You are here: Home / Archives for National Politics / Constitutional Rights
13
Oct 2011

Publius Daily Digest

By Leave a Comment

Courtesy of Reason’s Friday Funnies.

National

John Stossel hits the nail on the head (as usual) with his latest plea to keep Washington out of the economy:

President Obama says government will have to build the nation out of the economic trough.

“We’re the country that built the intercontinental railroad,” Obama says. “So how can we now sit back and let China build the best railroads?”

Ironic that he mentions the Chinese. Progressives used to complain that to build the railroad, bosses abused Chinese workers—called them “coolies” and treated them badly. Now this is big success?

I guess Obama doesn’t know that the transcontinental railroad was a Solyndra-like Big Government scandal. The railroad didn’t make economic sense at the time, so the government subsidized construction and gave the companies huge quantities of the best land on the continent. As we should expect, without market discipline—profit and loss—contractors ripped off the taxpayers. After all, if you get paid by the amount of track you lay, you’ll lay more track than necessary.

Credit Mobilier, the first rail construction company, made enormous profits by overcharging for its work. To keep the subsidies flowing, it made big contributions to congressmen.

Where have we heard that recently?

Read his full piece on Government the Job Killer.

Interesting–and blood-boiling–piece over at Investors Business Daily on Obama’s world apology tour:

The obsessive need of this president to apologize for American exceptionalism and our defense of freedom continued recently when Barack Obama’s State Department (run by Hillary Clinton) contacted the family of al-Qaida propagandist and recruiter Samir Khan to “express its condolences” to his family.

Khan, a right-hand man to Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed along with Awlaki in an airstrike in Yemen on Sept. 30. We apologized for killing a terrorist before he could help kill any more of us.

It’s yet another part of the world apology tour that began with Obama taking the oath of office to protect and defend the United States and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, something he immediately felt sorry for.

One stop on his tour was Prague in August 2009. There he spoke of “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” ignoring that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.

Read more here. We’re a little behind on sharing it, but Brad Cates recently had a worthwhile read over at the Daily Caller on The Dangers of Imposing U.S. Law on Others:

The United States is increasing its efforts to impose its laws on sovereign countries and their citizens. These efforts will prove to be counterproductive and dangerous for both U.S. citizens and businesses.

Every sovereign country, but especially those in the democratic developed world, has a right to devise its own laws. This is the essence of sovereignty. Where international sovereign desires conflict or are silent, international law dictates that the conflict is resolved by convention or treaty, or by a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT).

Countries have different customs, beliefs, practices, and legal and legislative process. Actions that are legal, or illegal, in one country, or even one state, are not necessarily viewed the same elsewhere. Citizens of Little Rock may fly to Las Vegas to gamble, something prohibited in their city. Americans have been known to legally take a toke while in Amsterdam.

In the legal issues surrounding liberty department, Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice has an interesting series of guest-blogger posts up over at the Volokh Conspiracy detailing the issue of “judicial engagement” — an issue on which many conservatives and libertarians divide. Here is an excerpt of his Day 1 post:

he Institute for Justice coined the term “judicial engagement” (and created the Center for Judicial Engagement) out of our conviction that America has more government than the Constitution authorizes and that this is largely due to the failure of our courts to properly enforce constitutional limits on government power. In calling for judicial engagement, we are simply asking judges to actually judge the constitutionality of government action in all constitutional cases.

What does that entail?

In cases involving favored constitutional values like free speech and avoiding suspect classifications, judges determine the government’s actual objectives and then evaluate the “fit” between those objectives and the means chosen to advance them. And, as Judge Sykes recently explained in analogizing the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to the First Amendment right of free expression in Ezell v. City of Chicago, “the government must supply actual, reliable evidence to justify” its restrictions. 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 14108, *62 (7th Cir. July 6, 2011).

While reasonable minds may differ about whether it is possible to identify the government’s “true” ends or determine whether there is an appropriate “fit” between ends and means, the fact remains that courts routinely assume both inquiries are not only possible but essential in protecting key constitutional values. Judicial engagement simply proposes that there should not be a category of cases in which courts totally abandon those inquiries — and the underlying jurisprudential convictions they reflect — as they often do.

* * *

Judicial engagement is not a call for judges to strike down laws willy-nilly. Rather, it is a call for judges to recognize the importance of constitutionally limited government and to maintain a basic level of analytical consistency. Judges should refuse to ignore evidence, invent facts, or accept implausible justifications in some constitutional settings that they would flatly — and correctly — reject in others.

A primary area of concern in the context of judicial engagement is the issue of economic liberty. IJ has historically litigated (extensively) on this issue and PubliusNM reader Mike Frese has his own Economic Liberty blog that is worth checking out and bookmarking.

We’ve neglected WSJ’s Political Diary recently, so here are some updates on the 2012 election and, in particular, of the most recent debate, courtesy of recent Diary posts:

Next year’s presidential race is shaping up to be a contest between pro-market advocates (Republicans) versus redistributionists (Democrats). Nowhere is this clearer than in the administration’s bid to position the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a key bulwark against evil banks and financiers.

For a glimpse of this message, see Deputy Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President Stephanie Cutter’s post on the White House blog last Thursday, where she characterized the CFPB as a “important new watchdog for consumers,” and tried to rebut Republican concerns about the agency’s unprecedented powers. The post was remarkable not just for Ms. Cutter’s enthusiasm, but for the fine line she walked between truth and outright fiction.

Ms. Cutter repeats, for instance, the Democratic mantra that the CFPB is an “independent” banking agency, and thus shouldn’t be subject to Congressional appropriations. What she doesn’t mention is that the CFPB isn’t a banking regulator with safety and soundness contraints, but rather a consumer agency akin to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Nor did she mention the CFPB has few limitations on the disclosure of sensitive financial audits, as real banking regulators — the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency — do. (In fact the CFPB has inked MOUs with State Attorneys General that has many bankers worried about politicized lawsuits.)

Ms. Cutter claims Congress has “ample oversight” of the CFPB through “hearings, reports and audits” and may “overturn any CFPB regulation through legislation.” This may be true, but it’s a far-fetched argument, given political realities. She also cites the Financial Stability Oversight Council as a key check on the CFPB, but fails to mention that the CFPB director has a vote in that body and that the rest of the chairs are filled by political appointees.

The rest of the post is worth reading, if only to see how a public-relations pro can argue her side. The CFPB was never meant to be a “consumer advocate,” but was structured as an unaccountable body that politicians could use to bring financial instituitions to heel when it was politically necessary. Some voters may think that’s good consumer protection; others may think it’s scary. But it’s worthy of a real–and honest–debate.

* * *

The scuttlebutt going into Tuesday’s debate was that Rick Perry could revitalize his campaign with a win or kill it with a loss. Most observers expected some fresh policy and a polished delivery. Mr. Perry instead

disappeared into the background. He neither defended his positions on immigration, vaccinations, or Social Security, nor made more than half-hearted efforts to dislodge Mitt Romney. He went silent for long stretches of time.

