Category Archives: culture

A Constitutional Proposal

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Governor Greg Abbott called for a constitutional convention, looking to revive support for an existing movement that seeks a constitutional convention. Abbott also offered a number of Amendments of his own that he’d like to see proposed at such a convention.

  • Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs in one state
  • Require Congress to balance its budget.
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from creating law
  • Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states of override a Supreme Court decision
  • Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law
  • Restore balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution
  • Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds
  • Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law regulation.

But no constitution, whether our existing one (favored by me, with a single Amendment concerning term quasi-limits), our existing one as amended by Abbott’s proposals, or any other constitution, has no value whatsoever in the hands of a government whose men and women ignore it at convenience.

Abbott himself tacitly noted this, but he seems to have missed the meaning of his own remark.

The Supreme Court is a co-conspirator in abandoning the Constitution. Instead of applying laws as written, it embarrassingly strains to rewrite laws like Obamacare.

Before it’s useful to discuss modifications to our Constitution, it’s necessary to replace in toto the men and women of our government with men and women who understand and will respect rule of law and the supremacy—especially over their own actions—of our Constitution.

Once our Constitution has been restored to its proper place, then we can set about assessing where, if anywhere, it might profitably be amended. Not until.

Obama and Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent Wall Street Journal article regarding President Barack Obama’s (D) planned unilateral actions to impose further gun controls on us, Obama was quoted as saying

We know that we can’t stop every act of violence. But what if we tried to stop even one? What if Congress did something—anything—to protect our kids from gun violence?

Congress already has done quite a bit to protect our kids: they’ve been blocking your constant efforts to disarm us and thereby leave our kids utterly defenseless against still-armed criminals.

What’s more, We the People—your employer, even though you choose not to accept that—also have already done something, the critical thing, to protect our kids. It’s called the 2nd Amendment, reprinted below for your education.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There’s nothing in there that says you get to do what you feel like about our Arms. Note especially that phrase shall not be infringed. This means you, Ace.

Two Babies

Posted on by
Reply

Thirty-five years ago (nearly two generations ago), the People’s Republic of China government decreed that families in the PRC could have only one child. Ostensibly, this was to reduce population pressures on the country’s ability to feed itself. It’s also had, though, other consequences. One of them is this:

China has the world’s largest population at 1.37 billion, but its working-age population—those aged 15 to 64—is shrinking. The United Nations projects the number of Chinese people over the age of 65 will jump 85% to 243 million by 2030, up from 131 million this year.

That’s a doubling of the old-age population in just the 15 years it’ll take this year’s newly born babies to reach working age. Is the raise in the number of permitted babies per family to two sufficient to alleviate the problems brought on by the shrinking work force, with its reduced ability to produce goods and services, and food; or the problems brought on by a shrinking work force’s ability to pay for, in any way, the growing (relative to the working population as well as in absolute terms) population of elderly?

Many Chinese couples say the cost of having children is prohibitive, and some will opt to have only one child. A previous relaxation of China’s one-child policy did not lead to a significant increase in baby numbers.

“Many” is more than it sounds; it’s a significant fraction of today’s couples.

On top of that, though, most demographers say it takes 2.1 babies per woman (not just to women in marriages) just to maintain a population at a given level for developed nations. That minimum rate rises in less developed nations, as infant mortality rates rise. The PRC’s new limit of 2 babies per family (not all women) doesn’t reach the replacement rate.

Probably the raise in the limit on the number of permitted babies is insufficient.

Another Thought on Encryption

Posted on by
1

Apple’s Tim Cook had one [emphasis added].

On your iPhone, there’s likely health information, there’s financial information. There are intimate conversations with your family or your co-workers. There’s probably business secrets, and you should have the ability to protect it. And the only way we know how to do that is to encrypt it. Why is that? It’s because, if there’s a way to get in, then somebody will find the way in. There have been people that suggest that we should have a back door. But the reality is, if you put a back door in, that back door’s for everybody, for good guys and bad guys.

The Democrat District Attorney for Manhattan Cyrus Vance thinks Government should be in our pockets; he thinks Apple, et al., are undermining Government power.

IPhones are now the first consumer products in American history that are beyond the reach of lawful warrants. The result is crimes go unsolved and victims are left beyond the protection of law. Because Apple is unwilling to help solve this problem, the time for a national, legislative solution is now.

Here’s what our Constitution’s 3rd Amendment says:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner….

Vance just wants to skirt this by quartering virtual policemen in our cell phones. No. Government just needs to go back to doing actual police work, and not rely on such quartering.

Undermining? If anyone is undermining anything, it’s the New York Democrat, who’s undermining individual liberty. This is a clear and present demonstration of why Government cannot be trusted with such a weapon.

Encryption and Backdoors

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) wants (this is old news) a means for Government to read our private communications, most especially those we’ve chosen to encrypt. She wants Government to be able to penetrate that encryption, via, perhaps, a backdoor.

I think that Silicon Valley has to take a look at their products. [I]f you create a product that allows evil monsters to communicate in this way,…that is a big problem.

They have apps to communicate on, which cannot be pierced even with a court order[.]

On the one hand, perhaps hammers and screwdrivers should be Government controlled—they get used by evil monsters to commit mayhem.

Perhaps guns should be Government controlled—oh, wait….

Then, there’s this:

A major breach at computer network company Juniper Networks has US officials worried that hackers working for a foreign government were able to spy on the encrypted communications of the US government and private companies for the past three years.

The FBI is investigating the breach, which involved hackers installing a back door on computer equipment, US officials told CNN.

Yet, Government, folks like Feinstein who should know better and others who are simply pandering, wants a deliberate backdoor inserted into our private communications.

I’ll say it again. There is no safety without intact individual liberty.