Category: Government

In any attempt to criminalize activity, you have a real problem with trying to define the behavior that is criminals, such as this texting while walking law in Fort Lee, New Jersey:

I’m dying to see how that law is worded. How is “walking” defined? Two consecutive steps? More than two? “X or more steps in X amount of time”? Does it have to be in a forward direction, or is this like ‘traveling’ in the NBA? Can you sidestep and text at the same time?

“Not guilty, your honor. My client was texting while Riverdancing, which is clearly not prohibited by the ordinance.”

And local yo-yos are usually a lot worse about definitions than the states and feds, which is why most states generally limit the legislative power of local governments to petty crimes. Maybe we need a crime for being stupid while occupying public office. Of course, then the anarchists would have their feast, wouldn’t they?

I like the idea, but I’m personally not a fan of collective punishment. I’d make sure that 1 million dollar cut came straight out of the DOJ top brass salaries, the ones who are responsible for not complying with the subpoena.

UPDATE: Looks like it does, indeed, only come out of those pockets. Bravo.

The Committee on Oversight & Government reform is making their case for a vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt of Congress in the Fast and Furious scandal. Also see this statement from Rep. Trey Gowdy.

Apparently Barack Obama has made May 1st “Loyalty Day.” Does anyone else fine this creepy? The left points out that Eisenhower did it first, and every President has followed suit. As if had Eisenhower eaten a dog, that would make eating dogs OK. I say it’s time to stop Loyalty Day. I get that it was a knee-jerk anti-communist reaction from the McCarthy era, and today we still have morons who celebrate May day with rioting and attempting to blow things up. Also, given that apparently the educational system has fallen into such a state that kids feel they can call themselves “anarchists” while protesting for bigger government, maybe we should rename today “National Don’t Sleep in Civic’s Class Day.” But this would, of course, presume schools still teach civics.

Glenn Reynolds has a Commentary in the Washington University law review on a citizen’s right to record the police. I think this is an important check against governmental power.

This is the courthouse the Dred Scott case was first heard in.

Is it better to starve or eat something that might be a little salty or a bit heavier on calories than the government would prefer? Well, Bloomberg’s agencies in New York think it’s better for people to go hungry than to eat something they haven’t tested for nutritional value.

The Bloomberg administration is now taking the term “food police” to new depths, blocking food donations to all government-run facilities that serve the city’s homeless.

In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans.

The story highlights good samaritans who have been donating food for decades, but who have been turned away and their food turned down because of these new restrictions.

This is the kind of regulation designed to frustrate people into stopping their acts of charity and community work because the government knows best. If the bureaucrats can keep them from getting involved, then the government will be the only source for solving this “problem.” Reliance on government means more government employees who are doing more “good.”

I don’t mean to present this as a tinfoil hat type of conspiracy that the Bloomberg administration is purposefully letting people go hungry in order to create more dependency on the government. But, it is a mindset of many people who think up these regulations. They are the government and they know best. They might acknowledge that the good samaritans mean well, but they don’t care about motivations or even outcomes since clearly a government structure to organize it all is better than people getting involved from the community in a way that they cannot control with perfect certainty. They don’t particularly care that their restrictions may end a tradition of civic engagement because bureaucrats are paid to be engaged, they don’t need volunteers to do that work for them. It’s oddly logical when you’re working within a system that is always growing.

I actually believe that acts of private charity and civic involvement are the best ways to fight the expansion of government. Everyone heard the stories about how private companies and organizations were the first ones into New Orleans when the government workers wouldn’t get around to going in there and getting the goods the city residents needed. Normal folks, when they hear these kinds of stories about NYC turning down private food donations for the homeless, have a gut reaction that the government is going too far. It’s actually by being engaged at this level where small government advocates can pick up the stories and examples of how we don’t need the government to handle it all.

There are always a lot of ideas floating around out there, as to how to rein in an out of control government. You’ll hear solutions, like going back to Senators being appointed by state legislatures, rather than being elected, which I’m not sure would really fix much. But I think the enablement of the modern state really boils down to only a few things.

One of the big issues is the Courts moving to very loosely interpret the non-delegation doctrine. Non-delegation essentially means that Congress can’t assign its legislative responsibility to other bodies. For instance, in a post I did this weekend, I mentioned how Obama could turn a lot of gun owners into criminals overnight. Under a strict interpretation of non-delegation, this wouldn’t be possible. The realm in which administrative law could operate would be very narrow, and laws which only ambiguously described powers of an agency wouldn’t be unconstitutional. I think many liberty-minded people tend to overlook the importance of the non-delegation doctrine in beating back the leviathan state.

The second area is more familiar, in that the courts have granted Congress a very broad power under the Necessary and Proper clause. For instance, in Raich, the medical marijuana case, the court ruled that it was within Congress’ power to prohibit marijuana in the stream of interstate commerce, and that it was also necessary and proper, in order to preserve Congress’ regulation of the national market, to reach into strictly intrastate activity.  It’s always seemed to me the courts pay a lot of attention to the “Necessary” components of “Necessary and Proper,” and not a whole lot of attention to the latter. I think to re-invigorate  liberty, it might be necessary, and proper, I might add, for the courts to say that Congressional actions may be necessary, but it surely isn’t proper. This could be interesting as the Court examines Obamacare.

I think if you could reform both these doctrines, it would go quite a long ways to getting the federal government out of every sphere of public, and sometimes private life. There are certainly many other constitutional insults one could mention, but if I had to pick two, these would be my choices. I think that could be important, if sympathetic individuals decide that amending the Constitution is the only way to achieve this. I’m starting to believe that folks who love liberty shouldn’t be afraid to use the amendment process. The progressives certainly were not afraid of it, and achieved much through the process.

Some Greek Entrepreneurs look upon the FDA as a model of efficiency, after trying to set up an olive business in Greece. Their government wanted chest X-rays and stool samples from all the company shareholders.

No wonder the country is broke and no one works.