In a 30-minute clip posted here, Noan Chomsky is asked whether the United States suffres from too little rational political dialogue -- something I wrote about last week. Typical of Mr. Chomsky, he says "no." That's typical partly because it is contrarian, and partly because it's not entirely consistent with other things he says.
Through most of the piece, Chomsky says that a significant majority of the American population actually desires things often associated with liberals -- increased spending for help to the poor (though not "welfare"), decreased military spending, fewer restrictions on gay marraige. He says the problem is that the polarized elite, including too many journalists and bloggers, do not reflect this ppular reality, and so distort the discourse.
I don't know one way or the other whether Chomsky has his facts right, but I'm not sure it matters. Either way the problem is with the political discourse rather than the opinions or deires of most people. We don't have a closely divided people, we have a closely divided and very hot debate.
Friday, December 10, 2010
Friday, December 3, 2010
Why We Need a More Reasonable Political Discourse
NPR reporters John Ydstie and Scott Horsely spoke on Weekend Edition last Sunday about the meeting of the president's debt commission this week. They described some interesting findings.
First, when we talk about the US "debt problem," we really are referring to several separate but related phenomena. One is the profligate personal spending individual Americans did in the first decade of this century. The home loan crisis stems from this problem, and according to the Scott Horsley, that problem should resolve itself more or less on its own as the economy recovers. That's not to say that the improvement will come without pain, but further government intervention in this sphere is probably not necessary.
A second debt problem is with Social Security and Medicare, which comes as a result of the growing population of elderly in the country. The Medicare problem will be difficult, says Ydstie, because as the cost of health care rises, the demands on the federal welfare program increases. Social Security, on the other hand, could be fixed with relatively mild tax increases and/or benefit reductions.
The big debt problem, though, is the federal deficit, which comes from huge unfunded expenditutres on two wars, two large tax cuts and the costs of the bank bail out. This debt makes fixing other problems even more difficult because the federal government, ordinarily the entity with the deepest pockets, can spend nothing or next to nothing.
And here's where political discourse matters. We must reduce the federal deficit, just as the TEA Party group says we must. The Republicans are absolutely right that we have to cut some federal spending. But it was Republican-sponsored tax cuts and Republican spending on two wars, at least one of which was entirely discretionary, that put us into this hole. For the Republican Party to call Democrats tax-and-spenders is disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. On the other hand, Democrats have to learn how to handle power and stop apologizing to people all the time. The federal government may not be the best solution to the problem of how to suppirt and educate the poor, but the consensus now is that only the feds can pull us out of a health care crisis. Democrats must assert themselves with fact and confidence rather than crying to each other about how no one will listen to them.
We have to talk to each other to solve these problems.
First, when we talk about the US "debt problem," we really are referring to several separate but related phenomena. One is the profligate personal spending individual Americans did in the first decade of this century. The home loan crisis stems from this problem, and according to the Scott Horsley, that problem should resolve itself more or less on its own as the economy recovers. That's not to say that the improvement will come without pain, but further government intervention in this sphere is probably not necessary.
A second debt problem is with Social Security and Medicare, which comes as a result of the growing population of elderly in the country. The Medicare problem will be difficult, says Ydstie, because as the cost of health care rises, the demands on the federal welfare program increases. Social Security, on the other hand, could be fixed with relatively mild tax increases and/or benefit reductions.
The big debt problem, though, is the federal deficit, which comes from huge unfunded expenditutres on two wars, two large tax cuts and the costs of the bank bail out. This debt makes fixing other problems even more difficult because the federal government, ordinarily the entity with the deepest pockets, can spend nothing or next to nothing.
And here's where political discourse matters. We must reduce the federal deficit, just as the TEA Party group says we must. The Republicans are absolutely right that we have to cut some federal spending. But it was Republican-sponsored tax cuts and Republican spending on two wars, at least one of which was entirely discretionary, that put us into this hole. For the Republican Party to call Democrats tax-and-spenders is disingenuous at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. On the other hand, Democrats have to learn how to handle power and stop apologizing to people all the time. The federal government may not be the best solution to the problem of how to suppirt and educate the poor, but the consensus now is that only the feds can pull us out of a health care crisis. Democrats must assert themselves with fact and confidence rather than crying to each other about how no one will listen to them.
We have to talk to each other to solve these problems.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Tax Hikes?
The National Review, like many conservatives, likes the tax cuts the Republican Congress passed when Bush was president. But I think their arguments in defense of the cuts are disingenuous. It is true that if the cuts are not extended now it would amount to a de facto tax hike, but is it really a "middle class" tax hike?
In this article, entitled, "No Missouri Compromise" (a reference to legislation in which the conflict over slavery was forestalled by artificial means -- though for 45 years, to be fair), the writer says that
would be affected.
Really? How many couples of cops make $250,000?
And then he says
OK, that's right. But are we really saying that we want to be sure to protect the 5% of the people who make $500,000 even once at the expense of the rest of us, who need the help? And what about the deficit that The National Review hates so much? What services have toi be cut so that the couple earning a million dollars a year -- even before taxes -- does not suffer so much?
In this article, entitled, "No Missouri Compromise" (a reference to legislation in which the conflict over slavery was forestalled by artificial means -- though for 45 years, to be fair), the writer says that
a fair number of two-earner households consisting of the likes of policemen, nurses, public-school administrators, and other professionals whose combined household incomes frequently top $250,000 but who can hardly be demonized as “the rich”
would be affected.
Really? How many couples of cops make $250,000?
And then he says
now Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, has trotted out Plan C: confining rate hikes to “millionaires,” meaning any household with an income exceeding $1 million. Senator McCaskill has never been the sharpest financial mind in the Senate, but even she should be able to figure out that a married couple earning $1 million in 2010 does not necessarily consist of “millionaires” — depending on their state and local tax burdens, they’re likely to be barely halfway there even before they have spent one thin dime of their own earnings
OK, that's right. But are we really saying that we want to be sure to protect the 5% of the people who make $500,000 even once at the expense of the rest of us, who need the help? And what about the deficit that The National Review hates so much? What services have toi be cut so that the couple earning a million dollars a year -- even before taxes -- does not suffer so much?
Just to Win, Or to Govern?
The Republican Party won important seats in the November elections. It’s clear that voters are impatient with the slow pace of economic growth, and they are not sure what the United States is supposed to be doing in Iraq and Afghanistan any longer. Nancy Pelosi, for reasons that escape me, attracted Republican ire more than anyone else, and so the House of Representatives is now controlled by a Republican majority.
The question is whether those new representatives came to govern or only to conquer. Some of the noise coming from the victors is not promising. It’s utter nonsense to say that they plan to repeal “Obamacare,” the health care reform law (or set of laws) passed just last year. Not only can they muster nothing like a veto-busting majority in either house of Congress, but just about no one thinks it would be a good idea to repeal the law now that it’s been put into motion. Calling for immediate tax cuts in the middle of an economic crisis (though we may not be in the middle any more) is also not a smart idea. Republicans also dissed the president by saying they could not find the time to meet with him when he asked for a sit-down. That’s just petty.
But the new Speaker of the House, John Boenher, has said some more hopeful things. He is no Blue Dog, but at least he has acknowledged that the new Republicans need to find common ground with the president and the Democratic-controlled Senate. Even with the Tea Party types howling at the moon, it may happen that the Republicans can help clean up some of the flaws in the financial and health care reforms and then push us forward.
It’s also up to the Democrats, and the president in particular, to stop feeling sorry for themselves and fight back. They need not only to seek consensus but to push some weight around – weight they certainly have, if only in the White House.
The question is whether those new representatives came to govern or only to conquer. Some of the noise coming from the victors is not promising. It’s utter nonsense to say that they plan to repeal “Obamacare,” the health care reform law (or set of laws) passed just last year. Not only can they muster nothing like a veto-busting majority in either house of Congress, but just about no one thinks it would be a good idea to repeal the law now that it’s been put into motion. Calling for immediate tax cuts in the middle of an economic crisis (though we may not be in the middle any more) is also not a smart idea. Republicans also dissed the president by saying they could not find the time to meet with him when he asked for a sit-down. That’s just petty.
But the new Speaker of the House, John Boenher, has said some more hopeful things. He is no Blue Dog, but at least he has acknowledged that the new Republicans need to find common ground with the president and the Democratic-controlled Senate. Even with the Tea Party types howling at the moon, it may happen that the Republicans can help clean up some of the flaws in the financial and health care reforms and then push us forward.
It’s also up to the Democrats, and the president in particular, to stop feeling sorry for themselves and fight back. They need not only to seek consensus but to push some weight around – weight they certainly have, if only in the White House.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
More on the Mosque
As Robert Mackey points out in "The Lede," a New York Times blog, the furor over the Park511 mosque only reinforces the behavior that coservatives deplore among Muslims. While Deroy Murdock and others would like to say that American behavior has nothing to do with the crimes of terrorists, it's clear that people everywhere are acutely aware of American hypocrisy when it arises.
Conservative Americans can not demand that US and state governments conform to their Christian practices while at the same time excoriating Muslims for wishing the same. They can not distinguish between freedom-loving and democracy-promoting America on one hand and repressive religionist terrorists on the other if the Americans do all the oppressing. (Or rather, that can -- and do -- do all this, but it comes with a cost.
Conservative Americans can not demand that US and state governments conform to their Christian practices while at the same time excoriating Muslims for wishing the same. They can not distinguish between freedom-loving and democracy-promoting America on one hand and repressive religionist terrorists on the other if the Americans do all the oppressing. (Or rather, that can -- and do -- do all this, but it comes with a cost.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
At Least an Explanation
I don't often agree with what is written in The National Review. In fact, I usually find it quite baffling.
But at least its authors attempt a rational explanation of their positions, which allows for reasonable debate and respectful dilaogue. So, while I think Deroy Murdock spouts silliness here, at least it's an explanation for why the Park51 Mosque should not be opened.
First, he says that he objects to the mosque's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s noting that “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” ... And therefore he should not have a mosque.
In other words, by pointing out the historical context of the 9/11 attacks -- that many Arabs were and are furious with the US policies of repression and aggression between 1945 and 2001 -- Imam Rauf committed an egregious act, an should therefore have his right to build a mosque restricted by the government.
Murdock's big beef is with Rauf's description and mild advocacy of the need for some implementation of shari'a law. Rauf says only that Muslims want to live in place where secular law does not interfere with religious law. Such sentiments sound very much like what Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coaltion -- and The National Review -- say all the time.
But Murdock then launches on a description of the nastiest examples of shari'a-gone-bad he can find, and they are really mean: killing, maiming, torture. And that is where he palys the sleight-of-hand. Rauf does not advocate any of these practices, and shari'a is not synonymous with them. They are a misapplication of shari'a in the same way that John Yoo's torture memos were a misapplication of the US Constitution. The application, not the law itself, ought to be condemned.
So, while Murdock at least plays the game of making a logical case, he fails to do it well. That only proves why the argument against a mosque is so ridiculous and reinforces the value of the 1st Amendment, which allows all ideas to be expressed, no matter how hateful or dopey they are.
But I guess the 1st Amendment is not the first thing on Murdock's mind.
But at least its authors attempt a rational explanation of their positions, which allows for reasonable debate and respectful dilaogue. So, while I think Deroy Murdock spouts silliness here, at least it's an explanation for why the Park51 Mosque should not be opened.
First, he says that he objects to the mosque's leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s noting that “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened.” ... And therefore he should not have a mosque.
In other words, by pointing out the historical context of the 9/11 attacks -- that many Arabs were and are furious with the US policies of repression and aggression between 1945 and 2001 -- Imam Rauf committed an egregious act, an should therefore have his right to build a mosque restricted by the government.
Murdock's big beef is with Rauf's description and mild advocacy of the need for some implementation of shari'a law. Rauf says only that Muslims want to live in place where secular law does not interfere with religious law. Such sentiments sound very much like what Jerry Falwell and the Christian Coaltion -- and The National Review -- say all the time.
But Murdock then launches on a description of the nastiest examples of shari'a-gone-bad he can find, and they are really mean: killing, maiming, torture. And that is where he palys the sleight-of-hand. Rauf does not advocate any of these practices, and shari'a is not synonymous with them. They are a misapplication of shari'a in the same way that John Yoo's torture memos were a misapplication of the US Constitution. The application, not the law itself, ought to be condemned.
