Category Archives: Constitution

Update V: Son Of Ron For Senate (Civil Wrongs?)

Constitution, Elections, libertarianism, Private Property, Race, Racism

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, endorsed his slick opponent, Trey Grayson, but he won “the Republican nomination for Senate from Kentucky.” He is Rand Paul, son of Ron.

The win “followed the defeat of an incumbent Republican senator, Robert Bennett of Utah, by conservative forces in that state. And it came after the recent decision by Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida to drop out of the Republican primary for Senate in the face of a surge by a Tea Party favorite, Marco Rubio.”

Not wishing to delve into the issues, and say unseemly, hick words such as “Constitution,” the New York Times has chalked the defeat of the establishment candidate to “A strong anti-Washington sentiment.” Of course they would.

Update I (May 19): “March with Martin Luther King, vote with Barry Goldwater.” Rand Paul vacillates about his opposition to the federal regulation of private property wrought by the Civil Wrong’s Act. This is the strict propertarian/libertarain position, apparently “repulsive” to mainstream America, claim NPR and RM. It cannot be denied that Rand Paul comes across as sour.

Part I

Part II

Update II (May 20): SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT, somewhat weakly, I think. Backing away from First Principles…

In response to liberal media attacks, Dr. Rand Paul today released the following statement:

“I believe we should work to end all racism in American society and staunchly defend the inherent rights of every person. I have clearly stated in prior interviews that I abhor racial discrimination and would have worked to end segregation. Even though this matter was settled when I was 2, and no serious people are seeking to revisit it except to score cheap political points, I unequivocally state that I will not support any efforts to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“Let me be clear: I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination in the public sphere and halt the abhorrent practice of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

“As I have said in previous statements, sections of the Civil Rights Act were debated on Constitutional grounds when the legislation was passed. Those issues have been settled by federal courts in the intervening years

“My opponent’s statement on MSNBC Wednesday that I favor repeal of the Civil Rights Act was irresponsible and knowingly false. I hope he will correct the record and retract his claims.”

“The issue of civil rights is one with a tortured history in this country. We have made great strides, but there is still work to be done to ensure the great promise of Liberty is granted to all Americans.

“This much is clear: The federal government has far overreached in its power grabs. Just look at the recent national healthcare schemes, which my opponent supports. The federal government, for the first time ever, is mandating that individuals purchase a product. The federal government is out of control, and those who love liberty and value individual and state’s rights must stand up to it.

“These attacks prove one thing for certain: the liberal establishment is desperate to keep leaders like me out of office, and we are sure to hear more wild, dishonest smears during this campaign.”

Update III: Civil Wrongs: When I allude to the Civil Rights Act, as I have every so often, it never occurs to me that for the reasoning advanced in these posts, I could be construed as a racist. Respectable scholars advance the same arguments: Richard A. Epstein, Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws (Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England, 1995), and Richard Pipes, Property and Freedom: The Story of How Through The Centuries Private Ownership has Promoted Liberty and the Rule of Law (New York, 2000).

I guess what I’m struck by is the incredulity and the indignation the cable cretins are expressing at Paul’s pretty standard, if hard-core, libertarian position. Dare I say that the founders held similar, if not identical, views about the sanctity of private property?

Update IV: Howard Fineman is one of the most detestable journos. Here’s how he turns Rand Paul’s principled defense of private property into something dark and dreadful. This does not take skill, but a wicked sleight of hand:

“…Some of that old-time, race-based attitude—a Kentucky mix of romantic benevolence and cruel disdain (immortalized in D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation)—has seeped into the groundwater of the Tea Party. I attended one of its first rallies, in Louisville more than a year ago, and I saw on the ground some of the anti-busing elements of old there.

If Dr. Rand Paul doesn’t immediately apologize for holding his victory rally at a private club—and doesn’t abandon his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act—then he will not only pollute the Tea Party, he will severely damage the GOP’s chances of winning control of either the House or Senate this fall.”

Update V (May 21): Writes Richard Spencer at AltRight (but what, for heaven’s sake, is HBD?):

As revealed by the above video, Rand is a proponent of a sunny-side up, left-libertarian version of American history.

Racial discrimination within public institutions should be stamped out; discrimination in the private sector, however, probably should not be, as this would entail a prying federal government and likely violations of multiple Constitutional amendments. But never fear! Racial discrimination isn’t just immoral, it’s bad business, and if the government just gets out of the way, all non-economic discrimination will come to an end on its own.

Through Rand certainly goes further than any other politician in criticizing Civil Rights, there’s a lot wrong with his view.

The argument that private businesses are more profitable when they serve everyone is often correct, particularly in a mass consumer society — though one shouldn’t forget that value is ultimately subjective. An entrepreneur might be able to charge higher prices, and receive more personal satisfaction, by operating a restaurant that caters only to whites (or Jews or Chinese or Indians), and he should have the right to do so.

Of course, instances of businesses refusing service are exceedingly rare….

Bullock: Life Imitates Art

Celebrity, Constitution, Education, Family, Hollywood, IlanaMercer.com, Pop-Culture, Race

Sandra Bullock’s still on a hormonal high after staring in a film (did not see “Blind Side”; would never go see it) about a white family adopting a black young man, or boy, or baby. (Is there any other kind of adoption? Do affluent blacks ever adopt poor white kids, or is such charity a one-way affair?)

Bullock might be imitating art, or emulating the trend of assembling Benetton babies begun by Brangelina and the moronic Madonna. At least Bullock has not searched out exotic kids as has crazy Angie; Louis Bardo Bullock is from New Orleans.

HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY to homeschooling mothers for whose kids BAB and IlanaMercer.com are required reading. As one of my editors once said, “My home schooled kids receive Mercer’s Constitution-related columns as required reading.”

Beck Breaks From The Pack

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, Free Markets, Glenn Beck, War, Welfare

The excerpt is from my new, weekly WND.COM column, “Beck Breaks From The Pack”:

“Not a week goes by when Fox-New phenom Glenn Beck doesn’t make libertarian pedants and purists bristle. Examples? The mushy slogan ‘Faith, Hope, Charity’ on which, Beck insists, the old republic was founded. I’m with Beck’s favored founder Ben Franklin who said that “he who lives upon hope will die fasting.”

Then there is charity: Americans hardly need a nudge in that direction as they are already abundantly charitable. Our countrymen are also constant in their faith ? to a fault perhaps, as too much faith in mystical forces beyond one’s control may compound feelings of helplessness.

Conversely, Beck could be more reverential in his approach to the free market to which the Talker often refers in rather pedestrian, almost statist terms. ‘It is the system that we have; it’s a system that works’ are refrains Beck is fond of repeating.

If instead of waxing fat about “Faith, Hope, and Charity” Beck built on life, liberty, and property,” his viewers would come to understand that the voluntary free market is a sacred extension of life itself. …

In the context of the man’s incalculable contribution to liberty, these are, all-in-all, minor quibbles—all the more so given that Glenn Beck has now taken his most significant step in defense of freedom and constitutional order. Beck has seen the writing on the tottering walls of Empire, and has dedicated himself to that humble foreign policy espoused by the founders. …”

The complete column is “Beck Breaks From The Pack.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Grounds For A Constitutional Challenge Of H.R.4872

Constitution, Fascism, Federalism, Healthcare, Law, Regulation, States' Rights

In an interview with NewsMax.com, Judge Andrew Napolitano outlined the grounds upon which the Supreme Court of the United States ought to repeal major portions of Obama’s overweening health care legislation:

“The Constitution does not authorize the Congress to regulate the state governments,” Napolitano says. “Nevertheless, in this piece of legislation, the Congress has told the state governments that they must modify their regulation of certain areas of healthcare, they must surrender their regulation of other areas of healthcare, and they must spend state taxpayer-generated dollars in a way that the Congress wants it done. …

That’s called commandeering the legislature,” he says. “That’s the Congress taking away the discretion of the legislature with respect to regulation, and spending taxpayer dollars. That’s prohibited in a couple of Supreme Court cases. So on that argument, the attorneys general have a pretty strong case and I think they will prevail.” …

The Supreme Court has ruled that in areas of human behavior that are not delegated to the Congress in the Constitution, and that have been traditionally regulated by the states, the Congress can’t simply move in there,” Napolitano says. “And the states for 230 years have had near exclusive regulation over the delivery of healthcare. The states license hospitals. The states license medications. The states license healthcare providers whether they’re doctors, nurses, or pharmacists. The feds have had nothing to do with it.

“The Congress can’t simply wake up one day and decide that it wants to regulate this. I predict that the Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of what the president just signed into law.”…

Napolitano believes the federal government lacks the legal authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance. The Congress [is] ordering human beings to purchase something that they might not want, might not need, might not be able to afford, and might not want — that’s never happened in our history before,” Napolitano says. “My gut tells me that too is unconstitutional, because the Congress doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution.”

The sweetheart deals in the healthcare reform bill used that persuaded Democrats to vote for it – the Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, Gatorade Exception and others – create “a very unique and tricky constitutional problem” for Democrats, because they treat citizens differently based on which state they live in, running afoul of the Constitution’s equal protection clause according to Napolitano. “So these bennies or bribes, whatever you want, or horse trading as it used to be called, clearly violate equal protection by forcing people in the other states to pay the bills of the states that don’t have to pay what the rest of us do,” Napolitano says.

Exempting union members from the so-called “Cadillac tax” on expensive health insurance policies, while imposing that tax on other citizens, is outright discrimination according to Napolitano. “The government cannot draw a bright line, with fidelity to the Constitution and the law, on the one side of which everybody pays, and the other side of which some people pay. It can’t say, ‘Here’s a tax, but we’re only going to apply it to nonunion people. Here’s a tax, and we’re only going to apply it to graduates of Ivy League institutions.’ The Constitution does not permit that type of discrimination.” …

[SNIP]

In this televised interview, the Judge laid out more clearly the test for a constitutional challenge, namely that one is harmed by the legislation.

Note the comment on the impossibility of reading and making sense of H.R.4872 Reconciliation Act of 2010 (my experience) each section of which amends and alludes to other laws in the US Code, which in itself is large enough to fill a house with paper stacked to the ceilings.