by the beard 23 times; received 20 wounds on the head; thorns of marine junks, 72; pricks of thorns in the head, 110; mortal thorns in the forehead, 3. I was afterwards flogged and dressed as a mocked king; wounds in the body, 1000. The soldiers who led me to the Calvary were 608; those who watched me were 3, and those who mocked me were 1008; the drops of blood which I lost were 28,430.

Benedetta DA S.S., Pope Leo XIII, In Roma 5 Aprile 1890 

Frequently, this is where the account of the letter will end. If you are curious, the last sentence is in Italian which says that it was blessed by Pope Leo XIII in Rome on April 5, 1890. However, some postings will go on further, and add the following even more lengthy portion. Sometimes it will go directly to it but some add a caution of "The following list of miracles and promises or warnings attached are published here, but with the caution that we do not know if the approval of Pope Leo XIII was for this portion as well". In any event, here is the rest of it:

MIRACLES ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SACRED LETTER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.

A second and similar copy of this Letter has been found in a place called "Pursit," three leagues from Marseilles, written in golden letters, and believed to be of supernatural origin. It was found by a boy 7 years old of the same town. With it is an appendix and declaration of the 2nd of January, 1750, which says: "All those who work on Sunday, will be cursed by me, for on the Sacred day you must rest, go to Church, attend all Divine Services, so that you and your generation will be blessed.

If on the contrary you do not believe this you will be chastised, and to your children I will send pest, famine, war, spasms and heartaches; to show you My anger, you will see signs in the sky, thunders and earthquakes.

Those who do not believe that this letter is written by Divine workmanship and dictated by the Sacred Mouth of Christ, and who will keep it hidden from other persons, will be cursed by God and condemned on the Day of Judgment. To those who will publish it, if they have many sins and are truly repentant for having offended Me, even though they have done some injury to their neighbors, when they ask pardon I will cancel their sins. Those who will copy this, or read it, or who will induce others to read it, will be free from all temptations."

A certain Spanish Captain traveling by land near Barcelona, saw a head severed from the body, which spoke to him as follows, "As you are bound for Barcelona, my good man, for God's sake send hither a Priest so that I may confess myself. It is already three days now that I have been attacked by robbers, and I cannot die without first confessing myself." The Captain brought the Confessor to the place; the living head confessed and then expired. On the body from which the head had been severed, the present Oration was found. On that occasion it was approved by several Tribunals of the Holy Inquisition and by the Queen of Spain. The said Paters, Glorias and Aves can be recited for the benefit of any soul.

At the time of the terrible earthquake in Northern Italy and in France, a girl from Nice named Nathaline was caught under a fallen house and remained 3 days buried alive. When unearthed, a copy of this Letter was found on her! She was illiterate and uneducated. When found she was sleeping, untouched by the devastation of the earthquake!

On March 12, 1821, many emigrants from S. Giovanni Incarico, in the Province of Caserta (Italy) sailed for America to look for work. During the trip they were caught in a most terrible storm, which threw their ship into collision with a warship. This caused it to sink. The event occurred on the 19th, St. Joseph's Day. Out of the 667 people on board, only 9 were saved. Everyone of them had a copy of this Letter of Christ in his possession. The survivors were found almost naked, wearing only their vests, in the pockets of which the Letters were found, dry and not even wrinkled!

Two of the survivors from the same town, named Luigi Ceccaccio and Francesco Nero, furnished ample and substantial proof of the miraculous event.

Another miracle of the Sacred Letter of Jesus Christ was revealed at the Island of Iri, also in Italy. A man was peacefully sleeping in his bed, when a mysterious hand shook him abruptly and a voice thundered: "Get up in haste, and save yourself, in a corner of the house!" Promptly complying with the divine warning, the man rose and reached, pale and trembling, a remote corner, just in time to see the floor whereon he had lain in bed, sink into a deep abyss. This Letter saved him.

Another miracle was accomplished by the "Mater Dolorosa" three miles from the town of Castelpetrosa, in the Province of Campobasso, Italy. A 13 year old shepherdess, named Maria Grazia Estassia Bibiana, was attending to her duties in the vicinity of an old Convent. Suddenly appeared to her, and to her astonished mother who was nearby, the Virgin Mater Dolorosa, who told them: "Come with me to this old Church, wherein My Son is vexed with the people of the world, as there are too many sins committed, vice is rampant everywhere; religion is neglected. Therefore destructive earthquakes, pestilence and famine are putting humanity to severe punishment. Go to Church and receive your Holy Communion at least once a year. Thus, He will pardon your sins." Then the Virgin disappeared.

Another miracle was reported recently. In the last days of June, 1889, there appeared at the railroad station of Ancona a woman in mourning. She said she was to go to Rome but lacked the money to pay for her ticket. The train left the station but after a while it stopped. Though 5 more engines were added, it would not budge. A gentleman on the train, named Chev Morelli, thought of the black dressed lady who could not board the train at the station for the lack of the money to pay her fare to Rome. He went immediately to find her, and he offered to pay for it. He paid, in fact, 47 lires for a first class ticket to Rome. This the lady accepted under the condition that she travel alone. No sooner had the lady boarded the train, than it started up speedily, to the astonishment of all.

Chev Morelli, upon reaching Rome, wished to pay his respects to the lady. He went to the car where she had been seated. However, no one was there, and on the seat he found 2,000 lire in money and a note in golden letters, which read, "I am the Mater Dolorosa Virgin; and I wish to tell the sinners of the world that they must redeem themselves, believe in God and serve Him. Otherwise, a great calamity will soon befall Christianity."

His Holiness the Pope received a letter October 2nd, 1889 wherein it was stated that if in the future the people would not renounce the devil and all his work, mortifying all evils and corrupt dealings, and make solemn vows of proceeding daily in all virtue and godliness of living, they would be overcome by disaster. This Letter was sent by the Saviour, Christ. It mentioned the appearance of the Mater Dolorosa at Ancona. It declared that on the last Good Friday no visitors were seen at the Holy Sepulchre. It sid that people should remember the Day of Judgment, when the faithful shall enjoy the Glory of the Heavens and the ungodly shall be overwhelmed in a storm of snares, fire, brimstones, and bolts.