So why defy the conventional wisdom? It’s clear that Mr. Perry is in trouble. He’s dropped to third place (or worse) in Iowa, fallen to the low single-digits in New Hampshire polls, and, according to Public Policy Polling, has seen his favorables sink to 23%-57% nationally (Sarah Palin was at 32%-62% in August). Mitt Romney, meanwhile, is racking up big-name endorsements and debate wins.

The question is whether he could successfully wait it out. “Debates are not my strong suit,” he told to Politico — and he may have enough money to claw his way back to contention via a different route. If he could restore his brand through bottom-up campaigning, he might wait for Herman Cain to immolate, and then reemerge as the anti-Romney.

It would be risky. The political calendar is still in flux and comeback timing could be difficult with states jockeying to push up their primaries. Waiting for voters to become desperate usually isn’t the best way to win their forgiveness. If Mr. Perry still intends to dazzle on the big stage, next week’s debate in Nevada is most likely his last chance.

* * *

Some impressions from Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate:

Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan isn’t built for the long campaign haul. As appealing as it is conceptually, and as bold as it may be (as Mr. Cain keeps saying), the plan’s new 9% national sales tax looks like a political poison pill. Michele Bachmann’s attack on it for creating a new “pipeline” for revenue for Washington was a direct hit, and Mr. Cain didn’t really have an adequate answer. Meanwhile, the journalist moderator’s line that it is a “regressive” tax is a harbinger of class war criticism to come. Mr. Cain has much to recommend him as a candidate, not least his commanding presence and likability, but in the national sales tax he has made that rare proposal that can be attacked from both left and right.

Mitt Romney keeps cruising along. He all but ignored Rick Perry, and everyone else on stage for that matter, focusing on President Obama and the economy. He is fortunate that the rest of the field continues to compete to be the main alternative coming out of Iowa, so they beat up on whoever else has risen in the polls. In previous debates it was Mr. Perry, and this week it was Mr. Cain and his 9-9-9 plan. No one has made a sustained attack on Mr. Romney’s Massachusetts record. Perhaps this is also because the candidates fear Mr. Romney’s strength as a debater. So far Mr. Romney has dispatched Tim Pawlenty and Mr. Perry when they sought to go after him, and no one else has really tried.

Newt Gingrich made the best attempt at exposing Mr. Romney’s main weakness as a candidate — his lack of core principles — and he succeeded in part. His query about Mr. Romney’s proposal for a cut in capital gains taxes only for those who make less than $200,000 sent the former Massachusetts governor into his own class-war mode. “I’m not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine,” he said. He then went into a paean to the middle class, which polls well and is why all Democrats since Bill Clinton have used similar language. It’s too bad Mr. Gingrich didn’t have a chance to follow up, because the answer exposed that Mr. Romney has an aversion to lowering tax rates on anyone Democrats call “rich.”

Mr. Perry seemed oddly subdued and diminished. He benefitted from no longer being the center of attacks from other candidates, but he still seemed unable to defend his Texas record on health care, much less sustain an argument against Mr. Romney. The Texas governor has the money to stay in the race and make a paid-media assault on Mr. Romney’s record. But while those ads may hurt Mr. Romney, they won’t help Mr. Perry if he doesn’t look capable and presidential.

* * *

HANOVER, N.H. — Mitt Romney walked off with Tuesday night’s debate here by default — if only because the candidates auditioning for the race’s anyone-but-Romney slot did not, well, make the anyone-but-Romney case. His competitors rarely challenged his record, credibility or message, and when they did, failed to land the punch.

Rick Perry was the only one who went after the former governor’s Massachusetts health-care record, but as usual was hazy on the specifics — despite the fact that his campaign released a commercial attacking Mr. Romney’s credibility. There was some sparring about the difference between “waiving” and “repealing” national health care, but little substance. Other attacks — such as on his income tax cap on capital-gains exemptions — saw no follow-through.

In the post-debate “spin room,” Herman Cain, acting as his own surrogate, said that he was different than Mr. Romney because “He’s a Wall Street executive and I’m a Main Street executive. . . . I’ve actually made hamburgers and pizzas,” he said, though anyone asking for something beyond biography brought him back to his 9-9-9 tax reform.

Michele Bachmann spokesman Alice Stewart called Mr. Romney’s health plan “the seed that grew into ObamaCare” and ought to be a “big liability” for the GOP nominee. Does she think it is disqualifying for the nominee? Merely “a hindrance.”

I tried to find out what the Perry campaign’s Romney strategy was, though its campaign surrogate’s relationship to the campaign was unclear. He alternatively identified himself as a “senior advisor,” “senior New Hampshire advisor” or “New Hampshire senior advisor.”

The larger danger of this vacuum for the GOP is that Mr. Romney enters the general election untested. As for the other candidates, there won’t be a not-Romney candidate if they’re unwilling to challenge Mr. Romney. As for Mr. Romney, senior advisor Eric Fernstrom said that his boss “hardly needs any preparation at all on the economy” before the debates. He was underlining the Romney campaign themes of private-sector economic expertise, but no wonder.

* * *

His campaign floundering, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich upped the wattage in last night’s New Hampshire debate, lashing out at Republicans, Democrats, the media, the Federal Reserve and anything else that moved — and not restricted to that order. The “outsider” approach earned Mr. Gingrich the night’s biggest applause lines, though to what end is unclear.

Mr. Gingrich has been increasing his volume with each successive debate, and last night was his loudest yet. Responding to a question about whether Wall Street bankers should go to jail, he shot back: “if you want to put people in jail, you ought to start with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd” — two Democrats who had close ties to mortgage lenders and who authored the recent financial overregulation bill. He called for a pink slip for Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who “spent hundreds of billions of dollars in secret bailing out business,” and suggested Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner ought to join Mr. Bernanke in unemployment. He then teed up his favorite piñata, the “news media,”for failing to demand “transparency” in the Fed.

House Republicans once again came in for a roasting by Mr. Gingrich, for agreeing to a deal with President Obama to raise the debt limit — although he didn’t explain what he’d have done instead. He took it to Mitt Romney for that part of the leading candidate’s economic plan that would restrict a capital gains tax cut to those Americans earning less than $250,000, which Mr. Gingrich labeled as Obama-like populism that would “divide” the nation. On the topic of Mr. Obama, he lumped the president with Jimmy Carter, spouting a “bleak” view of America in his continual “apologia disguised as press conferences.”

