On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say "NO" to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation - that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price…[more]

July 15, 2019 • 02:48 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Democrats Aren't Losing Faith in Our Constitutional System. They Just Don't Like It Print
By David Harsanyi
Sunday, November 11 2018
If the Founding Fathers didn't want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018?

In liberals' imaginations, there are only four ways to lose elections  and none has to do with their leftist turn, their hysterics or their one-dimensional identity politics. Democrats say they lose because of gerrymandering, voter suppression (sometimes known as asking for ID), Russian mind-control rays deployed by social media, and our antiquated and unfair Constitution.

That last excuse is becoming increasingly popular among pundits who continue to invent new crises to freak out about.

Take Vox's Ezra Klein, a longtime champion of direct democracy: "I don't think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority," he tweeted before the midterms. "After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so)."

The "House popular vote" now joins the "national popular vote" and "Senate popular vote" as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren't brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.

Otherwise, why would Democrats lose faith in a "system" that is doing exactly what was intended? The Constitution explicitly protects small states (and individuals) from national majorities. The argument for diffusing democracy and checking a strong federal government is laid out in The Federalist Papers and codified on an array of levels. This was done on purpose. It is the system.

I mean, do Democrats really believe that the Electoral College was constructed to always correspond with the national vote? Do they believe that the signers of the Constitution were unaware that some states would be far bigger than others in the future? If the Founding Fathers didn't want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018? If you don't believe that this kind of proportionality is a vital part of American governance, you don't believe in American governance.

You can despise Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee? Why would Democrats lose faith in "the system" that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used? Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech? When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.

It's because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.

It's not a civics problem, either. One hopes that such liberal activists as NBC News' Ken Dilanian, who wonders "how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority," understand sixth-grade civics. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn't give "disproportionate weight" to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate. Krugman only finds this idea "disproportionate" because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn't bully people such as Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. Those in non-"forward-moving" America  those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington don't very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions of Americans aside to make this argument. We don't know how a national majority would vote. There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don't involve themselves in the futility of state politics. Those who rely on a "Senate popular vote" are being particularly dishonest, considering California didn't have a Republican on the ballot Tuesday. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made "democracy"  a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence  into a sacramental rite. Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in our founding documents  unless, of course, a right happens to intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, e.g., birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists.

The only reason these folks who claim to want to save Constitution from Trump see crisis in the system is that it fails to deliver for them politically. They're not losing faith in the system. They just don't like the system.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming book "First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History With the Gun." 
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
On July 20, 1969, the first man to walk on the Moon was Neil Armstrong, making “one giant leap for Mankind.” Who was the last person to walk on the Moon?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Months of bleak polling couldn't stop the parade of lower-level Democrats crowding into the presidential primary.But bankruptcy might.Eleven Democratic presidential candidates -- nearly half of the sprawling field -- spent more campaign cash than they raised in the second quarter of the year, according to new financial disclosures filed Monday. Eight contenders active in the spring limped forward…[more]
 
 
—David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
— David Siders, Zach Montellard and Scott Bland, Politico
 
Liberty Poll   

Do the "politics of personal destruction," now rampant across the political spectrum and amplified by the media, make you more or less inclined to personally participate in political activity?