Tag Archives: politics

Mistaken Emphasis

Posted on by
2

Oil and gas companies are worried that, in the process of reducing the Federal employee work force, too many regulators who issue the permits these companies need to begin work on a project are being fired, and so the permits are being delayed.

Some companies are asking the administration not to lay off key personnel who deliver permits at federal agencies….
[C]ompanies receive permits to drill on US lands from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, licenses to export liquefied natural gas from the Energy Department, and permits to build interstate natural gas pipelines from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This isn’t the problem the executives make it out to be. The regulators in those entities are not independent satraps who act entirely on their own recognizance. They do not issue the permits or reject them in their own name; they act in the name of their respective Department or agency heads, and those agency heads are not independent satraps, either; they act in the name of their respective Department Secretaries. As such, the agency heads are fully capable of issuing/rejecting permits, and ultimately the Secretaries are fully capable of overruling their subordinate agency heads and issuing/rejecting the permits themselves.

Of course the Leftists and a large collection of fee-seeking lawyers will jump on this with litigation, but ultimately the agency and Secretary actions should be upheld.

Still, they can’t act entirely alone. Matt Schatzman, NextDecade CEO wants those agencies to hire more workers and cut red tape so the industry can start more projects as quickly as possible. It’s not necessary to have both of those. More hires is not necessary in any event; legislation is: require permits to be issued or rejected withing 30 days of the initial application, or the permits are deemed issued. Require the regulators to defend in concrete, measurable, publicly accessible terms their rejection within two weeks of their rejection, or the permit is deemed issued.

Donald Trump Bullies?

Posted on by
Reply

Really? A letter writer in Wednesday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal thinks so. He credulously makes, though, a couple of critical mistakes that no rational, grown adult would make.

Today, Donald Trump’s “bullying” embodies the more contemporary meaning: the cowardly actions of one who seeks to harm or intimidate those he views as weak.

This is risible on its face. Bullies have only the power their putative victims choose to grant them, not a minim more. The cowardice is in those who make the decision to allow themselves to be bullied. Yes, that’s often a hard decision to make, but “hard” means “possible.” There’s no excuse for choosing wrongly here.

The letter writer’s other mistake centers on this—which he, in all seriousness, offers as an example of Trumpian bullying:

[T]he president has issued an executive order stripping security clearances from lawyers at Covington & Burling, who provided pro bono legal assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith. More recently, Ed Martin, interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Georgetown Law School, demanding that it cease diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and warning that his office wouldn’t hire the school’s graduates unless it did so.
These actions violate the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of expression.

This is laughable beyond anything related to “bullying” or being “bullied.” There is no intrinsic free speech right, or any other right, to a security clearances—which grants the holder access (given a parallel and simultaneous need to know) to data involving national security. Neither Covington & Burling as an institution, nor any of its lawyers, have any such right. It’s not bullying to rescind the clearances of those entities and persons who no longer work for the government.

Neither is there any intrinsic free speech right—or any other 1st Amendment right or any other right sourced to any other clause or clauses of our Constitution—to a government job. The government, like any potential employer, has its own intrinsic right to determine for itself the qualifications required for a job and then to determine for itself who the best candidate(s) might be to be hired into that job.

Nor is there any such right held by Georgetown Law School to place its graduates into any particular job, including a government one.

Back to the bullying foolishness: if Georgetown managers feel bullied by this, that’s their conscious choice. It would be particularly easy, though, for these worthies to stand up to the alleged Trumpian bullying. The Federal government’s authority to enforce any demand, whether to desist from DEI efforts or anything else, extends only so far as Georgetown Law School takes in Federal dollars. The institution is under no obligation to take those dollars. The school’s managers could eliminate the pressures they’ve chosen to perceive simply by ceasing those acceptances rather than ceasing their DEI efforts.

Not an Excuse

Posted on by
Reply

FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson has his lawyers in court asking the judge to delay an ongoing and longstanding suit against Amazon. The excuse is this:

Our resource constraints are severe[.]

Oh, wah. The convenience of the government is no excuse for this—or any—delay. Our Constitution requires a speedy and public trial, and that extends to civil trials, also, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, as this one surely does. There is nothing in either of those two Amendments, or anywhere else in our Constitution, that caveats any of our rights on what any Government personage decides is convenient to himself.

The FTC’s attempt is just another cynical attempt to drag out an intrinsically lousy suit in the hope that Amazon eventually will roll over and “settle.”

No. Amazon should refuse any sort of settlement other than a court declaratory ruling in Amazon’s favor, with legal and reputational damages awarded Amazon. In an ideal world, the judge either would so rule, or he would dismiss the case with prejudice (with costs awarded) and heavily fiscally sanction the FTC’s lawyers for seeking to extend so blatantly obvious a frivolous suit.

More on Birthright Citizenship

Posted on by
Reply

Jed Rubenfeld, Professor of Law at Yale Law School, had an op-ed in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal in support of the concept of birthright citizenship. In it, he hung his hat on the “visitor” aspect of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment jurisdiction phrasing.

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to everyone “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The opacity of the “jurisdiction” language allows reasonable people to land on either side of this issue. But in 19th-century legal usage, being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US had a long-settled, straightforward meaning. As Chief Justice John Marshall explained in Schooner Exchange v McFaddon (1812), it meant being subject to US law.
Could you be prosecuted in an American court and imprisoned in an American jail for violating American law? If so, you were subject to US jurisdiction.

That “vulnerable to prosecution and jail” means “subject to US law” is at the core of the misunderstanding here (I’m eliding the question of whether a then-56-yr-old “settled meaning” remained settled after the 14th Amendment was ratified), including to birth tourism—whereby a pregnant woman enters the US for the express and sole purpose of giving birth on US soil so as to garner citizenship for her baby, after which the now-mother leaves with her baby to return to her home nation. Such “visitors,” while so subject, are not subject to US jurisdiction, but only to US government power and authority.

Birth tourists subject themselves only to some of our laws—that small subset of them that lets them enter our nation legally and then avail themselves of our medical-related duty of care laws. They otherwise remain within the control of their home nation laws and so retain the jurisdiction of their home countries, to which they fully intend to return as soon as they’re able to travel after giving birth. They’re holding themselves apart from and outside of our nation’s full and complete jurisdiction—which is what our 14th Amendment requires, even for birth tourists.

Illegal aliens go even farther: they hold themselves completely outside our jurisdiction by holding themselves completely outside our laws: they’ve disregarded our laws from the outset by their entering illegally. They render themselves subject only to the power of our government even as they, too, are subject prosecution and jail—or deportation.

This misunderstanding by Rubenfeld (and others) expands on the matter:

When a foreign army invades and conquers another country’s territory, that land becomes subject to the conquering country’s laws.

Not at all. That conquered territory becomes subject only to the conquering country’s power and ability to impose its laws. Even as long ago as Emer de Vattel, in his The Law of Nations, this was well understood.

The Left’s repeated ignoring of these simple facts does not make those facts nonexistent.

Unfortunately (cynically?), Rubenfeld, like others pushing this argument, leave wholly unaddressed those last.

Another Reason Why…

Posted on by
Reply

…no member of the Progressive-Democratic Party can be trusted in any way. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), for instance, in her letter to Businessman Elon Musk, who’s working the additional duty [sic:] of pro bono member of DOGE’s leadership, claimed that:

American taxpayers will shoulder the burden of tax cuts for Tesla, and they deserve answers about your efforts to secure massive tax breaks for billionaire corporations[.]

Here are some facts underlying Tesla’s income tax liability:

• much of Tesla’s $7.1 billion in net income last year doesn’t come from selling electric vehicles, solar panels, or battery storage
• $2.8 billion came from the sale of regulatory credits to other auto makers that need to comply with government EV mandates
• $1.6 billion in interest income on cash and short-term investment holdings. [Progressive-]Democrats can thank the Biden inflation for allowing companies to earn higher interest on their cash holdings
• Tesla recorded nearly $600 million in book income from price appreciation in its bitcoin holdings, but this is akin to an unrealized capital gain
• [Tesla] lost money every year it was in business from 2003 until 2020. All companies are allowed to carry forward net operating losses to offset future tax liabilities
• [Progressive-Democrats] exempted most net operating losses from the Inflation Reduction Act’s 15% corporate alternative minimum tax, including categories that include Tesla’s loss carry forward
• Tesla recorded $625 million from tax credits for its electric vehicles and $756 million for its solar and energy storage business last year

o these tax credits can also be carried forward to offset future tax liabilities
o Tesla had $1 billion in renewable energy tax credits on its books at the end of last year

Warren, and all of her Party cronies, are well aware of these things. Warren, and her cronies in Party, lie.