Category: U.S. Constitution

Categories
too much government U.S. Constitution

The Man Who Would Be Missed

A billboard went up in Wyoming, Minnesota. It features a photo of ex-prez George W. Bush, with a goofy smile and one of his off-kilter, clumsy poses, with the large caption “Miss Me Yet?”

Some dispute the intent of the message. The anonymous businessmen who paid for it aren’t talking. But it seems pretty clear to me. To ask the question is to challenge the current man in the hot seat.

For my part, I never hated George W. Bush the way some did — but I never admired him as did many others. In my mind, Bush didn’t do much for limited government and the rule of law. He mostly moved things in the other direction.

Sadly, that “other direction” is not exactly a new direction. It’s old hat. More government. More regulation. More spending. More debt.

And, even sadder, the current president likes George W. Bush’s direction. He’s taken Bush’s Keynesian stimulus ideas, and upped the ante. He took the bailouts, and bailed out more businesses. And he took Bush’s two wars, and he’s put more money and men and women into them.

Miss Mr. Bush? There are days when it looks like we’re experiencing his third term. And enough was enough already, long ago.

How long ago?

Picture good ol’ Grover Cleveland, and picture that picture with the caption, “Miss Me Yet?”

Well, yes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

Corporations Are Made of People

After the Supreme Court torpedoed restrictions on political speech by corporations, foes of the First Amendment bitterly denounced its Citizens United v. FEC decision.

They don’t consider themselves enemies of freedom of speech, of course. Instead, they think the Court erred by assuming that corporations have First Amendment rights. They say corporations aren’t people; they can’t have rights.

But hey: Corporations — non-profit or for profit — are actually made up of people.

One corporation denouncing free speech for other corporations is The New York Times. Their angry editorial states, “The Constitution . . . mentions many things and assigns them rights and protections — the people, militias, the press, religions. But it does not mention corporations.”

First, the Constitution does not assign any rights to “press” or “religion.” It forbids Congress from abridging individuals’ freedom of the press, freedom of religion.

Second, the Constitution doesn’t exhaustively list relevant institutions. The drafters thought everybody knew that one way we exercise their rights is to organize, cooperatively, into groups — à la freedom of association.

Media corporations have been exempt from limits on campaign spending and political speech. The Times group editorial mind ignores this contradiction. They’re saying, “Our corporate speech is special and worthy of constitutional protection! We’re sincere and good! Members of other corporations, by contrast, can’t be trusted! Therefore, the First Amendment does not apply to them!”

Insist all you like, Mr. Times. You’re still wrong.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets general freedom too much government U.S. Constitution

Know Your Rights

For years, politicians and activists have declared that we have a right to medical care. Not a right to freely contract for medical services, mind you, but a fundamental right to medical care.

This assertion serves as the moral force behind those pushing for nationalized, universal health care legislation. But can medical care really be a basic right?

Well, it’s nowhere to be found in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Should it be?

Again, no.

Rights cannot involve requiring others to provide a product or service to us. We can’t simply demand, with talk of rights, the expertise and labor of doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers. Why? Because they possess the same rights we possess, in particular, the right not to be enslaved.

Watching the 2,000-page health care bill plod through the congressional sausage factory, the fraudulent nature of this “right to medical care” claim becomes painfully obvious. We’re not getting a new right from the deal. Instead, politicians are slapping us with a new mandate, forcing us to fork over our hard-earned money to health insurance companies.

If our right to freedom of speech worked this way, the First Amendment would mandate that we buy a local newspaper and sign up for cable TV or XM Radio. The Second Amendment would force us to own a gun and pay dues to the NRA.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

A Holiday Declaration

Ten days before Christmas, America noted the 218th anniversary of the Bill of Rights . . . and I hadn’t even finished my own holiday shopping. I might wish that I could get you a pristine, enforceable Bill of RIghts, but it’s not just up to me.