On July 2nd, 1889, when a terrible flood caused ruin, misery and appalling loss of life, the few survivors found in the many districts stricken by the disaster were in many cases in possession of the Sacred Letter.

One Giovanni Santarello who happened to be in France at the time of the earthquake, which made thousands of victims in the Southern Departments, was found buried alive under the wreck of a house after remaining in a deep anxiety four days and four nights. A copy of this Sacred Letter was found on him.

In commemoration of the apparition of the Mater Dolorosa Virgin in Ancoma, the people of the Township of Castelpetrosa, in the Province of Campobasso were so deeply shaken by the divine event that a great revival of worship was proclaimed and a pilgrimage was organized. At a meeting of the leading citizens, the clergy and authorities, it was resolved to build a great temple in honor of the Holy Virgin. On the day set for the laying of the cornerstone, a great gathering of bishops, priests, high church dignitaries and the laity, assisted by several hundred workmen, were ready to start the ceremony. Suddenly all tools, picks and shovels disappeared. To the spectators' terrified eyes appeared the Mater Dolorosa Virgin, who said: "Why are you digging this ground? Yonder, amid those beautiful woods, you will find the Sanctuary for your worship."

Speechless and confused the people beheld, as she vanished, the Virgin ascending to the heavens. A few days afterwards, three miles from Castelpetrosa, in the vicinity of the old Convent, three magnificent fountains were found beside a shrine decked with flowers and golden stars, seemingly erected by a divine hand.

On the solemn occasion of the last Pope's Jubilee, the Saviour, Christ, made His sudden appearance to the Pope, who was then on his throne, surrounded by cardinals, bishops and high dignitaries of the Church. The Holy Spirit spoke thus: "People of the world, forsake your sins or else the end shall soon be forthcoming!" Our Lord then disappeared. All present threw themselves at the feet of the Pope, beseeching pardon and clemency!

Whatever form it takes, you can find this posted on several websites (sometimes with a few small differences), normally those of the traditional Catholic variety, though I did ironically see a Protestant site talk about it, saying it shows Catholicism is absurd if the pope would sign onto something said website thought was obviously false.

There are a number of issues one can see with it, especially the second portion. The most obvious is that Jesus Christ appearing in front of the pope as well as "cardinals, bishops, and high dignitaries of the Church" would have been one of the biggest news stories ever for Catholics, yet is apparently unknown outside of this account. That is a major red flag that this is not true. Even if we ignore the much more fantastical second portion (which is sometimes omitted in re-postings) and limit ourselves to the first portion of it, one has difficulty verifying any of this.

So where did this come from? Well, postings of the first portion seem to go back to is a prayer book called "The Pieta." The Pieta has a number of claims I must confess I find dubious that it doesn't seem to back up (I note that the Pieta as a whole appears to lack any official sanction from the Catholic Church such an imprimatur), but what matters is this particular one here. However, it does not give any source itself, Furthermore, it does not include the second portion of the quoted text, leaving me wonder where that came from. Most probably, there is an earlier English source that contains the "full text" and the Pieta chose to omit the second and more implausible portion. The sources that include the full text are based on that fuller version. Unfortunately, I do not know what that original text is.

This site seems to have a little about it, but unfortunately doesn't add too much information for our purposes. Though it is interesting to note that the English translation offered there differs from the version that is most frequently spread around and quoted.

Perhaps one of the reasons this gets posted is because of the claim that Pope Leo XIII approved it. But did he? Much like the rest of the claims, the source for this is the "letter" itself. As it turns out, Leo XIII never approved it. In fact, he condemned it. I wish I could say I figured out all of this on my own, but some of the critical information came from another web page (which is now defunct, so I suppose this blog post is where one can find the applicable information).

This letter is in fact mentioned in an official Vatican document called the Acta Sanctae Sedis; specifically, the Acta Sanctae Sedis 31 (1898-99). The specific section in question can be found at this link, page 727. The aforementioned web page provided the following Latin translation for it:

"Several leaflets [foliolá in Latin] have been passed on to this eminent Sacred Congregation of Indulgences and Holy Relics. These leaflets contain prayers with improper indulgences attributed to them and hence serious doubts have arisen regarding their authenticity. Thus, lest Christ's faithful be drawn into error for an extended time and in order that all pretext for the enemies of the Church for ridiculing the inestimable treasure of Indulgences be removed, especially in these times, the Sacred Congregation, which is run in a way that is pious, holy, and incorrupt, took it to be its duty to put these leaflets under examination, and, since it was found that there were false, improper, and apocryphal Indulgences promulgated in them, saw fit that the aforementioned leaflets be prohibited without delay, and the Indulgences claimed by them be declared apocryphal and false.

Whence the most eminent Fathers gathered together in a general meeting at the Vatican on May 5, 1898, having weighed everything well, have unanimously decided the following: the aforementioned leaflets brought before this Sacred Congregation are to be altogether prohibited, and the Indulgences attached to them are to be considered false and apocryphal.

Which things having been passed on to His Holiness our Lord Pope Leo XIII in the audience held with the aforementioned Cardinal Prefect on May 26, 1898, His Holiness approved and confirmed the sentence of the eminent Fathers, and commanded that a general Decree be sent out by which the aforementioned leaflets or those differing but little according to various editions, be prohibited and that the Indulgences claimed by them be altogether condemned as false and apocryphal."

Emphasis added. Fortunately for our purposes, for reference they went on to list the text of these leaflets, called "Foliolums," which were mostly in Italian. The applicable one is on page 740, though I will put it here for easy reference:

LETTERA DI GESÙ CRISTO.
DELLE GOCCIE DI SANGUE CHE SPARSE N. S. G. C MENTRE ANDAVA AL CALVARIO.