Since the summer defection of much of his campaign staff, Mr. Gingrich has been largely charting his own course, doggedly presenting himself as the wise and consummate outsider, willing to criticize Republicans and Obama alike. Voters are nonetheless having a tough time forgetting Gingrich the 1990s Politician, especially when he unveils (as he recently did) a “new” Contract with America. And for all the hoots and applause Mr. Gingrich’s witty put-downs earn him, voters seem more interested in those candidates willing to outline reforms, something Mr. Gingrich has largely given up attempting to do in debates. This may explain why the former Speaker continues to struggle with fundraising, and has shown no signs of breaking out in the polls. He’ll need something far more radical than punch lines to break the latest Romney-Perry-Cain narrative.

For any of you still wondering who to get behind, you might consider taking Reason’s recent political “dating game” quiz designed to “match” you with your ideal candidate:

Not sure who to commit to in the Republican primary race? Let Reason help you out.

Picking a presidential candidate is like sorting through online dating profiles—nobody’s quite right, but once a meet-cute is out of the question, the best you can hope for is to pick a mate out of a self-selected digital lineup.

Thus our handy candidate profiles and dating quiz. We’ve got the candidates’ horoscopes, their nick-names, and catalog of flip-flops. (Here’s looking at you, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney.) Is Rick Perry the real deal when it comes to small government? We can tell you. What are Herman Cain’s hang-ups? We’ve got those too.

Take our quiz to help select your ideal whatever-in-chief, or just prowl through the offerings by checking out our profiles of all the GOP wannabes.

The profiles of GOP wannabes courtesy of Reason are available here, and read Daniel Heninger’s review of The Unsinkable Mitt Romney at the WSJ here.

Reason’s coverage of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been great, so I’ll first direct you to the page with links to all the great articles. In particular, David Harsanyi’s Occupy Wall Street: A Manifesto is a must-read:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, women, and transgendered—and any other human who is able to elude the tyranny of work for a couple of weeks—are created equal. We gather to be free not of tyranny, but of responsibility and college tuitions. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a government long established and a nation long prosperous be changed for light and transient causes. So let our demands* be submitted to a candid world.

First, we are imbued with as many inalienable rights as a few thousand college kids and a gaggle of borderline celebrities can concoct, among them a guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment and immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness—even if that debt was acquired taking on a mortgage with a 4.1 percent interest rate and no money down, which, we admit, is a pretty sweet deal in historical context…

…but down with the modern gilded age!

We demand that a Master of Fine Arts in musical theater writing, with a minor in German, become an immutable human right, because education is crucial and rich people can afford to fund unemployment checks until we find jobs or in perpetuity, whichever comes first.

Speaking of Occupy Wall Street, Remy has another video out (click here to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

At the end of last week our state GOP filed suit challenging state limits on campaign contributions. Heath Haussamen has the story here:

The lawsuit seeks to void the $5,000 limits placed on donations to political parties, from national parties to state parties, from state parties to county parties, from parties to candidates or candidates’ political action committees, and on contributions made for the purpose of forming independent expenditures. It doesn’t challenge limits on the size of donations individuals can make to candidates.

“Today we filed a lawsuit to protect New Mexicans’ right to freedom of speech,” state GOP Executive Director Bryan Watkins said in a news release. “We are confident that we will be successful in this case, as cases from around the country have found in favor of protection of freedom of speech, including a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision.”

Read the lawsuit here.

Also in the legal / political crossover news locally, redistricting has gone to the courts following Gov. Martinez’s veto. Multiple suits have been filed so the ultimate decision appears headed for our Supreme Court.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: 2012 Election, Constitutional Rights, Economy, National Politics, NM Politics
10
Aug 2011

Publius Daily Digest

By 1 Comment

National

First we want to direct your attention to ABC’s photo tribute to the recently-fallen soldiers in Afghanistan. Most of the soldiers in the elite Navy Seals unit that died were part of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. Our hearts and prayers go out to their families. PajamasMedia has a video out discussing the impact of this loss, worth the watch if you have 10 minutes.

Second, congrats to the Wisconsin GOP, which continues to maintain a majority (though not quite as strong a majority)  in the state legislature following yesterday’s recall election, noted here at Volokh Conspiracy. In today’s Political Diary, Matthew Payne discusses the election results:

Labor unions spent heavily on recall petitions in Wisconsin to remove six Republican state Senators who supported Gov. Scott Walker’s collective-bargaining reforms for public employees. But yesterday voters failed to give the unions the result they were expecting. GOP senators won four of the six races, preserving their majority in the Senate by a margin of 17-16. And turnabout is fair play. Two Democrats will also come up for recall later this month for their attempts to block passage of Gov. Walker’s legislation by fleeing to Illinois.

We Are Wisconsin, a political action committee funded by unions, spent nearly $6 million on radio and television advertisements alone. Yet the Democratic recall candidate lost in four districts that Barack Obama won in 2008, including Milwaukee. Not a particularly impressive showing, given the level of expenditures.

John Hogan of the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the results were “a huge victory” for the GOP. “Voters gave us a mandate last fall . . . They backed us up again (Tuesday). Voters told us loud and clear, ‘Stay the course. Things are working.’” Nor were the results driven by a small number of motivated Wisconsinites showing up at the polls. Turnout for the recall election was more than 43%, approaching the nearly 50% turnout for the gubernatorial election last fall.

This spring, the battle cry of the pro-union protesters in Madison became, “This is what democracy looks like.” But the results show that voters are no longer willing to be bullied into accepting union demands. This was the second major referendum on Scott Walker’s policies, and both have ended up ratifying curbs on union power. That is what democracy looks like.

Jeb Bush and Kevin Warsh took to the WSJ’s editorial page to suggest A New Strategy for Economic Growth:

As the economy continues to struggle, we are reminded of a course offered at Yale University titled “Grand Strategy.” Drawing on a weighty curriculum of history and philosophy, the course seeks to train future policy makers to tackle the complex challenges of statecraft in a comprehensive, systematic way. Clearly, U.S. economic policy is sorely lacking an effective grand strategy, and we are likely to endure high unemployment, weak economic performance and trying financial markets until such a strategy is articulated and pursued.

Policy makers should cease the barrage of ad hoc, short-term policy initiatives. Is increased federal spending across government agencies a grand strategy? How about checks in the mail to spur spending? Cash for clunkers to move auto inventories? Fast trains and faster Internet? Mortgage modification programs and fleeting tax credits to re-stoke home ownership?

Inducing consumers to do today what they would otherwise do tomorrow is hardly a grand strategy. Hundreds of billions in “stimulus” spending has stimulated little but more debt. Forty-eight months have passed since the onset of the financial crisis, 26 months since the recession technically ended. Yet job creation remains remarkably weak, and markets deeply uneasy.

* * *

So, what should be the economic grand strategy? In a word: growth.

Stability has replaced growth as the foremost objective of economic policy. But growth over the next 10 years is more consequential to our well-being than any new regulations promulgated by the Financial Stability Oversight Council or cost-cutting considered by the new congressional super committee. Absent strong growth, any projected improvements in the country’s fiscal position won’t materialize.

