In an interview with CFIF, Clark Neily, Senior Attorney for the Institute for Justice, discusses his latest book, “Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government,” and the importance of and issues surrounding separation of powers, economic liberty, property rights, the Second Amendment, and more.
Listen to the interview here.
I’ve written here several times before about the increasingly lawless shape that the Obama Administration has taken in recent years — whether it’s making recess appointments when Congress is still in session, exempting its friends from Obamacare, or trying to make the DREAM Act law via executive order, the reflexive contempt for the separation of powers is regularly apparent. Now, two more items on that front.
First, our friend John Yoo, writing alongside John Bolton at National Review, notes Obama’s decision to bypass Congress’s authority over international treaties in pursuit of a nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia:
The Constitution, however, still stands athwart Obama’s rush to a nuclear-free utopia. Article II, Section 2 declares that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties,” but only if “two thirds of the Senators present concur.” President Obama’s last nuclear-reduction pact, the 2011 New START Treaty with Russia, cut the U.S. nuclear arsenal to dangerously low levels, 750 strategic delivery systems and 1,550 warheads. It passed the Senate by a vote of 71–26, but only after breaking a filibuster with 67 votes, not one to spare.
Uncertain it can persuade a dozen Republicans to err again, the administration is considering a Russian deal without Senate approval. According to his spokesman, Secretary of State Kerry told senators that they “would be consulted as we moved forward into discussions with the Russian Federation, but did not indicate that the administration had decided to codify any results in a treaty.” Unnamed administration officials say Washington and Moscow could engage in reciprocal weapons cuts without a written agreement.
Those unnamed Administration officials are right, of course. There’d be nothing to prevent the two countries from coincidentally reducing stockpiles at the same time. At that point, however, it’s not a treaty, it’s a handshake promise, which sort of defeats the whole purpose. Given that international law is basically fictive, however, even a real treaty wouldn’t be particularly enforceable (especially with the roguish Putin), so we need not lose too much sleep over this one.
Then, this tidbit from the Daily Caller:
President Barack Obama is looking to unilaterally impose a $5-per-year tax on all cellphone users to avoid asking a recalcitrant Congress for funding.
The Washington Post first reported the story Tuesday.
The Federal Communications Commission, an independent agency headed by three Obama appointees, would collect the tax, tacking on an additional charge to devices already subject to local, state and federal fees, along with sales taxes…
Deputy White House press secretary John Earnest denied that the move was an “end run” around Congress in a press briefing Wednesday, but added that Congress’s “dysfunctional” state could justify an executive override.
“Unfortunately, we haven’t seen a lot of action in Congress, so the president has advocated an administrative, unilateral action to get this done,” Ernest said.
In my column this week, I compared Obama to his progressive forebear, Woodrow Wilson. This only strengthens the case. Wilson, as you can read here, would have been an enthusiastic cheerleader for precisely this kind of executive chutzpah.
As a nation founded on the principle of limited government, we can head into this July 4 weekend grateful that principle remains in favor. According to a Rasmussen poll released today, Americans prefer a government that is too limited to one that is too powerful by an overwhelming 3-to-1 margin:
More Americans than ever (63%) think a government that is too powerful is a bigger danger in the world today than one that is not powerful enough. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 21% disagree and think a government that is not powerful enough is a bigger danger. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.”
There is still hope in the world’s last, best hope. Happy birthday, America.
At the University of Mobile’s Center for Leadership, I review the record showing that limited government leads to stronger economies. There much more in the column than the following passage, but here’s a taste:
Indeed, historians are hard-pressed to show any time in American history when major domestic-discretionary spending growth actually generated a stronger economy. But when Reagan cut discretionary spending in the 1980s, combined with his tax cuts, the economy did superbly. When the Newt Gingrich Congress passed major spending cuts in 1995-96, the economy again boomed.
From a must-read profile in the New Yorker on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas:
The implications of Thomas’s leadership for the Court, and for the country, are profound. Thomas is probably the most conservative Justice to serve on the Court since the nineteen-thirties. More than virtually any of his colleagues, he has a fully wrought judicial philosophy that, if realized, would transform much of American government and society. Thomas’s views both reflect and inspire the Tea Party movement, which his wife has helped lead almost since its inception. The Tea Party is a diffuse operation, and it can be difficult to pin down its stand on any given issue. Still, the Tea Party is unusual among American political movements in its commitment to a specific view of the Constitution—one that accords, with great precision, with Thomas’s own approach. For decades, various branches of the conservative movement have called for a reduction in the size of the federal government, but for the Tea Party, and for Thomas, small government is a constitutional command.