Copia di una lettera di Orazione ritrovata nel Santo Sepolcro di N. S. G. C. in Gerusalemme, conservata in una cassa d'argento da S. Santità, e dagli Imperatori ed Imperatrici cristiani. Desiderando S. Elisabetta Regina d' Ungheria, Santa Matilde e Santa Brigida sapere alcune cose della Passione di Gesù Cristo, facendo fervorose e particolari Orazioni, mercè le quali gli apparve

Gesù Cristo favellando con esse e cosi dicendo:

Sappiate che i soldati armati furono 150, quelli che mi condussero legato furono 23, gli esecutori di giustizia 83, i pugni che ricevei alla testa furono 150 e nel petto 108, i calci nelle spalle 80, e fui trascinato con corde e per i capelli 23 volte, natte e sputi nella faccia furono 180, battiture nel corpo 6666, battiture nel capo 110, mi diedero un urtone, notate nel cuore, fui alzato in aria per i capelli ad ore 21, ad un tempo mandai 120 sospiri, fui trascinato e tirato per la barba 23 volte, piaghe nella testa 20, spini di giunchi marini 72, punture di spine nella testa 100, spine mortali nella fronte 3, dopo flagellato e vestito da re di burla, piaghe nel corpo 1000. I soldati che mi condussero al Calvario furono 908, quelli che mi guardavano 3, goccie di sangue che sparsi furono 28430 e chi ogni giorno recita 7 Pater, Ave e Gloria per lo spazio di 15 anni per compiere il numero delle goccie di sangue che ho sparso, gli concedo 5 grazie :

I . L'indulgenza plenaria e remissione di tutti i peccati ;
2°. Sarà liberato dalle pene del purgatorio ;
3°. Se morrà prima di compire detti 15 anni, per esso sarà come li avesse compiti ;
4°. Sarà come fosse morto ed avesse sparso il sangue per la Santa Fede ;
5°. Scenderò io dal cielo a prendere l'anima sua e quella dei suoi parenti fino al quarto grado.

Quegli che porterà questa Orazione non morirà annegato, nè di mala morte, nè di morte improvvisa, sarà liberato dal contagio e dalla peste, dalle saette, e non morirà senza confessione, sarà liberato dai suoi nemici, e dal potere della Giustizia, e da tutti i suoi malevoli e da falsi testimoni.

Le donne che non possono partorire, tenendola addosso, partoriranno subito e usciranno di pericolo.

Nella casa ove sarà questa Orazione non vi saranno tradimenti nè di cose cattive, e 40 giorni prima della sua morte quello che l'avrà sopra di sè vedrà la Beata Vergine Maria, come dice S. Gregorio papa.

Un certo Capitano spagnolo viaggiando per terra vide vicino Barcellona una testa recisa dal busto che gli parlò cosi: Giacché vi portate a Barcellona, o passeggiero, conducetemi un confessore acciò possa confessarmi essendo già da tre giorni che sono stata recisa dai ladri, e non posso morire se non mi confesso. Condotto al luogo il Confessore dal Capitano suddetto, la testa vivente si confessò ed indi spirò, trovando addosso al busto da cui era stata recisa, la seguente orazione la quale in quella occasione fu appro- vata da vari Tribunali della S. Inquisizione di Spagna. I suddetti 7 Pater, Ave e Gloria si potranno recitare e applicare anche per qualsivoglia anima.

Altra simile copia della suddetta lettera è stata miracolosamente ritrovata nel luogo chiamato Porsit, tre leghe lontano da Marsiglia, scritta a lettere d'oro e per opera divina portata da un fanciullo di 7 anni del medesimo luogo di Porsit.

Con un' aggiunta e dichiarazione il 2 Gennaio 1750 che dice : Tutti coloro che trayaglieranno nei giorni di Domenica saranno maledetti da me, perchè nelle Domeniche dovete andare alla Chiesa pregando Iddio che vi perdoni i vostri peccati, e per questo vi ho dato sei giorni da travagliare ed il settimo per riposare, e far opere di divozione, e delle vostre sostanze fate bene ai poveri, e le vostre genti saranno ricolme di benedizioni e di grazie : per con- trario se non credete alla presente, verranno maggiori gastighi a voi ed ai vostri figli e vi manderò peste, fame, guerre, dolori e spasimi di cuore, per segno del mio sdegno vedrete segni nel Cielo, tuoni e terremoti.

Quelli che giudicheranno che questa lettera non sia scritta per opera divina e dettata dalla Sacratissima bocca di Dio, e queUi che la terranno maliziosamente nascosta senza pubblicarla ad altre persone, saranno maledetti da Dio e confusi nel giorno del Giudizio, e chi invece la pubblicherà, se avesse tanti peccati purché vera- mente pentito di avermi offeso, e ancora avendo fatto qualche ingiuria al suo prossimo, chiedendomi scusa, io gli cancellerò i suoi peccati, quelli che copieranno questa divozione e la leggeranno, oppure la faranno leggere, giammai periranno e saranno liberi da tutte le tentazioni.

Even if one speaks no Italian, this is immediately recognizable as being the letter in question; in fact, the English version is really just a translation of it (though some parts are reordered). Interestingly, this includes the beginning of the second section that gave the miracle accounts (e.g. the paragraph beginning with "Un certo Capitano spagnolo" corresponds to the paragraph beginning with "A certain Spanish captain") but does not go through all of it. There are several possibilities for why. Perhaps those sections were added later, or it was so long that the people who published the condemnation of it felt they could cut it off at that point and get the point across, or perhaps the specific edition they were using didn't go that far, but others did.

So contrary to the claim that it was blessed by Leo XIII, it was in fact condemned by him. The claim it was blessed appears to be made up and just added to it in order to convince people it had his approval. And it seems it worked. Based on nothing more than that, one can easily find people posting this account and saying that it was approved by Leo XIII even though the opposite is true.

Obviously, whether Leo XIII approved it or not would probably only really matter to a Catholic, as anyone else would simply dismiss the letter to begin with. Still, Catholics should know that Leo XIII condemned this.

This is just another sign of why you should be cautious whenever you find these sorts of claims on the Internet (or anywhere else, really). It's very easy for someone to claim that something was approved or verified by someone important, but it could be false. The above is just one example. When you see things like this in the future, you should want to see an official document in which it was approved.