As usual, David Harsanyi has a great column out, this time on The Crumbling Cult of Obama:

The romance is gone. But don’t worry. It’s not him; it’s you.

It turns out we are the ones who failed Him. We weren’t prepared for a mega-dosage of awesomeness. We were too dimwitted to grasp the decency of central planning. And the insistence of troublemakers to engage in debate and vote, in fact, is the most serious threat to this nation’s future.

* * *

The sight of a crumbling Cult of Obama—and with it the end of the progressive presidency—has many on the left so frustrated that they simply dismiss the very idea of ideological debate. To challenge the morality and rationality of Obamanomics only means you’re bought, too stupid to know any better or, most likely, both. A slack-jawed hostage-taking saboteur.

Armed with this unearned intellectual and ethical superiority, it is not surprising to hear someone like John Kerry reprimand the media for even covering conservative viewpoints. It is predictable that the Senate would “investigate” a private entity like Standard & Poor’s for giving an opinion on American debt that conflicted with its own. (Remember when not listening to the Dixie Chicks was a “chilling of free speech”?)

In a related column, Walter Williams notes that the President’s advisors should be fired for dereliction of duty:

President Barack Obama has called for a luxury tax on corporate jets as a means to generate revenue to fight federal deficits. The president’s economic advisers ought to be fired for not telling him that doing so is unwise and counterproductive. They might have already told him so, only to have the president say, “Look, I know you’re right, but I’m exploiting the public’s envy of the rich!” Let’s look at what happened when Obama’s predecessor George H.W. Bush signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 and broke his “read my lips” vow not to agree to new taxes.

When Congress imposed a 10 percent luxury tax on yachts, private airplanes and expensive automobiles, Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell crowed publicly about how the rich would finally be paying their fair share of taxes. What actually happened is laid out in a Heartland Institute blog post by Edmund Contoski titled “Economically illiterate Obama, re: Corporate Jets” (7/12/2011).

Within eight months after the change in the law took effect, Viking Yachts, the largest U.S. yacht manufacturer, laid off 1,140 of its 1,400 employees and closed one of its two manufacturing plants. Before it was all over, Viking Yachts was down to 68 employees. In the first year, one-third of U.S. yacht-building companies stopped production, and according to a report by the congressional Joint Economic Committee, the industry lost 7,600 jobs. When it was over, 25,000 workers had lost their jobs building yachts, and 75,000 more jobs were lost in companies that supplied yacht parts and material. Ocean Yachts trimmed its workforce from 350 to 50. Egg Harbor Yachts went from 200 employees to five and later filed for bankruptcy. The U.S., which had been a net exporter of yachts, became a net importer as U.S. companies closed. Jobs shifted to companies in Europe and the Bahamas. The U.S. Treasury collected zero revenue from the sales driven overseas.

Read the whole column at Townhall.com. Which leads us into a look at the 2012 race, with Rick Perry keeping everyone in suspense about his plans. His latest travels, however, do suggest he may be jumping in the race sometime soon:

Though he’s not officially a candidate, Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s visits this weekend to three important presidential nominating states threaten to overshadow any lift his would-be rivals hope to gain from a big week in Iowa.

Perry’s expected entrance into the Republican race looms large over Saturday’s Iowa straw poll and a nationally televised debate two days earlier _ and he’s not participating in either event. His all-but-certain bid comes as polls show the GOP electorate underwhelmed with the current crop of candidates as they seek someone strong to challenge President Barack Obama next fall.

All candidates _ from GOP front-runner Mitt Romney on down _ are bracing for a Perry candidacy.

So what do we think of a Perry candidacy? Authors at Reason (largely an atheist, libertarian bunch) note first that Perry’s positions on same-sex marriage and abortion are not particularly federalists or in keeping with a state’s rights approach, and second that his federalism inconsistency could well lead to a flip-flop on medical marijuana in the near future.

Which leads me to ask PubliusNM readers, largely a bunch that appreciate federalism, the 10th Amendment as written, and the general concept of states rights: what say you to these more difficult issues of same-sex marriage, abortion, and medical marijuana? Are they exceptions to the federalism rule? If so, at what point do we actually draw the line? Is it possible to strongly oppose any or all of these things on moral grounds and yet recognize that they are best handled at the state level? Let’s hear some debate in the comment section!

Josh Blackman suggests that Smith & Wesson may be shrugging:

Why would gun manufacturers liek Colt, Smith & Wesson, and Winchester remain headquartered in Northeastern states that hate guns. Why wouldn’t they shrug, and move to states that respect the right to keep and bear arms. Well, they might.

From the Times:

For more than a century, the nation’s firearms industry, including iconic brands like Colt, Smith & Wesson and Winchester, has been concentrated in Northeastern and Midwestern states that now have restrictive gun-control laws.

But recently, states like Idaho, Alabama and Montana have presented a novel argument as part of an effort to lure the firearms industry’s high-paying jobs south and west: Gun makers would be happier and more successful among citizens who regularly use firearms than they would be remaining in states trying to limit gun rights.

The approach is the latest twist in the interstate competition for scarce jobs, with hard-pressed states supplementing or even bypassing traditional enticements like tax breaks in favor of pitches that sell a lifestyle: greater personal freedom, low or no state taxes, minimal regulation, the absence of troublesome unions and of course, the unfettered right to bear arms.

Reason.tv has an excellent video out on gun rights, and in particular looking at “open carry” rights (click here  to view in YouTube):

New Mexico

Congratulations to Paul Gessing, the Leadership Institute’s Graduate of the Week:

A native from Ohio, Paul moved to the Washington, D.C. area to work in public policy in 1997.  He recalls, “I was a liberal when I came to DC, but through self-reflection and a lucky connection with a Ron Paul staffer, [I] became much more liberty-minded.”

Paul spent most of his professional career in DC working in government affairs at the National Taxpayers Union; however, after 8.5 years in DC he was ready to move on.  “There happened to be a think tank leadership opening in New Mexico, which I took since I had significant family in the Albuquerque area,” Paul said.

Paul has attended 6 trainings at the Leadership Institute. They include: Internet Activist Workshop; On-Camera Television Workshop; Public Speaking Workshop 2; Public Speaking Workshop; Grassroots Communications Workshop; and another Public Speaking Workshop in 2004.

* * *

“The Leadership Institute is the granddaddy of conservative training organizations,” Paul said. “If you ever want to run for office, work for a political campaign, volunteer for a candidate, or want to maximize your effectiveness in working with a political party, be sure to attend [one of their trainings].”

We welcome Paul Gessing as LI’s Grad of the Week!  Thank you for all you do to defend liberty in New Mexico. If you would like to learn public speaking and TV techniques like Paul, visit our schedule of upcoming trainings.

Definitely follow that link to upcoming training sessions because LI is coming to Albuquerque later this month–a great local opportunity for New Mexico activists.

