Almost Classical

US-EPA-Seal-EO11628 (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) President Trump's potential unilateral withdrawal from the Paris Accord on Climate should remind all politically engaged Americans that there is a risk when presidents ignore process. Executive orders and executive action can be undone. Had the Paris Accord on Climate been ratified as a treaty, by the Senate, no president could then withdraw unilaterally. The Accord was, unfortunately, not entered into with Senate ratification. The lesson here: executive-only actions are a bad idea. But, Congress is worthless, too. Our government is broken. Badly. In case anyone was wondering. People cheer when "their president" does things without Congress. The problem with executive actions is that they are undone just as easily. We also shouldn't enter into armed conflict without Congressional approval. But, why bother with details of the Constitutional process? Related articles What Is The Paris Climate Agreement?...

The election is over, thank goodness. I see social media posts suggesting we "relax" - but that's not what anyone should do, no matter who is in office. Both parties need vigilant voters to ensure there are checks and balances. Do things. Write. Blog. Create art. Criticize the powerful. Engage in dialogue with your neighbors and beyond. Get out of whatever bubbles you might be in, and we are all in bubbles, to find common ground with people of other ideologies. When I read some of the claims about Pres. Obama, I remind friends I side with socialist Cornel West and libertarians against extra-judicial use of drones, expansion of wire-tapping, the selling military "surplus" to police forces, the highest rate of deportations in U.S. history, and many other policies we have had during this time. How many bankers went to prison? I respect Pres. Obama more than I will ever respect a Trump or Pence. But I'm not going to waive my moral and ethical compass on issu...

We will always have articles accusing "libertarianism" of being everything from "fascist" (huh?) to "right-wring" to "juvenile." Those advocating for classical liberalism will be linked to racists, plutocrats, crony capitalists, and other perversions of limited government and negative rights. (I still hate the "negative" rights label, inherently a rhetorical device that insults various philosophical and political schools of thought.) When I read "Somalia is a libertarian paradise," I know the comment poster is either ignorant or intentionally lying. The basics of classical liberalism include: Rule of law, with an egalitarian legal system; Enforced contracts, protecting parties in transactions; Property rights beginning with the individual's ownership of self; Limited, effective, and reliable government. Now, for the sad reality that libertarians in the United States need to address: there are horrible people who...

United States Senate Seal (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey ) "Senator Kaine espousing the radical, radical notion of majority rule. That is now on tape, sir," Chris Hayes said Thursday night (21 Nov 2013). And he couldn't be more wrong. In theory, the GOP could control the Senate with members elected from states representing less than 25 percent of the nation. The math is simple: win lots of small, rural states, and you have a majority in the Senate, while needing only a minority of American voters.  Can Chris Hayes and numerous other pundits (and politicians) be so dense as to not recognize that a minority of voters nationally, but representing majorities in small aging states, could elect a GOP majority in the Senate? And no, this isn't some gerrymandering trick, since Senators are elected state-wide. It's simply a fact that the rural states could dictate policy for the majority… within two or three election cycles. [See the MSNBC clip at: A ...

I've been reading various Facebook "memes" and blog postings complaining that the "wealthy" do not pay their "fair share" in taxes. These posts reveal a basic misunderstanding of the United States' historical approach to taxation, and the limits imposed on the government by the Constitution. The basic issue is that the taxes Congress can enact and collect are limited by the United States Constitution. The Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Notice what this simple, clear Amendment establishes as a Congressional power: "to lay and collect taxes on incomes." The Amendment is clear and concise. Congress can establish an income tax, in addition to its previous power to set and collect various import/export taxes. For much of this ...

Republicans are shouting that President Obama has acted "unconstitutionally." The Democrats respond that the GOP merely dedicated to obstruction. And the truth is… (in my opinion) they are all schmucks. President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Board are legally questionable, but the real problem is that the appointments continue an already lousy practice that is outdated. This week the President is claiming that he can make recess appointments because the Senate session is currently a "sham" procedural move by Republicans. The Senate, we all know, is really on vacation. But, only weeks earlier, the non-present Senate conducted serious business and he was more than willing to accept arcane Senate parliamentary tricks. In December of 2011, the U.S. Senate and House approved a two month extension to current payroll deduction rates. Only a handful of legislators, not even a third, were in ...

I have added texts of the Founding Documents to this blog, as static pages. I have formatted these quickly, to post them with minimal delay. In coming months, I will add some commentary to these documents and important historical facts that clarify the intentions of the Founders and of the authors of various Constitutional Amendments. The process of adding comments and historical clarifications will be ongoing. I will also tackle larger issues in regular blog posts. Please, read these documents from time to time. It's good to refresh our collective memories.

The following essay was one I read several times. It is interesting, regardless of one's particular biases because it does offer several important historical references to the nature of "progressive" political views. Obama and the Rhetoric of Progressivism December 10, 2010 By Peter Berkowitz It seems Berkowitz is associated with the Hoover Institute, as a foreign policy expert specializing in the Middle East. He is a political scientist, it appears, with an interest in Western democratic trends and history. His introduction, then, to progressive political rhetoric, correctly begins with an acknowledgment that the movement of the early twentieth century was in many ways a positive force for change. At their best, the original progressives responded to dramatic social and economic upheavals generated by the industrial revolution, opposed real Gilded Age abuses, and promoted salutary social and political reforms. They took the side of the exploited, the weak, and the wr...

The best I can do is be true to what I value. I value education, the mind, reading, writing, etc. I value my personal freedom -- and equal freedom for others. (Unfortunately, "freedom" can be "from" or "to" and I am a "from" sort of person. Freedom from people / authority matters to me.) Am I a "capitalist pig" in theory? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean I personally care about money, power, or anything material. I care about my family, my students, and my community. You don't teach at a university seeking wealth, and most freelance writers aren't wealthy either. My "fight" (when I have the energy) is against limits on my choices. It is the fight against the state of Minnesota telling doctors off-label uses of medication is illegal. I wrote a 50+ page paper on the subject after the doctors here informed me I couldn't take the same meds as in California due to state laws. It is the fight against federal...

With the end of the recent Supreme Court term and some of its more ludicrous decisions, I thought it was time to reread the Bill of Rights to see if I missed something the Court was able to see. After carefully reading the document, which is elegant in its simplicity, I don't think I'm the one confused. How could nine highly-educated lawyers twist such simple words? Because they can rely on previous ignorant and/or stupid rulings to justify not ruling based on the words in the document. Amendment IV In the last few years, the US Patriot Act and other well-intentioned but misguided laws were passed to protect us from terrorists foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, many of these laws have been upheld by a court system unwilling to enforce the Fourth Amendment: Amendment [IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable caus...

I know politicians omit and embellish facts. I know court is not about "the whole truth" but rather only those facts a judge and the lawyers decide to present -- and as they see fit to present them. I know the press is not "truthful" but whatever facts and statements the reporters can squeeze into limited space and time, as influenced by biases. I know texts are never "the truth" nor is my reading of them likely a complete appreciation for what was written. "A well-regulated militia..." reads the Second Amendment. Does anyone know what "regulated" means? It's not what most people assume it means. "Regular" meant well-prepared, or well-equipped. Hence, a "regular" army is better than a "guard" on-call. Regulated does not mean "governed" in all instances, just as "run" does not always mean something people in track meets do. "Regulated" can mean "well-prepared" or...

As I understand it, the "federal" system in most countries has a lot of power -- such as a national sales tax, national education system, national health care, national law enforcement, national regulations (versus national "minumums" in the United States), and so on. For example, the GST or VAT is a national sales tax used for national programs. The United States could not have such a tax without a change to our Constitution, which requires approval of three-fourths of the states. (Switzerland has an "easier" two-thirds requirement for national referendums on Constitutional matters.) It was a long battle just to have a federal income tax in the United States. Even today, people debate if the Amendment was passed properly. I also believe a teaching certificate is good nation-wide in most countries. In the United States, my California credential was accepted by two states, as long as I took some additional courses. California accepts no other states...

Regardless, calling something "direct democracy" does make it sound, to the public, as if they are in control. On this matter, I must admit Chomsky is correct (gasp!) -- you can tell people they have rights and powers, yet make them so difficult to exercise as to render those rights almost meaningless. Sartre and Camus claimed words were both meaningless and all we have. We can manipulate them to control people, or to free ourselves. If women could not vote until 1971, and men (the voters) made the decision to allow them power, it's almost laughable. That's like saying "All men are created equal" then making Africans count as only a portion of a man (which the United States did). French-speaking Catholics were restricted in Switzerland until 1978, when public protests (phrasing it nicely) resulting in full rights and even a Catholic state. You can call yourself a democracy, but is it democracy when only certain people get to decide the rules and laws f...

A curious survey was conducted in Europe by The Economist, using the size of Europe as a starting point for developing the questions. First, remember that America is a system of "states" with independent central authorities. A common currency and common defense was developed, but each state oversees: education, most welfare, transportation, local security, medical care... et cetera. Even the death penalty is a state-by-state issue at present. In other words, The Economist began with the historical comparison of the US to the EU. So, we have 50 States. How many were in the EU? I recall, at least at one point, 15 major members. Anyway, the question then became how many could name the States in the USA, at least two governors, explain the Republican form versus European Parliamentary forms, et cetera. It turned out most Europeans thought the USA had a single system, one set of standards for education, one national set of laws, et cetera. The results of the survery were q...

I was asked: "What and when was the last federal referendum in the USA? How much of what kind of legislation is subject to referendum in the USA?" - Jerry This goes to culture and responsibility: Think of this in terms of philosophy, not mere politics. It is easy to call for a vote, but people are reluctant to do so. Is that because change would be "bad" or because they don't care? Maybe this is a good thing? Maybe static systems are better than wildly fluctuating ones for philosophical reasons? When things are very "easy" do the people take it for granted? What can we do to make people realize they can exercise power? It is extremely easy (compared to our population of 300 million) to get matters to Congress, and then to the States. Does the ease of petition make it an empty act? I don't even know how many petitions I have signed or not signed since 1986, when I first registered to vote. I suppose I've signed a dozen or so, with thre...