Incorrect Claims About the Reason for the Electoral College

The electoral college is a controversial system for electing the United States President. Whether it's good or not is not this article's reason for existing; instead, I wish to correct what seems to be a major error as to claims about why it was created in the first place.

You've probably seen this claim over and over, which is that the reason the president is elected by the electoral college rather than the popular vote was to prevent the more populated states from running things, or in order to try to give better representation to the less popular rural areas. Basically, the claim is that those who made the Constitution came up with the electoral college to try to give less populated areas of the country more equal power to the populated areas, or something similar to that.

One thing you may notice is that no one ever gives any citation for such a thing, or at least I have never seen anyone give any citation. Surely, if this was their reasoning, there must be a quote or writing of one of them. But no one ever provides such a thing.

So let's look at actual statements made on the issue. First, consider this statement by James Madison, considered to perhaps be the most influential person when it came to writing the Constitution. This quote was given in his notes about the Constitutional Convention and is found here. He stated:

If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections. 

Now, this and the other quotes he includes are from James Madison's notes so they can be more properly considered a transcription of general thoughts rather than a literal word-for-word rendering of what was stated. However, James Madison could be trusted, I think, to get his own ideas right. Here we see nothing of population, but rather that states with a lot of slaves would object to a popular vote because their slaves can't vote and thus they would not have as much power in a national election. While this one does at least relate to the issue of population, it does so in a very different manner than those who claim it's a matter of high populations vs low populations suggest. It should be noted, of course, that with the abolishment of slavery, this consideration is negated.

There is another quote that can be found, from The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers were pseudonymously written by James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton under the name of "Publius." Their purpose was to try to explain why everything in the Constitution was the way it was in an effort to convince people it was a great idea. Given that these men played a major role in drafting the Constitution to begin with, their testimony is particularly valuable. While a little caution must be exercised because these documents were propagandistic in nature, nevertheless they are one of the best guides we have as to why. The discussion on the electoral college is found in Federalist #68. 

Most of it is not concerned with the question of why you use electors rather than a popular vote, and is rather an argument as to why electors are preferable to other non-popular-vote options such as having the House of Representatives do it. I will analyze it. Note that while there are strong speculations based on the writing style of each part of the Federalist as to who wrote what, we do not know for sure. #68 is believed to have been written by Alexander Hamilton who is the one I will credit, but it is possible that it was Jay or Madison.

THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.

It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Although little time is actually devoted to explaining why this is preferable to a popular vote, we do see the idea that the decision "should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation." Thus, "A small number of persons, elected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations." Not a word is stated about issues of population.

I should also note, of course, that the electoral college has been an utter failure in accomplishing this goal. No one is selected as an elector with the purpose of it being someone who will analyze who should become president; people are chosen specifically because they will not perform any such analysis and will rather vote for a particular predetermined candidate. The electors for Trump were chosen because they were people guaranteed to vote for Trump, and the electors for Biden were chosen because they were people guaranteed to vote for Biden. While there have been a few faithless electors in the past, these were done more as a protest than any actual goal of changing the election result (to my knowledge, no faithless elector in US history has ever voted for the other primary candidate; rather, they vote for someone else entirely). This is how it has been for a very, very long time. The idea of people analyzing who would be the best president after being chosen for electors is a pipe dream.

The next several paragraphs of the Federalist Paper are unimportant for our purposes so I'll skip them, as it is an explanation for the specifics of the electoral college, such as why they meet in their own states rather than all in one location, or why elected officials like Senators or Representatives are not allowed to be electors. But the final paragraph on the election of the President should nevertheless be noted:

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: "For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best," yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

If anyone can look at the people who have been elected Presidents of the United States, and say the office of President has never fallen "to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications" then I would have to say they have an extremely low standard for requisite qualifications.

But the bottom line here is that in the most detailed explanation of the reason for the electoral college, the constantly spouted claim of it being related to better representing less populated areas is not found or even hinted at. If someone wants to claim that's a valid reason for the existence of the electoral college now, fine, but it wasn't at all what was in mind for the people who actually set it up.

It may be noted that Madison's statement from the Constitutional Convention regarding slaves is not mentioned here; most likely, this was omitted because New York (where these pamphlets were distributed) had a very small slave population. I suppose someone could try to say that they would omit any mention of giving more representation to smaller states because New York was one of the more populated states (behind Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts at the time), but the point remains that still no explanation was given for it being an issue of state population.

So here we have two sources as to the why of the electoral college, but neither says anything about the much-touted claim that the reason for the electoral college was to prevent the high population states from controlling the presidential election. Rather, they give totally different reasons. 

Another notable quote from the Constitutional Convention (same page as the Madison quote I gave earlier) is from Elbridge Gerry. Gerry was a vice president of the United States and was an important figure in the framing of the Constitution, but unfortunately for him, the main thing he is remembered for is being the person that the word "gerrymandering" is named after. At any rate, he had the following to say, at least according to Madison's notes linked above:

If the Executive is to be elected by the Legislature he certainly ought not to be re-eligible. This would make him absolutely dependent. He was agst. a popular election. The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men. He urged the expediency of an appointment of the Executive by Electors to be chosen by the State Executives. The people of the States will then choose the 1st. branch: The legislatures of the States the 2d. branch of the National Legislature, and the Executives of the States, the National Executive. This he thought would form a strong attachnt. in the States to the National System. The popular mode of electing the chief Magistrate would certainly be the worst of all. If he should be so elected & should do his duty, he will be turned out for it like Govr. Bowdoin in Massts. & President Sullivan in N. Hamshire.

So this one is that the general public is not well informed and would be easily led astray (a quite arguable point), with the electors being a guard against this. Nothing about state size. Also, much like the issue with the Federalist Papers, the electors are so bound to the popular wishes of the people nowadays that this can be considered largely negated.

Until such time as someone is able to provide any proof that the electoral college was made to prevent large states from controlling the popular vote, I see no reason to accept this often made claim.

If someone wants to claim that the electoral college accomplishes the goal of giving smaller states better representation... well, I'm not so sure about that, but they can at least try the argument. But don't claim that was the reasoning of the people who made the electoral college without providing any proof for it, particularly when the proof one can find demonstrates no apparent consideration of trying to give small states more power.

