Immanentize the Eschaton

For much of my adult life, some people have have said that America needs a “new politics”, that the way the government works is broken. These folks always seem to complain about the “meanness” of our politics, and decry “personal attacks”. They call for a “new spirit of co-operation”, “national unity”, and bipartisanship.

They’re full of crap. (Oops. Sorry if that offended anyone. I meant to say “They’re full of shit.”)

Politics has always been and will always be rancorous. Prioritizing scarce resources while preserving liberty always involves disagreement. Always. People have strongly held principles and beliefs about the proper and fitting role of government. These beliefs and principles will differ, and some times the circle cannot be squared.

Campaigns, whether for election to office or for a particular piece of legislation, will always involve debate and disagreement. To disagree with an opponent’s position and point out where s/he is wrong is not a “personal attack”, even if the pointing out is done with relish and invective.

It seems to me that those calling for a “new politics” or “bipartisanship” are really just trying to say “Shut up and roll over.” Case in point: when Obama met with congressional GOP leaders and, in replay to their request for more tax cuts and input to the “stimulus” bill, told them “I won.” He expected them to just roll over and abandon their principles (such as they are) so Barry O could have a “bipartisan” bill and show that he’s “unified the country”.

Well Barry, just ’cause you won doesn’t make you right, and the only time a nation should be unified behind a leader is if it faces a true existential war. All else leads to fascism (which is where I think you really want to take us).

Oops! Not very bipartisan of me! Too fargin’ bad!

According to this AP article, the Senate GOP is warning that the so-called “stimulus” bill may not pass the Senate. McConnell says that he “…can’t believe that the president isn’t embarrassed about the products that have been produced…”

As usual, the Dems are saying the situation is dire; “we cannot delay this”, says Durban. Yet they’re unwilling to fix what caused the problem: the Community Reinvestment Act and the associated regulations of the Clinton Era. No rush to take care of that!

I hope the Senate GOP will stick to its guns. I fear that they will accept a few cuts in the bill, and then they’ll try to play it as “we stood up to Obama!” They need to get the squishes on board and threaten, then carry out, a filibuster.

Saw this item on Yahoo (via Drudge; can’t find the original article on the NY Times). Seems that Bruce Springsteen considers an exclusive CD deal with Wal-Mart “a mistake” due to Wal-Mart’s labor practices. Ol’ Bruce considers himself a supporter of “worker’s rights”, and big bad WM is the devil, don’t ya know?

From everything I read and heard, Wal-Mart treats its workers pretty well. Like any large corporation, it has had the occasional problem, but overall WM treat its employees a hell of a lot better than, say Michael Moore does his.

I’m a fan of Springsteen’s music. I think he is great singing about the working man (“Factory” is a great, haunting song that gets me every time). But it’s safe to say that Wal-Mart does more in one day to improve the lives of America’s poor and working class (through low priced quality goods and decent jobs) than Springsteen has done in his entire career.

Stick to your knitting, Bruce! Oh, and could you please play “Rosalita” tomorrow?

Saw this in the NY Times yesterday. President Obama in the Oval Office in his shirtsleeves! His staffers in their shirtsleeves!

Aside from what I think is the disrespect shown to the office, there’s this quote from David Axelrod:

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.? He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

Isn’t Barry O the One who told us “we’re not going to be able to keep our houses at 72 degrees” when he was on the campaign trail? Turn down the thermostat, Mr. President! How is the planet supposed to heal if you don’t set an example?

(Oh, it’ll do that all by itself, ’cause there’s nothing to “heal”!)

The New York Times reports that President Obama (I never thought I’d type those words in that particular order) is angry at “Wall Street bankers” for giving out bonuses “…as the economy was deteriorating and the government was spending billions to bail out some of the nation’s most prominent financial institutions.” Obama called this “shameful”. The article continues:

“There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses,” Mr. Obama said during an appearance in the Oval Office with Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner. “Now’s not that time. And that’s a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them.”

And:

“That is the height of irresponsibility,” Mr. Obama said. “It is shameful. And part of what we’re going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility.”

First, the Feddle Gummint should show some restraint, discipline, and responsibility. Stop throwing taxpayer money at the economy. The 1.2 TRILLION “porkulus” bill pending in the Senate won’t do anything useful. That money has to come OUT of the economy before the Feds can splash it around. It either comes from taxes, taking money out of the pockets of folks who can spend, save, or invest it as THEY see fit, or the government has to borrow it, crowding out investment in productive activities. Really, can’t Congress just go home? They’re not helping.

Second, to President Obama’s point: he’s right to complain. Normally, I’d say that the bonuses (boni?) are private transactions in a private corporation. Despite the PR blunder, as long as the appropriate taxes are paid, Obama should shut up. It’s none of his business.

However, times are not normal. The Federal Government has implicit ownership in some of these firms. In fact, the government is the largest shareholder in some firms. President Obama has a right, indeed, a duty to ensure that the firm’s money is well spent. (Of course, this duty is delegated to the Treasury, etc.) The government has a right to interfere.

This should also alert us to one of the consequences of government run health-care (or socialized medicine): if the government is providing your health care, they have the right, maybe even a duty, to tell you how to live. They can dictate what you should eat, how much you should exercise, what activities you can participate in, what your children must do. We will no longer be free citizens, but subjects of the commissars in Washington.

So thank you, Mr. President, for reminding us that he who accepts the King’s shilling must do the King’s bidding. You’re helping us resist the temptation to take the shilling.

I heard an ad on the radio for an “Obama Commemorative Coin.” Nothing new there; “collectible” crap like that has been made since I was a kid. One of the lines was “commemorate the most historic event of our lifetime.”

