Common Sense with Paul Jacob

More Is Less

citizen voting, democracy, elections, immigration, illegal

Jose Barrios was “quite happy to hear we’re going to have more democracy, not less in the District of Columbia.”

Barrios, the president of D.C. Latino Caucus, was reacting to a federal judge’s ruling to toss out the legal challenge, brought by several city voters, to the D.C. Noncitizen Voting Act.

That underlying law, passed by the DC City Council in 2022, certainly puts the “more” into democracy, allowing anyone residing in our nation’s capital for 30 days, even if in the country illegally, to legally vote for mayor, city council and local ballot measures.

And I do mean “anyone.” China’s ambassador to the U.S. and other Chinese nationals working at their embassy are today eligible voters in Washington. Same for the FSB agents and other Russian nationals working out of their embassy.

Federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that plaintiffs “were simply raising a generalized grievance.” She elaborated: “They may object as a matter of policy to the fact that immigrants get to vote at all, but their votes will not receive less weight or be treated differently than noncitizens’ votes.”

I object to her poor choice of terms. “Immigrants” have been voting in this country for the last century and hopefully always will: By becoming citizens.

The judge’s ruling also highlights that who votes is a pretty fundamental constitutional question, one that voters should decide.

Yesterday, Idaho’s legislature voted to place a Citizen Only Voting Amendment on this November’s ballot — joining Wisconsin, Iowa, and Kentucky, which have similar amendments on the ballot.

Certainly, yes, bestowing the vote on foreign citizens residing in the city for 30 days is an expansion of democracy. But sometimes more is less.

So, let’s ask voters.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags democracy, elections, illegal, immigration, voting

Thought

Henry Adams

A period of about twelve years measured the beat of the pendulum. After the Declaration of Independence, twelve years had been needed to create an efficient Constitution; another twelve years of energy brought a reaction against the government then created; a third period of twelve years was ending in a sweep toward still greater energy; and already a child could calculate the result of a few more such returns.
Henry Adams, A History of the United States of America During the First Administration of James Madison(1890), Vol. II, Ch. VI: Meeting of the Twelfth Congress; 1921 edition, p. 123.

Today

South Korea

On March 26, 1991, local self-government in South Korea was restored after three decades of centralized control.

crime and punishment general freedom regulation

Monopoly vs. Monopoly

The Biden Administration makes much of its pro-consumer actions. President Sleepy Joe never tires of boasting about how his regulations favor consumers over credit card companies. Considering the massive taxation that his administration supports, however, saving a few bucks on overdraft fees looks a bit absurd in context.

As does the administration’s ramped-up anti-trust actions.

The federal government has now attacked Apple. On anti-trust grounds. For being a monopoly.

The humor in this was noted by anti-intellectual property theorist Stephan Kinsella, tweeting on X: “‘U.S. Sues Apple, Accusing It of Maintaining an iPhone Monopoly’ We grant you patent and copyright monopoly privileges and you use them to build up a monopoly? How dare you!”

Jeffrey A. Tucker of the Brownstone Institute was less amused, and less concerned with Apple’s reliance upon intellectual property, which he claims is secondary to the company’s useful products: “The very notion that the government is trying to protect consumers in this case is preposterous. Apple is a success not because they are exploitative but because they make products that users like, and they like them so much that they buy ever more.”

At issue is how Apple products work so well together but not so well with other manufacturers’ products. “The Justice Department calls this anticompetitive even though competing is exactly the source of Apple’s market strength,” insists Tucker.

Maybe it’s really about this principle: the government giveth; the government taketh away: blessed be the name of the Biden.

In full disclosure, I have an iPhone, which I hate, and a Microsoft Surface Book, which I also hate. I’m open to any of their competitors, which I might hate less.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Tags antitrust, Apple Inc., government, Monopoly, regulations

Thought

Mencken

The average man does not get pleasure out of an idea because he thinks it is true; he thinks it is true because he gets pleasure out of it.
H. L. Mencken, Damn! A Book of Calumny (1918), p. 40.

Today

To Montgomery

On March 25, 1965, civil rights activists led by Martin Luther King, Jr., successfully completed their four-day, 50-mile march from Selma to the capitol in Montgomery, Alabama.

Update

Porch, No Privacy

Since the outside of your house is public, the government may video-record your house sans search warrant. “Law enforcement in Kansas recorded the front of a man’s home for 68 days straight, 15 hours a day, and obtained evidence to prove him guilty on 16 charges,” according to Jalopnik:

“Mr. Hay had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a view of the front of his house,” said the U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in its decision on U.S. vs Hay. “As video cameras proliferate throughout society, regrettably, the reasonable expectation of privacy from filming is diminished.”
Maxwell Zeff, “Feds Can Film Your Front Porch for 68 Days Without a Warrant, Says Court,” Jalopnik (March 21, 2024).

Outside the jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit, this ruling does not strictly apply. But it shows where courts are heading, no?

Thought

La Rochefoucauld

Truth does not do as much good in the world as the semblance of truth does evil.
François de La Rochefoucauld, 2nd Duke of La Rochefoucauld, Prince de Marcillac, Maxims (1665), no. 67 (Leonard Tancock, trans.)

Today

Coercive

The Intolerable Acts was the American Patriots' name for a series of punitive laws passed by the British Parliament in 1774 after the Boston Tea party. They were meant to punish the Massachusetts colonists for their defiance in throwing a large tea shipment into Boston harbor. In Great Britain, these laws were referred to as the Coercive Acts.

On March 24, 1765, the Kingdom of Great Britain passed the Quartering Act, which required the Thirteen Colonies to house British troops.

On the same date in 1855, slavery was abolished in Venezuela.

Update

The Birx/Pence Factor

Yesterday, Paul Jacob explored the chief issues surrounding the fourth anniversary of “Fifteen Days to Flatten America.” He concluded by blaming mostly Fauci and Birx for the massive tyrannies and ineptitudes of the lockdowns and other measures associated with the pandemic.

While one of those names, Anthony Fauci, is more than familiar to readers of Common Sense with Paul Jacob, the other — Deborah Birx, the author of a memoir of the pandemic, Silent Invasion (2022) — is much less familiar. And it may be tempting to downplay her role.

But as a recent documentary argues, au contraire! She was key. Birx did the bulk of the damage. It was her bizarre reactions that led the federal government response.

Watch it and weep: “It Wasn’t Fauci — How the Deep State Really Played Trump”:

Yes, it is about the Deep State, but mostly about the dread Dr. Deborah Birx . . . and the perfidy of Vice President Mike Pence.