Kwadjo Peter (or Kojo Peter, or Kwadwo Peter)

Back in 2015, there was a report about a man in Ghana named "Kwadjo Peter" (I have also seen his name rendered as "Kojo Peter", undoubtedly the differences come from alternate romanizations of the language) who supposedly came back to life after being dead for a month. According to his account, he died, spent some time as a spirit, including a trip to hell, before resurrecting. An example report of it can be found here. Elements of the story were corroborated by family members, who said he was indeed Kwadjo Peter. He even ended up getting on an episode of a religious TV talk show.


If all this is true, it's very notable, especially because he gave an account of what he experienced while dead, such as visiting hell. As is noted in that article:

"In the next world, Kwadjo claims he started flying and got infuriated by the fact that he could still see his family and friends but none responded to him whenever he called out their names. He claims he even tried holding his one-year-old son but it was to no avail. He then met a bearded man who directed him to follow him on a narrow path. He obliged and was shown the Biblical hell fire with Michael Jackson and Pope John Paul trapped in it."

If this was made up, then we can completely ignore it as well as any information he claimed to have obtained through the experience. But if it was real then we would want to sit up and pay attention to his claims.


It was years after the fact that I first happened to hear about it, and I tried to see if I could find information about it. Did they dig up the body to check to see if it had disappeared, which would verify the story? Did they perform a DNA test to see if this was the same guy? I just couldn't find any information about it beyond the initial reports. The most I found was this article which briefly mentioned it ("To cut a long story short it was a publicity stunt – no iota of truth"), but unfortunately without going into detail on it.

However, I did eventually find it, almost by accident. I missed it because the article in question giving the aftermath rendered his name as Kwadwo Peter, and I was looking for Kojo or Kwadjo because that is how the initial articles were writing his name. It seems like the spelling can vary. But the point is, it was found. But what was the final verdict? It was a fake.

The full scoop can be found here and I am incredibly grateful for that website as it gave me the critical information. His actual name was Emmanuel Osanyongmor, a guy who looked incredibly like the original Kwadjo Peter. After the original had died, various people told Emmanuel how much he looked like him. Inspired by this, he did research on Kwadjo Peter in order to pass on him and deceive Kwadjo Peter's family so they could be used as support for his claim. The hope was that the news about being a resurrected man would gain him fame and fortune. It initially worked, but people forgot about the story pretty quickly, dashing such hopes. Later on he felt so guilty about it he tried to kill himself, leaving himself in critical condition. All of that is mentioned in the above link, but several days after that post he ended up dying for real as a result of the suicide attempt; information about that can be seen here.

So that's the truth of it all. His claims about his resurrection, including visiting the afterlife, were made up. He was able to get away with it due to having a very strong resemblance to the actual person and conducting some independent research on the deceased so he could pretend to have knowledge of their life. This could have been of course also proven wrong by digging up the body, but perhaps because the story went away so quickly there wasn't enough incentive to do so.

Given the difficulty I had in finding this out, I thought it would be good to make a blog post on the subject. That way, should anyone try searching out "Kwadjo Peter" (rather than "Kwadwo Peter") they may stumble upon this article and get information about it.

More Thoughts on Third Parties

A while ago I posted this in which I discussed third parties (in particular the American Solidarity Party) and ranked choice voting. This is a bit of an update, I suppose.

In that post I advocated for supporting the American Solidarity Party on the grounds that its platform was uniquely suited to presenting an alternate option to the Democrats and Republicans, and also said that Ranked Choice Voting (of the specific "Instant Runoff" variety) would be useful for aiding in them or other third parties becoming viable.

Since then, there have been some developments. The party did fall a bit short of what I hoped in the US presidential election, but it should be noted that it was a notable improvement over 2016. In 2016, the candidate (Michael Maturen) received 6,777 votes (putting him in 14th place) whereas the 2020 candidate (Brian Carroll) received 40,230 votes, almost 6 times as much, and bringing him to 10th place. I expect it would've done even better if not for COVID coming along and making it very hard for a newer party to gather up the necessary signatures to get onto the ballot in some states.

The amount of donations was up quite a bit, too. Now, one has to be careful when comparing donation amounts. You can't compare a presidential year to a non-presidential year, for example, and the time periods have to be the same. The FEC does list the amount they received in the back half of 2016 (when they first started reporting it), but to make a proper comparison I had to wait until the back half of 2020. I am not sure if you can get that information off the FEC's websie now given that it lists 2019-2020, but I did see how much was given between 2019 and mid-2020, so I could subtract the amount given totally in 2019 and 2020 to find out how much was given in the back half of 2020, which was more than four times as much as was made in back in 2016.

The total numbers are still not that impressive, even compared to the Libertarian and Green Parties (the total amount in 2019-2020 was nearly that of the Constitution Party, though). But it still shows growth. This is good for it. Not as good as a supporter may hope, but still good.

The other point to bring up is Ranked Choice Voting. This was on the ballot as a referendum in two states: Massachusetts and Alaska. It failed in Massachusetts but succeeded in Alaska, which is a bit surprising to me; I would've actually predicted the opposite. The Alaska one was more broad, though. It abolishes party primaries entirely and allows for a primary where as many people from any party can run as they want. People vote in that primary, and the top 4 people advance to the general election, which is decided by RCV. I am not sure what I think of this, but I can say it's an improvement over the current system, and unlike California which has open primaries and has the top two advance to the main election, isn't likely to result in what California does which is to have two Republicans or two Democrats go up against each other in the election.

We've also seen an increase in Approval Voting, with St. Louis adopting it (though not the state). In Approval Voting, you vote for as many people as you want, and the one with the most votes wins. This is better than our current plurality voting system (everyone votes for one person and whoever gets the most votes wins), though I have my doubts that it's superior to RCV. But any improvement is nevertheless an improvement.