Heath Haussamen has a thought-provoking column up today looking at judicial accountability and, more particularly, helping judges on a more individual / direct level:

[W]e’ve [recently] watched several New Mexico judges go down in flames.

There was Robert E. Robles, a man who served with integrity for nearly 18 years as a district and appellate judge before he ran a red light in Albuquerque earlier this year while speeding and drunk and nearly crashed his car into a police officer’s vehicle. That horrible choice ended his career.

There was Albert “Pat” Murdoch,” who was a criminal judge in Albuquerque for 26 years and presided over many high-profile cases before being charged last month with raping a prostitute and, of course, resigning.

There’s also Mike Murphy, a Las Cruces district judge on suspension while he fights bribery charges related to obtaining his job and trying to make a deal with another judge over who would be the court’s chief judge.

Murphy claims innocence, but the fact remains that, even if he’s not guilty of bribery, he told others that he paid for his appointment and said applicants who wanted judgeships had to do the same.

* * *

There are many excellent judges in New Mexico, but even they need help from time to time. Who around them is willing to hold them accountable when they step out of line and support them when they need help? Will those judges ask for help when they need it?

I’ve covered enough judicial scandal over the past several years to know there are also some bad apples in the judiciary. Who is holding them accountable? Why didn’t the judges who knew about Murphy’s bribery claims report him? Which other current judges need to be held accountable for ethical misdeeds? Who will make sure that happens?

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights, Economy, National Politics, NM Politics, Uncategorized
09
Aug 2011

Publius Daily Digest

By Leave a Comment

National

Instapundit had a couple of good takes on yesterday’s Dow action following the downgrade by S & P:

PRESIDENT DOWNGRADE: Dow Finishes Down 634 Points. Obama’s speech certainly did nothing to slow the drop, though I suppose the White House will argue that it would have been 734 without the speech, meaning that Obama saved or created 100 Dow points . . . .

* * *

ANTICIPATING THE COMING CONVULSIONS as the welfare state dies. Both here and in Europe. It’s never pretty when they run out of other people’s money. “The problem with the Tea Party is not what it does – at best, right now, it can only make a moral and political case; it does not have the numbers to make anything happen without non-Tea Partiers joining it. The problem with the Tea Partiers, in the eyes of the liberal establishment and the pet moderate GOP enablers, is that it dares to point out the indisputable truth that must be hidden at all costs: That the social welfare state is unsustainable and will collapse.”

UPDATE: Reader Anthony Calabrese writes:

As an American in London, I am seeing it first hand. Your statement about the welfare state’s death convulsions are true — there is a small business owner on BBC news talking now about a restaurant of his getting trashed in Ealing, a rather nice part of West London. He noted that despite all the talk of this being a response to poverty, the looters are wearing designed tracksuits and communicating by I-Phones.

This family has had a furniture business in South London for 140 years. No longer — it is burning to the ground right now.

There even was a street fire in my neighbourhood of Notting Hill.

One difference from the US is that in London, there is much more mixing of socio-economic groups than in the US. So I think we may see a long night.

Be prepared.

The Dow started up today, and the WSJ has a reasonably optimistic editorial up, so perhaps all is not lost:

During yesterday’s market meltdown, an old friend shot us an email: “The Obama adm needs to stop trying to disarm the fire alarm and start trying to put the fire out.”

Good advice that, not that President Obama followed it during his midday remarks at the White House. Instead, he poured on some lighter fluid, blaming Republicans and Standard & Poor’s for S&P’s credit downgrade while remonstrating that both parties nonetheless had to work together. He also repeated his familiar agenda that more spending now and higher taxes later will fire up the economy and restore America’s financial standing.

The Dow promptly fell another hundred points before tumbling 5.5% on the day. It was ugly out there. The S&P downgrade was a psychological shock, a slap in the face, and markets are naturally in for a rough ride.

***

But we think it’s also worth stepping back from the daily turmoil to look at the larger picture. To wit, the current U.S. debt debate isn’t a sign of American political “dysfunction,” despite what S&P, the Chinese (see below) and various sages are saying. It’s a sign that we’re finally beginning to comprehend and correct the problem. The process will be messy, as democracy always is, but the brawling is a sign of progress.

Read more here.

An ongoing theme here is our support for school choice, the ability of parents to direct the education of their children rather than government bureaucrats. Some additional good news from the WSJ on the education front with test results showing positive advances by Harlem Success academies, a group of charter schools:

Results released yesterday of test scores in the New York State Assessment Program showed that the most relentlessly attacked charter schools—Eva Moskowitz’s Harlem Success academies—have outperformed their public-school peers, often by a wide margin.

At all New York City’s public schools, 60% of third, fourth and fifth graders passed the math exam; at Harlem Success, 94% passed. In the state language arts exam, 49% from the city schools passed compared to 78% at the charters. The 94% pass rate for the academies’ black and Hispanic students surpassed the 73% pass rate for white students taking the exam in New York state.

Other New York City charters—such as Geoffrey Canada’s Promise Academies or the Democracy Prep charter schools—generally produce similar results, even compared to the state’s best public schools. In a 2009 study of New York City charter schools, Caroline Hoxby of Stanford concluded, “On average, a student who attended a charter school for all of the grades kindergarten through eight would close about 86% of the ‘Scarsdale-Harlem achievement gap’ in math and 66% of the achievement gap in English.”

Meanwhile, the battle to stop the movement continues. Ms. Moskowitz’s effort to open another school on Manhattan’s Upper West Side has met massive resistance. Actor Matt Damon is now throwing his celebrity against charters. Their students, meanwhile, continue upward.

The Volokh Conspiracy has two unrelated posts about interesting court cases. First, Orin Kerr notes and disagrees with a Maryland federal magistrate judge who ruled that police cannot use warrants to obtain the cell phone location of a person who is the subject of an arrest warrant:

On August 3, Magistrate Judge Susan K. Gauvey issued a fascinating opinion on this novel question: IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING DISCLOSURE OF LOCATION INFORMATION OF A SPECIFIED WIRELESS TELEPHONE, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85638 (D.Md. 2011). Her answer: The Judge must deny the warrant application, as location information is broadly protected by the Fourth Amendment and government cannot use warrants to find out the location of people who have warrants out for their arrest. The timing of the case is extremely unusual, as it seems the case is moot and this is only an advisory opinion. If I understand the timing, Magistrate Judge Gauvey denied the application over a year ago, and the government was able to arrest the suspect some other way in the meantime. Judge Gauvey decided to hand down an opinion on the legal issue anyway, appointed defense counsel to argue for defense interests, and now, a year later, has handed down the opinion on why she denied that application back in 2010.

