Monthly Archives: July 2025

Jurisdiction

Posted on by
Reply

A commenter on an earlier post suggested I define “jurisdiction.” Herewith.

Our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution define and create our social compact as a nation whose people are sovereign and whose government men and women work for us by our consent (in government’s existence) and by election (of those men and women actually serving*).

Johnson’s Dictionary, 4th ed, contemporaneous with the writing and ratification of our Constitution:

JURISDICTION.
1. Legal authority; extent of power.
2. District to which any authority extends.

Modern American dictionaries, viz., Merriam-Webster Online, define jurisdiction:

Jurisdiction
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law a matter that falls within the court’s jurisdiction
2a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b: the power or right to exercise authority: control
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

The definition of jurisdiction as our Founders understood it remains the same as it is understood today. (Aside: that only keeps things convenient. Were the definition materially changed today, our Constitution still would have to be understood and applied in those original terms; an Amendment would be needed, not judicial decree, to bring that definition forward to today.)

Our government’s jurisdiction, thus, does not extend beyond the limits of our nation’s social compact.

Our social compact (any social compact) isn’t only geographically defined, however. It’s also, and primarily, a two-way commitment, a mutual agreement to protect the compact’s members and the members’ agreement to submit to and obey the rules associated with that agreement.

Hence, my claim in that earlier post: illegal aliens, by entering our nation illegally and remaining illegally present, are holding themselves outside the tenets of our social compact. By holding themselves outside our social compact, they are holding themselves beyond the reach of our government’s jurisdiction. Their presence within the territorial limits of our nation only cedes control via raw power to our government.

*Unelected bureaucrats in government, from Congressional and Executive Branch staffers through the men and women in civil service are selected and hired—at bottom—by those elected representatives.

There’s Moderate…

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s moderate. Consider, for instance, the Progressive-Democratic Party’s candidate for governor of Virginia, Abigail Spanberger. Her voting record, while she was a Congresswoman representing the 7th District of Virginia in the US House of Representatives, is comparable to those of, for instance, Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY). News writers call Spanberger a moderate in her run for governor. This characterization of Spanberger is typical of politicians near the center of Party.

That’s actually not far wrong, either, when context is included. Spanberger is a moderate within Party; she is near its center. However, that center is nowhere near the center of the American political spectrum as a whole. Party’s center is well to the Left in the context of our national political spectrum. That’s how far left Party has moved since the Obama reign, and it’s been moving ever farther left since the beginning of the Biden reign. How far left, and still on the move, is demonstrated by the power and influence of the socialist, in nominally Independent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders—and by Party’s overwhelming nomination of the openly socialist Zohran Mamdani for New York City mayor.

The Spanbergers of Party are to the right of Party’s Left wing, but they are still Progressives and so remain far Left overall.

Harvard’s Contradiction

Posted on by
Reply

Powerline has a piece that has Harvard seemingly talking about setting up a conservative center on its campus as a balance to its strongly Leftist bent. (Such a center would, supposedly, cost up to $1 billion. I note that that’s less than 2% of its endowment, eliding that much of that endowment is targeted IAW the requirements of the donors who made and make that portion of the donations.)

Say, though, that the scuttlebutt is accurate, and Harvard is serious about setting up such a center. Harvard has also said, per The Telegraph, that

it refused to change its hiring, admissions, and other internal procedures following demands by the Trump administration….

Those hiring, admissions, and other procedures, though, are based entirely on its determined DEI practices, which are nakedly racist and sexist, and drive Harvard to hire only left-leaning or outright leftist personnel of merit ranging from none to quite a bit.

Given that, on what basis would Harvard hire actual conservative personnel for its claimed conservative center?

A Tax False Premise

Posted on by
Reply

A letter writer in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section offered an alternative to the provider tax so many States assess. The provider tax is a tax States levy on hospitals that, in the depths of the scam, the States use to get a larger allocation of Federal fund transfers into their Medicaid programs, which then reimburse those hospitals for their provider tax remittances to the State.

The letter writer suggests

If states collected taxes from other sources, channeled the revenue into their Medicaid programs and continued to provide the same services, they would be entitled to the same federal matching as they are today. Nothing would need to change.

The false premise from which this letter writer proceeds is this: the need for those tax dollars in the first place is not at all established. On the contrary: Medicaid is a State-run program and its payouts are entirely controlled by that State. As such, each State’s Medicaid program should be funded entirely and exclusively by the citizens of that State. There is no need for the Federal government to transfer the tax remittals of the citizens of any other State (much less all of them) to any State for its Medicaid program.

Indeed, were each State to retain those tax dollars rather than sending them to the Federal government, the citizens of each State would be better able to fund their State’s Medicaid program.

No, It Won’t

Posted on by
Reply

This time, it’s an op-ed writer in The Wall Street Journal who is making misleading claims. In his piece regarding the likelihood of wealth flight from a Zohran Mamdani-run New York City, their subheadline reads

The state will lose wealthy taxpayers, and the federal government will have to cough up more aid.

The opinion-writer ties the weal of our nation to the weal of New York, and the article fails utterly on the false premise of a necessary Federal bailout.

No, the Federal government will not have to cough up more aid. New York’s political machinations, including its drumbeat attacks on successful Americans and on businesses domiciled there, would be coming to a head under a socialist Mamdani city administration, and that outcome is solely that New York State’s responsibility.

The good citizens of States running from Maine through New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Wyoming, Nevada, on to California, Alaska, and Hawaii have absolutely no obligation to bail out a fiscally and regulatorily irresponsible New York City or State. The Federal government has no business forcing the rest of the nation’s citizens to do so.

The other side of the matter: only if New York—city and State—are left to stew in their own fetid spending, taxing, and regulation messes will either have any chance of mending its ways. In that way, the weal of the nation is impacted by the weal of New York State: a healthy State, not dependent of Federal funding, would be an unalloyed good for our nation.