Category: Government

I am not a fan of completely open borders, because if we did, then everyone who lived in a crappy country would come here all at once, and the institutions of the country would be overwhelmed. But it’s hard for me to see why we’re not letting people like this into the country. It seems to me we could take Europe’s best and brightest, given opportunity on that continent is fast diminishing. Plus, what better way to solve the housing problem than low interest rates combined with people with high paying jobs who suddenly need a place to live in their new country. It’s hard to see the downside of this.

Count me with Ilya Somin as someone who has never really agreed that eliminating the 17th Amendment is going to rebalance our federal system away from federal power. Professor Somin writes:

The claim that senators chosen by state legislatures would act to curb the feds relies on the assumption that state governments oppose federal power. In reality, however, they often have a strong interest in supporting it, a point John McGinnis and I drive home inthis article. For example, state governments love federal grants that go to them and constantly lobby for additional federal funds. They also like federal regulations and spending programs that reduce competition between state governments and benefit interest groups that have influence at the state level.

I think there’s a tendency among folks to wish there was a simple, clean fix to the problem. “We just have to change this one thing, then everything would be fine.” or to retrospectively look back on history and say “Ah ha! Here’s where we went wrong.”

But political systems are really only as good as the people who participate in them. If the history of freedom and liberty in this world has taught us anything, it’s that the struggle to preserve it is unending and relentless. There is no easy fix. No magic cure that can automatically rebalance everything for us. If we want small government, we have to struggle for small government, and never stop. More importantly, and this is where Libertarians have fallen down, we have to struggle for it in a serious way that recognizes the reality of the system we’re working in.

The fundamental reason we got big government is the people stopped believing in small government. You won’t get small government back until you recognize that’s your starting point.

Dave Hardy has some comments on a recent article speaking of Justice Souter’s philosophy when it comes to constitutional interpretation. To quote Justice Souter directly:

A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague, but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice.

The problem with this balancing interest is that it leaves entirely too much room for judges to make-up law from whole cloth, using their own preferences rather than being tied to the text of the document. The New York Times went on to note:

Justice Souter named no contemporary names. He did not mention Justice Antonin Scalia, whose “originalist” doctrine of constitutional interpretation made inroads in recent years, most notably in the 2008 decision, from which Justice Souter dissented, declaring an individual right to gun ownership under the Second Amendment. But I have to think he had Justice Scalia in mind when he observed that “behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair-reading model seems to promise.”

I don’t think it’s so much a dream of a simpler constitution, and even a textualist is going to acknowledge there are places where the text is less than clear. But where the text is clear, we should follow it. The big problem with Souter’s approach is that it’s hard to see how his balancing test keeps the judiciary constrained to its judicial powers. The kind of balancing of interest that Souter calls for is more properly the realm of Congress, and not the judiciary.

I don’t go as far as some conservatives that suggest the courts should never interfere with the prerogatives of the elected branch. Starting with a default presumption that Congress wouldn’t pass an unconstitutional law is just as much a fallacy as what Souter believes. Where the law is ambiguous, or where Congress’ claims of power are so wildly beyond their constitutional mandate, the courts needs to act. Souter brings up segregation. Segregation should have been outlawed by the 14th Amendment. That wasn’t any evolving constitutional doctrine, so much as a half century of the judiciary trying to escape its clear mandate. I agree with what Dave Hardy says on the matter:

Doesn’t that mean he accepts that Plessey was right when it was decided, “right here, right now,” and became wrong half a century later? I’d rather prefer to think it was wrong and odious from the beginning, for reasons entirely external to the judges…. it just took them half a century to see the light.

Yep

Dave Hardy points out that Elena Kagan, Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Stevens, doesn’t have much in the way of distinction. I think given this President, a blank slate might be the best we could ask for. We’ll see what comes out in the confirmation hearings, but if we don’t dig up anything damning, I’d say lets roll the dice.

My guess is Obama is picking a nominee without much of a record in an attempt to avoid a nasty confirmation fight leading into the election. The advantage to picking a Justice who has not much of a prior record is there isn’t as much for opponents to attack. The disadvantage is, for Obama, he can’t be as sure she’ll stay solidly liberal. I would suspect she will, and would be surprised if she turned conservative, but let’s not forget that Justice Souter was another such blank slate, and look how that turned out for the GOP.

I see so much potential here for small-government creatives who have access to a camera and even minor video editing software:

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is encouraging the public to create video advertisements that explain why federal regulations are “important to everyone.”

The contest, which ends May 17, will award $2,500 to the makers of the video that best explains why federal regulations are good and how ordinary citizens can become more involved in making regulations. The videos must be posted on YouTube and can be no more than 60-90 seconds in length.

In the current contest, each video must include the slogan “Let your voice be heard,” and it must direct viewers to the government’s regulatory website www.Regulations.gov. The winning video will then be used by the entire federal government to promote the regulatory process and enhance the public’s participation in it. …

As explained in the EPA press release announcing the contest, the purpose of the videos will be to remind the public that federal regulation touches “almost every aspect” of their lives and to promote how important those regulations are.

“The contest will highlight the significance of federal regulations and help the public understand the rulemaking process. Federal agencies develop and issue hundreds of rules and regulations every year to implement statutes written by Congress. Almost every aspect of an individual’s life is touched by federal regulations, but many do not understand how rules are made or how they can get involved in the process.”

The videos should be designed to “capture the public imagination” and to “explain” why government regulations are “important to everyone.”

“With a short 60 to 90 second video, citizens should capture public imagination and use creativity, artistic expression and innovation to explain why regulations are important to everyone, and motivate others to participate in the rulemaking process.” …

The videos must also remind viewers that regulations are the law and that they actually outnumber laws passed by Congress on the order of 10-1.

The contest is being run by Lisa Jackson who New Jersey readers might remember is the former DEP leader who cancelled the bear hunt, in part, because she thought bears were too “cute.” Yeah, this good government spending.

We’ve seen people praise Obama like he’s the Messiah. If you want to see that x10, well, just look forward to the 2012 election. I’m not just talking about the campaign workers.

Some are pushing the Department of Homeland Security to do a 2012 apocalypse-themed education campaign. I admit that it’s a witty theme for disaster preparedness. If I sold preparedness supplies, I would probably tap into it – at least based on the marketing data Yahoo mentions. But if the government hops on board with that theme in an election year for a President who has already been labeled a Messiah-like figure, it’s just going to make the crazy folks even crazier. I know I’m already tired of the nuttiness. I just want to get down to business and boot some lawmakers out, not deal with conspiracy theorists.

Dave Kopel suggests that the mandate may violate the constitution right to privacy. I hadn’t honestly thought of that angle, but I’m sure there’s a penumbra emanating from the Constitution somewhere that would lend credence to this argument.

Apparently Oklahoma is considering it, and some in the media are freaking out. I have to agree with Professor Reynolds that this is well within the American Tradition. Here’s an interesting thing to think about. Suppose the State of Oklahoma wanted to equip its state militia with M16s and M4s? It’s hard to see how this would be illegal, since 922(o) specifically exempts anyone possessing a machine gun under the authority of a State. It would simply be a matter of the state granting the authority and issuing letters to members of the militia for the purchase of a machine gun.

The only real issue I see with this is that Congress is given almost plenary power over state militias. The United States Code allows states to maintain defense forces, independent of federal authority during times of peace, but this is specifically at the pleasure of Congress. If a state tried to arm its militia, Congress would be empowered to stop it.

But it looks to me like Oklahoma is just considering establishing a State Defense Force. If it does so, it joins a number of other states who also have them. It’s not anything to be particularly alarmed about, because it’s not unusual.