So what is the conclusion of all this? Well, it seems things are moving in a good direction, although very slowly. Another state has picked up RCV. Approval Voting is gaining ground. And the American Solidarity Party is gaining popularity. All of these are going slowly, but they are going. Hopefully we'll see these pick up steam and increase exponentially.

What can you do to help? Well, as I've noted, if you want to help a third party succeed, you should do more than just vote for it come election time. Donate money, even a small amount. If you have problems with the American Solidarity Party, try another one. Do the same for the issue of Ranked Choice Voting, Approval Voting, or whatever alternative voting system to our very flawed one is; see if there's a movement in your state to try to get it approved. Donations are an easy enough way to help and actually do help.

The Number of the Beast Is Not Three 6's

The Number of the Beast from the Book of Revelation (specifically, Revelation 13:15) is famously 666. The meaning of this number has engendered much speculation, and while I have my musings, that isn't the point of this post. I want to set the record straight on what the number actually is. It means six hundred sixty-six. It does not mean three 6's.

Why is this distinction critical? Because in the Book of Revelation, it's written out as the numerical value. Now, in the numerals we use, if I want to write two hundred forty-three, I just write a 2 (in the hundred's place), 4 (in the ten's place) followed by a 3 (in the one's place). So when I write 243, I am functionally saying (2*100)+(4*10)+(3*1), which equals two hundred forty-three.

Greek back then was different. It has its own numerals for 1 through 9. But then there's a completely separate numeral for 10, then a new one for 20, a new one for 30, and so on through 90. And then there is again a new numeral for 100, a new one for 200, and so on. There's more past that, but that's enough for our purposes. Thus to write 243, you don't simply write 2 then 4 then 3. Instead, you would write the numeral for 200, then the numeral for 40, and then the numeral for 3.

In Revelation, what is written is χξϛ. Now, χ is the symbol for 600, ξ is the symbol for 60, and ϛ is the symbol for 6 (modern versions of those symbols are a little different but the general idea remains the same). Thus, χξϛ says 600+60+6 which equals six hundred sixty-six. If the number was supposed to be three 6's, then we would have simply seen ϛ repeated three times, but that's not the case. It is clearly referring to the numerical value of 666.

Far too often, people just spot three 6's and conclude "it's 666!" Sometimes contortions are required to even get to the three 6's, but this problem occurs even when we can see three 6's "naturally." For example, I've seen people try to cite examples of 6.66, 66.6, 6666, 6660, or 60606 in conjunction with something or other as evidence of the Number of the Beast. But as noted, the Number of the Beast is the numerical value of six hundred and sixty-six. Thus no other number, even if it has three 6's somewhere in it, is equivalent. This similarly applies to dates such as June 6, 2006 (6/6/6) because it is not a number, but rather three 6's in close succession.

I also someone claim the OK Sign (this is when you make an O with your thumb and second finger while holding the other three fingers up) was satanic because it looks like a 6 and the three raised fingers signify three 6's. Now while it is true a few people might try to use it like that to be edgy, the fact is it doesn't create the actual Number of the Beast. As noted, it would only create three 6's, not the numerical value of six hundred sixty-six. If there is any numeral value from the OK Sign, it's 18, as 6+6+6=18. For that matter, the symbol we nowadays use for 6 didn't even exist at the time of Revelation.

So don't freak out just because you see something that might be interpreted as several 6's. It's the numerical value of 666 (six hundred and sixty six) that was being discussed. This was obvious in the way the Greeks wrote it, but is less obvious when rendered as 666. It's probably better to write out six hundred sixty-six rather than 666 to help avoid these misunderstandings. There is enough speculation already concerning what the number means without dragging in things that aren't actually six hundred and sixty-six into it.

More Stuff Coming Soon!

This blog has ended up being less active than I originally planned; there were only two posts last year! Truth is, I've been holding onto a number of posts (some short and others long) that I hope to be putting out soon to make it more active. So going forward, hopefully there will be more posts on this blog.

It might not have even been necessary to make this post at all, and rather just put up some those posts, but this also gives me an excuse to share this video:

This is legitimately one of the most adorable things I have ever seen.

Relax, the Affordable Care Act is Almost Certainly Safe

Note: After the decision was handed down, I made an "update post" here.

Due to my procrastination in posting, this article is much less relevant than when I originally started writing it, but I figure I might as well post it anyway.

After the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Amy Coney Barrett was nominated to replace her on the Supreme Court, and she was just confirmed. Prior to this, and undoubtedly more will follow, there was much fearmongering about the effect she would have on the direction of the Supreme Court, particularly in regards to the Affordable Care Act. There were other things brought up, but the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, took center stage.

It makes sense politically to do so. After all, the Affordable Care Act is quite popular right now, about the most popular it's ever been; it makes more sense to focus on something like that than the more controversial issue of abortion which risks backfiring. More importantly, it's more immediate, with the Supreme Court about to take up a case on it (California v. Texas) to be argued about a week after the election. Warning about the dangers of something that's about to happen definitely plays better than warning about something that might happen down the line.

But is there an actual existential danger to the Affordable Care Act? The answer is, quite frankly, no. There is virtually no chance that the Supreme Court will actually strike it down. At most, they will strike down the currently irrelevant individual mandate and leave the rest of the law intact. Why? Well, that's why you're reading the article!

Most of this article was written before the oral arguments occurred. There is not really much in them that I feel changes this analysis, however.

The Background: 

Before we get into the new case, we need to look at the background. After the Affordable Care Act was passed, there was a lawsuit against it, alleging that its "individual mandate" (the requirement that people buy health insurance or pay a fine) was unconstitutional. 

Now, some people get confused by this. After all, basically every state requires people to purchase car insurance. Why is this a problem, then? The answer is that it's the federal government doing it. Unlike states, which can enact any law so long as it isn't forbidden by the Constitution or a federal law, the federal government's ability to enact law is limited to its "enumerated powers." These are found principally in Section 8 of Article I, though some amendments have added powers. So for the government to enact a law, it must be something authorized by the enumerated powers. There are things the federal government does not have power to do but states can. So it is perfectly consistent for states to have a regulation power but not the federal government.