* * *

My own view is that Judge Gauvey is pretty clearly wrong. Most fundamentally, I don’t think location information of phones is protected by the Fourth Amendment under Smith v. Maryland, for all the reasons I have explained at length. Part of the problem is that the Fourth Amendment does not deal in abstractions, with categories such as the right to privacy in “location” or right to privacy in “movement.” The Fourth Amendment is much more granular: The relevant question is whether the particular data stored in a particular place on a particular server is protected by the Fourth Amendment, and if so, who is it who has those rights and under what circumstances can that particular information be accessed and disclosed. Given that, Judge Gauvey’s abstract categories produce more heat than light. It doesn’t help that Judge Gauvey relies significantly on the “mosaic theory” opinion that the Supreme Court recently agreed to review.

Read Kerr’s entire post here. Second, Ilya Somin notes a criminal trial in New York involving a dog in the witness box:

A golden retriever named Rosie recently became the first judicially approved dog allowed in the witness box for the purpose of comforting a witness while she testifies:

Rosie, the first judicially approved courtroom dog in New York, was in the witness box here nuzzling a 15-year-old girl who was testifying that her father had raped and impregnated her. Rosie sat by the teenager’s feet. At particularly bad moments, she leaned in….

Now an appeal planned by the defense lawyers is placing Rosie at the heart of a legal debate that will test whether there will be more Rosies in courtrooms in New York and, possibly, other states.

Rosie is a golden retriever therapy dog who specializes in comforting people when they are under stress….

[Defense] lawyers, David S. Martin and Steven W. Levine of the public defender’s office, have raised a series of objections that they say seems likely to land the case in New York’s highest court. They argue that as a therapy dog, Rosie responds to people under stress by comforting them, whether the stress comes from confronting a guilty defendant or lying under oath.

But they say jurors are likely to conclude that the dog is helping victims expose the truth. “Every time she stroked the dog,” Mr. Martin said in an interview, “it sent an unconscious message to the jury that she was under stress because she was telling the truth.”

“There was no way for me to cross-examine the dog,” Mr. Martin added.

Somin appears to conclude that defense counsel has a strong argument. What say you, PubliusNM readers?

Rush Limbaugh was on the air yesterday when Obama made his remarks about the S & P downgrade — our President showing up a solid 58 minutes late to his own press conference and speaking literally only the length of a commercial break at the EIB network. Here is video of Rush following that break with his assessment of the President’s conduct (click here to view video at FoxNews):

New Mexico

Jamie Estrada argues today at NMPolitics.net that free trade agreements mean jobs for NM:

According to recent Commerce Department data, U.S. GDP grew at an anemic rate of 1.3 percent in the second quarter, and only 0.4 percent in the first – numbers that reveal the weakness in our economy and that we’re dangerously close to another recession.

So given that exports have contributed over 50 percent to U.S. GDP growth in the last four quarters, it makes you wonder why no action has been taken on free trade agreements (FTAs) with Colombia, Panama and South Korea that were negotiated several years ago. Passing these FTAs would be a boon for the U.S. economy because they open foreign markets for U.S. manufacturers, farmers and service providers – including those here in New Mexico.

However, if Congress doesn’t ratify them after they return from recess in September, many will wonder if our leaders are really serious about creating American jobs and getting our economy back on track.

Heath Haussamen recently and stridently argued that we can do better than Jerome Block, Jr.:

Some New Mexico politicians like to say the only ethics reform we need is an electorate that picks more ethical leaders. While I disagree that it’s all we need, the case of Public Regulation CommissionerJerome Block Jr. proves that the electorate needs to do a better job.

* * *

The case of Block is especially egregious because the media did its job, reporting widely before his election that he hadn’t been honest about his criminal history and education and had lied about his abuse of the state’s public financing system and taxpayer dollars. Anyone paying attention would have known before the election that Block may have broken the law.

But PRC District 3 voters elected him anyway.

Media reports suggest Block may have left a suicide note in a vehicle last week, thus our thoughts and prayers go out to him because PubliusNM does not wish such ill on anyone. But what about Haussamen’s larger point, illustrated by the Block election? Does he have a good point? If so, what are the solutions you would suggest?

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights, Economy, Education, National Politics, NM Politics
08
Oct 2010

Ned Fuller Campaign Slogans

By Leave a Comment

Ellis Wyatt is not the only frequent flier on this website supporting Ned Fuller for the NM Court of Appeals. Ned is an experienced, capable and conscientious New Mexico lawyer who will enforce the law in an intelligent, evenhanded and fair manner.  We heard that Ned was about to start the media-intensive part of his campaign and thought we’d help him out with a few slogan suggestions.  Ned had nothing whatsoever to do with compiling these and, so far, has not endorsed or used any of them.  Feel free to suggest more in the comment section.

VOTE FULLER, NOT EMPTIER

 

+

Have a Fuller Life,

 

VOTE FOR NED

 

+

THE GLASS WILL BE HALF-FULLER

 

WITH JUDGE NED

 

+

The Law Is A Disease,

 

NED FULLER IS THE CURE!

 

+

BETTER NED THAN DEAD

 

(Cold War oldie)

+

CRIMINALS HATE NED FULLER!

 

(recycled from GOP ad campaign of some years back)

+

NED FULLER vs. CRIME

 

See, Stratton v. McNeil (1986)

+

KEEP SERIAL MURDERERS IN JAIL

 

VOTE FOR NED FULLER

 

+ 

ELIMINATE CRIME

 

Ned Fuller for Court of Appeals

 

(a little possible “puffing” is ok, in our opinion)

+

If Governor Martinez Doesn’t Veto that 

 

Unconstitutional Crap,

 

JUDGE FULLER WILL!

 

+

JUDGE FULLER WILL CLEAN UP THE

 

ENTIRE FILTHY, STINKING MESS!

 

+

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: 2010 Elections, Constitutional Rights, NM Politics, Uncategorized
14
Sep 2010

Law Enforcement Accountability

By Leave a Comment

The Cato Institute has a new video exploring one of the hot issues today: the intersection of civil liberties, law enforcement activities, and video accountability. As Cato explains: “Citizens should have the right to record their interactions with police and police should be required to record their most intense interactions with citizens.”

Should it be legal for private citizens to record on-duty police officers? If not, why not? And why aren’t law enforcement officers themselves interested in employing recording equipment as a means of demonstrating their actions in a given situation were appropriate?

Radley Balko has been following this issue for several months, providing an example in Ohio, a round up of several incidents, a general discussion on the issues arising in Maryland, and a specific column exploring motorcyclist Anthony Graber’s experience.

Related Posts:

Categories: Constitutional Rights Tags:
31
May 2010

Memorial Day

By 1 Comment

In honor of Memorial Day, I wanted to share some words of wisdom from our past. On July 6, 1775, the Second Continental Congress issued a Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms to explain their position on the Revolutionary War.

We are reduced to the alternative of chusing an unconditional submission to the tyranny of irritated ministers, or resistance by force. — The latter is our choice. — We have counted the cost of this contest, and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. — Honour, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them, if we basely entail hereditary bondage upon them.

* * *

With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverence, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.

