Tag: law

Categories
national politics & policies Popular term limits U.S. Constitution

The Court-​Packers

Supreme Court, NPC, packing the court, FDR, law, justice, constitution

“What if there were five justices selected by Democrats,” presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke explored at an Iowa campaign stop, “five justices selected by Republicans, and those ten then pick five more justices independent of those who picked the first ten?”

Beto, meet FDR.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried something similar with the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, which would have added six new justices to the nine-​justice U.S. Supreme Court. It failed in the Senate, even though FDR’s Democratic Party controlled the chamber.

This “court packing” gambit may have been the most unpopular action of FDR’s whopping three-​plus terms. 

Despite the obvious self-​interested power grab, “Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand … would not rule out expanding the Supreme Court if elected president,” Politico reported.

“It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” Sen. Warren explained … with a straight face. Yet Beto’s suggested reform would officially turn the nation’s highest court into a partisan, two-​party political institution.

To the good, Democrats are also bantering about term limits for the nation’s High Court. Trouble is, term limits require a constitutional amendment, meaning a two-​thirds vote of both chambers of Congress as well as 38-​state ratification. 

Court packing, on the other hand, only requires simple majorities of both houses and the presidency. Which Democrats threaten in 2020.

“You need to gain power,” Washington Examiner columnist Philip Wegmann reminds, “before you can abuse it.”

So the abuse, for now, is merely promising.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Supreme Court, NPC, packing the court, FDR, law, justice, constitution

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts


Categories
First Amendment rights national politics & policies too much government

First Things First

Surely there’s something good in the first legislation put forth by the brand-​new Democratic House majority — though nothing jumps to mind. 

The 571-​page smorgasbord bill “addresses voting rights, corruption, gerrymandering and campaign finance reform,” writes Thomas Edsall in The New York Times, “as well as the creation of a Select Committee on the Climate Crisis — a first step toward a ‘Green New Deal.’” 

H.R. 1 would mandate that states adopt automatic voter registration, a step too far. It establishes a system of public subsidies for candidates running for Congress, with taxpayers forking over a six-​to-​one match on donations of $200 or less. 

The legislation also empowers* the Federal Election Commission, including by ending its supposedly “neutral” composition, i.e. an equal number of Democrat and Republican commissioners. This would either allow the FEC to be more “decisive” or unleash the dogs of partisan political witch hunts … depending on the case and/​or your politics.**

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D‑Calif.) and Rep. John Sarbanes (D‑Md.), the lead sponsor of the legislation, bill it as the best way “to rescue our broken democracy.” 

“It should be called the Democrat Politician Protection Act,” argues Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Washington Post. 

David Keating, president of the Institute for Free Speech, tells NPR, “A lot of [H.R.1] looks to be unconstitutional.”

No problem, for one provision calls for a constitutional amendment to partially repeal the First Amendment, so to authorize Congress to regulate campaign spending and speech.

Remember: the First Amendment is a single sentence, a mere 45 words.

Succinct and effective.

The former does not apply to this new bill, and the latter, I hope, does not apply to this new Congress.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* Let’s not give greater power to the FEC, which, according to a federal judge, “acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law” in the 2016 election.

** Of course, for Ross Perot in the 1990s or Libertarians, Greens and independents today, that “bipartisan” make-​up isn’t neutral but stacked like a Star Chamber

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
meme moral hazard too much government

How to Know

straw, regulations, law, punishment, punish, authoritarian society

Many people don’t seem to realize that a prohibition (banning something) is AUTHORITARIAN BY DEFINITION. Whether it’s drugs, guns, alcohol, offensive language, dangerous ideas, texting while walking(!), plastic straws(!)… authoritarians are perfectly happy to use government violence to force the rest of us behave as they wish. Because they think they know what’s right for everybody else. They are the authorities. They are the keepers of the truth. For the rest of us, the message is clear: obey or be punished.

The spectacle of people screaming about Trump’s “authoritarianism” while simultaneously demanding more regulations, more bans, more restrictions… would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous.

A “rule of law” is based on general principles, and makes room for — or, better yet, is based upon — the protection of individual rights.

It used to be common to say, “a rule of law, not of men”; it was even as common in political oratory as was spouted out over drinks at the Rotary. But as the modern Regulatory State has grown in scope and power, most folks seem to have lost track of the notion. It is now not even a cliché. Few even of our most educated folks can explain this idea. Vast swaths of the mis-​educated public appear not to “get” the idea of limiting government to the enforcement of a few general principles; instead, they cry for more “regulations” (along with additional spending and maybe even a whole new division of the executive government) every time a crisis, tragedy or atrocity occurs.

So we are left with a political culture in which the words of Tacitus seem to a majority as implausible at best, evil at worst: “The more the laws, the more corrupt the State.” Contrary to today’s trendy prejudice, we do not need “more laws” — edicts legislated by representatives, or regulations concocted by bureaucracies — we need Law.

