Tag Archives: rights

A Risky Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Stephen Miller, late of the Trump administration and current member of the board of directors of America First Legal, in supporting Texas’ law prohibiting doctors from performing abortions after a fetal heartbeat has been detected, is making this argument, among others:

In every other area of public life, people are able to, through the legislatures, pass laws against sex trafficking, sexual abuse, elder abuse, against every other social ill imaginable. And yet for about half a century now, there’s been no ability by citizens in any state to work through legislatures to ensure some measure of protection for our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

This is, at best, a weak argument, and if the lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court rely on this, they risk setting back the anti-abortion cause by decades. Under the 14th amendment, citizen status only exists for those born…in the United States; the ones we’re trying to protect aren’t born, yet, so they are not citizens.

The unborn’s right of of relevance here is the much broader one: his right to life, which he has through the simple fact of his existence and as acknowledged under that other founding document of ours, our Declaration of Independence. His status, or lack, as a citizen of the United States isn’t relevant to his right to live.

Miller should know better.

Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

Maine is voting today on an amendment to its State Constitution that would declare the right to food to be a fundamental right. The specific phrasing is this:

Constitution, Art. I, §25 is enacted to read:
Section 25.  Right to food.  All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.

The problem here, though, is not with the proposed amendment, which may or may not be a good idea. The problem is with the response to the proposal by folks who apparently slept through their grade school American history lessons and their junior high Civics classes. Typical is this response, from Katie Hansberry, Maine State Director of The Humane Society of the United States:

We do not think it is the intent of this proposal to allow food producers and and/or hunters, trappers, and fisherman be exempt from animal welfare and cruelty laws, but as currently written that would likely be the case as the current list of limitations fails to include any reference to such laws.

Constitutions are not subordinate to laws; laws are subordinate to Constitutions. Maine’s laws must fit within Maine’s Constitution, and when its Constitution changes, those laws must be changed accordingly; the laws are not immutable. Nor is there any requirement to enumerate subordinate matters into a governing document.

More than that, it’s foolish to expect the Constitution to be malleable by whatever later lawmakers decide with their new laws.

Still worse, if a Constitution is changeable by any collection of politicians, it will be vulnerable to willy-nilly changes according to the whims of the day, and from that it will soon cease to be a governing document. It will merely be a reflection of what men in government from time to time see as their own benefit, and it will no longer stand as a long-lasting and stable document that represents the will of the citizenry and that restrains those elastic politicians and their inconstant desires.

Reckless—But in Whose Eyes?

Posted on by
Reply

The Tennessee legislature, in a Special Session that lasted into the small hours of last Saturday morning, passed a Wuhan Virus Freedom bill (my term) that achieves a number of things:

The final bill said government entities cannot force private businesses to institute a mask mandate or COVID-19 vaccination mandate, and private businesses cannot take action against an employee for not receiving the vaccine and cannot compel an employee or visitor to show proof of vaccination.

There are a couple of fillips: music venues will be able to require proof of vaccination in lieu of a negative virus test, and K-12 school principals will be able to require masks, but only on a school-by-school basis, and the principal must get the State’s permission, provide the masks, mandate a maximum of 14 days, and act only on a 14-day moving average of 1% cases for the school.

And yet….

Senator Jeff Yarbro (D, Nashville), a member of the conference committee that produced the final bill:

This is a reckless way to legislate[.]

Because individual freedom is reckless to Progressive-Democrats, and voting for individual freedom at 0100, as this bill was due to the long days and late hours of Progressive-Democrat obstruction, is equally reckless.

The bill itself can be read here.

Update: Governor Bill Lee (R) signed the bill 12 Nov 21.

Because Shut Up

Posted on by
Reply

A surgeon in Minnesota—and actual, licensed doctor, one who practices and not a government bureaucrat who happens to have a medical degree—spoke in favor of individual choice and especially of parental choice regarding their children on the matter of Wuhan Virus restrictions.

He did so publicly, too. Worse, he said it to a school board, one of those fonts of Know Better wisdom.

Dr Jeffrey Horak, a surgeon in Minnesota, told the Fergus Falls school board on October 11 that parents should make the decision about whether or not their children wear masks.

And he was fired for being so impudent. After all, the received wisdom from those bureaucrats who got a medical degree some while back held otherwise and that wisdom must be accepted by the unwashed masses, including those ignorant parents.

The Lake Region Healthcare hospital, his ex-employer, insisted he was fired because his views were no longer congruent with the hospital’s.

In other words, because shut up.

The hospital managers expounded on that. From their spokesman:

To be clear, this was a decision that was made by Dr Horak’s peers who serve on the Medical Group Board, not by Lake Region Healthcare[.]

Finger-pointing and blame-shifting regarding who did the canceling.

In this fashion, too, because shut up.

Fantasy World

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden and his Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate now want to tax unrealized gains in order to raise money. WSJ‘s Editors are being generous when they call the move a mirage.

Unrealized capital gains are gains in the value of an asset that are thought to have accrued between the time of acquisition and the present time, but that haven’t been “realized,” the asset hasn’t actually been sold and a profit actually collected. That’s just one aspect of the concept of unrealized gain, though.

Another aspect is especially critical: who makes the assessment of value increase? For instance,

A tax court this year ruled that the late entertainer Michael Jackson’s “likeness and image” were worth about $157 million less than the IRS claimed.

That’s Government making the assessment of the present value of an asset before the asset has been sold and not the free market making an empirical assessment based on the actual sale price. This time, Government was caught out and reversed. But under the Progressive-Democrats’ latest tax scheme? Asset owners might not be so lucky.

Progressive-Democrats are living in fantasy land in terms of what average Americans want from our economy and for ourselves.

Now the Progressive-Democrats want the IRS to move into fantasy land with them. Unrealized gains are just that—they don’t exist, they’re purely fantasy.

Separately,

The IRS will have to hire many more auditors [to make such assessments]….

Of course it will. It’s part of the Progressive-Democrats’ Build Government Bigger plan.