Category Archives: Founding Fathers

The Powers Of Obama’s ‘Politburo of Proctologists’

Barack Obama, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Healthcare, Individual Rights, Regulation, Socialism

Not even the US Solicitor General Donald Verrilli can muster a spirited defense of ObamaCare. Said Verrilli, almost apologetically, on Tuesday before the Supreme Court: “Maybe they were right, maybe they weren’t, but this is something about which the people of the United States can deliberate and they can vote, and if they think it needs to be changed, they can change it.” [Oh really?]

Our state’s Attorney General Rob McKenna sees this as the most important case of our lifetime on Federal power under the Commerce clause. The Supreme Court was treating it very seriously, as have all the courts so far, in ruling on the individual mandate. The power to order individuals into private contract, says McKenna, is made up. It’s not as if it had been lying around undiscovered.

It’s a shame that McKenna seems to both support and anticipate ‘severability”—an outcome whereby the individual mandate is severed from the rest of the law, which is upheld.

To the fatuous point of the health-care market being unique, and thus requiring special treatment by the state, McKenna counters that uniqueness is not a constitutional principle.

The issue here is not healthcare policy but Federal power, he says, intimating that Obama’s “politburo of proctologists” cannot “create commerce in order to regulate it.” This is a first, claims McKenna.

As was pointed out in “Destroying Healthcare For The Few Uninsured,” the number of uninsured, by choice or not by choice, is grossly exaggerated.

“The key legal thinker in developing the case against the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate” is Facebook Friend Randy Barnett. Randy is “the originator of the activity/inactivity distinction” being used in the arguments against Obamacare.

Here is Randy’s interview on Ezra Klein’s WaPo’s blog.

Especially pertinent, in the Klein interview, is Randy’s distinction between “the government’s power to tax in order to pay for Medicare, which is a single-payer insurance program that [you’ll] get when over 65,” and the same entity’s constitutional authority to compel the individual to “self-insure on the private market before [he’s] 65.”

RB: “There are several answers, but I’ll limit myself to two. First, there’s the text of the Constitution itself. The text of the Constitution itself gives Congress the power to levy taxes on people and on income. We can’t dispute that. It does not give Congress the power under its commerce power, at least not expressly, to make them do business with private companies.
The second point I would make is that the duty to pay taxes is part of your duty to support the government in return for the protections the government gives you. What the government is claiming here is this power — and this ought to disturb people on the left — to make people do business with private companies when Congress thinks it’s convenient.”

It’s safe to say that even libertarians like Randy who might uphold the elaborate public works sprung from the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce Clauses as constitutional, have to agree that Thomas Jefferson would probably be appalled with it all.

Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?

Classical Liberalism, Constitution, Founding Fathers, Individual Rights

The following is excerpted from my latest column, “Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?”:

“I would not look to the US constitution,” said US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in an interview with Al-Hayat TV. “If I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012, I might look at the constitution of South Africa, Canada … and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

Al-Hayat’s correspondent had solicited Ginsburg’s advice on drafting the Egyptian constitution.

Go easy on Ginsburg; she’s a lot like you. She shares a disdain for America’s founding document with millions, maybe even a majority, of her countrymen. The US Constitution is flouted daily by the people’s representatives, and has been amended and reinterpreted to the point of no return.

The governing documents that excite Bader Ginsburg’s admiration are documents of positive rights. The American Constitution is by-and-large a charter of negative liberties, as the president once described it derisively.

A positive right is state-manufactured, usually at the behest of political majorities. Rights to a job, water, clothes, food, education and medical care are examples. Some of the European covenants canvassed by Bader consider “freely chosen” desirable work as a human right. Ditto adequate “rest and leisure.”

Once these needs are recognized as rights, they become state-enforceable, legal claims against other, less-valued members of society (“the rich”). Someone who hasn’t had a vacation, or has not reached his career apogee, gets to collect on such claims.

In the case of natural rights—the only founding truths the nation’s fathers could have conceived of, given their classical liberal philosophical framework—the duty is merely a mitts-off duty. My right to life means you must not murder me. My right to liberty means you dare not enslave me. My right to property means you can’t take what’s mine—not 35 percent of it, or 15 percent. Nada. And you have no right to stop me from taking the necessary acquisitive action for my survival, so long as I, in turn, respect the same restrictions.

As an instantiation of a constitutional democracy governed in accordance with state-minted rights, take the new South Africa, where almost everyone knows someone who has been raped, robbed, hijacked, murdered, or all of the above, in violation of natural law.

Not that you’d know it, but the poor South Africans enjoy a constitutional right to live free of all forms of violence, “public” or “private” in origin. Section 12 of their progressive constitution guarantees the “Freedom and Security of the Person.” Clearly “progressive” doesn’t necessarily spell progress, as nowhere does this wordy but worthless document state whether South Africans may actually defend this most precious of rights.

If anything, self-defense can be an offense in progressive South Africa. …

Knowing what you now know about the South African Constitution—what is it do you suppose Ginsburg dislikes about one of the greatest documents of political philosophy?

From all accounts, it is that the US Constitution is principally a charter of negative liberties. …”

Read the complete column, “Justice Ginsburg And You: 2 Peas In A Pod?”

Support this writer’s work by clicking to “Recommend,” “Tweet” and “Share” the “Paleolibertarian Column” on RT and “Return To Reason” on WND.

UPDATE II: CPUKE 2012 (FREEDOM WATCH: Teaching Tool, But Not the People’s Libertarianism)

Elections, Ethics, Founding Fathers, libertarianism, Liberty, Media, Neoconservatism, Private Property, Republicans, Ron Paul

OMIGOD: Look at the speaker lineup at CPAC 2012, currently underway. There is nary a place in this GOP for our ideas—also, those of the Founding Fathers. They’ve even called on little, retarded RINO Lolita SE Cupp to perform. Cupp can barely conceal her vacuity in this MSNBC clip, where she showcases her grasp of American liberties and her debating skills with the trademark wild grimaces and gestures. Desperately, she latches onto a catchy phrase the host has floated, so that a paraphrasing of the host replaces serious argument.

And where’s Ron Paul at CPUKE?

I call her The Helmet. Callista Gingrich speaks, or shall I say issues forth?

What would a Republican Party gathering be without the Synopohobic vulgarist, Donald Tramp

This looks interesting:

The Failure of Multiculturalism: How the pursuit of diversity is weakening the American Identity
– Wilson C
Sponsored by: ProEnglish
Speakers: Robert Vandervoort, Executive Director, ProEnglish; John Derbyshire, contributing
editor at National Review and author of We Are Doomed; Peter Brimelow, author of The Patriot
Game: National Dreams and Political Realities and founder of VDARE.com; Dr. Serge
Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor for Chronicles magazine; & Dr. Rosalie Porter, author of
American Immigrant: My Life In Three Languages, chairwoman of the board, ProEnglish
Open to all CPAC attendees

The agenda item below is plain ridiculous, given that Baby Bush was every bit as bad for civil liberties as his “non-identical, evil ideological twin, Barack Obama.”

Obama’s Agents Are Reading Your Emails: Privacy Concerns of the Digital Age – Taylor
Sponsored by the Competitive Enterprise Institute

A lot of awards conservatives give themselves. And lots of book peddling and signings by the pols, which, as you know, I believe to be a symptom of America’s rotten politics. And that includes the Ron Paul signings.

“Politicians—all public servants—should be put on a very tight leash and prohibited from exploiting their already exploitative positions for yet more profit. (Then again, you know that I believe government workers should be disqualified from voting. For one thing, they don’t pay taxes, but are paid out of taxes. Taxpayers pay taxes twice: on their own income and on the income of members of the bureaucracy. For another, they are in the position to vote themselves higher and higher wages. Which they do.)”

Sure, I like that Paul gets our message out with his books, but I think that all US politicians should be barred from using their powerful positions to peddle products, however laudable. And freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. Freedom of speech is not immutable, but tethered to property. So long as they live on our dime; the oink sector should be prohibited from profiting on our dime.

The Founders would have been appalled by the celebrity and high profiles politicians pursue on the public purse.

Myron, or anyone else: Time permitting, do regale BAB readers with a precis of one of the speeches.

UPDATE I: FREEDOM WATCH NEWS. Sorry for your loss, John. I tuned in yesterday, then switched off when “good friends of the show” warrior Bob Barr (hardly a libertarian) and Kirstin Powers (banal brain) hogged the screen and were fawned upon. Again, I’m sorry for the fans, although I seldom watched an entire episode because of the typical, mainstream, buddy-buddy, close to power, Beltway think-tank bias that came to pervade and dominate it.