I know it’s partly advertising hyperbole, but really? The “most historic event of our lifetime” was the election of a black President? Referring to events in my own lifetime, it’s more historic than:

• The assassination of JFK?
• The Vietnam War?
• Nixon’s overture to Red China?
• The Six-Day War?
• The moon landings?
• Watergate?
• The Iran Hostage Crisis?
• The fall of the Berlin wall?
• The collapse of the Soviet empire and complete victory in the Cold War?

I’m just scratching the surface here. Feel free to contribute to the list

I was listening to the Great One Monday. His first segment was devoted to the question posed in the title of this post: why should residents of one state bailout the government of another state?

I live in North Carolina. I voted for the Pat McCrory and other Republicans on the ballot. Some of my chosen candidates won; others lost. If Bev Perdue and the Democrats, in pursuing the policies they said they would pursue run up a deficit, the bill should come due to the voters of North Carolina. After all, we put them in office (speaking in the aggregate, of course).

The voters of North Carolina did NOT elect Arnold Schwartzenegger governor of California, nor did we elect the members of the California legislature; The voters of California did that all by themselves. The CA Legislature passed spending bills in accordance with the wishes of the voters of California. They now face a deficit of billions of dollars, and want the Federal government to bail them out.

Why should my tax dollars go to pay for programs in California that I had no say in? We’re not talking about federal programs, where my representatives in Congress have input and a vote. These costs and debts were enacted by the state of California for the citizens of California. They should suffer the consequences, not the citizens of North Carolina.

The Constitution only guarantees the states a republican form of government; it does not guarantee them solvency!

I saw that Jose Serrrano has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment (text of the bill can be found here). For those who were graduated from a typical high school in the last 15 years, the 22nd amendment states:

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Now why would representative Serrano (D-NY) want to repeal this amendment? Maybe he thinks the Democrats have a winner in the person of Barry Obama, and thinks the people will re-elect him for as many terms as Obama wants to serve. We must also bear in mind that Serrano hails from New York City, where the City Council recently repealed the term limit for Mayor Bloomberg.

Now, I’m not in favor of term limits; I think the people should use the ballot box as the ultimate term limit. So I’m sympathetic to Serrano’s bill. However, let’s mirror the language of the 22nd Amendment, and add something like:

“…However, no person Constitutionally ineligible to the office of President at the time this article was proposed by Congress or during the term within which this article becomes operative shall become eligible to the office of President.”

I could get behind that. If the above language were added to the proposed amendment and it passed both houses this term, the only persons ineligible would be the ones ineligible now: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Obama would not be affected. However, since it take years for a proposed amendment to be ratified by the states, Barry O would probably be in his second term and thus Constitutionally ineligible for a third term when elected. The new language would still bar him from seeking re-election.

So if this is not just a naked power grab by the Dems (har-har), Mr. Serrano should have no problem adding this to the proposed amendment.

Any law-talking guys or gals see a problem with this?

I saw an ad in the Charlotte Observer yesterday concerning how some believe we should spend our time today. It had a portrait of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the slogan “Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service/Make it a day on, not a day off.”

Well, good luck to them, I thought. I don’t have the day off, and if I did I would spend it as I see fit. I’ll throw together a snarky post and be done.

When I Googled “national day of service January 19″, to find the graphic, I was led to this site:

www.MKLDay.gov

Yup, this is an initiative of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT! What the hell are they doing? From the website:

Initiated by Congress in 1994, King Day of Service builds on that that legacy by transforming the federal holiday honoring Dr. King into a national day of community service grounded in his teachings of nonviolence and social justice. The aim is to make the holiday a day ON, where people of all ages and backgrounds come together to improve lives, bridge social barriers, and move our nation closer to the “Beloved Community” that Dr. King envisioned. With thousands of projects planned across the country, the 2009 King Day of Service on January 19 promises to be the biggest and best ever!

So let me get this straight: Congress wants to transform MLK’s birthday observance into a “National Day of Service,” and spends Federal monies promoting it, but has no problem with Washington’s birthday be transmuted into “President’s Day”, observed mainly by sales? What the fuck?

Over the weekend, there was a bit of discussion on Twitter about the size of the Supreme Court. Some folks think the democratic-controlled Congress will increase the size of the Court by two seats. allowing President Obama to ensure a leftist majority on the Court. One question concerned whether the Constitution specified the size of the Court.

(DISCLAIMER: I am not a Constitutional lawyer, nor any other kind of lawyer. I believe, however, that the Founders expected the Constitution to be understood by any reasonably educated and informed person. No “emanations and penumbras” for them! Bear that in mind as you read the following.)

Article III of the Constitution establishes the Judicial branch. It is the shortest of the articles establishing the co-equal branches of government. The first section states:

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office

That’s it. It creates the supreme Court, allows Congress to create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court, grants federal Judges lifetime tenure (“…shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…”), and authorizes Congress to pay them. Nothing about the size of the Supreme Court or its organization. That is left to Congress.

The next section defines the jurisdiction of the federal courts:

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

It also requires trial by jury in criminal case, except for impeachment. It states where the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction, and where it has appellate jurisdiction.

Section 3 defines the crime of treason and how is may be punished:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

And that’s all the Constitution has to say about the judicial branch. Nothing about judicial review. Nothing about the Supreme Court being the final arbiter of our rights. Compare this to Articles I and II, where the Legislative and Executive powers are strictly defined and limited. It appears to me that the Founders did not see the judiciary as a likely source of tyranny. In Federalist No. 78, Publius writes:

“…Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from
each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”

The Founders would be dismayed to see how wrong they were!