The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Brought to you by the same people who want to control your health care, the end result of Cash for Clunkers. You see them replace the oil with a 40% solution of sodium silicate, which turns into a glass like compound once all the water is driven off.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYL-h5_hb4[/youtube]
What a complete waste. How is it environmentally friendly to waste all the energy that went into making that car?
Seems like a slow news day, so I thought I’d throw a little constitutional mind teaser out there. The Secret Service is charged by Title 18 Section 3056 with presidential protection, which includes keeping people who haven’t been screened beyond a security perimeter that’s established by the Secret Service. Now, in the District of Columbia, or on federal property, the Congressional power to authorize this is abundantly clear. But by what power does Congress authorize the Secret Service to establish a security zone around the President?
I think a case can be made, but I’m curious what other people think. Does the power to establish a security zone around the President extend to creating Free Speech Zones? Such as the one at the Democratic Convention in Boston in 2004. Have your say in the comments. I’ll update the post later with my view on the constitutionality of Presidential, and other dignitary protection.
UPDATE: I think the power can be derived from the Necessary and Proper clause. In order to carry out the executive functions authorized by Congress under its Article I powers, your Chief Executive has to be alive. One could argue then that it’s Necessary and Proper for the Congress to authorize the Secret Service to create a security perimeter around the President, and those close to the Presidency. I also believe, but am not certain, that the Secret Service is authorized by Congress to seek voluntary, compensated cooperation with the local authorities, who can erect cordons using the state police powers to effect the same thing.  At least that’s my take on the constitutionality of it. I have no idea whether there are any court cases on the matter, but I think it’s pretty clear it would be a proper use of the Necessary and Proper clause.
UPDATE: The Neccessary and Proper rationale becomes a lot murkier when you’re talking candidates for office. The public may be horrified by the idea of another RFK, but a candidate is not an organ of government. But the Secret Service can still request that the local authorities exercise their police powers to accomplish the same thing.
From a town hall meeting with Claire McCaskill. If only a few percent of the soldiers returning from overseas are like this guy, I might have to rethink a lot of my pessimism that we may never recover our liberties. I think we all owe it to veterans like this to get up and do something about the current state of affairs:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y98HxYbsdBM[/youtube]
When the left speak of “Speaking Truth to Power,” I doubt this is what they had in mind, but this is one of the best examples of that philosophy I’ve seen.
It looks like we’re getting health care backlash even in New Jersey and Massachusetts. I question whether health care reform is really possible at all given that we already have Medicare. If we do nothing, Medicare is headed for a train wreck anyway — but I don’t think the solution is to nationalize health insurance for everyone, which is what Obama’s plan will eventually do.
I don’t blog on this issue much, because aside from working in the pharmaceutical industry, I don’t have much specific expertise in the issue. But politically, this would seem to be a tough fish to fry. I used to think socialized health care was inevitable. Now I’m not so sure. Everyone says they want reform, but when you talk specifics, people start getting upset over the details.
Megan McArdle is lamenting that her hobby of book collecting has been outlawed by Congress. That’s one of the major reasons many of us do what we do here in the gun blogosphere. No hobby is safe. It seems you need an interest group to lobby for your right to do anything these days.  Somehow I don’t think this is what the founders had in mind when they created a federal government of limited and enumerated powers.
I stated previously that one of the reason I supported McCain quite strongly last fall, despite the fact that McCain was kind of blah for me, was because he’d nominate better people than Sotomayor. Some folks were skeptical of this assertion, but I think McCain’s announcement that he’ll be a no vote on Sotomayor backs up the assertion that he’d have better taste in federal judges.
I am happy to see this. NRA took a great gamble endorsing his candidacy for President in the 2008 election, and I’m quite happy to see him standing with us on Sotomayor. McCain is not always a reliable conservative, and I hate his position on campaign finance reform, but he’s more conservative than a lot of folks give him credit for.
… no really. But how do we change it?
From Marko, who is a German immigrant:
For most of this country’s history, our immigration policy has been “Can you hop off the boat under your own power?â€Â It’s only when the folks in charge decided that the wrongly-hued or wrongly-believing people were getting too many, that the gangway was pulled up, and the cries of “The boat is full!†started sounding. It seems to be a tradition that every group of immigrants, once settled, spent a lot of time and effort keeping the next group of immigrants from contaminating the American Stew. The Irish faced their share of discrimination, for example (“No Dogs Or Irish!â€), and when folks were mostly satisfied that the Micks weren’t going to turn our WASPy paradise into an outpost of rampant potato-munching and whiskey-swilling Popery, the Irish joined forces with the rest to keep the swarthy wops out. When the Italians were in, everyone turned against the Chinese and Japanese, and so on.
Read the whole thing. I’ve heard more immigration horror stories from various people that defy belief. While I am in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration, I think that has to be done in conjunction with liberalizing immigration laws so that people who have skills we need can come here legally and work. Race or national origin should not be a factor.
California is the biggest one in the country. Like, by a lot. A whole lot.