RIP : US Constitution 1789 - 2012

Yesterday, the US Constitution died.  Farewell fine document.

The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (what a euphemism, eh?) signaled the end to rational, conservative jurisprudence.  By a 5-4 decision, with the presumably decisive vote being the Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that the Act, known as Obamacare commonly, was constitutional under the power of Congress to tax.  To tax. 

Hmm...from a 2009 interview on This Week...

"STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

I recall as a citizen the absurd arguments accompanying the frenzied push to pass this legislation.  The supporters were insistent that they were not increasing our taxes.  That was the guise under which this legislation was passed.  The Act itself does not reference tax increases.

Yet, we have our Supreme Court Chief Justice proclaiming in his decision that it is indeed a tax.  The Solicitor General representing the Executive Branch argued to the Court that it was not a tax but a mandate with a penalty attached.  Indeed, for the purposes of accepting review of the case, the Supreme Court separately decided that it was not a tax as it pertained to the Anti-Injunction Act.  If they had declared it a tax for that part of the case, they could not pass judgement on it until the taxes were implemented in 2014.

We had an historic opportunity to see our Constitutional Republic restored to a small but significant part by a proper conservative ruling.   This would have rolled back the federal usurpation of power under the Commerce Clause.  Some conservative pundits - people whose opinions I greatly respect - have tried to argue that this was actually a constitutional victory for conservativism because the liberal side of the Court acknowledged SOME limitations on Congress' powers under the Commerce Clause.  But this is a hollow victory.  I call it a "booby" prize.

We got a massive, never-ending, intrusive new entitlement program in exchange for that limitation on governmental powers that is summarized as: "Well, government is not allowed to do EVERYTHING it wants."

If the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court finds it acceptable to go out of his way to find a law constitutional via an argument contradicted by the defense counsel, contradicted by a subsequent interpretation in the same case, contradicted by the clear language in the written law, and contradicted by the public record on how the law was presented to the People at passage...

Well, then, we have the death of the US Constitution.

There was an opportunity for judicial leadership.  What we got instead was cowardice.

Revolutions - Contrast & Compare

I was inspired by a certain talk show host to do a little quick Internet research on the French Revolution.  Wikipedia told me this:

The French Revolution (French: Révolution française; 1789–1799), was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France that had a major impact on France and indeed all of Europe. The absolute monarchy that had ruled France for centuries collapsed in three years. French society underwent an epic transformation as feudal, aristocratic and religious privileges evaporated under a sustained assault from radical left-wing political groups, masses on the streets, and peasants in the countryside. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy - of monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority - were abruptly overthrown by new Enlightenment principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights.

So how does this compare with the American Revolution?  These after all were contemporaries with leaders of both reading much of the same literature of the time.  The French Revolution turned bloody and chaotic with a general uprising of the populace against the establishment.  Once the "Republic" was established, more chaos ensued culminating in the Reign of Terror when tens of thousands were killed. 

By contrast, the American Revolution turned into a conventional war between nations.  While bloody, it was not a chaotic uprising of the masses.  Nor did the chaos linger after the War was over.  The final status of the new nation took some time to sort out but it was left to an intellectual and political sorting out period culminating in the beautiful document of the US Constitution.

So what was the root of the difference in outcomes?  To me, the difference is clear.  In the French Revolution the source of the movement was in the masses driven by anti-establishment fervor and rebellion against the ruling classes - the royalty, the aristocrats, the religious leaders.  In the American Revolution, the source of the movement was in the enlightened leadership - the aristocrats, the religious leaders, the colonial politicians and businessmen - the ruling classes.  In the colonies, the aristocracy, subordinate to the king, rose up against the status quo..  In France, the liberal intellectuals whipped the masses into wholesale rejection of the ruling class and aristocracy.  So, rather than changing merely the political system, the French Revolution changed the whole of society from top to bottom, inside and out.  Confusion reigned and terror ensued.

Let's keep this history lesson in mind as we participate in transformations and political movements in our country.  If you want change, work for it honestly without chaoctic upheaval.  Our system of government allows for peaceful, radical changes to be worked within the system.  Losing patience and taking shortcuts by force feeding change via popular uprising only leads to destruction and hate.  If you want change, work within the system and make your argument, win your argument.  If you can't win your argument within the system, there is probably a good reason for it.  The Occupy Wall Street chaos is about disruption and popular uprising.  Once it moves beyond making itself heard through traditional means of protest and into chaos and disruption, it ceases to be respected.

Likewise, let us see a political movement that incorporates real leaders in the establishment.  I see politicians that want to stick with the status quo, not be change agents.  If we don't see change leadership of the ruling classes - business, religious, political, then populist, chaotic movements like Occupy Wall Street will continue to find traction.   This is good for no one.

Going for the Internet kill

Well, if you wanted a reason NOT to support the US government's effort to have an Internet kill switch, from the AP via Yahoo!....
"About a half-hour past midnight Friday morning in Egypt, the Internet went dead.
Almost simultaneously, the handful of companies that pipe the Internet into and out of Egypt went dark as protesters were gearing up for a fresh round of demonstrations calling for an end to President Hosni Mubarak's 30 year rule, experts said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_hi_te/us_egypt_protest_internet_outage

But the experts in the article say it can't happen here.

I'm not saying or advocating that such a thing happen here. I'm pointing out though how such a power can be misused against the popular will of the people. This is a popular uprising and people's movement for change. Those in power don't want the change so they kill the means of organization and communication.