So, while Murdock at least plays the game of making a logical case, he fails to do it well. That only proves why the argument against a mosque is so ridiculous and reinforces the value of the 1st Amendment, which allows all ideas to be expressed, no matter how hateful or dopey they are.
But I guess the 1st Amendment is not the first thing on Murdock's mind.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Republicans and the Mosque
AS New York City rebuilds the area around the former World Trade Center, it faces a host of controversies. In this case, architecture can have wide and deep cultural impliactions. For example, some say the new structure should be even taller than the old WTC as an indication that "we" will not "cave in" to the terrorists. That the old WTC was a blight on the neighborhood, making it darker and less livable; that it was never full and lost money; that no one really liked the building became secondary considerations for these people, most of whom never set foot in the city.
Now many of these people want to outlaw or otherwise bully out of existence a new Muslim community center set to be built near "ground zero." As a recent aNew Yorker rticle pointed out, most of the people who object to the center are from places as far as possible from the site. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and others from "the heartland" say that allowing Muslims to interact with New Yorkers near place of our most recent national catastrophe (excepting, of course, the self-inflicted disasters in the Gulf of Mexico) would be an affront to Americans -- an un-patriotic act.
Two elements of this position strike me as deeply ironic. First, before the attack, many of these people saw New York as nothing but a cesspool -- a symbol of everyhting wrong with modern America. They would not even weant to visit, much less be there. Now, though, they want part ownership, as if they had anything to do with September 11 attack.
Second, even conservative New Yorkers, like Mayor Bloomburg, support and embrace the project. They realize that New York stands for the way forward: multi-culturalism, openness and flexibilty. The people most affected by the decision like it. So where is all the railing against elitist and federal "outside intervention" now? Why must people in Kansas be left alone, while people in New York conform to the sensibilites of whack-jobs like Palin, who could not even spell "mosque" under pressure?
This is a perfect illustration of whast is wrong with the GOP.
Now many of these people want to outlaw or otherwise bully out of existence a new Muslim community center set to be built near "ground zero." As a recent aNew Yorker rticle pointed out, most of the people who object to the center are from places as far as possible from the site. Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and others from "the heartland" say that allowing Muslims to interact with New Yorkers near place of our most recent national catastrophe (excepting, of course, the self-inflicted disasters in the Gulf of Mexico) would be an affront to Americans -- an un-patriotic act.
Two elements of this position strike me as deeply ironic. First, before the attack, many of these people saw New York as nothing but a cesspool -- a symbol of everyhting wrong with modern America. They would not even weant to visit, much less be there. Now, though, they want part ownership, as if they had anything to do with September 11 attack.
Second, even conservative New Yorkers, like Mayor Bloomburg, support and embrace the project. They realize that New York stands for the way forward: multi-culturalism, openness and flexibilty. The people most affected by the decision like it. So where is all the railing against elitist and federal "outside intervention" now? Why must people in Kansas be left alone, while people in New York conform to the sensibilites of whack-jobs like Palin, who could not even spell "mosque" under pressure?
This is a perfect illustration of whast is wrong with the GOP.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Garden's Lawlessness
Much has been made on sports-talk radio and on ESPN of the New York Knicks’ recent re-flirtation with Isaiah Thomas. Thomas left the Knicks and Madison Square Garden in disgrace a couple of years ago, but own Jim Dolan always liked the guy, and so announced last week that Thomas would return to the basketball team as a “consultant.”
Most of the ire in sports-page banter has been directed at Thomas’ utter incompetence as a basketball executive. Thomas was a great basketball player himself, but he managed with the blessing and support of his owner, to run a relatively successful professional franchise into the ground. He touts himself as a great talent evaluator and recruiter, but his drafts were absolutely incomprehensible, and yielded no long-term benefits for the team. He wooed several redundant and overpaid players who could not play together, did not respect the job or their employers and put the Knicks so far over the league payroll cap that the team was essentially handicapped for three years after Thomas left. The best example was Stephon Marbury, a local playground star who never learned how to play with professional teammates and who imploded 18 months after he returned to New York.
None of these failures seemed to bother Dolan, however. He did not push Thomas out until Anucha Brown Saunders sued Thomas for sexual harassment and the Garden for doing nothing to stop it. In fact, the Garden fired Brown for accusing Thomas of harassing her – one of those obvious no-no’s. Rather than settle the case and apologize, the Garden went to trial, where witness after witness described in vivid detail the sexual predations, schoolboy antics and outright paranoia of the whole organization, with Thomas as the star idiot. Not until NBA commissioner David Stern stepped in to demand it did the Knicks finally apologize, settle and send Thomas packing.
I have not seen any commentary on the implications of this part of the story. Dolan’s decision to bring Thomas back looked to me like defiance of Brown, the judicial system that was about to support her and the NBA that treated Dolan like the immature brat he is. It was like none of it happened.
Turns out that the NBA once again stepped in to stop the hire. Because Thomas is also the head basketball coach at Florida International University, where he racked up a 7-21 record in his first year, it would be a violation of NBA conflict-of-interest rules for him to work for the Knicks. Wielding this technicality, Stern quietly told the Knicks and Thomas to “voluntarily” comply and cut the whole thing out.
(Why FIU would hire a jerk like Thomas is another matter. The university makes Thoams a major presence on its website, with no mention of his peccadillos. No different from Kentucky going out to get John Calipari, I guess. Note that this fan blog ) makes no mention of the fact that Calipari has already had two Final Four appearances voided for major rules violations.)
The moral is that Jim Dolan, spoiled heir to his father’s cable TV empire and owner of the Knicks for no other reason, considers himself above the law and the rules. He wants to play with his toys without adult interference, and he will do whatever he can to get away with it. Makes you wonder what he does with the rest of his life, doesn’t it?
Most of the ire in sports-page banter has been directed at Thomas’ utter incompetence as a basketball executive. Thomas was a great basketball player himself, but he managed with the blessing and support of his owner, to run a relatively successful professional franchise into the ground. He touts himself as a great talent evaluator and recruiter, but his drafts were absolutely incomprehensible, and yielded no long-term benefits for the team. He wooed several redundant and overpaid players who could not play together, did not respect the job or their employers and put the Knicks so far over the league payroll cap that the team was essentially handicapped for three years after Thomas left. The best example was Stephon Marbury, a local playground star who never learned how to play with professional teammates and who imploded 18 months after he returned to New York.
None of these failures seemed to bother Dolan, however. He did not push Thomas out until Anucha Brown Saunders sued Thomas for sexual harassment and the Garden for doing nothing to stop it. In fact, the Garden fired Brown for accusing Thomas of harassing her – one of those obvious no-no’s. Rather than settle the case and apologize, the Garden went to trial, where witness after witness described in vivid detail the sexual predations, schoolboy antics and outright paranoia of the whole organization, with Thomas as the star idiot. Not until NBA commissioner David Stern stepped in to demand it did the Knicks finally apologize, settle and send Thomas packing.
I have not seen any commentary on the implications of this part of the story. Dolan’s decision to bring Thomas back looked to me like defiance of Brown, the judicial system that was about to support her and the NBA that treated Dolan like the immature brat he is. It was like none of it happened.
Turns out that the NBA once again stepped in to stop the hire. Because Thomas is also the head basketball coach at Florida International University, where he racked up a 7-21 record in his first year, it would be a violation of NBA conflict-of-interest rules for him to work for the Knicks. Wielding this technicality, Stern quietly told the Knicks and Thomas to “voluntarily” comply and cut the whole thing out.
(Why FIU would hire a jerk like Thomas is another matter. The university makes Thoams a major presence on its website, with no mention of his peccadillos. No different from Kentucky going out to get John Calipari, I guess. Note that this fan blog ) makes no mention of the fact that Calipari has already had two Final Four appearances voided for major rules violations.)
The moral is that Jim Dolan, spoiled heir to his father’s cable TV empire and owner of the Knicks for no other reason, considers himself above the law and the rules. He wants to play with his toys without adult interference, and he will do whatever he can to get away with it. Makes you wonder what he does with the rest of his life, doesn’t it?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Molinaro Has a Plan
At bottom, New York's problem is political. Local representatives have too little real power, and therefore behave like the extraneous baggage they are. In a system in which "three men in a room" -- the governor, the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the Assembly -- effectively pull all the strings, there is too little incentive for the rest of the elected government to act.
In contrast to Senator Saland's inertia -- and in tension with his flippant-sounding remarks to me when I visited the assembly -- Assemblyman Marcus Molinaro has taken a much clearer and more active position in the mess. I'm not sure I fully understand the nuance of the state's deficit problems, but I am working on it -- and will post my progress here.
But here's what I like about Assemblyman Molinaro:
1) His statement (from his website) on the special session of the legislature to be called on the 28th. It says
That's exactly right. At very least, these people need to take their jobs seriously. I know that the New York State government does not pay these people a full-time salary, but that's beside the point. This is public service, and it's important.
2) His emphasis on reforming the system rather than putting band-aids on specific wounds. In contrast to Senator Saland, who posts a serpentine statement on school funding on his website (which, by the way, blames "Dems" for the problem in the clip's title), Assemblyman Molinaro lists ways in which he would like to see the entire legislative system changed. In an e-mail to me, he said,
These positions represent a long view about government, not a partisan negotiating stance.
3) His very quick, detailed and respectful response to my e-mail. I never got anything like that from Senator Saland.
I think Mr. Molinaro's resistance to borrowing comes from a good impulse, but may be short-sighted. Coupled with all the requirements of long-term reform, short-term borrowing -- actual, pay-it-back-on-time borrowing, not the book-keeping fudges that the legislature has used before -- might be necessary in a pinch, and should not be thrown out with the proverbial bath water.
In sum, I think Assemblyman Molinaro represents the kind of thinking we need in the assembly.
In contrast to Senator Saland's inertia -- and in tension with his flippant-sounding remarks to me when I visited the assembly -- Assemblyman Marcus Molinaro has taken a much clearer and more active position in the mess. I'm not sure I fully understand the nuance of the state's deficit problems, but I am working on it -- and will post my progress here.
But here's what I like about Assemblyman Molinaro:
1) His statement (from his website) on the special session of the legislature to be called on the 28th. It says
It is surprising to me that the governor needs to tell legislative leaders to do their jobs. People throughout the state have suffered long enough because of the inability of neglectful politicians to come together and finalize the state’s budget.
That's exactly right. At very least, these people need to take their jobs seriously. I know that the New York State government does not pay these people a full-time salary, but that's beside the point. This is public service, and it's important.
2) His emphasis on reforming the system rather than putting band-aids on specific wounds. In contrast to Senator Saland, who posts a serpentine statement on school funding on his website (which, by the way, blames "Dems" for the problem in the clip's title), Assemblyman Molinaro lists ways in which he would like to see the entire legislative system changed. In an e-mail to me, he said,
I support a constitutional spending cap, use of general government accounting principles, a change to the fiscal year, multi-year budgeting and even some sort of advisory panel with expert financial experience (I would not support turning over legislative responsibilities for budget adoption and management to an unelected, unaccountable board, however)
These positions represent a long view about government, not a partisan negotiating stance.
3) His very quick, detailed and respectful response to my e-mail. I never got anything like that from Senator Saland.
I think Mr. Molinaro's resistance to borrowing comes from a good impulse, but may be short-sighted. Coupled with all the requirements of long-term reform, short-term borrowing -- actual, pay-it-back-on-time borrowing, not the book-keeping fudges that the legislature has used before -- might be necessary in a pinch, and should not be thrown out with the proverbial bath water.
In sum, I think Assemblyman Molinaro represents the kind of thinking we need in the assembly.
Friday, July 23, 2010
Saland Must Go
No one doubts that New York state government is in serious trouble. The Brennan Center named New York as the least effective state government in the country – that’s right, not even relatively poor and traditionally corrupt states like Louisiana and Mississippi can match us. Our current governor has never been elected, and took office only because his predecessor was run out on a rail for using the services of a prostitute while in office (and while hounding Wall Street for its ethical problems.) The legislature has not passed a budget on time in years. Last year, the entire system came to a halt because the two parties were evenly split and took advantage of the lack of a lieutenant governor who could break a tie by engaging in open bidding for one or two senate members who were willing to join any party who promised the most. There were instances in which they actually locked each other out of the senate chamber.
When I took a Millbrook School intersession group to visit the Assembly in March, the folly was in full view. The senate spent its entire session voting on praise for local high school football teams and awarding various citizens for being nice people. The assembly rolled through a number of bills that our assemblyman, Marc Molinaro voted for while we were there despite his open admission that he had no idea what they were about. Frankly, he said, these bills were mostly meaningless because the senate had no intention of passing them, and so everybody just voted for the bills for something to do. Meanwhile … no budget, and no work on it.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Through it all, Stephen Saland, the state senator representing Dutchess County, has done nothing to demonstrate any character or competence at all. When I called his office last year to complain about the whole sordid mess, I spoke to an aid who could only try to blame the Democrats and fret how there was nothing her boss could do to make a difference. She actually called him powerless, and said that only the senate majority leader had any influence, and the Democrats were making it impossible for the Republicans to elect the right senate majority leader. No one returned my e-mails.
This is exactly why New York government fails, and why Saland should be removed from office. Saland does not even pretend that he has a serious job to do. During the crisis last summer, his website included no mention of the problem or his position on it, and as far as I can tell he has never publically addressed it in any substantive way. He can join in partisan nonsense with the best of them, and he can give a terrifically vapid speech at the opening of school events, but he can do nothing about the fact that the government of New York is the worst in the western hemisphere.
Saland must go.
When I took a Millbrook School intersession group to visit the Assembly in March, the folly was in full view. The senate spent its entire session voting on praise for local high school football teams and awarding various citizens for being nice people. The assembly rolled through a number of bills that our assemblyman, Marc Molinaro voted for while we were there despite his open admission that he had no idea what they were about. Frankly, he said, these bills were mostly meaningless because the senate had no intention of passing them, and so everybody just voted for the bills for something to do. Meanwhile … no budget, and no work on it.
You can’t make this stuff up.
Through it all, Stephen Saland, the state senator representing Dutchess County, has done nothing to demonstrate any character or competence at all. When I called his office last year to complain about the whole sordid mess, I spoke to an aid who could only try to blame the Democrats and fret how there was nothing her boss could do to make a difference. She actually called him powerless, and said that only the senate majority leader had any influence, and the Democrats were making it impossible for the Republicans to elect the right senate majority leader. No one returned my e-mails.
This is exactly why New York government fails, and why Saland should be removed from office. Saland does not even pretend that he has a serious job to do. During the crisis last summer, his website included no mention of the problem or his position on it, and as far as I can tell he has never publically addressed it in any substantive way. He can join in partisan nonsense with the best of them, and he can give a terrifically vapid speech at the opening of school events, but he can do nothing about the fact that the government of New York is the worst in the western hemisphere.
Saland must go.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Roberts Whines
In March, Chief Justice Roberts complained that he did not enjoy his experience at the State of the Union address. In that speech, President Obama specifically criticized the Court’s recent decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, which all-but-eliminated most regulations on election campaign contributions and financing. The president’s remarks resulted in a rousing ovation from the Democrats in the chamber, and Roberts said he did not appreciate having to withstand the embarrassment of having one of the Court’s decisions so publically condemned when all the justices could do was sit impassively.
I have so sympathy for this position. Not only did the Court’s decision overturn decades of American jurisprudence, substitute the Court’s factual findings for those of the other branches of government (both Republican and Democratic), leave lower courts without any useful standard for interpreting such laws in the future and anger four members of the Courts itself, but it may very well have reshaped the way elections on all levels are conducted in this country for years to come. For a court and a Chief Justice so fond of defending stare decisis and close reading of the constitution, this was quite a dramatic act. Finding campaign spending in the First Amendment requires at least one pretty big logical leap, and Justice Kennedy and the four “conservatives” seemed awfully comfortable making the jump. Judges are rightly insulated from the vicissitudes of elections, but they cannot be and should not be protected from public outrage at their irresponsibility. If the Chief Justice would like to maintain the dignity of his robes, he ought to do so from the bench. Once he is out on the streets – or on the Hill – he is on his own.
I have so sympathy for this position. Not only did the Court’s decision overturn decades of American jurisprudence, substitute the Court’s factual findings for those of the other branches of government (both Republican and Democratic), leave lower courts without any useful standard for interpreting such laws in the future and anger four members of the Courts itself, but it may very well have reshaped the way elections on all levels are conducted in this country for years to come. For a court and a Chief Justice so fond of defending stare decisis and close reading of the constitution, this was quite a dramatic act. Finding campaign spending in the First Amendment requires at least one pretty big logical leap, and Justice Kennedy and the four “conservatives” seemed awfully comfortable making the jump. Judges are rightly insulated from the vicissitudes of elections, but they cannot be and should not be protected from public outrage at their irresponsibility. If the Chief Justice would like to maintain the dignity of his robes, he ought to do so from the bench. Once he is out on the streets – or on the Hill – he is on his own.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Why Skilling (the Sleaze-bag) Had to Win
Last week, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in Skilling v. United States, an appeal by Enron conman Andrew Skilling of his conviction for fraud. Skilling won, in the most important aspect of his appeal. As both New York Times and Washington Post editorials noted, this was a victory not so much for the sleaze-bags like Skilling and New York senator Joe Bruno who have been convicted under the law, as for the rule of law itself. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s majority opinion found that the statute in question was improperly applied to Skilling’s case, and that if Congress or the states wanted to convict people of being sleaze-bags, they were going to have to define the term more carefully. The majority did not strike the law in its entirety, however, over the objections of Antonin Scalia, his sidekick Clarence Thomas and Andrew Kennedy.
Although the immediate result would have been the same, this is an instance in which I tend to agree with Scalia more than Ginsburg. Scalia is at his best when he cleaves closely to his long-held principles of “textualism,” which insist that courts read all words – in the constitution and in statutes – as narrowly as makes sense to read them rather than finding new possible meanings in order to fit new circumstances. This is a seriously laudable principle, in part because, if courts followed it, legislatures would have to pay much closer attention to their job. As Scalia frequently notes, when courts let the legislatures off the hook by imbuing their words with useful meanings post hoc, we get bad behavior from both judges and legislators. Judges read the law to mean whatever they want to say (as Scalia did in Bush v. Gore) rather than what it actually says, and lawmakers slap together statutes without ever reading them carefully, if at all.
According to the summary of the majority opinion, the “honest services doctrine” under which Skilling was convicted originated in a 1940’s mail fraud law which prohibited “any scheme to defraud” someone else. Under this theory, an employee who took bribes from a third party could be convicted for defrauding his employer or a public servant who took bribes in the course of his duties. As these convictions increased in number, however, courts began to broaden the interpretation of the law, to the point that no one really knew what it meant. One could be “defrauded” of the right to proper representation, to diligent effort, to loyalty. This was not the sort of thing that “fraud” usually meant.
To remedy this problem, in 1987 the US Supreme Court ruled in McNally v. US that under the law as written, one could only be defrauded of property rights. In other words, if no one lost actual stuff, the government could not convict. Standing would be much more easily understood. “If Congress desires to go further,” the Court stated, “it must speak more clearly.”
So, in 1988, Congress wrote §1346 of the penal code, which stated that “For the purposes of th[e] chapter [of the U. S. Code that prohibits, inter alia, mail fraud, §1341, and wire fraud, §1343], the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” But this attempted remedy was no help. Just as Scalia has warned for years, the thing was written so vaguely and sloppily that it only offered support for a broad concept developed by the courts rather than defining the rule more carefully. What would “honest services” mean, and where does one get the “intangible right” to have them?
The majority opinion here says that the answer can be found in the legislative history. Congress intended, says Ginsburg, to outlaw “kickbacks and bribes” that then lead to sleaze-bag behavior. Where there is no kickback or bribe from a third part, says the Court, there is no violation of the law.
But why should the Court have to look at legislative history to find such an answer? If the legislature meant to limit the law to these instances, it should have said so. Because Congress was lazy or sloppy, they wrote a law nobody could figure out, and it should have been chucked and re-written. What the Court did here was write the law for Congress. That’s not what courts are for. And considering how little I like most of the current members, and how untouchable they are under the constitution, I don’t want them to have that power.
Although the immediate result would have been the same, this is an instance in which I tend to agree with Scalia more than Ginsburg. Scalia is at his best when he cleaves closely to his long-held principles of “textualism,” which insist that courts read all words – in the constitution and in statutes – as narrowly as makes sense to read them rather than finding new possible meanings in order to fit new circumstances. This is a seriously laudable principle, in part because, if courts followed it, legislatures would have to pay much closer attention to their job. As Scalia frequently notes, when courts let the legislatures off the hook by imbuing their words with useful meanings post hoc, we get bad behavior from both judges and legislators. Judges read the law to mean whatever they want to say (as Scalia did in Bush v. Gore) rather than what it actually says, and lawmakers slap together statutes without ever reading them carefully, if at all.
According to the summary of the majority opinion, the “honest services doctrine” under which Skilling was convicted originated in a 1940’s mail fraud law which prohibited “any scheme to defraud” someone else. Under this theory, an employee who took bribes from a third party could be convicted for defrauding his employer or a public servant who took bribes in the course of his duties. As these convictions increased in number, however, courts began to broaden the interpretation of the law, to the point that no one really knew what it meant. One could be “defrauded” of the right to proper representation, to diligent effort, to loyalty. This was not the sort of thing that “fraud” usually meant.
To remedy this problem, in 1987 the US Supreme Court ruled in McNally v. US that under the law as written, one could only be defrauded of property rights. In other words, if no one lost actual stuff, the government could not convict. Standing would be much more easily understood. “If Congress desires to go further,” the Court stated, “it must speak more clearly.”
So, in 1988, Congress wrote §1346 of the penal code, which stated that “For the purposes of th[e] chapter [of the U. S. Code that prohibits, inter alia, mail fraud, §1341, and wire fraud, §1343], the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” But this attempted remedy was no help. Just as Scalia has warned for years, the thing was written so vaguely and sloppily that it only offered support for a broad concept developed by the courts rather than defining the rule more carefully. What would “honest services” mean, and where does one get the “intangible right” to have them?
The majority opinion here says that the answer can be found in the legislative history. Congress intended, says Ginsburg, to outlaw “kickbacks and bribes” that then lead to sleaze-bag behavior. Where there is no kickback or bribe from a third part, says the Court, there is no violation of the law.
But why should the Court have to look at legislative history to find such an answer? If the legislature meant to limit the law to these instances, it should have said so. Because Congress was lazy or sloppy, they wrote a law nobody could figure out, and it should have been chucked and re-written. What the Court did here was write the law for Congress. That’s not what courts are for. And considering how little I like most of the current members, and how untouchable they are under the constitution, I don’t want them to have that power.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Miranda Rights in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Excellent editorial here.
Argues that now is exactly not the time to roll back the rights of the accused.
Argues that now is exactly not the time to roll back the rights of the accused.
Egypt, the United States and the Rule of Law
The Egyptian government declared yesterday that it would extend the "emergency law" that has been in place there since 1981, when Anwar Sadat was assassinated, despite Mubarek's repeated promises to rescind it, and the increasingly vocal protests over it.
The Obama State Department expressed "disappointment" over the announcement. It said that
This is a dicey diplomatic moment, of course, because the US needs Egyptian support in the region, not only because Mubarek has not opposed the US presence in Iraq, but because he has proven to be a fairly consistent partner in the Israel-Palestine mess.
But Mubarek's obvious dismissal of the need to rule democratically reveals Obama's problems as a world leader -- many of them created by Bush the Boy. Egypt receives more foreign aid from the US than any other nation save that other paragon of virtue, Israel. Together, then, these two allies daily trample the basic human and civil rights of their inhabitants and give the lie to the idea that the US hopes to democratize the region. It's hard to call for reform in Iraq (much less Afghanistan) when reform is nearly as badly needed in the places most supported by the US.
Things might be easier, of course, had Bush the Boy not invaded Iraq, thereby trampling international law in practice and theory. Iraq might, in that case, still be ruled by Saddam Hussein, but the US government would have the clout, the money and the good will to make more significant changes where it matters most.
The Obama State Department expressed "disappointment" over the announcement. It said that
any move to significantly narrow the application of the Emergency Law would be a step forward if it means greater protection of civil liberties for Egyptian citizens in practice. We are confident that Egypt can draft and adopt effective counterterrorism legislation that conforms to international standards for civil liberties and due process. And the United States urges Egypt to complete this legislation on an urgent basis and to rescind the State of Emergency within the coming months.
This is a dicey diplomatic moment, of course, because the US needs Egyptian support in the region, not only because Mubarek has not opposed the US presence in Iraq, but because he has proven to be a fairly consistent partner in the Israel-Palestine mess.
But Mubarek's obvious dismissal of the need to rule democratically reveals Obama's problems as a world leader -- many of them created by Bush the Boy. Egypt receives more foreign aid from the US than any other nation save that other paragon of virtue, Israel. Together, then, these two allies daily trample the basic human and civil rights of their inhabitants and give the lie to the idea that the US hopes to democratize the region. It's hard to call for reform in Iraq (much less Afghanistan) when reform is nearly as badly needed in the places most supported by the US.
Things might be easier, of course, had Bush the Boy not invaded Iraq, thereby trampling international law in practice and theory. Iraq might, in that case, still be ruled by Saddam Hussein, but the US government would have the clout, the money and the good will to make more significant changes where it matters most.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
The Times Square Bomber and the Law
Ordinarily I read The National Review the way some people stare at car wrecks - with a mixture of prurient curiosity and horror. This week, though, Andrew McCarthy made some very useful observations about the Obama Administration's handling of the bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad.
Essentially, his position is this:
The "slack" comes, he says, primarily from the fact that Shahzad is a US citizen who has not been found conducting actual operations against the United States on the field of battle, not matter how metaphorical we make that field. That is, not everyone guilty of a heinous act with political motives is an "enemy combatant." As is clear from his many caveats and half-apolgies, National Review types do not always accept this basic proposition.
McCarthy also points out that the nature of the case against Shahzad is not yet public, so we do not know for sure that the suspect is a terrorist. In fact, the only evidence tying him to the car bomb appears to be his confession. (Which, by the way, was obtained without torture, in the custody of law enforcement, not the military.)
His willingness to be patient, to argue explicitly that we may disagree with the Obama Administration without name-calling and accusations of insanity of stupidity, stands out not only for his publication but for the tone of political discourse in general in this country of late. I applaud him
Still, the implications of his position are a little weird at times. He seems to indicate that when we do have what we think is iron-clad evidence, the military court system is more appropriate than the civilian one. I'm not sure why that would be. Is it just that we do not want a suspect to have the chance to make his case, even when ewe know he will be locked up forever right after making it? The lack of trust in our courts continues to puzzle me when it comes from conservatives. I would have thought that to be "conservative" would be to lean more heavily on the constitution as it is set up rather than allowing for ad hoc adjustments by whatever person happens to be in office at the time.
Essentially, his position is this:
The Obama administration strongly prefers the law-enforcement model, and that is how the Times Square case is being handled. Though I believe the military process should be our default choice during wartime, the administration should be cut some slack in this case. There are things to criticize, and the case bears close watching. Knee-jerk derision, though, would be a mistake.
The "slack" comes, he says, primarily from the fact that Shahzad is a US citizen who has not been found conducting actual operations against the United States on the field of battle, not matter how metaphorical we make that field. That is, not everyone guilty of a heinous act with political motives is an "enemy combatant." As is clear from his many caveats and half-apolgies, National Review types do not always accept this basic proposition.
McCarthy also points out that the nature of the case against Shahzad is not yet public, so we do not know for sure that the suspect is a terrorist. In fact, the only evidence tying him to the car bomb appears to be his confession. (Which, by the way, was obtained without torture, in the custody of law enforcement, not the military.)
His willingness to be patient, to argue explicitly that we may disagree with the Obama Administration without name-calling and accusations of insanity of stupidity, stands out not only for his publication but for the tone of political discourse in general in this country of late. I applaud him
Still, the implications of his position are a little weird at times. He seems to indicate that when we do have what we think is iron-clad evidence, the military court system is more appropriate than the civilian one. I'm not sure why that would be. Is it just that we do not want a suspect to have the chance to make his case, even when ewe know he will be locked up forever right after making it? The lack of trust in our courts continues to puzzle me when it comes from conservatives. I would have thought that to be "conservative" would be to lean more heavily on the constitution as it is set up rather than allowing for ad hoc adjustments by whatever person happens to be in office at the time.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
When Will Netanyahu Come to Grips with the Facts?
As Mark Landler notes here -- -- the Israeli government has work to do. Right now Netanyahu is taking the same kind of ideology-first position on negotiating with Palestinians that Bush took on all items he deemed terrorism-related. Netanyahu, apparently supported by his diplomatic corps, chooses to ignore the facts of the situation:
* Israel no longer holds the moral high ground, and has lost the diplomatic and public relations battle, even with Hamas, over the last few years. Despite the pandering from otherwise rational people like Senator Chuck Schumer (who must always agree with the Israeli lobby because his base is in New York City), world opinion has come to sympathize with the Palestinian plight.
* Israel's security depends on the cooperation of other nations, like the US and Egypt. By doing weird stuff like trying to seal Gaza, the Israelis undermine that cooperation.
*Israel can not protect itself through settlement of the West Bank. The whole "facts on the ground" approach has been a dismal failure, and even in the short run can't work. Palestinians will not go away.
Netanyahu may have hoped that Obama would have disappeared by now, having lost the health care debate. His anlalysts, like the Republican Party, got that guess wrong, and have to move on from it. Obama will not disappear.
* Israel no longer holds the moral high ground, and has lost the diplomatic and public relations battle, even with Hamas, over the last few years. Despite the pandering from otherwise rational people like Senator Chuck Schumer (who must always agree with the Israeli lobby because his base is in New York City), world opinion has come to sympathize with the Palestinian plight.
* Israel's security depends on the cooperation of other nations, like the US and Egypt. By doing weird stuff like trying to seal Gaza, the Israelis undermine that cooperation.
*Israel can not protect itself through settlement of the West Bank. The whole "facts on the ground" approach has been a dismal failure, and even in the short run can't work. Palestinians will not go away.
Netanyahu may have hoped that Obama would have disappeared by now, having lost the health care debate. His anlalysts, like the Republican Party, got that guess wrong, and have to move on from it. Obama will not disappear.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Holder at Vassar
Four students and I saw Attorney General Holder speak at Vassar College yesterday.
In a fifteen-minute session before his formal speech, Holder took questions from about 75 high school students in a small lecture room. I was impressed with his answers. Most of the time, when public people address young kids, they condescend. Holder's answers were complex, nuanced and forthright. He assumed that the students understood their own questions -- many of which were knowledgable and sophisticated -- and gave his actual opinion.
Nothing, he said, however, was all that surprising or new.
Still, I appreciate the pro-intellectual bent of this administration. When asked about security threats, Holder did not bash the previous adminsitration, and he acknowledged the difficulty of facing real dangers while thinking about civil liberties. When asked about extraordinary renditions, he condemned torture in principle and practice, and made clear -- on intellectual, not personal terms -- that the rejected the view of people like Dick Cheney that torture is necessary.
Holder's speech to a larger crowd in the chapel was unremarkable at best. He spoke on public service, but read the message as if it were written by an aid. It probably was. The whole thing was 15 minutes long and said nothing interesting at all.
On a side note, I found Vassar's approach to him surprisingly obsequious. I'm sure it's no small thing to get the sitting AG to come, but Bates did it all the time and did not fawn and thank and thank and thank the way Vassar did. Even Millbrook does not act so grateful for visits from important personages. It made certain aspects of his visit seem like the arrival of a rock star rather than the speech of a public servant.
In a fifteen-minute session before his formal speech, Holder took questions from about 75 high school students in a small lecture room. I was impressed with his answers. Most of the time, when public people address young kids, they condescend. Holder's answers were complex, nuanced and forthright. He assumed that the students understood their own questions -- many of which were knowledgable and sophisticated -- and gave his actual opinion.
Nothing, he said, however, was all that surprising or new.
Still, I appreciate the pro-intellectual bent of this administration. When asked about security threats, Holder did not bash the previous adminsitration, and he acknowledged the difficulty of facing real dangers while thinking about civil liberties. When asked about extraordinary renditions, he condemned torture in principle and practice, and made clear -- on intellectual, not personal terms -- that the rejected the view of people like Dick Cheney that torture is necessary.
Holder's speech to a larger crowd in the chapel was unremarkable at best. He spoke on public service, but read the message as if it were written by an aid. It probably was. The whole thing was 15 minutes long and said nothing interesting at all.
On a side note, I found Vassar's approach to him surprisingly obsequious. I'm sure it's no small thing to get the sitting AG to come, but Bates did it all the time and did not fawn and thank and thank and thank the way Vassar did. Even Millbrook does not act so grateful for visits from important personages. It made certain aspects of his visit seem like the arrival of a rock star rather than the speech of a public servant.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Islam and Americans
Two or three weeks ago, I had a long conversation with my parents about the nature of Islam. They had recently finsished reading a book which argued that Islam, in its entirety, was fundamentally immoral and that the rest of us ought to confront it as we would confront fascism or racism.
My response was to say that it might be the case that my morality and theirs did oppose Isalmic moraility in its essence. There might be things about that religion that we found repugnant, and if so we had an obligation to oppose it. On the other hand, such did not seem to be the case. Too many Muslims, including those protesting in Iran, did stand for inclusion and democracy and the like. Too many Muslims, including those fighting for reform in Yemen, want to protect the rights of women and girls. To say that all Muslims, so long as they really are Muslims, are wrong is a factual error as much as a moral one.
Andrew McCarthy, of The New Republic, agrees with my parents. He writes:
As head of Central Command, General Petraeus’s area of responsibility includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. That is, CENTCOM is the U.S. military’s bridge to the Muslim umma, much of which despises America. The vast majority of Americans couldn’t care less about that. It is Islam’s problem, not ours — we’re not dying to be loved by a dysfunctional civilization that produces most of the planet’s terrorists. But for the Wilsonians who deem it worth our time, money, and lives to try to remake the Islamic world, Muslim animus is something that must be addressed — otherwise, they’d have to concede that there is nothing we can do about it, that Muslims resent more than appreciate our help, and that their grand project is thus a fool’s errand.
To say that the entire umma hates America represents a destructive and, more important, factually inaccurate approach to the state of the world. If we base our actions on this view, we will do more damage than good to ourselves.
My response was to say that it might be the case that my morality and theirs did oppose Isalmic moraility in its essence. There might be things about that religion that we found repugnant, and if so we had an obligation to oppose it. On the other hand, such did not seem to be the case. Too many Muslims, including those protesting in Iran, did stand for inclusion and democracy and the like. Too many Muslims, including those fighting for reform in Yemen, want to protect the rights of women and girls. To say that all Muslims, so long as they really are Muslims, are wrong is a factual error as much as a moral one.
Andrew McCarthy, of The New Republic, agrees with my parents. He writes:
As head of Central Command, General Petraeus’s area of responsibility includes Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. That is, CENTCOM is the U.S. military’s bridge to the Muslim umma, much of which despises America. The vast majority of Americans couldn’t care less about that. It is Islam’s problem, not ours — we’re not dying to be loved by a dysfunctional civilization that produces most of the planet’s terrorists. But for the Wilsonians who deem it worth our time, money, and lives to try to remake the Islamic world, Muslim animus is something that must be addressed — otherwise, they’d have to concede that there is nothing we can do about it, that Muslims resent more than appreciate our help, and that their grand project is thus a fool’s errand.
To say that the entire umma hates America represents a destructive and, more important, factually inaccurate approach to the state of the world. If we base our actions on this view, we will do more damage than good to ourselves.
What the Constitution is Not
One reader of the Chillicothe Gazette may reveal exactly why so many "conservatives" think the health care bill is unconstitutional.
The argument is that health care does not appear anywhere in the constitution. That fact is correct. But neither do airplanes, railroads or oil.
Article I section 8 does strictly limit what Congress and the rest of the federal government can do. I appreciate efforts to hold the government to its job. It's a gross misunderstanding of the document, however, to say that if the thing does not mention a particular issue, that issue can not be addressed.
The argument is that health care does not appear anywhere in the constitution. That fact is correct. But neither do airplanes, railroads or oil.
Article I section 8 does strictly limit what Congress and the rest of the federal government can do. I appreciate efforts to hold the government to its job. It's a gross misunderstanding of the document, however, to say that if the thing does not mention a particular issue, that issue can not be addressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)