It’s up to Congress, the Judicial branch, and the Executive as well. That’s a lot of people who need to be “on the same page.”

But it shouldn’t be impossible. The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, are short and clear. They easily fit on one page.

What you may not know, however, is that these amendments were based, in part, on a previous version known as the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The earlier version is helpful to establish context and eludicate meaning.

Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that some of the Declaration’s enumerated planks lack specificity. They serve as general reminders of how government is supposed to operate. Consider the 15th plank, which states that “no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

I hate to be the bearer of bad news on Christmas, but that sense of how government should work is no longer followed as the law of the land. Boy, I sure have a great idea for a New Year’s resolution.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies U.S. Constitution

Ron Paul’s Gold Standard Version of Principle

They call him Dr. No.

But medical doctor and Congressman Ron Paul does more than vote against awful and unconstitutional legislation. He has also proposed many bills to roll back the government’s assault on our liberties — bills to get rid of the income tax, minimum wage laws, antitrust laws.

Of course, to advocate undoing decades of ever-more-brazen governmental interference in our lives is to swim against the tide. To most congressmen, the idea of limiting federal governance to constitutionally authorized functions is so old-fashioned as to be perverse. So Paul hasn’t had much luck with his initiatives.

But one of them is now back on the table: A bill authorizing the GAO to audit the Federal Reserve. Paul first advanced it in the early ’80s, and since then it’s been gathering dust. But thanks to the way the Fed has been conducting itself during the financial crisis, with all its massive yet secretive bailouts and interventions, the bill is now popular.

It has a good shot at passing.

Ron Paul himself won’t be voting for it, however. It’s going to be packaged with other legislation to impose new financial regulations, regulations he opposes. Paul says: “I won’t vote for a bill that’s a disaster because one or two or five percent of it is an improvement.”

Can’t argue with that. If only all our representatives had such scruples.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
property rights U.S. Constitution

Not Robbed Until Proven Guilty

You are “innocent until proven guilty” in America, with one big exception: Under civil forfeiture laws, police don’t have to prove that a crime has actually been committed in order to seize your property. And once your boat or car is stolen by your government, the burden falls to you to prove your stuff is innocent.

Police departments are getting rich from the loot they seize from folks never convicted of a crime. As the Institute for Justice argues, civil forfeiture laws provide an ugly incentive for police “to enforce the laws in ways designed to maximize forfeiture income rather than to minimize crime.”

Now a challenge has reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Alvarez v. Smith concerns six people whose property was seized by Chicago police, though three of them were never charged with a crime.

The Institute for Justice, the Cato Institute, the ACLU and the Reason Foundation have filed amicus briefs arguing that due process was denied.

In favor of more free-wheeling civil forfeiture are a number of state governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other groups representing government entities that spend the proceeds from the seized loot.

During oral arguments, Judge Sonia Sotomayor asked the pertinent question, “You take the car and then you investigate?”

Backwards justice is no justice at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense education and schooling U.S. Constitution

What’s Love Got to Do With It?

Dear Reader: This “BEST of Common Sense” comment originally aired on October 3, 2005. When I read in the paper about a fifth grade class re-writing the Constitution, I immediately thought about our judiciary. Then I discovered the whole effort was part of a program mandated by Congress. We should all — freely — read the Constitution. Luckily, it is shorter than most of the bills in Congress. —PJ

James Madison, father of our U.S. Constitution, must be rolling over in his grave. You see, he forgot to put love in it. In the Constitution, that is.

By congressional edict, schools and universities across the nation were recently required to spend some time on or around September 17 teaching about the Constitution. That’s the date our nation’s founding document was ratified back in 1787.

One institution of higher learning, Irene’s Myomassology Institute in Michigan, was forced to comply because some students training to be tomorrow’s masseuses receive federal money. The Institute gave students a flier.

Marlboro College in Vermont held a parade featuring professors dressed up as constitutional articles and amendments.

Virginia’s James Madison University celebrated with a “We the People” cake and a trivia contest.

