Category Archives: Constitution

Spitzer Also Edited The Harvard Law Review

Business, Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Justice, Law, Natural Law

(The title of the post is a tad unfair to Obama, I know. But editing The Harvard Law Review is clearly no litmus test for purity of intellect or ethics.)

One thing is for sure, Spitzer did not forge his political and fiscal fortunes by means of voluntary exchanges on the free market. The Spitzer piranha didn’t give law teeth; but used bad law to bite business to the bone.

Daniel Gross of Slate had this to say back in 2004:

Spitzer made maximum hay out of the “New York State’s Martin Act. The 1921 legislation, as Nicholas Thompson noted in this Legal Affairs piece, gives extraordinary powers and discretion to an attorney general fighting financial fraud. He can ‘subpoena any document he wants from anyone doing business in the state,’ make investigations secret or public at his whim, and ‘choose between filing civil or criminal charges whenever he wants.’ Extraordinarily, Thompson notes, ‘people called in for questioning during Martin Act investigations do not have a right to counsel or a right against self-incrimination. Combined, the act’s powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state.’”

Spitzer embodied abuse of power. As a government goon, he was an extortionist extraordinaire. “He didn’t simply indict. He issued press releases. When Spitzer published a press release detailing a shocking betrayal of trust by” this or the other “of Wall Street’s most trusted names,” the company would lose billions in market value in a matter of days and would quickly settle with the thug.

I know I’ve defended the naturally licit actions of scum such as Scooter Libby against naturally illicit prosecutions. And yes, I support the decriminalization of prostitution (but not its moral elevation). Yes again: I believe Spitzer’s funds are his to move about, and that his transactions were perfectly licit. So call me inconsistent on this count, but this character is so evil, contemptible, and uncontrollable (and nauseatingly hypocritical), I consider it a mitzvah that he has been removed from office and taken DOWN, if by unjust means.

I want to see Spitzer’s name live on in infamy; he ought to ultimately die disgraced, and if we lived under a just legal system, be prosecuted—but for his crimes against innocent members of the business community. Unfortunately—and I guess I’m nothing if not consistent—I’m with Alan Dershowitz on the following count: Spitzer ought not to be prosecuted for his moral failings. Although I’m filled with schadenfreude at the spectacle of Spitzer, there is no case to be made for his prosecution in libertarian law.

More later on Spitzer’s ho—or rather on the manner in which media have infantilized the girl and turned her into a victim.

Looking for Love in the All the Wrong Places

Africa, Bush, Constitution, Foreign Aid, Terrorism

As if you needed more proof of Bush’s worth:

Africans love him—and not only because he is a Strongman, a real tribal chief—but because he has been more generous with his tribe’s money that his predecessors.

The idea that Bush has saved African lives is idiotic—any government-to-government transfer, which is all foreign aid is—goes to maintaining the mandarins that man the aid bureaucracies in the US, and straight into the Swiss bank accounts of the recipient African heads of country. The latter don’t even conceal their cupidity.

American individuals, estates, foundations, and corporations gave $241 billion to charity in 2003. Foreign aid through the state amounts to only $15 billion per year, most of which is squandered.

If we are to help Mr. Shabalala, who has practically screwed himself to death (and infected his wife with HIV, private, voluntary charity is the mightiest, most moral, and most efficient way to do so.

Bush’s legacy on this front is to have gone from preaching “trade not aid,” to instituting trade tariffs, and increasing U.S. foreign aid during his unfortunate tenure many times over. Where Bush has certainly innovated is by tying new spending to his terrorism-fighting strategy, thus ending for good the debate on the corrupting effects of foreign welfare, since anything that ostensibly fights terrorism is sacrosanct.

Diablo’s Birthday

Constitution, Federalism, Political Philosophy

“Feb. 12 ought to mark the birthday not of an American icon, but of a man whose name should live on in infamy. If Americans want to reclaim their moral character as a nation, they will have to confront and denounce ‘The Real Lincoln,’ who carried out a violent constitutional revolution (instead of pursuing peaceful emancipation like every other nation did), a revolution, which, in turn, sired the modern imperialist, interventionist and highly centralized American State.