Later on, the profiler notes that Thomas – along with other conservatives on the Supreme Court – is poised to overturn the clearest expression of government overreach in a generation: ObamaCare. If that happens, Thomas’ judicial philosophy, and the Tea Party’s importance, will be vindicated.
It’s as clear a statement of what works (and what doesn’t) in providing economic growth and well-being as you’ll find. It’s a guide to not only the rightness but the utility of freedom. And it can be viewed in the time it takes to wait for a stoplight to change. It’s the new video from the good folks (yes, we’re not afraid to say it) at the Charles Koch Foundation. The only thing wrong with this project? That there aren’t more videos like this one:
If you need any proof that the new generation of Republicans in Congress are breaking from the spendthrift ways of their forebears, look no further than this terrific idea, as reported by our friends at the Daily Caller:
With the 112th Congress in full swing, some members of the House’s conservative Republican Study Committee are making a renewed effort to establish a committee whose only purpose is to find programs to cut from the federal budget.
…
The idea is a throwback to the now-defunct “Joint Committee on Reduction of Non-essential Federal Expenditures,” started by former Virginia Sen. Harry Byrd in 1941. The bi-cameral committee slashed an (inflation-adjusted) $38 billion from the federal budget in its first four years. The committee cut and eliminated programs enacted under President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” but was dismantled in 1974.
This proposal has two salutary effects. First, it has the potential to move conservatives from the abstract to the specific when it comes to spending cuts. Second, it puts skin in the game for Democrats — if they oppose the proposal it will give the lie to all of the vague pieties about deficit reduction that they’ve harnessed over the last year. This is a fight the conservatives in Congress should relish.
Yesterday, 60 members of the House Republican majority endorsed a bill that would “deregulate” health insurance purchases by allowing consumers to buy plans across state lines. The idea is to let companies compete on a national scale, spreading the risk and lowering premiums. The bill is gaining support as a free market counterargument against ObamaCare’s one-size-fits-all regulation of health insurance.
There is a caveat. In order to liberalize the insurance market, the GOP-sponsored bill must take away the states’ power to regulate insurance. The reason insurance plans cost different amounts in different states is because individual states have different regulatory schemes. Those schemes are the product of public policy decisions hammered out at the state level. Importantly for 10th Amendment limited government types, the plan to “deregulate” the health insurance market comes at the expense of state sovereignty.
Ironically, the only way the House Republicans’ answer to ObamaCare gets passed is through an expansive reading of Congress’ ability to regulate interstate commerce “among the states.” Members of Congress will (or at least should) have to struggle with which conservative principle they value more in this instance: the free market or federalism. In a certain sense, federalism grants to states a public policy monopoly over all issues not expressly contained in the text of the U.S. Constitution. That monopoly drives up prices for consumers in states with costly regulations. Theoretically, if people want to pay less for health insurance, they could move to a state with less costly regulations.
Ideas like federalism have consequences. As the Tea Party-flavored House GOP boards the ship of state, it will be interesting to see which crate of principles the revolutionaries toss over.
H/T: Los Angeles Times
Believe it. In an op-ed for BusinessWeek, the scourge of concentrated wealth and power sees a lot to love in the new, Tea Party-infused legislators walking around Capitol Hill. Specifically, Nader isolates five issues that could bring the movement’s limited government mantra into conflict with establishment Republicans.
(1) Ron Paul’s fight to curb the power of the Federal Reserve
(2) Heightened criticism for corporate welfare programs (e.g. everything from ethanol subsidies for biofuel to “green” initiatives designed to get federal tax dollars)
(3) Trimming the military budget (Apparently, Defense Secretary Robert Gates already got the memo; sort of)
(4) Renewal and expansion of the World Trade Organization, NAFTA, etc.
(5) Whistleblower protection for bureaucrats and corporate workers
The limited government foundations of the Tea Party movement will make predicting voting outcomes this session iffier than when Republicans could be assumed to oppose any Democrat plan. If necessary, we’ll see how many of the new Constitutionalists in Congress are ready to buck convention and vote their principles instead of their party.
Yesterday David Nolan, co-founder of the Libertarian Party and creator of the “Nolan Chart,” died. He was 66. In honor of the man whose recent U.S. Senate campaign touted the slogan, “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” here is a link to “The World’s Smallest Political Quiz” – a sleek version of Nolan’s famous chart identifying a person’s political orientation based on answers to government-related questions. By taking it you’ll join more than 16 million fellow seekers.
H/T: Advocates for Self Government
The Prometheus Institute, an Irvine, CA-based think tank, is at the leading edge of using new media to make government more transparent, while spreading the good news about free markets. Currently, the group’s signature initiative is the ‘Do-It-Yourself Democracy’ App.
The fruit of hundreds of hours of research, the DIY Democracy App allows users to instantly find the contact information for state and local officials, official forms for filing complaints, propose local initiatives, and research individual rights like freedom of speech and association.
Here’s an interview with the Institute’s founders from Reason.tv:
Prometheus is also gearing up to use the digital capabilities of the Apple I-Pad to promote free market classics like F.A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom to a new generation of readers. Not bad for a couple of guys trying to “pioneer innovative technology to advance liberty.”
Maybe this was one of the reasons Robert Gates decided to stay on as Defense Secretary when Barack Obama became president. Faced with budget deficits and needing funding for two wars, Gates is setting his sights on reducing the waste, fraud and abuse in military bureaucracy and contracting.
Rest assured, the Gates cuts will not imperil soldiers in the field. In an eye-opening column by Ralph Peters, the Defense Secretary’s war on waste is an admirable contribution to the government-wide belt-tightening that needs to be done. Peters highlights five key targets:
According to Peters, Gates can prove there’s bite to his bark if he can get JFCOM closed despite the howls from its Virginia-based congressional delegation.
Stay tuned.
That’s the point made by Daniel Henninger in today’s Wall Street Journal.
I would argue that the Reform wave building in the land is not antigovernment, but pro-government. When people call themselves Americans, Californians, New Yorkers, Illinoisans, Texans or, yes, New Jerseyans, they aren’t just talking about a place name, but a fought-for legal entity with a grand political history. Anger at Albany, Sacramento, Springfield, Trenton and Washington, D.C., isn’t antigovernment. It’s rightful rage at years of misgovernance.
I think Henninger’s argument is the best description of the anger roiling supporters and critics of the Obama Administration’s handling of the Gulf Oil Spill. It may very be that there are limited options for “plugging the hole,” but the fact remains that people expect leaders to show they know how to prioritize problems, and work towards a solution. Even James Carville is apoplectic at Obama’s seeming inability to do either during this crisis.
For the president who promised competence, we’re getting an awful lot of failing grades in Leadership 101.
Come next January, a bevy of new Republicans in Washington are going to face the question that dogged Bill McKay, Robert Redford’s character in “The Candidate”, after finally winning office: “What do we do now?”
The Obama agenda leaves so little room for compromise with the center-right that the GOP has found it both politically expedient and ideologically consistent to throw up a wall of opposition. But when they have at least partial control of the reigns of power, that dynamic will change.
Conservatives searching for a role model when it comes time to lead should look to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who in only a few months has demonstrated the precondition of effective leadership in this age of runaway government: a spine of steel. Per a story in today’s edition of the Hill:
As the United States watches a debt crisis in Greece like a fiscal oil spill, waiting to see where it will spread first and when it will make landfall on our shores, Christie is tackling the nation’s worst state deficit — $10.7 billion of a $29.3 billion budget. In doing so, Christie has become the politician so many Americans crave, one willing to lose his job. Indeed, Christie is doing something unheard of: governing as a Republican in a blue state, just as he campaigned, making good on promises, acting like his last election is behind him.
Upon taking office Christie declared a state of emergency, signing an executive order that froze spending, and then, in eight weeks, cutting $13 billion in spending. In March he presented to the Legislature his first budget, which cuts 9 percent of spending, including more than $800 million in education funding; seeks to privatize numerous government functions; projects 1,300 layoffs; and caps tax increases.
Much like Rudy Giuliani’s quest to rescue New York City from its own excess in the 1990s, Christie’s crusade shows a politican willing to sacrifice his career in order to save his constituents. It’s a model for politicans from Greece to California. And soon it will be a model for the entire nation.
Reading Joe Conason’s column today makes one wonder if the author takes seriously the words of the Constitution, or just its “spirit” – whatever that means. In a piece that identifies the growing constitutionalist movement as fringe, Conason equates adherence to the words in the text as preferring a primitive, pre-enlightened society.
What exactly do they mean by “constitutional”? On the increasingly powerful fringes of the Republican right, a category that includes some Tea Party activists, the Constitution is interpreted as prohibiting every social and political advance since before the Civil War. They would outlaw the Federal Reserve System, the progressive income tax, Social Security, Medicare, environmental protection, consumer regulation and every other important federal initiative of the past century.
What Conason misses is that arguing for a textually-based, limited federal government of enumerated powers says next to nothing about the ability of state governments to weigh in on the institutions he wants so much to preserve. Experience shows that states like California and New York will bankrupt their treasuries to provide the kind of all-providing government Conason likes. Seemingly, the fact that other states wouldn’t if the feds weren’t allowed is what really bothers him.
Too bad. The genius of federalism is that it affords the greatest amount of people the greatest amount of choices in the scope and scale of their government. Once again, liberals like Conason show that when it comes to public policy choices, there’s really only one they care to defend.
The defining battle in the war of competing political philosophies today is the one being waged between proponents of large and small government. Clifford Asness makes a sterling contribution to the latter in his essay, “The Way Forward for Republicans, Tea Partiers.” A sample:
We must beat them by repeatedly making the hard arguments as to why liberty works and why it is the moral choice.
We must win by explaining, no matter how long it may take and hard it may be, that free people acting in a free market is what this country stands for, is the only ethical way to live, and happens to be the greatest anti-poverty and civil rights program on earth. This is harder than saying “here’s some free stuff, now vote for us forever or you’ll lose it.” But, it’s the right thing to do for America, and even the right thing to do politically. If the other party is trying to hook the American people by pushing drugs (entitlements and such) on them, we won’t win elections by pushing slightly less attractive drugs!
The disadvantage to this approach is, again, it’s far harder. It does not fit well in a sound bite. It requires faith in our audience. I think the American people are ready for it, and will reward the party that shares the truth with them. I think so no matter how much more complex the truth is than simpler feel-good lies.
Over at the Weekly Standard, the Pacific Research Institute‘s Jeffrey Anderson has a very sharp piece on how President Obama’s self-designated role as philosopher king is (a) antithetical to the American system and (b) impeding his legislative agenda. A sample:
In a moment of candor, [Obama] essentially said [he embraced the philosopher-king role] to [CBS News’ Katie] Couric:
“Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care [that] didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it, and just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people.”
With the possible exception of Woodrow Wilson, can you imagine any of our prior presidents having said that?
Our democratic process, our separation of powers, and our federalist design frustrate Obama. But, far from being unfortunate, the negotiations and multiple levels of approval that they require, from a myriad of different citizens, is largely what secures our liberty—protecting it from those who would otherwise impose their own comprehensive goals from their lofty theoretical perches. The Founders were surely not Obama’s intellectual inferiors, but they were practical men. The Constitutional Convention was nothing if not high-level give-and-take, tinkering and refining. One imagines Obama showing up at Independence Hall with his own plan in hand (probably adapted from Rousseau’s in The Social Contract, with Obama cast in the role of the Legislator) and being surprised when the other delegates resisted his eloquence and, correspondingly, his proposal.
A great piece. Read the whole thing here.
Reason Magazine, the premier libertarian publication in the country, continues to turn out some of the most interesting material in the world of right-leaning opinion journals.
In a piece entitled “Five Reasons Why Libertarians Shouldn’t Hate Government”, William D. Eggers and John O’Leary, authors of the new book “If We Can Put a Man on the Moon: Getting Big Things Done in Government” make an extremely lucid and compelling case that small government advocates also have to be smart government advocates. In addition to the eponymous reasons, the piece also features a list of five major government successes and five major failures. The article is so good that I hesitate to quote it, lest Freedom Line readers not check out the original, but here’s a taste:
“I don’t want to make government work better, I want it to go away” is the typical response [of libertarians to arguments about improving government]. Government, in their view, is the enemy.
This way of thinking is deeply misguided, a troubling blind spot that keeps libertarians on the fringe of many policy debates. If you reflect only scorn for government, it’s hard to get anyone who hasn’t already drunk the Kool-Aid to take your opinions on the topic seriously.
This is not to disparage the argument that government is too large, for which the case is strong. But holding government in sneering contempt is a misinformed corruption of that sentiment.
Our Founding Fathers, fondly quoted by limited-government advocates, didn’t view government as evil, but as a flawed institution with some important jobs to do. They studied how government worked and they served in office, not because they viewed government with disdain, but because they knew the importance of good government.
Read the whole thing. I command you.
 CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed CFIF on X CFIF on YouTube |