RELATED: “More Reasons to Secede From The Pundit Pantheons of Fox, MSNBC and CNN.” I guess I’m uncompromising.

UPDATE II (Feb. 13): MORE FREEDOM WATCH NEWS. We agree, John, but even if we didn’t: “respek,” as Ali G. would preach. As a general educational tool, The Judge did good. Still, I often had to switch off even mid-soliloquy, due to the endless annoying “What ifs”: “what if the government this, what if the government that”X 100. The style of the show—that includes the pompous music and the screaming—did damage to the contents. It bled into the content and damaged it. Ironically, I switched to RT on the day of the sad announcement, because I could not stomach the Powers and Barr combo. The show was full of these characters which turn off good, gun-touting, property minded Americans. It also crapped all over cops—continuously—often for rounding up illegal immigrants. Americans hate that. And it offered the hideous contradiction vis-a-vis immigration: when you like what the federal Frankenstein does (help illegals remain in the states), you stick up for Federal overreach, rather than for the right of the people of the states to evict trespassers. Sorry, John: This was not the libertarianism of The People.

UPDATE II: Who’s It To Be? Teddy No. 1 or Teddy No. 2? (‘Nut Gingrich’)

Elections, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, History, Ilana Mercer, Nationhood, Neoconservatism, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, Socialism, The State, War, Welfare

The excerpt is from “Who’s It To Be? Teddy No. 1 or Teddy No. 2?” now on WND.COM:

“What are the odds that a Democratic commander-in-chief and his chief Republican rival declare their philosophical fidelity to the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt on the same day?

In an effort to better conjure Roosevelt, the shameless Barack Obama had flown to Osawatomie in Kansas, where, in 1910, Teddy delivered his “New Nationalism Address.” So radical was the Roosevelt political program that its author was condemned as “‘Communistic,’ ‘Socialistic,’ and ‘Anarchistic’ in various quarters.”

On the day of this staged affair—in eerie synchronicity—Newt Gingrich, whose favorability among Republican “caucus goers” is at 33 percent and rising, described himself to broadcaster Glenn Beck as “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican.”

Back in the day, “the Eastern United States denounced [Roosevelt] as a ‘communist agitator.’” This was “the most radical speech ever given by an ex-President,” writes Robert S. La Forte in The Kansas Historical Quarterly:

“[Roosevelt’s] concepts of the extent to which a powerful federal government could regulate and use private property in the interest of the whole and his declarations about labor … were nothing short of revolutionary.”

As La Forte chronicles, “Roosevelt had no interest in retaining the ideals of Jeffersonian ‘state’s right’ demagogues, as he called them. He was interested in a Hamiltonian concept of power which he described as the ‘New Nationalism.’”

Roosevelt’s speech, seconded White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, “Really set the course for the 20th century.” Yet to listen to the president in Kansas, a vote for “a Theodore Roosevelt Republican” is a vote for a Mad-Max dystopia, where “everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.”

Don’t look for a “square deal” from the characters on the other side of the aisle. “We want to avoid becoming a welfare state like the European states” is the stock phrase we get from GOP pointy heads. Truth is not their stock-in-trade. As they tell it, America has a long way to go before it turns as Rooseveltian as Europe. …”

The complete column is “Who’s It To Be? Teddy No. 1 or Teddy No. 2?” Read it now on WND.COM.

********
STAIRWAY PRESS HAS LAUNCHED A HOLIDAY GIVEAWAY AND FACEBOOK EVENT FOR MY BOOK, Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa.

Invitation have gone out from The Cannibal’s Facebook Fan page. (“Like” The Cannibal when you pop by.) On offer is Mercer merchandise galore. Every fifth buyer of Into the Cannibal’s Pot will receive a free copy of my libertarian manifesto Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash with a Corrupt Culture, together with a CD of the progressive rock guitar virtuoso and composer Sean Mercer.

Order NOW and The Publisher will endeavor to deliver in time for Christmas.

And do please “Like” Into the Cannibal’s Pot’s Fan Page.

UPDATE I (Dec. 8): Nut Gingrich is what a a LRC.COM blogger has christened You Know Who, pointing out Nut’s support for “two governments in the United States: one that follows the Bill of Rights and one that doesn’t (for our “security,” of course).” MORE.

UPDATE II: More explosive details about “Newt’s grand schemes for a small, unintrusive federal government”: “NEWT PRESENTS A FRESH NEW VIRTUAL FACE” by Ann Coulter.