Just saying...maybe not a good idea here either.

Profiling might work, eh?

This is a telling post from Michelle Malkin. Pat downs and naked body scanners? Do you think SOME profiling might be more effective?

http://michellemalkin.com/2010/11/27/just-another-bomb-plotting-jihadist-yelling-allahu-akbar/

Need I explain?

Mama Grizzlies?

Anyone notice the women's movement in the Tea Party wing of the Republican party? I am amazed that even this does not get reported in the broader media. It is fairly obvious and should be a big story. Let's check out the roll call of news makers in this election from the Republican side. (if I were in journalism, I could easily find more to add)

Sharron Angle, vying for Harry Reid's Senate seat in Nevada.
Christine O'Donnell, running against incumbent Chris Coons in NR.
Michelle Bachmann, someone who is increasingly driving news on the Right.
Kristi Noem, running for Congress in South Dakota.
Meg Whitman, running for Governor of California.
Carly Fiorina, trying to take down long time incumbent Barbara Boxer in California.
Nikki Haley, running for Governor in South Carolina.

We all know Sarah Palin but she's really old news. My inclination is to credit her for inspiring a lot of what she calls "Mama Grizzlies" to break out into the larger political arena.

I'm not even commenting on the individuals and their politics. I don't know most of them that well. But it is slap-you-in-the-face obvious that there is female movement in politics coming from the Right and no one in the news is talking much about it. Is that a sign that Women as a downtrodden minority have moved out of the category altogether? Or is it just a sign that feminism isn't a gender driven idealogy but a political one, rejecting the "progress" of their more conservative brethren? Is my use of "brethern" appropriate in referring to the female gender?

So many questions. So few answers.

Free Trade

Free trade is a highly volatile subject to discuss in any forum. It means so many different things to different people. A lot of how you feel about the subject I think has to do with your initial political or intellectual bent.

Being in business, free trade is a good thing. It means being allowed the freedom as a businessman to do what you do best and compete for customers fairly. The USA has long been a proponent of free trade and by and large lives by what it preaches. There have been instances where we haven't but that should not be used as a straw man argument to claim we are hypocrites. We've created free trade in the international community as much as any nation before us.

What often confuses people is the disruptions that are caused because of free trade. If my business makes an innovative product in the USA and decides to newly export that innovative product to say Australia. The result in Australia may be that I take business from a local supplier/producer resulting in job losses to Australians. However, the ultimate result is that Australian producers either change to compete with me or fail. Either way my innovative product (cheaper?, faster?, etc.) is now available to Australian consumers. THEY WIN EITHER WAY. If you are one of those workers that loses the job, you may not see this as fair.

However, what you can say is that the best (however the market defines that) won out and the result is more effective and efficient use of the capital in the industry and better products for the consumers. In the long run, this creates wealth.

The alternative viewpoint tends to argue that there is somehow a limit on the wealth in this world and business is about hoarding as much of it for yourself and your business as you can. This is way too static a model for wealth creation and is disproven in numerous ways.

I was arguing recently about Chinese protectionism after reading an article by Robert Samuelson in the Washington Post on the subject. He points out the protectionist policies of the Chinese government via currency control. This violates rules in free trade in the world. No one calls them on it for fear of retaliation - no one wants that scenario. But after repeated persuasive tactics, nothing has really changed. The call to do something more forceful is real.

What should have happened with China in a free trade situation is that as the Chinese export economy grew due in large part to the abundance of cheap labor, the Chinese renminbi should have risen in value via inflation due to the robust economy in China. This would have valued the cheap Chinese labor ever so less cheap until the point at which the export driven economy would have been tempered. Business might look elsewhere (India?, Indonesia?, Africa?) for that cheaper labor supply. China's economy would have seen a nice increase in the standard of living due to the rising wages and increasing buying power of a stronger currency and thus moved more toward a domestic consumption balance. The result is a win-win for the world economy and Chinese trading partners. Do some US jobs get lost in the process? Yes. But, they are jobs that could have likely moved somewhere besides China as well. And, presumably a stronger domestic Chinese economy would have allowed US businesses to increasingly sell products there.

That hasn't happened. And it isn't going to happen to any large extent as long as the Chinese government holds the value of the renminbi artificially low. The buying power of the Chinese consumer is depressed and the export capability continues untempered creating big trade imbalances. This is not healthy. It creates an unfair trade situation and the currency imbalances promote unhealthy economic situations like we have now. The consumer economy becomes debt dependent and the producer economy has its wealth depressed, addicted to exports.

At some point this pot will boil over. I can already hear it bubbling from where I sit.

The first world tax

I don't know if anyone saw this article. I found the link on Drudge...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/apr/20/imf-tax-global-banks
They (the G20) are seriously considering implementation of the first world tax. Tax those obscene profits of banks! Do people really not understand that these taxes really will come from those who use banks and banking services? (i.e. nearly everyone)
This is just more re-distribution of wealth and its not even hidden. The UK paper refers to it as a Robin Hood tax and mentions how anti-poverty groups are chomping at the bit.

If you want to get your country and its people out of poverty, stop fighting and start producing. There are a lot of charitable people who would voluntarily share their money with you if you show an ability to put it good use.

My big question is who exactly gets to decide what is done with this money? From what authority do they derive that ability? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I do think there is a critical mass of people in the world who believe in oligarchy - rule by the elites who know best.