One of the enumerated powers is that congress has the the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The phrase "among the several States" is the key point here. It allows the federal government to regulate trade among the states--in other words, it can regulate interstate commerce (commerce between states), but not intrastate commerce (commerce within a state). There is also the Necessary and Proper Clause, which says that congress has power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers" (including regulating interstate commerce).

There has been much debate, naturally, as to how far this extends, with some taking an expansive view and others taking a much more limited one, and indeed disagreement on that played out in the case in question, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. This was the first challenge to the Affordable Care Act. It was argued that the individual mandate exceeded the power authorized by the Commerce Clause. The outcome was that 5 justices (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas) agreed that it exceeded the Commerce Clause. 4 justices disagreed, believing it did not exceed it (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan). However, Roberts opined that the individual mandate qualified as a tax, and thus was justified by a different power granted to congress, the Taxation Clause ("The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises"). It should be noted that Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan did agree with Roberts that it qualified under the Taxation Clause; however, as noted, they believed it also qualified as regulation of interstate commerce.

There were other aspects in the decision, such as the Medicaid Expansion, but they aren't of concern in the current case so I'll skip over them. The point is that we had a majority ruling (5 justices) that it was justified as a tax but a separate majority that it exceeded the commerce clause, with Roberts being the only one in both of those ideas. There were some other legal arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act in other cases but again they do not really relate to the present question.

While I know that was long, it's important to know the background so we can fully understand the next case. Now let's get to it.

The Current Case:

Later on, the Republicans managed to win back the Senate, House, and presidency in 2016 and set about trying to get rid of the ACA and replace it with something they thought was better and didn't include the disliked individual mandate. They weren't able to get the votes together, however, so instead they settled to changing the penalty for the individual mandate to $0. So while you are still technically compelled to buy insurance, there is no functional penalty for not doing so; this effectively abolished the individual mandate.

This, however, launched a new argument. If it's $0, it doesn't qualify as a tax, as they're not collecting tax, right? That would mean that it is no longer justified under the Taxation Clause, and thus it would have to be the Commerce Clause, which the Supreme Court said the individual mandate exceeded, so it would be struck down, right?

And so the Affordable Care Act was challenged in court. Now you might be wondering why the answer to the questions in the previous paragraph aren't both "yes." There are two major problems with the new lawsuit that did not apply to the original.

The first is what is known as standing. In order to sue over a law, you have to actually demonstrate you got injured by it somehow. Many cases have been dismissed for lack of standing. And it is indeed rather counterintuitive to try to argue that someone is injured by a law when there is no penalty for breaking it.

The second, and more important, is severability, and that is what I am going to devote my attention to. Severability means that if a portion of a law is unconstitutional, you don't necessarily have to strike the whole thing down. The main question is how essential the unconstitutional portion is to the larger law. A law regarding the citizenship process that randomly requires first graders to promise to follow the Ten Commandments could have the obviously unconstitutional latter portion removed but leaving the rest intact.

In the original case, there was a strong argument to be made that the individual mandate could not be severed from the law because it was critical to it. I believe even the Obama Administration argued as such in th ecase. But at the moment, the individual mandate is toothless. The idea that such a now-irrelevant portion of the law is critical to the entire thing doesn't make much of any sense. While it is true the congress that passed the law may have seen it as critical, the later congress that zeroed out the individual mandate obviously disagreed (given the fact they zeroed it out). Remove the individual mandate, which does basically nothing, leave the rest intact, and life will go on essentially just as it did before the lawsuit. Even if they accept the argument that the plaintiffs have standing and go all the way up to declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional, it's hard to believe the Supreme Court would somehow conclude the toothless individual mandate is critical. 

But you might ask, if this is so obvious, why did the lower courts say the argument against the individual mandate were correct? This is a claim often brought up by those worrying; "if this case is so silly, then why did lower judges rule in favor of the plaintiffs?" Well, let's look at the chain. First we have the original decision by Reed O'Connor, a Texas federal judge. It claimed the plaintiffs had standing, the taxation argument doesn't work, the individual mandate is unconstitutional according to Supreme Court precedent, and that it can't be severed, and thus the whole thing should go. His opinion got a good amount of criticism for being flawed, even among opponents of the Affordable Care Act. The problem is that O'Connor is, as I understand it, known for being a bit of a conservative activist. People will apparently deliberately file cases in his jurisdiction to obtain favorable results.

But more importantly, O'Connor was the only one to actually declare it to be struck down. This decision got appealed, of course, and the majority opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court said that it agreed with his analysis... up until the point of severability, which it found questionable but did not explicitly say was wrong. So it sent it back to him with instructions to make a new analysis as to what parts would need to be struck down. This court thus never reached a conclusion regarding severability.

Ordinarily this would have gone back to the lower court, a new decision possibly made, and then possibly appealed again if necessary. But wanting a more definite answer quickly, especially considering what a major deal this was, you had a lot of people basically begging the Supreme Court to take up the case right away so people wouldn't be waiting around wondering what was going to happen with the Affordable Care Act. With various states asking the Supreme Court to take it up, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives asking them to take it up, and the Republican-controlled White House asking them to take it up, the Supreme Court apparently said "okay, fine, we'll do this." The Supreme Court taking it up, contrary to what some claim, doesn't indicate that the argument is good, just that everyone needs a resolution right away.

So really we've only got one person who ruled the entire Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, with the higher judges saying the individual mandate is unconstitutional now but maybe the rest of the law isn't. The claim that judges have bought into the argument the entire Affordable Care Act needs to go isn't true.

But you may think a lot of that is theorycrafting. The Supreme Court has bought into bad arguments before. So let's look at it pragmatically in terms of the justices themselves.

The Pragmatic Analysis:

Three members of the current Supreme Court (Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor) all asserted that the individual mandate was justified under the Commerce Clause. It is unlikely that any of them have changed their mind. Thus, all of this quibbling over taxation is of no concern to them. So that's three votes ready. Remember: One needs only five votes to win a case.