But you ask: What has love got to do with the Constitution?

Oh, yes, I almost forgot Sharon Alexander’s fifth-graders at Graham Road Elementary School in Falls Church, Virginia. In following the federal order, they did what too many federal judges do: they re-wrote the Constitution. Actually, just the Preamble. Their new kid-friendly version states that “kids, pets and adults” are entitled to “electricity, food, water, schools and love.”

Our Constitution doesn’t talk about love. Love isn’t government’s job. That’s ours. Government is power. And our Constitution is all about limiting that power. Read it — and read it to your kids, too, if you love ’em.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights U.S. Constitution

See: Amendment, First

Will friends of freedom of speech catch a break this time?

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will have another chance to rule that McCain-Feingold-style muzzling of political speech is heinously unconstitutional.

In September, before its regular new term begins, the high court will hear the case of Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission. This involves the standing of two rulings. One is a 1990 ruling banning corporate funding of political campaigns does not violate the First Amendment. A 2003 ruling upholds a ban on corporate speech that even utters the name of a political candidate.

Does the Constitution permit or prohibit stuffing gags in our mouths to prevent us from speaking out of turn? Supporters of Campaign Finance Repression like to say that they’re only regulating the spending of money, not speech. Of course, human beings lack the power to engage in mass long-range telepathy. The only speech that costs nothing is the kind you utter to somebody sitting next to you in the room. Would the regulators claim that limiting the money newspapers can spend on printing presses or websites leaves them with unencumbered “freedom of speech”?

The First Amendment is explicit. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” You make a law abridging the means of speaking, and you are abridging freedom of speech.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets U.S. Constitution

Fighting for a Fair Shake

Ben Vargas wasn’t trying to be the odd man out when he chose to fight for what was right. That’s just how it happened. And he got clobbered for it.

Several years ago, Lieutenant Vargas was the only Hispanic among eighteen mostly white plaintiffs in a reverse discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, just decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2003, 56 members of a New Haven, Connecticut, fire department passed a test for promotion. Fifteen of them were black or Hispanic. When city officials learned that only two of the 15 would be immediately eligible for promotion based on those scores, they threw out the results.

New Haven officials didn’t initially claim the test was unfair. They admitted fearing a lawsuit. But one should think twice — thrice, a thousand times — about acting unjustly in hopes of heading off injustice by others.

After Vargas — one of the two minority test-takers who scored very well — joined a lawsuit against the city, he was shunned by many colleagues. Once even got punched in the face. But he tells the New York Times he has no regrets, considering the kind of world he wants his children to grow up in.

Ben Vargas says, “I want them to have a fair shake, to get a job on their merits and not because they’re Hispanic or they fill a quota.”

Funny, isn’t that what good parents, of all races and ethnicities, want for their children?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Accountability free trade & free markets too much government U.S. Constitution

Stop Unconstitutional Stomping

Here’s an idea about how to help businesses survive in this troubled economic climate: Stop allowing an unaccountable regulatory board — unclad by even a fig leaf of constitutionality — to ride roughshod over public companies.

In the wake of the Enron scam and other financial scandals several years ago, Congress enacted a packet of onerous new regulations. This Sarbanes-Oxley legislation created a regulatory board, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, to issue arbitrary edicts, impose arbitrary penalties, etc.

One problem with this star chamber is that its officers are neither appointed by the executive branch nor approved by Congress, as required by the Constitution.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Free Enterprise Fund want this practice to end. CEI explains that if the president were obliged to appoint and dismiss members of this board, as required by the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, “he will be on the hook for their policy failures, and thus have an interest in making them develop sound policies. . . . He won’t be able to blame the red tape on an unaccountable agency. . . .”

But the two organizations are not merely publishing op-eds and issuing press releases. They have filed suit, taking their case against the oversight board to the courts. And now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

At last, this oversight board gets some much-needed oversight.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.