On May 12, 1962, General Douglas MacArthur spoke to the Corps of Cadets at West Point. His stirring words were, thereafter, read each year on the floor of the U.S. Senate (although I’m not sure that tradition continues today). Thanks to Hank Holzer, I’m providing his speech in its entirety.

No human being could fail to be deeply moved by such a tribute as this, coming from a profession I have served so long and a people I have loved so well. It fills me with an emotion I cannot express. But this [Thayer] award is not intended primarily to honor a personality, but to symbolize a great moral code — the code of conduct and chivalry of those who guard this beloved land of culture and ancient descent. That is the animation of this medallion. For all eyes and for all time, it is an expression of the ethics of the American soldier. That I should be integrated in this way with so noble an ideal, arouses a sense of pride and yet of humility which will be with me always.

“Duty, Honor, Country” — those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn.

Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.

But these are some of the things they do. They build your basic character. They mold you for your future roles as the custodians of the nation’s defense. They make you strong enough to know when you are weak, and brave enough to face yourself when you are afraid.

They teach you to be proud and unbending in honest failure, but humble and gentle in success; not to substitute words for action; not to seek the path of comfort, but to face the stress and spur of difficulty and challenge; to learn to stand up in the storm, but to have compassion on those who fall; to master yourself before you seek to master others; to have a heart that is clean, a goal that is high; to learn to laugh, yet never forget how to weep; to reach into the future, yet never neglect the past; to be serious, yet never take yourself too seriously; to be modest so that you will remember the simplicity of true greatness, the open mind of true wisdom, the meekness of true strength.

They give you a temper of the will, a quality of the imagination, a vigor of the emotions, a freshness of the deep springs of life, a temperamental predominance of courage over timidity, an appetite for adventure over love of ease.

They create in your heart the sense of wonder, the unfailing hope of what next, and the joy and inspiration of life. They teach you in this way to be an officer and a gentleman.
And what sort of soldiers are those you are to lead? Are they reliable? Are they brave? Are they capable of victory?

Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefield many, many years ago, and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world’s noblest figures; not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless.

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy’s breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people. From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage.

As I listened to those songs, in memory’s eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle-deep through the mire of shell-pocked roads, to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory.

Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as we sought the way and the light and the truth. And twenty years after, on the other side of the globe, again the filth of dirty foxholes, the stench of ghostly trenches, the slime of dripping dugouts, those broiling suns of relentless heat, those torrential rains of devastating storms, the loneliness and utter desolation of jungle trails, the bitterness of long separation of those they loved and cherished, the deadly pestilence of tropical disease, the horror of stricken areas of war.
Their resolute and determined defense, their swift and sure attack, their indomitable purpose, their complete and decisive victory — always victory, always through the bloody haze of their last reverberating shot, the vision of gaunt, ghastly men, reverently following your password of Duty, Honor, Country.

The code which those words perpetuate embraces the highest moral law and will stand the test of any ethics or philosophies ever promoted for the uplift of mankind. Its requirements are for the things that are right, and its restraints are from the things that are wrong. The soldier, above all other men, is required to practice the greatest act of religious training: sacrifice. In battle and in the face of danger and death, he disposes those divine attributes which his Maker gave when he created man in His own image. No physical courage and no brute instinct can take the place of the divine help which alone can sustain him. However hard the incidents of war may be, the soldier who is called upon to offer and to give his life for his country is the noblest development of mankind.

You now face a new world, a world of change. The thrust into outer space of the satellite spheres and missiles mark a beginning of another epoch in the long story of mankind. In the five or more billions of years the scientists tell us it has taken to form the earth, in the three or more billion years of development of the human race, there has never been a more abrupt or staggering evolution. We deal now, not with things of this world alone, but with the illimitable distances and as yet unfathomed mysteries of the universe. We are reaching out for a new and boundless frontier. We speak in strange terms: of harnessing the cosmic energy; of making winds and tides work for us; of creating unheard synthetic materials to supplement or even replace our old standard basics; to purify sea water for our drink; of mining the ocean floors for new fields of wealth and food; of disease preventatives to expand life into the hundreds of years; of controlling the weather for a more equitable distribution of heat and cold, of rain and shine; of spaceships to the Moon; of the primary target in war, no longer limited to the armed forces of an enemy, but instead to include his civil populations; of ultimate conflict between a united human race and the sinister forces of some other planetary galaxy; of such dreams and fantasies as to make life the most exciting of all time.

And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purposes, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishment; but you are the ones who are trained to fight. Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.

Others will debate the controversial issues, national and international, which divide men’s minds. But serene, calm, aloof, you stand as the Nation’s war guardians, as its lifeguards from the raging tides of international conflict, as its gladiators in the arena of battle. For a century and a half you have defended, guarded and protected its hallowed traditions of liberty and freedom, of right and justice. Let civilian voices argue the merits or demerits of our processes of government: whether our strength is being sapped by deficit financing indulged in too long, by federal paternalism grown too mighty, by power groups grown too arrogant, by politics grown too corrupt, by crime grown too rampant, by morals grown too low, by taxes grown too high, by extremists grown too violent; whether our personal liberties are as firm and complete as they should be; these great national problems are not for your professional participation or military solution. Your guidepost stands out like a tenfold beacon in the night: Duty, Honor, Country.

You are the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national system of defense. From your ranks come the great captains who hold the Nation’s destiny in their hands the moment the war tocsin sounds.

The Long Gray Line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray, would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.

This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of old have vanished — tone and tint. They have gone glimmering through the dreams of things that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tears and coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen then, but with thirsty ear, for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, the strange, mournful mutter of the battlefield. But in the evening of my memory always I come back to West Point. Always there echoes and re-echoes: Duty, Honor, Country.

Today marks my final roll call with you. But I want you to know that when I cross the river, my last conscious thoughts will be of the Corps, and the Corps, and the Corps.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights
13
May 2010

Thoughts on Vote Buying

By 1 Comment

Mayor Bloomberg spent $92.60 per vote in the last NY mayoral election, barely winning. I have been advised that NM Senator Rod Adair’s opponent spent $111.03 in the last election in an effort to unseat Mr. Adair (who ended up winning by 7 points). These dollar amounts got me thinking about the relative value of the votes being “purchased” through campaign spending and the prices paid to “purchase” them.

Let’s simplify the issue: What if it was legal (and possible) to sell votes on ebay? Let’s say anyone could sell his or her vote, for any given election contest. It is up for auction. The candidate or anyone else could buy it. What do you think the market rate would settle at? It would depend on the particular contest, but I doubt it would ever exceed $100 in any election, assuming good liquidity. Note that the marginal value of a vote to a candidate should go to zero once one candidate has purchased or otherwise controls 50% +1 votes (assuming perfect information as to who the purchaser(s) are or who will benefit from the purchased votes when they are cast). I predict that the market would be flooded by low issue content voters, keeping prices down.  In Senator Adair’s case, it is likely his opponents would have outbid his supporters, and NM would have lost one of its best Legislators.  In an ebay election, it is also likely that Senator Adair’s opponents would have spent less to unseat him than they did in their losing effort.