Let’s imagine, as the Lincoln-louts claim, that the Constitution ratified in 1788 forbade peaceful secession and authorized the federal government, which was supposed to have limited powers delegated to it by the people, to invade and occupy any seceding state, declare martial law, subdue the secessionists by force, burn and ransack entire cities, and then establish a military dictatorship over those states for a dozen years.

Let’s pretend that it was constitutional to intentionally wage war on civilians, blacks included, to imprison without trial thousands of Northern citizens, jail, even execute people who refused to take a loyalty oath to Lord Lincoln, shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers, incarcerating editors and owners, and generally suspend the Bill of Rights, the writ of habeas corpus and international law.

If it endorsed, or even accommodated what Lincoln did, including his ignoring of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and his violating of the Second, then the Constitution is categorically evil and self-contradictory.”

Updated: Précis: Republicans Debate in New Hampshire

Constitution, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Individual Rights, Republicans

I haven’t watched the Democratic debate. I have zero interest in that lot. Their policy prescriptions exist on a continuum of socialism. While this is true of most Republicans, there is still something of an argument as to whether it ought to be so— an argument owed mostly to Ron Paul’s injection of laissez faire into the process.
Here are one or two salient points I’ve gleaned from the ABC– and Fox-conducted debates with the Republican contenders:
If you exclude Ron Paul (as Fox Noise did) and set-aside the war (I can’t), then Fred Thompson is the more authentically conservative candidate.
On immigration, Thompson has been the only front-runner to address the deleterious effects of mass illegal immigration on the social fabric of this country. Thompson is also the only contender to have ever uttered a word with respect to the American people’s interests rather than those of the illegal immigrants, whom McCain keep calling “God’s children.” Again: more than the rest, Thompson sounded as though he was vying to lead Americans, not Mexicans.
The white-noise makers of Fox took a page out of ABC’s broadcasting book, and allowed a freer-flowing exchange between the windbags. During this Fox free-for-all, it became abundantly clear that McCain, Huckabee and Giuliani essentially support amnesty; they just obfuscate by calling it something else.
McCain, especially, lies about the Z-Visa, and Huckabee continued to defend the rights of children of illegal immigrants to receive what American kids can’t. Other than Thompson, this lot is untrustworthy on stopping the ongoing illegal influx. Mitt Romney is somewhat incoherent, so I find it hard to make out his positions.
He and Giuliani are extremely repetitive, robotic, rehearsed and unbelievable in their plugs for themselves. I have to say again that Thompson spoke more naturally and organically. His mention of the constitutional scheme along the debate—the delimited and limited powers of the various branches of government, and my favorite, the 10th amendment—meant a lot to me.
It appears that an American president must have a healthcare plan—and a plan for almost everything else. Thus, I’m not clear what is Giuliani’s policy prescription for pacifying the people on this front, but he was best able to articulate free-market principles.
In expressing simple, but fundamental, concepts associated with government as opposed to private-run endeavors, Giuliani bested Paul on health care. (On why Paul didn’t do well, unfortunately, in a follow-up post.)
Later then.

Updated: as our reader points out below in the Comments Section, Thompson did appeal to utilitarian “principles” to justify government taking. If you believe a man owns what he produces, then you can never remove it from him without his permission.
Here is the Constitutional lesson I liked, sealed with the contemptible bit that ought to be bowdlerized (with soap and water):

MR. THOMPSON: “Everyone has kind of a wish list. I think it’s most important, though, that a president of the United States understand that our principles — our first principles are based on the Constitution of the United States, understanding the nature of our government, the checks and the balances, the separation of powers that our founding fathers set up a long time ago. There’s a reason for that. They knew about human nature. They learned from the wisdom of the ages. They set the government up according to that.
They set the powers out in the Constitution of the federal government and they basically said, ‘If the powers aren’t delineated in this document, they don’t exist.’ And then we got the 10th Amendment that says if they’re not delineated, they belong to the people and to the states. That’s fundamental to everything else. [All good up until here, where the bad begins.—IM] And then we grew from that principles, such as a dollar belongs in the pocket of the person that earned it unless the government can make a case that it can spend it better; you don’t spend money that you don’t have; and you certainly don’t spend your grandchildren’s money with debt that they’re not at the table when the decision has been made to spend it.”