As in, “a rule of Law.”

regulations, rule of law, control, freedom

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
free trade & free markets judiciary

The Cheese Stands “Unprotected”

Witte WievenKaas, cheese, copyright, law

Governments tempt us — with special privileges and advantages. 

You know what also tempts us?

Cheese.

Cheese? Yes. In the Netherlands, cheese is a big deal, as Baylen Linnekin relates in “Cheese Fight Ends With Court Declaring Producers Can’t Copyright Taste,” over at Reason — where I go for all my cheese-​related coverage. (Don’t you?)

The tale is about two cheese companies and the European Union’s “Directive 2001/​29/​EC,” which tries to reconcile copyrights among member states. Specifically, it involves the legal fight between “two Dutch herbed cream cheese spread makers,” as Mr. Linnekin relates, “Heksenkaas (‘witches’ cheese’) and Witte Wievenkaas (‘wise women’s cheese’).” The former sued the latter for infringing on “its copyright on the taste of Heksenkaas.”

The case went from a Dutch court to the European Court of Justice, where the Court (Grand Chamber) ruled against Heksenkaas. There can be no copyright on “taste.”

This is of no great significance, I suppose, but in a world where the government gets involved in everything, it’s worth noticing when the government resists its temptation to tempt us.

The rationale for non-​involvement, in this case, was not a move against intellectual property as such, but against the idea of property involved in subjective taste. “The taste of a food product cannot,” the Court determined, “be pinned down with precision and objectivity.…”

Well, sure. But what was really going on here was one company not wanting competition from another company. 

A temptation, for sure. But some temptations (like some cheeses?) must be resisted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

» See popular posts from Common Sense with Paul Jacob HERE.

 

Categories
crime and punishment Tenth Amendment federalism

Atrocity Meets the Commerce Clause

federalism, Capital Building, Commerce Clause, federal, law, prosecution

There may be no better example of an evil, real-​world villain needing to get justice (good and hard) than the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter. 

Since he survived the shoot-​out, he must now be put on trial.

But by whom?

In Allegheny County Court, Pittsburgh police filed a 34-​count criminal complaint against the mass murderer. Meanwhile, the federal government has filed its own charges.

“The federal criminal complaint … charges him with 29 felonies, including 11 violations of 18 USC 247, which authorizes the death penalty for fatally obstructing any person’s ‘free exercise of religious beliefs,’” summarizes Jacob Sullum at Reason. “Such a crime can be prosecuted in federal court as long as it ‘is in or affects interstate or foreign commerce.’”

Yes, that’s the Constitution’s Commerce Clause being cited. You see, the guns used were — get this — not made in Pennsylvania.

Call it the insanity clause.

“There is no general, overarching federal police power,” Andrew C. McCarthy explains in National Review. “Under the Constitution, the states were supposed to handle virtually all law enforcement, and certainly all enforcement involving offenses committed wholly within their territories — common crimes of violence.”

Why flout this principle? Historian Brion McClanahan says the Republicans, in this case, just cannot help themselves — posing as the “law and order” party, they feel the need to be seen to “do something.” So Attorney General Jeff Sessions tortures the Constitution to intervene where the federal government does not belong.

Not only is the State of Pennsylvania constitutionally authorized to handle the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre, it is more than competent to do so.

The federal government should, for once, stick to its own constitutional business.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
First Amendment rights too much government

Burning Isn’t the Only Way to Attack Books

copyright, Sysyphus, censorship, books, law, folly

The U.S. Copyright Office is enforcing an unjust and destructive law merely because it is there.

Selectively enforcing.

Valancourt Books prints books on demand. It keeps no stocks of books in a warehouse in between orders. Even so, the Copyright Office is demanding to be supplied with physical copies of each of the 400+ books in Valancourt’s catalog.

Failure to comply means crippling fines.

Why the harassment?

Well, once upon a time the Copyright Office required publishers to submit physical copies of books in order to receive copyrights for them. Yet the work of authors is now automatically copyrighted as soon as they create it.

Of course, the government doesn’t demand printed copies of their titles from every small publisher in the country. The Copyright Office just happens to have noticed and targeted Valancourt Books.

The Institute for Justice, which is representing the publisher in court, argues that this requirement unconstitutionally forces people to give up property without compensation, violating the takings clause of the First Amendment.

IJ also argues that the law violates the right of freedom of speech protected by that amendment. “People have a right to speak and to publish without notifying the government that they are doing so or incurring significant expenses,” IJ’s Jeffrey Redfern concludes.

“Because it’s there” may be a good reason to climb a mountain. It is a very poor reason to use an old — and outdated — law to destroy the livelihood of innocent people.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing