Freedom Line Blog

The people who brought – and won – District of Columbia v. Heller (aka “the D.C. Gun Rights Case”) are back with a lawsuit challenging a nearly identical ban on handgun possession in Chicago, IL. The Supreme Court ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment protected an individual’s right to own and use a firearm (not a militia’s) in the District of Columbia (i.e. a federal jurisdiction). Now the question in McDonald v. City of Chicago is whether the Supreme Court will extend its ruling in Heller to cover McDonald’s right to own and use a firearm to invalidate a state law.

But wait; there’s more! The lawyers for McDonald are advancing a provocative theory that could expand the use of “Originalist” interpretation of the Constitution. Close followers of the Court will recall that Justice Scalia is the most well known proponent of interpreting the Constitution in light of its original and public understanding of its text at the time it was ratified (i.e. 1791). In fact, Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in Heller was a triumph of sorts for Originalism as an authoritative method of interpretation. In their brief, McDonald’s lawyers argue for using Originalism to overturn a 136 year old precedent in favor of interpreting the 14th Amendment as its framers intended. That is, to guarantee the extension of the federal bill of rights against encroaching state laws.

Apart from federalism concerns, the use of the 14th Amendment to reinterpret the application of the first ten amendments could – as this blog post from the Wall Street Journal explains – make Originalism more attractive to liberal members of the Court. Why? Because instead of looking at 1791 as Scalia does, Justices like Breyer and Ginsburg would look to 1868, the year the 14th Amendment was ratified. (A time when America was rethinking the scope of state’s rights.)

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case next year promises to be consequential. As usual, what’s at stake is far bigger than the surface level issue that got the parties through the door. Stay tuned…

Ah, the world of Democratic fiscal policy.  If you pass three massive stimulus bills that not only fail to stimulate job growth, but partly contribute to 10.2% unemployment, why not go back to the well and push for tax hikes?

According to the Hill, Democrats are seeking a $150 billion tax on the sale and purchase of financial instruments like stocks and derivatives.  The thinking is that since Wall Street is finally recovering and unemployment is still lingering above 10 percent that Wall Street needs to involuntarily fund a “Job Creation Reserve” for the unemployed.  If that’s all it takes to lift a $14 trillion economy out of recession, why didn’t our exalted class of politicos think of this before?

Now that Wall Street is starting to recover, what better way to welcome it back to prosperity than with a massive new tax hike?  This failed line of thinking reminds me of the old Ronald Reagan quote, “If it moves, tax it.  If it keeps moving, regulate it.  And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

For real life illustrations of this quote see: Wall Street bailouts/new taxes, taxing “rich people,” bailing out Detroit, subsidizing Amtrak, subsidizing the postal service, subsidizing agriculture, and the regulation of pretty much every productive economic venture in the U.S.

HT: reason.tv

New York Post – Harry Reid’s Louisiana Purchase
Michael Barone – Are Democrats Exiting the Sinking Ship?
WSJ – Lieberman Digs in on Public Option
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Three Republicans Ready for 2012?

The Hill – Rep. Moore Becomes First House Retirement
Politico – Democrats Push for War Surtax
PC World – Mobile Groups Protest Net Neutrality
WSJ Editorial – Rationing: Liberals and Mammograms

Federal Debt: $12.030 trillion

It’s late on Monday night and President Obama has been huddling with his “war council” at the White House for the ninth time discussing a strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  Never mind that Obama himself unveiled a new strategy in the spring, that he was responsible for appointing General McChrystal as the commander in theater, and that his months-long ambivalence on Afghanistan is in sharp contrast to the “fierce urgency of now” that drove the stimulus package, cap and trade, and health care reform to be rolled out in massive pieces of legislation delivered in the middle of the night.

Even putting all that aside, what’s truly worrisome about the President’s current state of mind is his unseriousness.  According to CNN’s coverage of the council meeting:

At the last war council meeting – on November 11, Veteran’s Day – Obama pushed for revisions in proposed plans for troop increases to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that Obama would seek answers at Monday’s meeting to the questions he posed on November 11 about “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out.”

It’s all well and good for Obama to be considering what the endgame in Afghanistan will look like, but that’s no reason to delay the decision-making process.  The historical record is pretty clear. While an emphasis on exit strategies always sounds comforting, they’re almost impossible to construct in a vacuum.  If Afghanistan is really the “war of necessity” the president has said it is (and it is), he needs to settle on a strategy for victory. Trying to figure out how to leave before figuring out how to win is a recipe for failure. Obama is president now — which means it’s time for him to stop thinking about the war in terms of election cycles.

This might be a bit too “wonky” but here is the take from two Harvard economists on fiscal policy:

Fiscal stimuli based upon tax cuts are more likely to increase growth than those based upon spending increases. As for fiscal adjustments, those based upon spending cuts and no tax increases are more likely to reduce deficits and debt over GDP ratios than those based upon tax increases.

Bottom line: tax increases are bad.
HT: Greg Mankiw

These days, the future of free speech looks grim.  However, the WSJ and FantasySCOTUS predict that the government will lose in the pivotal case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Of the 286 predictions, 67 percent believe that the Supreme Court will overrule the D.C. Circuit Court and find that “Hillary: The Movie” is not covered by current campaign finance regulations.  The final verdict: free speech wins.

That’s the good news.  The bad news is that these are just predictions and the longer the Court sits on the opinion, the more free speech suffers.

Read more here, here and here.

In an uncharacteristically heated exchange last week at the House Joint Economic Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner astonisingly denied any responsibility for financial decisions that helped trigger our current downturn.

Representative Kevin Brady (R – Texas) recited a litany of Geithner’s errors and concluded, “the public has lost all confidence in your ability to do the job.”  Peering from behind his oversized forehead and beady little eyes, Geithner replied, “what I can’t take responsibility for is the legacy of crises you’ve bequeathed this country.”

On what planet is Geithner living?

This is the man who, in addition to failing to pay federal income taxes, served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Let’s see…  Chief of the Federal Reserve, driver of the loose money monetary bubble,  in the city that is the financial center of the world, whose speculation and ensuing meltdown sparked the economic downturn… Perhaps he was asleep at his desk throughout his tenure, thereby absolving him from responsibility?

Come to think of it, that might also explain his blatant failure to pay taxes.

The California city of Salinas is ready to give counterinsurgency a try because the gang problem is out of control.

In the space of 11 days this year, seven people were murdered in Salinas. Each killing, like the record 25 homicides the previous year, spilled from the gang warfare that this summer pushed the homicide rate in the city of 140,000 to three times that of Los Angeles. Residents retreated indoors at night, and Mayor Dennis Donohue affirmed his decision to seek help from an unlikely source: the U.S. military.

Since February, combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan have been advising Salinas police on counterinsurgency strategy, bringing lessons from the battlefield to the meanest streets in an American city.

“This is our surge,” said Donohue, who solicited the assistance from the elite Naval Postgraduate School, 20 miles and a world away in Monterey. “When the public heard about this, they thought we were going to send the Navy SEALs into Salinas.”

Not quite. But the lessons learned from General David Petraeus’ successful counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq include the importance of creating trust between citizens and law enforcement. As in Iraq, the people most affected by the violence are suspicious of those charged with protecting them. Changing that dynamic is essential in order to achieve victory. And in order to change the dynamic, Salinas is going to need more boots on the ground so that police can cover more ground while building stronger relationships in the community.

Who knows; maybe if this domestic surge works as well as the one in Iraq, the Obama Administration might stop dithering and go for the win in Afghanistan.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, patients and health care professionals, the Senate successfully invoked cloture on its health care plan last Saturday.  With only 60 votes needed to proceed to consideration of the bill, Harry Reid got his 60 votes.

Since few Senators likely read the entire 2,074-page piece of legislation, here’s a quick breakdown, courtesy of Senator Coburn, of what was in the bill.

• 8 – new taxes created in the bill.

• 70 – government programs created in the bill.

• 3,607 – uses of the word “shall.”

• 24 million – patients left without health care.

• $494 billion – in new tax hikes.

• $2.5 trillion – total cost of the legislation.

In an apparent expression of thanksgiving, a lawyer for one of the five terrorists to be put on trial in New York said that his client and the others are planning to plead “not guilty” in order to “give their assessment about American foreign policy.” And just what might their assessment be?

Their assessment is negative.”

Glad we’re spending millions of dollars to hear that message!  Bear in mind, the accused don’t dispute whether they are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. They just want to “air their criticisms” while standing trial in the world’s media capitol. Perhaps this Thursday we can name the bird Eric Holder in honor of the nation’s #1 turkey.

David Boaz – Rhodes Scholars and the Business World
Politico – How Health Care Reform Could Fall Apart
Human Events – Spending Spree a Winning Issue for GOP
Chicago Tribune – NEA’s True Agenda: Power

The Hill – Sen. McCaskill Still Reading Health Bill
WSJ Editorial – The Senate’s Health Care Act
National Review Online – Turbulence Ahead for Health Care
Washington Post – Free Speech is Net Neutrality?

Federal Debt: $12.026 trillion

Sometimes I think the best way for conservatives to dominate public opinion would be to just get out of the way and let liberals do all the talking.

A good example of this principle can be found in the new column by the Miami Herald’s Leonard Pitts. In a defense of Attorney General Holder’s decision to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other Al Qaeda terrorists to trial in civilian courts, Pitts claims that the primary motivation of those opposed to the move is a visceral need for vengeance:

Pitts’ response:

But you have to wonder: Are our emotional needs the most important consideration here?

It’s worth remembering that even the architects of the greatest barbarism in history had their day in court. After burning away 11 million lives, the leaders of the Nazi regime found themselves facing not summary execution, but a trial before a military tribunal in Nuremberg, Germany.

As prosecutor Robert Jackson put it: “That four great nations, flushed with victory and stung with injury, stay the hand of vengeance and voluntarily submit their captive enemies to the judgment of the law is one of the most significant tributes that power has ever paid to reason.”

One little problem. The enlightened example cited by Mr. Pitts was a military tribunal — exactly what KSM and company would have had if the Attorney General hadn’t booked their Manhattan vacation.  Never mind that Nuremberg only took place after World War II had ended …

Today’s Wall Street Journal profiles Dr. Devi Shetty, an Indian heart surgeon finding a way to deliver quality health care at lower prices.

Dr. Shetty, who entered the limelight in the early 1990s as Mother Teresa’s cardiac surgeon, offers cutting-edge medical care in India at a fraction of what it costs elsewhere in the world. His flagship heart hospital charges $2,000, on average, for open-heart surgery, compared with hospitals in the U.S. that are paid between $20,000 and $100,000, depending on the complexity of the surgery.

The approach has transformed health care in India through a simple premise that works in other industries: economies of scale. By driving huge volumes, even of procedures as sophisticated, delicate and dangerous as heart surgery, Dr. Shetty has managed to drive down the cost of health care in his nation of one billion.

Using economies of scale also allows doctors working at Shetty’s hospital to specialize in specific types of heart ailments by conducting the procedure hundreds, if not thousands, of times. This kind of repetition reduces the risk of something going wrong during surgery, thus leading to better patient outcomes.

When discussing how to reduce costs while maintaining quality, Shetty offers an insight that stands in stark contrast to the “comprehensive” reform of health care currently being pursued by the Democratic Party in America. “What health care needs is process innovation, not product innovation.” Perhaps the best line in the whole article is Shetty’s observation about implementing real, lasting changes that will bend the health care cost curve down. “In health care you can’t do one big thing and reduce the price. We have to do 1,000 small things.” That’s the view helping thousands of poor farmers and their children get better heart health at prices they can afford.

You can read the entire article here.

In a move sure to raise questions regarding the torture of U.S. Senators by a secretive government cabal, the Senate Ethics Committee has written Senator Roland Burris (D-Ill) a letter. 

The admonishment letter, long argued by advocates of more humane punishment to be the senatorial equivalent of water-boarding, is said to be a “sternly worded rebuke,” from which Burris is unlikely to recover before dinner.

The letter, which took months of closed-door scheming to prepare, cites Burris for “providing incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information to the public, the Senate and those conducting legitimate inquiries into your appointment to the Senate [by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich].”

Recognizing the severity of such a letter and attempting to reduce public criticism over the harshness of its language, heretofore reserved for such acts as appearing on the Senate floor with one’s pockets stuffed with $100 bills,  the Senate Ethics Committee recommends no further punishment.

Since Burris has announced that he will not seek re-election, he will be allowed to vote on serious matters affecting the American people and be afforded all Senatorial privileges only through the remainder of his appointed term, which runs until 2010.

New Orleans Times-Picayune:  “With help from [Senate Majority Leader] Reid, the health care bill provides Louisiana with between $100 million and $300 million in Medicaid financing for fiscal 2011.”

Must have been one of those rounding errors that caused the rest of the mainstream media to report only the lower number.

Harry Reid will get a little back, for himself, not taxpayers, when Landrieu and James Carville host a New Orleans fundraiser for him on December 12 at $4800 a pop.

h/t:  Martin Kady II, politico.com

Unfortunately for Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and the Copenhagen crew, it looks like the people in charge of documenting the science that keeps the Left’s green ambitions in bloom have been cooking the books.  In emails and other documents hacked, stolen, and posted from Britain’s Hadley Climatic Research Centre several high profile climatologists discuss ways to “hide the decline” of global temperatures.

One of the first reports on the now publicized documents can be found here.

Update: Here’s a helpful paper (PDF) from the Heartland Institute discussing the use of misleading charts and graphs in the global warming debate.  The reference to “Mike’s Nature trick” in the smoking gun email from Phil Jones is to the famous “hockey stick graph” showing a dramatic uptick in global temperatures.  The discussion in the PDF specifically addresses that graph, among others.

Senator Ben Nelson, a key conservative Democrat, has announced that he will vote “yea” on the motion to proceed tomorrow.

Part of his statement:

This weekend, I will vote for the motion to proceed to bring that debate onto the Senate floor. The Senate should start trying to fix a health care system that costs too much and delivers too little for Nebraskans.

Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That’s what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about.

According to Politico, this means that the health care bill will likely make it through its first procedural hurdle.  Senator Nelson cited the ability to amend the bill as a reason for his “yea” vote tomorrow, but unless he removes the tax increases, the mandates, the government-run public option, and the thousands of new federal regulations, then any attempt to “amend” the bill will be pointless.

Given his public statement, it’s unlikely that Senator Nelson’s position will change in the next 24 hours, but if you live in Nebraska you can still give him a call and urge him to oppose the Senate’s health care bill.

D.C. Office: 202-224-6551
Kearney Office: 308-293-5918
Lincoln Office: 402-441-4600
Omaha Office: 402-391-3411

You can also call Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them to vote “No” on tomorrow night’s cloture motion.

Although it is painful to criticize a fellow name-bearer (no relation), the selection of Britain’s Lady Ashton for European High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy – the second most important position in the European Union – is yet another indictment of consensus-driven politics. Who else but a collection of power-protecting politicians would select a person charged with being the international face of European diplomacy of whom this could be written:

Lady Ashton was so unprepared for her “promotion” that she had no speech prepared when she held a press conference with Mr. Van Rompuy (the new European president). She was telephoned to see if she would accept the job once Mr. Brown switched his allegiance to the only other Briton with a chance of capturing one of the prized jobs.

She has been a commissioner for 13 months, since Lord Mandelson was brought back to the Cabinet. She has been Leader of the House of Lords but has no experience as a foreign minister and has never been elected. Mr. Brown said the appointment showed Britain was “at the heart of the future of Europe” and was leading the way in extending women’s representation.

In the span of a month, Britain went from defending the candidacies of former Prime Minister Tony Blair and current Foreign Secretary David Miliband to promoting a Trade Commissioner who has never won a single vote.  Hey, at least the nation is leading the way in extending women’s representation!  Good grief.

This week’s edition of the Liberty Update, CFIF’s weekly e-newsletter, is out.  For those readers who don’t receive it in their e-mail inboxes or if you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, below is a summary of its contents:

Senik:  The Obama Doctrine – Bend at the Waist
Lee:  Obama Administration Imitates Hugo Chavez on Internet
CFIF Staff:  Dear Senior Citizens, Part Three
Batkins:  President Obama’s Fictional Job Factory
Ellis:  When Illegal Aliens Take Over the House, Courtesy of the U.S. Senate  

Freedom Minute Video:  Climate of Fear
Podcast:  The Fight Continues Over Lawsuit Abuse – Interview with Ted Frank
Jester’s Courtroom:  Fleeing Suspect Sues Police

Editorial Cartoons:  Latest Cartoons of Michael Ramirez
Quiz:  Question of the Week
Notable Quotes:  Quotes of the Week

If you are not already signed up to receive CFIF’s Liberty Update, sign up here.