Next we come to the obvious case: Roberts. Originally he did apparently believe that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and wanted to strike it down, but was reluctant to take the entire law with it (see here). Ultimately he decided to use the Taxation Clause to justify it, thereby saving himself that problem. But note that fact--Roberts, when there was a much stronger argument that the individual mandate couldn't be severed fro the Affordable Care Act, was hesitant to strike the entire thing down. If he was hesitant then, how much more he would be now!

But you might say that that's relying a bit too much on unknown sources as to what went down behind closed doors. So let's look at actual opinions.

In Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Supreme Court ruled that a portion of the law establishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was unconstitutional, but that it was severable from the rest of the law establishing the CFPD; thus, the CFPD could continue to operate. Roberts spends some time in the opinion (joined by Alito and Kavanaugh) discussing severability, affirming a philosophy that would indicate that, yes, the individual mandate is quite severable.

Speaking of Kavanaugh, in the recent decision Barr v. American Assn of Political Consultants, the Supreme Court declared that a portion of the law banning robocalls was unconstitutional... but the rest could stay. Kavanaugh (joined by Roberts and Alito) bluntly states in his opinion:

"Constitutional litigation is not a game of gotcha against Congress, where litigants can ride a discrete constitutional flaw in a statute to take down the whole, otherwise constitutional statute."

Further, in a law review article published back in 2016 (scroll down and click on the "PDF" link to see the whole thing), Kavanaugh made an interesting statement that I feel I must quote at length. Note that NFIB means National Federation of Independent Businesses... he's talking about the original Affordable Care Act ruling here:

Of course, severability principles are their own separate mess. As currently framed, severability doctrine requires the judge to sever the offending provision from the statute, to strike down the entire statute, or to perform some other surgery. In deciding among this menu of op- tions, the court must in part assess what Congress would have wanted and whether the statute would be workable without the offending provision.

But how can the court determine what Congress would have wanted? For instance, in the NFIB case, the dissenters tried to determine whether Congress would have enacted the health care law without the provisions the dissenters deemed unconstitutional. They said no. But how can we know? Is that really what then–Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, then–Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, President Barack Obama, and all the Members of Congress who voted for the bill, would have wanted? Is this even the right question to be asking?

Courts can reform principles of severability as well. For instance, courts might institute a new default rule: sever an offending provision from the statute to the narrowest extent possible unless Congress has indicated otherwise in the text of the statute. This default rule has the benefit of stopping judges from trying to guess what Congress would have wanted, an inherently suspect exercise. And it has the additional benefit of telling Congress what to expect.

Regarding NFIB, some contend that at least the narrowest version of the severability principle could have led to the same bottom line (eliminating the legal mandate but keeping the tax penalties on those who fail to have insurance). Others disagree with that notion. I take no position here on how severability could have been applied in that case, which is an extraordinarily difficult question in its own right.

In any event, for all the reasons mentioned above, it may be worth trading off increased reliance on severability principles in exchange for decreased reliance on clarity versus ambiguity determinations in invoking the constitutional avoidance doctrine.  

This is especially notable considering the fact he refers to the Affordable Care Act case. It is this case in view in which he suggests that perhaps the Court should strive for a narrow severability doctrine, to leave as much of the law intact as possible. While he does couch himself with "I take no position here on how severability could have been applied in that case" the fact he suggests it with this case in view is extremely notable.

Interestingly, there's something else in regards to the Affordable Care Act he wrote. Before it made it to the Supreme Court, various lower courts ruled on it, and he ruled in it. His opinion managed to actually avoid a real discussion of the law on the merits, saying they lacked jurisdiction on the basis that the penalty had not actually been enforced yet. While I've demonstrated there is strong reason to accept he would see the individual mandate as severable, this indicates he may also find the argument of lack of standing plausible.

So we have now counted to 5 justices who seem very, very likely to uphold the law, give or take the largely irrelevant individual mandate. But what of the others? Alito is harder to tell, but it should be noted he joined both Robert's Seila Law opinion and Kavanaugh's Barr opinion.

Thomas and Gorsuch did not join those opinions, but that is because they are now of the belief that the current severability analysis is in error. As I understand it, it amounts to saying the Supreme Court shouldn't be trying to figure out what parts are severable from what, and that they should instead just issue relief for those injured by unconstitutional portions of laws. Under such an analysis, again as I understand it, the individual mandate being unconstitutional would not affect enforcement of the rest of the law.

That leaves Barrett. While people have made much of the fact some of her past writings indicated preference for the dissent in the original case, we should consider a more recent--and more relevant--action she took.

Shortly before Ginsburg's death (and thus without any knowledge she she could be appointed to the Supreme Court in a matter of months), Barrett took part in a "mock court" exercise concerning the upcoming Affordable Care Act decision. She, along with 7 other judges, heard mock arguments about it and then issued a decision. That decision was 5-3. The majority ruled that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but was severable from the rest of the law. The dissent ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The votes were anonymous, but whichever side Barrett fell on, it means she ruled in favor of the Affordable Care Act as a whole. In the confirmation hearings she stated she fell on the "unconstitutional but severable" side, for whatever that is worth.

Obviously, a mock court is a mock court. You could rule differently in an actual decision. But it would seem to me that if we're trying to guess what she'd do, this provides far more proof than statements concerning an earlier case. 

Considering all of this, it would be a stunner if the Supreme Court strikes down the entire Affordable Care Act. In fact, . While I expect there will be fractured reasoning, it is quite likely that we'll see not a single justice vote to strike down anything more than the individual mandate.

Thus the evidence strongly, strongly means there is no reason to worry about it being struck down in total. While there is theoretically the possibility of enough justices deciding to be conservative judicial activists and strike it down, there is also theoretically the possibility that Washington, D.C. will undergo a seismic political shift and will vote overwhelmingly for the Republican presidential candidate in the 2024 election. 

There may be some things to worry about in regards to the Supreme Court in the future, particularly if you're of a liberal persuasion. But the Affordable Care Act being struck down in its entirety is not one of them. 

And so these are my totally random thoughts on the subject, naturally posted past the point people really cared about it, and in less than a year these thoughts will be moot because a decision will be handed down. This is the kind of amazing quality analysis you can expect to find on this blog!

(Other analyses that say similar things to what I have said can be found here and here).