It’s nice to think that ebay elections would help people realize the true value of their votes and encourage them to hang on to them. Doubt it, but any improved understanding of true value might drive up prices. Or, in NM, might at least lead to a greater outrage at the ease at which these infininitely valuable things are counterfeited.

The overall societal value of 50% + 1 votes, over all elections, is arguably infinite, since our country can unfortunately be destroyed by its leaders (imagine the old Soviet Union being able to buy US votes in my hypothetical). The value of one vote is a fraction of infinity (still infinite). On the other hand, I have no doubt that a market price could be determined for any vote in any election contest (and even for whole ballots!) Kind of a paradox, existing because under the democratic model, the individual normally does not benefit from his or her single vote except by the diffuse but important benefit of being a member of the group that bestows power.

In the US, votes are the raw material of power and those favored with their power will easily and inevitably convert some of their infinite value into wealth. Often, power for themselves now means wealth for their friends now and wealth for the powerful later.

This is a case where a governmental prohibition is a good thing (i.e. prohibiting buying and selling votes). People need to be protected from selling one of their most precious rights.  The benefit of the secret ballot becomes more apparent as well — harder to enforce a “vote buying contract” when the final product (ballot) is visible only to the voter.  Another reason “card check” is a bad idea (opens the door to enforceable vote contracts, and verifiable compliance with vote extortion).

The point of all this is the following question: If campaign spending is now exceeding what the market price of a vote would be, does that have implications for our democracy? Is this a back-door vote market? Or is campaign spending completely unrelated to the natural market price of a vote?

Surely it is related, millions in campaign expenditures yield billions in government expenditures. This post is not intended to discount the ideological considerations of voters in casting their votes, just to leave them out of the equation for discussion purposes.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Abstract Thinking, Constitutional Rights, Uncategorized Tags:
05
May 2010

SB 1070 / HB 2162 = We Need A Leader Like Gary Johnson

By Leave a Comment

Arizona’s passage of SB 1070 (and subsequent passage of some amendments in HB 2162) heated up the national debate on illegal immigration. One important issue that this law highlights is that many of the concerns related to illegal immigration in border states could actually be solved through a change in national drug policy. As usual, Gov. Gary Johnson is right on target with this one.

Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen recently explained her support for Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law in SB 1070:

The people who live within 60 to 80 miles of the Arizona/Mexico Border have for years been terrorized and have pleaded for help to stop the daily invasion of humans who cross their property . One Rancher testified that 300 to 1200 people a DAY come across his ranch vandalizing his property, stealing his vehicles and property, cutting down his fences, and leaving trash. In the last two years he has found 17 dead bodies and two Koran[s]. Another rancher testified that daily drugs are brought across his ranch in a military operation. A point man with a machine gun goes in front, 1/2 mile behind are the guards fully armed, 1/2 mile behind them are the drugs, behind the drugs 1/2 mile are more guards. These people are violent and they will kill anyone who gets in the way.

* * *

Federal prisons have over 35% illegal’s and 20% of Arizona prisons are filled with illegal’s. In the last few years 80% of our law enforcement that have been killed or wounded have been by an illegal.

I have not verified her numbers, but her explanation of support for SB 1070 inevitably pulls into the debate the seemingly-obvious fact that she is actually concerned with the impact that the “War on Drugs” has had on a border state. Indeed, Reason’s Steve Chapman points out that an increase in illegal immigration across the border into Arizona has not, actually, led to an overall increase in crime:

It’s no surprise that Arizonans resent the recent influx of unauthorized foreigners, some of them criminals. But there is less here than meets the eye.

The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants. But contrary to myth, they have not brought an epidemic of murder and mayhem with them. Surprise of surprises, the state has gotten safer.

Over the last decade, the violent crime rate has dropped by 19 percent, while property crime is down by 20 percent. Crime has also declined in the rest of the country, but not as fast as in Arizona.

Babeu’s claim about police killings came as news to me. When I called his office to get a list of victims, I learned there has been only one since the beginning of 2008—deeply regrettable, but not exactly a trend.

Truth is, illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native Americans. Most come here to work, and in their desire to stay, they are generally afraid to do anything that might draw the attention of armed people wearing badges.

Chapman’s analysis, however, fails to consider whether drug crimes and violence related to drug crimes has been on the rise. Certainly based on the anecdotal evidence Rep. Allen described, that seems to be the case. Which would suggest that, while we clearly have national problems with our current immigration policy, perhaps the bigger and more immediate problem that we should address is our problematic drug policy. When Gov. Johnson’s Our America Initiative weighed in, it noted:

[T]he increase in crime along the borders is not due to illegal immigration, but to strict drug prohibition laws that provide increased leverage and power to Mexican drug cartels. “The problem is that the federal government is not able to do its job, because the current laws are just not enforceable. I respect Arizona taking action, and I believe strongly in States’ rights. But this law is just not well grounded. We need to implement an immigration policy that allows for better documentation and more easily obtainable permits for temporary guest workers to fill jobs that are available.” Johnson said. “In addition to citizens being stripped of their rights and subjected to unfair searches, this law is ultimately unfair to law enforcement, who will be left to implement a law that although well intended, is misguided in its attempt to reduce border crime, and is bound to have undesirable consequences.”

Here is a recent interview with the Gov. on pot and border politics:

Gov. Johnson is on target, let’s hope people are listening.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights, Drug War, Gary Johnson, Illegal Immigration
30
Apr 2010

SB 1070, meet HB 2162 — AZ immigration law amended

By 2 Comments

In the final hours of this year’s legislative session, Arizona lawmakers amended SB 1070 by passing another piece of legislation, HB 2162. The Arizona Capitol times summarized the changes:

H2162 prescribes a few key changes to the new immigration law, clarifying both the definition of lawful contact and guidelines for municipalities, as well as lowering the minimum — not the maximum — fine that can be assessed to cities that have so-called “sanctuary city” policies. It also restructured some of the punitive actions that a court would apply to those charged under the new law.

* * *

One of the changes to S1070 removes the word “solely” from the description of the new law’s lawful contact, when it comes to race. So, now race, color or ethnicity simply cannot be used as part of reasonable suspicion.

* * *

The last change outlined in H2162 concerned a phrase that said lawful contact can include an officer’s use of the new immigration law “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights, Illegal Immigration
30
Apr 2010

Attention Politicians: Do not ever get featured as a “Nanny of the Month”

By 1 Comment

Reason.tv has a great series highlighting the “Nanny of the Month” every month. Below is the current video. I urge all politicians to make it a personal goal never to be featured in this series.

Previous videos for “Nanny of the Month” are available on YouTube.

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts
Categories: Constitutional Rights, National Politics, NM Politics
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »