;)
Friday
Apr062012
The Commentariat -- April 6, 2012
CW: I'm half-back, which is not to say I've become a ball-carrier in my old age, although I do look as if the other team got the best of me. Thanks for all the well wishes. Despite the description of my appearance, I'm doing okay; my sight keeps coming & going, though, so I'm not sure how much I'll be able to read today. I just "approved" a passel of comments on the April 4 and 5 Commentariat. I haven't read them yet, but the ledes (which is all I've seen) makes it appear that the comments my system held up for approval are substantive & interesting, & I'll be reading them as soon as I can. In the meantime, I'd say they are well-worth your reading, too.
** "Embarrass the Future." Linda Greenhouse's most recent post is an absolute must-read -- she dissects the Supremes' antics in the ACA hearings & offers some possible reasons the strip-search decision came down when & as it did.
Florida, Where Jim Crow Never Died. Erika Wood in the New York Times: "Last spring, Florida made some changes to its election law.... Cloaked as technical tweaks, the new laws have the potential to swing the 2012 election [to Republicans].... There is a long and troubled history of voter discrimination in Florida." Naturally, America's Worst Governor, Rick Scott, is a major culprit in the latest disenfranchisement scandal. CW: We may be looking at at 2000 all over again. Gee, wonder what president the Five Supremes would elect this time?
War on Caterpillars. Karen Tumulty & David Nakamura of the Washington Post on Democrats' outreach to women & Republican denials that they have been waging a "war on women."
Paul Krugman: "... the ... reason the attacks on [Fed Chair Ben] Bernanke from the right are so destructive is that they’re an effort to bully the Fed into doing exactly the wrong thing. The attackers want the Fed to slam on the brakes when it should be stepping on the gas; they want the Fed to choke off recovery when it should be doing much more to accelerate recovery.... I think that Fed officials, whether they admit it to themselves or not, are feeling intimidated — and that American workers are paying the price for their timidity."
Send in the Clowns. Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post: "The man at the center of the scandal embroiling the General Services Administration — the one who insisted that the infamous Las Vegas planning conference had to be 'over the top' — was trying to supplant what previous hosts of the biennial conference had achieved. Jeffrey E. Neely initially approved a $300,000 budget for the October 2010 conference, but later authorized spending up to about $823,000. ...
... Gail Collins: "I will refrain from pointing out that there were much worse G.S.A. stories during the Bush administration, one involving the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.... In the present, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee announced plans to hold hearings on clown-and-cheesegate. The chairman, Representative John Mica of Florida, did acknowledge that no one in the administration had tried to impede the inspector general’s work or keep the results quiet. Perhaps he was thinking back on Lurita Doan, the Bush G.S.A. head, who claimed that attempts to examine contracts for fraud and waste were 'eroding the health of the organization' and compared the auditors to terrorists."
... Jon Stewart calls the GSA scandal a "disgrace to corruption":
... Here's the full video of the video that won a GSA-sponsored contest at the Las Vegas "conference." It's appalling:
Michael Rapaport of the Wall Street Journal: "Critics of the JOBS Act [which President Obama signed into law yesterday], which stands for Jumpstart Our Business Startups, say that easing regulations will lead to more financial problems and fraud, and make it more difficult for investors to detect those issues." ...
New York Times Editors: "Citing 'unsafe and unsound' foreclosure practices, the Federal Reserve said recently that it plans to penalize eight financial firms — HSBC’s United States bank division, SunTrust Bank, MetLife, U.S. Bancorp, PNC Financial Services, EverBank, OneWest and Goldman Sachs.... If recent history is any guide, regulators are more likely to offer the banks a way to avoid fines for harmful and egregious behavior. That means there will be no deterrent against future misbehavior."
"The Violence Card." Khalil Gibran Muhammad, director of the Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture at the New York Public, in a New York Times op-ed: "To play the violence card — as many criminal-justice advocates have done since the Rodney King police brutality case of the early 1990s — is to suggest that black people should worry more about the harm they do to themselves and less about how victimized they are by others. The national outrage over the Trayvon Martin case has prompted some recent examples.... Racial criminalization ... stigmatizes black people as dangerous, legitimizes or excuses white-on-black violence, conflates crime and poverty with blackness, and perpetuates punitive notions of 'justice' — vigilante violence, stop-and-frisk racial profiling and mass incarceration — as the only legitimate responses."
Right Wing World *
Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post: "Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, whose wealth has become a central issue in the 2012 campaign, has taken advantage of an obscure exception in federal ethics laws to avoid disclosing the nature and extent of his holdings.... Several outside experts across the political spectrum ... say Romney’s disclosure is the most opaque they have encountered, with some suggesting the filing effectively defeats the spirit of disclosure requirements." CW: It is really up to the press to hound Romney on his finances. & the less he discloses the more this should be an issue.
What's Good for Me Is a Disqualifier for Thee. Benjy Sarlin of TPM: "Romney told an audience [in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania] that [Barack] Obama may have spent 'too much time at Harvard,' according to NBC. Obama, who has a law degree from Harvard, spent three years there. Romney, who earned both a Harvard law degree and business degree, spent four years at the university and was by all accounts a motivated student who was happy with the institution during his time there. Three of his sons attended Harvard and he has donated over $50,000 to the university. His campaign lists over a dozen advisers with Harvard ties...." ...
... Andrew Kaczynski of BuzzFeed posts this video of the 2006 version of Willard talking about the "terrific" Harvard program that allowed him to get two degrees at once:
* Where opacity is a last refuge of scoundrels. (In Right Wing World, the scoundrels have many refuges.)
Local News
Daniela Altimari & Jon Lender of the Hartford Courant: "Connecticut is poised to become the 17th state to abolish the death penalty after the Senate passed a bill early Thursday morning repealing capital punishment. The 20-16 vote came at 2:05 a.m., after more than 10 hours of debate. The measure now moves to the House of Representatives, where it has broad support. Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has pledged to sign the bill once it reaches his desk." ...
... CW: I just watched (or, actually, mostly listened to) the 2010 film "Conviction," starring Hillary Swank as a blue-collar worker without a high-school diploma who gets her GED, then puts herself thru college & law school to save her ne'er-do-well brother from life imprisonment for a murder the Swank character believes he did not commit. Based quite closely on the true story of Betty Anne & Kenny Waters, the murder & conviction occurred in Connecticut's neighboring state of Massachusetts. One of the heavies in the true story: Martha Coakley, who as the state's new AG, refused to overturn Kenny's conviction, despite DNA evidence showing he was not the perp. I won't be a spoiler, but the afterword, which appears right before the credits roll, speaks to the death penalty. Here's the trailer:
... Here's a 2010 New York Times profile by Robin Pogrebin of Betty Anne Waters. If you want to know what happened to Kenny, the answer is here. ...
... AND here's a profile of Betty Anne by Nina Burleigh of Elle.
News Ledes
Washington Post: "Emergency crews searched the charred remains of a Virginia Beach apartment complex Friday after a fighter jet crashed into it just after takeoff in what Navy officials called a 'catastrophic mechanical malfunction.' Two Navy pilots — a student and an instructor from nearby Naval Air Station Oceana — ejected just before the jet careened into the apartment complex, demolishing sections of some buildings and engulfing others in flames. Some 40 apartment units were damaged or destroyed in the crash, but hours later no fatalities had been reported." Photos here.
New York Times: "Tuareg rebels who overran much of northern Mali after disaffected soldiers toppled the government in the south declared an independent state called Azawad on Friday, cementing the division of the former French colony as its neighbors began drawing up plans for military action to tackle the twin crises of the coup and the apparent secession."
New York Times: "The United States expressed concern about the future of the impoverished African nation of Malawi on Friday after a swirl of reports that its heart-attack stricken president [Bingu wa Mutharika] had died, suggesting that the delay in an official announcement reflected possible succession problems."
New York Times: "... analysts predict that when the first-quarter reporting season starts in earnest next week, American companies will show the slowest rate of growth in operating earnings in three years."
Washington Post: "Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. Thursday defended President Obama’s comments urging the Supreme Court to uphold the health-care law, telling a panel of federal judges that courts should show 'deference' to the 'legislative judgements of Congress.'Holder, responding to an unusual demand for his views on whether federal judges have the authority to strike down federal laws, affirmed that they have such authority."
Reuters: "Payrolls rose far less than expected in March, keeping the door open for further monetary policy support from the Federal Reserve, even as the unemployment rate fell to a three-year low of 8.2 percent. Employers added 120,000 jobs last month, the Labor Department said on Friday, the smallest increase since October." ...
... New York Times: President Obama & Mitt Romney disagree about the meaning of a weaker-than-expected jobs report.
AP: "A Marine who criticized President Barack Obama on his Facebook page has committed misconduct and should be dismissed, a military board recommended late Thursday. The Marine Corps administrative board made the decision after a daylong hearing at Camp Pendleton for Sgt.
Reuters: "Coca-Cola Co is dropping its membership in a conservative national advocacy group that supports 'Stand Your Ground' laws such as the one being used as a defense in the Florida killing of an unarmed black teenager, Trayvon Martin. The move by the world's biggest soft drink maker comes as corporate America faces increased scrutiny from consumers and shareholder activists over lobbying and political spending."
AP: "United Arab Emirates authorities temporarily detained members of a U.S.-funded democracy group as they tried to leave the country after their office was ordered closed, U.S. officials said Thursday."
AP: "A U.S. Coast Guard cutter poured cannon fire into a Japanese ghost ship that had been drifting since the last year’s tsunami, sinking the vessel in the Gulf of Alaska and eliminating the hazard it posed to shipping and the coastline."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (13)
Thank God, or whoever, you are back and getting better every day, I hope. David Brooks is especially asinine today and his folly is beyond my abilities to decry and ridicule.
You are best suited to answer this mole. Please do the necessary job on this nonsense.
Boy, oh, boy, are we glad you are back and soon you'll be more than half and can again carry that ball to the finish line. If you look like a bruised player now, it will remind you that healing takes time and good things can come from tough operations.
@Carlyle: How bout thanks to Marie's doctors; "God" I'm sure, if there was one, would approve. And yes, Brooks definitely needs some sass from Marie.
Marie-
I'm glad to hear you're on the mend, and I hope your recovery goes smoothly. Thanks for the movie tip - I wasn't aware of that film, and it sounds quite interesting, particularly since I live in the neighboring state of Connecticut, whose legislature and governor I am very proud of today.
One of the commenters to either Krugman or Brooks this morning mentioned a piece from Rachel Maddow's show last night, in which she exposed the Republican shenanigans happening up in Michigan, where that party controls both houses and the governorship. It's a 16 minute piece, but it's important to watch it all the way through. Very disturbing to say the least. I hope this gets lots of attention soon.
Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to embed a specific video program. The best I can do is provide a link to the show's website, where you can scroll down to click on the video entitled "Michigan GOP circumvents democracy." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Take note of the cities taken over by the Michigan legislature in the past year. And John Roberts seems to think we no longer need the Voting Rights Act?
Marie’s recommendation to watch Conviction is a good one.
Besides being a compelling and well told true story, it demonstrates yet again the price demanded of individuals and society as a whole when confronted with the consequences of those who believe that their moral certainty trumps all; facts, justice, truth, even human life.
A rant from earlier in the week touched on the problems that arise when individuals are convinced of the perfection and unassailability of their own convictions, their own moral certainty. Certainly not a new problem or one we’ll likely dispense with anytime soon considering how deeply rooted is the need to be absolutely certain of the rightness of one’s position and, conversely, the wrongness of anyone considered to be an enemy of that position. This includes anyone who requires that beliefs be supported by facts and any who even question or ask the holder of those beliefs to question whatever underpins them. Successful self-interrogation requires a sturdy intellectual armature, a structure that can adapt to new facts and become stronger in the process. If this sounds like a form of scientific method, I suppose it is. The scientific method offers a well worn path to truth through the consideration, testing and rejecting of unreliable and specious claims and the refinement and finally adoption of explanations for phenomena that hold up well across a broad spectrum of tests and challenges, taking into consideration all available facts.
Belief systems that never change even in the face of facts are not only highly suspect, they are dangerous. Look at the rationale for invading Iraq. The reasons changed by the month but the goal never moved despite wild fluctuations in factual information. We’re invading because of 9/11. No 9/11 connection? Okay, we’re invading to find WMD. No WMD? Okay, we’re invading to free the Iraqi people. Oops, we’ve killed a few hundred thousand of those people while trying to free them. Oh well, there’s no free lunch. Didn’t those stupid Iraqis realize that when they asked us to come help them? They didn’t? Well, they should have.
It’s like the arguments for intervention by God. God saved us because we are worthy! Okay, but then what about these other innocent people and children who died a horrible and unnecessary death? Oh well, we can’t know God’s plans. It’s a mystery. Don't even ask. It’s win-win for those believers. No matter what the facts are.
I’m not attacking people who believe in God. But I do have a serious problem with people who attempt to repurpose essential aspects of religious faith (ie belief in something you can’t see or prove) and apply it to instances that require fact-based proof. Such as life imprisonment or the death penalty. Or health care, or the need for decent and affordable public education. Once ideological determinism and “moral certainty” gain ascendance, facts are not required and may be detrimental to the desired outcome.
The case related in the film Conviction demonstrates the dangers of inflicting, through political or legal machinations, draconian outcomes on members of society and society as a whole based on the moral certainty of unreliable witnesses and experts. The fact that a man was wrongfully imprisoned because a zealous police officer trumped up charges against that man, a man she felt deserved punishment just because, well, because she believed it, doesn’t mean the whole system is in jeopardy. It does however point out the importance of healthy skepticism. There have always been those wrongfully imprisoned due to lies and “moral certainty” of witnesses who had an agenda far removed from truth.
Unfortunately there always will be. But when dealing with issues of public policy, the same kind of moral certainty that doom innocent individuals can cripple an entire planet. The consolidated attempt by the right to halt any action designed to address global warming is one such instance. Future generations are being condemned to unnecessary danger because of right-wing ideological imperatives. Deciding that public education shouldn’t be paid for any longer by the government is another. The right-wing (see, Santorum, Rick, and many others) have decided that public education that teaches students to think is bad (even worse if that education allows students to adopt a liberal or progressive point of view). It causes them to ask questions, and for those wedded to moral certainty, questions are anathema.
In a memorandum of 1813, Lord Byron, considering those who mistake their own certainty for truth, wrote “If I am a fool, it is, at least, a doubting one; and I envy no one the certainty of his self-approved wisdom”. Another investigator of the nature of moral certainty, Friedrich Nietzsche, recognized (appropriately, in a book titled “Human, All Too Human”) that “convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies”.
Those who require ideological purity and moral certainty have no problem leading us all down the road to ruin as long as they can chalk up a win for their side. Innocents condemned to death, countries invaded and destroyed, sick people wheeled to the side of the road to die from lack of health care, public support for children and the elderly discarded in favor of royal treatment for billionaires. It’s the kind of ideological ‘truth’ that an old Soviet apparatchik would be proud of. Getting millions to declare truth the enemy of moral certainty is one of the great benchmarks of authoritarian control. The GOP has learned from some of the best. We all pay the price for their self-acclaimed belief in their own infallibility as surely defendants condemned by the moral certainty of self-righteous but errant zealotry.
Theirs is the conviction that convicts us all.
I have just returned from an arduous road trip (with my 3-legged cat) up the CA coast. First thing I read upon return is that you are sick, Marie. Not possible, I say, Marie is NEVER sick! Now--this AM your eyesight is "coming and going." Very unfair! You SEE things so clearly and have such a long mutual love affair with the written word. I do hope this is a temporary condition and that there is medication that will speed your recovery. I am sending you White Light--since my godless beliefs will definitely not help. But, perhaps, the Duggar family could take you as their new prayer-project. That'd be a lotta Jeezus comin' at ya!
Okay, I'm not caught up yet, but I got as far as two days ago, & I want to respond to @Zee's comment from way back then.
First, Zee, I said I was exaggerating your POV, but your phraseology definitely conveyed the "This I believe" thinking that I think is particularly characteristic of conservatives.
You mentioned Justice Souter's Harvard speech, & I'm glad you did. As you know, Souter was talking about weighing a set of facts & deciding which part of the Constitution best took precedence in that particular situation. I don't think he mentioned it in the Harvard speech but in an earlier speech (I forget the venue), he explained why both Plessey v. Ferguson & Brown v. Board of Education made sense to the justices in the times & circumstances under which the decisions came down. To make a long story short, each case came with a distinct set of facts, & by the time Brown rolled around, there was ample proof that Plessey's "separate but equal" wasn't working. I'm not sure if Souter mentioned it or if I read it elsewhere, but by the time of Brown, there was already precedent to decide for Brown (much of that precedent argued, by the way, by then-NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall).
What you're arguing, tho, is not so much a balancing act as it is like the Brown decision: there is (1)ample evidence there is a pressing national need for improved health insurance/racially-integrated education & (2) there are plenty of precedent-setting decisions in the way the Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause over the last 75 years or so/"separate but equal" over the preceding 25 years. There is nothing in the Commerce precedents, however, to suggest that the Congress does not have the authority to regulate insurance. That is, Congress already has the Court on its side, if this Court doesn't decide to throw out all of the modern Court's interpretations of the Commerce Clause. The ACA is not only not a "huge expansion" of the Commerce Clause, as you argue; it fits right in with the way the Court has been ruling all along. What you're suggesting is a "huge constriction" of Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce. Your broccoli hypothetical -- if Congress can pass the ACA they can do anything -- the answer, as I've said before, is "Yes, they can." Only they won't because despite considerable evidence to the contrary, the Congress -- as a body -- is not stark-staring mad. Hypotheticals have nothing to do with the ACA. It is. You're arguing what might be. Let the Court deal with broccoli when Congress passes the Broccoli Mandate Act of 2013.
And in a mobile nation, health care is truly interstate. For instance, I purchased the health insurance I have now when I lived in New York, & now I live in Florida (purely by coincidence, it is administered out of Florida; it could just as well be a Connecticut company). I might get sick in South Carolina (the fates forbid!), and healthcare personnel there would have to take care of me, whether or not I had insurance & whether or not I was a state resident.
As for your argument that most health & safety laws today are "pretty minor intrusions," what about air bags? I hear they cost $2,000 each to replace. In the past I've read some huge figure that laws & regulations add to the purchase price of each new automobile. You wrote that you thought "most judges would agree" that these health & safety measures are necessary & proper.
According to this story in the Plain Dealer,
"Over the next five years, automakers are going to have to raise prices on vehicles big and small as they struggle to stay profitable and meet stringent 2016 fuel economy mandates.
"Fuel economy regulations 'will put a $4,000 to $7,000 price premium on larger vehicles as companies try to migrate customers down' to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars, said Jeff Schuster, lead automotive analyst for research company J.D. Power & Associates."
That additional cost comes from an administrative reg, not for an act of Congress. And it will add a stiff price to a gas-guzzler.
I said in my original comment that it was true not everyone must buy a car but I thought that even the Supremes would recognize that the majority of people practically need one, & even if they don't, they will likely move via some other form of transportation that the feds also regulate in some way. I didn't mentioned motorcycles, but I'm sure there are some federal regulations on bikes; federal helmet laws may be inevitable. I think you recognize that your suggestion that, oh well, if you don't want to buy seatbelts you can walk, is not realistic. (Yesterday, because I couldn't see to drive, I had to take a cab for my post-op check-up. Although the doctor's office is only a few miles away, I was not supposed to exert myself or go out in the sun; the nearest busstop is half a mile away; I have no idea how to get a bus to the doctor's office, but there's no busstop near it so presumably I'd have to walk on that end, too. The round trip cabfare cost $45. That is fine for a one-time-only necessity; as an everyday occurrence, I could not afford to rely on cabs.)
You asked, "Who wants to buy an unsafe car?" I believe the answer would be "most people" if safety features could be purchased optionally, a la carte, I wouldn't buy back-seat seatbelts. Somebody else wouldn't buy airbags. A lot of people would hope for the best & not buy safety-glass windshields. People in New Mexico might opt out of the windshield wiper feature; hey, what are the odds for rain? Et cetera.
As for your argument that the feds are regulating "inactivity," that a Tea Party trope that some of the conservative Supremes adopted, at least for argument's sake, during oral arguments. Yet even the lawyer who argued before the Court for small business admitted that the Congress could force an uninsured person to buy health insurance while he was bleeding to death at the emergency room door. Guess how much that "insurance" would cost? We are all "active" users of health insurance; we just haven't all started using it yet. Most people who need health care and don't buy insurance will make the rest of us pay for their health care. (Caregivers will force some people of means to pay.) Too many of us are not "active" purchasers of health insurance, but almost everyone will be "active" users of health services. And few of us can afford to pay for catastrophic care out-of-pocket.
The whole purpose of the Commerce Clause, as contributor Geoff suggests, was to allow future Congresses to decide what was "necessary and proper." The CC got its place in the Constitution because the Articles of Confederation weren't working -- they provided no means to regulate interstate commerce, and the states under the Article were in constant disputes, disputes that drastically reduced interstate commerce & effectively created 13 economic states, not one United States.
The "balancing act" that the 2009-2011 Congress tried to address was the balance between my duty to be a responsible citizen & pay for my unanticipated & anticipated health care costs via insurance vs. my right to be irresponsible & make you pay for my care or force caregivers to hound me for large payments due.
Finally, like you, I don't like the ACA much. I, too, would prefer a single-payer system. But it isn't gonna happen in the near term, and that means tens of thousands of Americans who would have received proper care will die because they did not get care. It also means health care will cost more because, besides providing for cost-cutting, the fact that people can get check-ups for no cost mean many illnesses will be caught while they're still relatively cheap to treat.
Marie
First, Marie, it's good to hear you're "half-back" and will be even better when you report you're "fully recovered!"
Akhilleus: read your comments of the past couple days, and have only one word in response: brilliant! You are always both a pleasure to read and a thought-provoking essayist. (OK, so I lied. That's more than one word. Each one is heartfelt.)
Zee: Your posts also garner my admiration, as does your open-minded approach to productive discussion with people who view issues from a different perspective. In the midst of my current near-despair, it is people like you (I actually know some others!) who give me hope that we can reach across the aisle, as the current saying is, and find accommodation. Kudos to you, sir.
Janice: I was gobsmacked by Rachel's report, and I live in Michigan! We're mostly in the dark here, even those of us who are political junkies. I think Rick Snyder can give Rick Scott a run for his money in the "worst-governor-in-America" sweepstakes.
This afternoon, I forwarded to Rachel an e-mail I received from Michigan Rising, the organization working to recall Rick Snyder, detailing an in-your-face crony-capitalism outrage he has just signed into law on behalf of the businessman brother of Michigan's Republican Party chairman. Begging Marie's indulgence, here is the gist of the memo:
"'The law Snyder signed Thursday, which says a lender can recover only the real estate offered as collateral when a certain type of commercial loan goes into default, is unusual because it is retroactive, to the benefit of [Michigan Republican Party Chairman Bobby] Schostak's brother.'
"This is in-our-face corruption by Snyder and those who are manipulating the legislative authority they hold in Lansing, serving only those who serve them. If you found yourself up-side-down on a mortgage, the Michigan legislature would not come to your rescue with a law that retroactively absolves you from making those payments as it did for Mr. Schostak. Yet, this is exactly what Snyder is doing by signing this bill into law.
"A leader with an ounce of respect for ethics, let alone the constitution, would never have signed this bill."
Thus, Michigan.
Oh, and I just received a letter from my township supervisor that the polling place for my precinct is being changed. The National Guard Armory, where I have voted for the 18+ years I've lived here, is no longer available due to "implementation of heightened security measures." 9/11!!! Terrorism!!! Homeland Security!!!
Our new polling place? Bethesda Bible Church.
Separation of church and state, anyone?
I despair for my state and my country.
@Marie--
First let me say that I am glad that you are back, and that I sincerely hope your eye surgery has been successful.
As always, I am appreciative of the time that you have taken to respond to my earlier comments. Still, after lengthy discussion, I think—and hope—that we can respectfully agree to disagree on the topics of the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and the constitutionality of the PPACA.
I believe that the Founders tried to give us a government of limited and enumerated powers. I thus further believe that they would be appalled at what the Commerce Clause has become today, wherein, for example, a farmer once even could not grow wheat strictly for his own consumption, because in doing so—and therefore not having to buy another farmer's wheat—he violated Federal law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
As I said, these are my beliefs, and I can't prove what the Founders would have thought of the Commerce Clause as it is being understood today by a large sector of the electorate.
But my blood runs cold with fear when I hear a Federal legislator like Pete Stark say with all sincerity that
“The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” --Rep. Pete Stark
And you appear to agree with Stark, save that you have faith in the Congress that they are not stark raving mad, and, if indeed they prove to be, then their actions will be overturned by the people (the “limiting principle,” as you put it back on April 2).
I am afraid that I have less confidence in “the people” than you. As I look at what “the people” are allowing to happen to their civil liberties on all fronts, I see America steadily moving from a “surveillance state” to a “police state.” All while “the people” sleep.
In addition to passage of the National Defense Authorization Act with nary a peep from “the peeps,” see what else we are allowing to be done to our privacy as noted in my remarks to @Janice back on April 3 in this forum. There is much to fear from our government and a comatose electorate, including the eventuality that someday soon we may be unable to reverse any act of Congress.
As I reflect upon our discussion, and Wickard v. Filburn I think that you are right after all, that the Commerce Clause has been steadily expanded since 1787. But I don't think that it's a good thing. So yes, I guess I am hoping that the Supreme Court will constrict the Commerce Clause despite all precedent. It may violate precedent, but I think that preservation of individual liberty demands it.
Because “the people” don't seem too concerned about their liberty.
Finally, I don't know if you have seen it yet, but I inadvertently re-posted the same remark three times on April 4, thinking that I had failed to properly “decode” the distorted writing used in the spam blocker. In fact, they all got through, and in them I was disrepectful to @Geoff.
I apologized to @Geoff in a fourth posting, which I rewrote. In an e-mail I asked you to delete the first three posts, but I suspect that reading e-mails has been low on your priorities. If you can get around to it, I would still be grateful if you could withdraw the first three remarks for me.
Again, I am glad that you are back, and I hope that your surgery has been successful.
@Rose in Michigan--
Thank you for your kind words.
"Reaching across the aisle" is a good metaphor for what I am trying to accomplish by being here, though I am no longer certain that thinking people of either political persuasion--either the left or the right--actually have thinking representatives on either side of the actual aisles of the two houses of Congress.
@Zee your doing the pick and choose game. We cannot go back to 1787 for the interpretation of everything in the current world. As someone commented the other day, the concept of healthcare did not exist in 1787. How can you go back to that time when considering if it is a basic right under the ideas of the founders? And if it is now considered a right, should we not find the best way to provide the service? Healthcare has become a right because it have come to mean the difference between life and death. No one argues that it acceptable to allow the uninsured to die for a lack of care in an emergency (well maybe Dick Cheney). So what do we do, protect the right as best as possible or follow the current policy which kills thousands of our fellow citizens each year? Not simple but comparing keeping a person alive with eating broccoli is not just absurd, it is a game that will kill. I like something that was said before the Constitution. All men (and women) have unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Notice life is first and also notice if you go back to 1776, all women are worthless.
@Marvin Schwalb--
You and I are proceeding from different assumptions.
Even though I advocate a single-payer health care system, I do not do so as a consequence of my belief that health care is a "fundamental right."
I advocate a single-payer system because yes, it is the moral thing to do for those citizens who are less well off, and, yes, it is the pragmatic thing to do because health care costs are not responsive to market forces or the laws of "supply and demand."
Health care is most often purchased at times of extreme need, without the ability to shop or compare costs, and, besides, with its secretive "codings," physicians and hospitals make it absolutely impossible to understand cost prior to signing a contract, anyway.
Health care is not a "right," it is a service provided by human beings to other human beings. Consider the following thought experiment.
What if, suddenly, absolutely no one cared to become a physician or nurse? Improbable, I know, but it could happen. (Maybe we arbitrarily decide to pay "providers" a pittance for their services to control costs.) Where then is your "right," even if the lack of health care "infringes" on your/my right to life?
And even with universal health care, your/my right to life may be limited by society's ability--or unwillingness--to pay for extreme measures to preserve my life. Again, where's the right to [unlimited] health care in pursuit of your right to life?
My fundamental and unalienable rights to procure "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" don't rely upon the existence of a single other human being. True, others may try to impede or abolish these rights by negative actions, but they don't depend upon a single affirmative action on the part of anyone.
Neither do any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
So I don't view my perspective as "picking and choosing."
Moreover, as I indicated to @Marie, I believe that our Founders wisely tried to give us a Federal government having limited and enumerated powers. I believe that it was their greatest gift, and I futher believe that it is crucial that we try to preserve that form of government.
You may be willing to trade your freedom for the security of health care for all. But I am not.
I apologize if this response seems brusque, but I want to get it done and Mrs. Zee and I have a Friday evening engagement.
I am willing to discuss this further.
@Zee I guess we have a different view of 'government'. To me, in a democracy, government is the people. I know it does not always work well but that is the idea. And since I am government, I don't believe it is possible for government to remove my freedom. Yes, I only have one voice and one vote but I have agreed to live by the decision of the majority as long as they provide Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The current healthcare debate has nothing to do with 'government' control. It is the control by the people of their basic rights through their elected representatives. Far from perfect but lets not forget the concept. The only piece that does not function that way is the current Supreme Court. And that is the problem.
Again late to the party here on the West Coast, but tardy as they might be my best wishes for you are no less sincere. Have no idea who you are or how you got that way but have admired that fine mind behind those apparently less than perfect eyes since I first came across the Constant Weader in the NYTimes posts a few years back. Initially was struck by your ability to comment/counterattack in the first wave of responses. I did figure your East Coast staging area had something to do with how swiftly you launched your own missive missiles, but soon became equally impressed by their unfailingly trenchant content. Thanks for all the pleasure you've given me and your many admirers. Reading your writing makes me think better. Get well.