Tag Archives: economics

Another Foolish Argument

Posted on by
Reply

Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the Supreme Court to strike Colorado’s 2012 marijuana initiative on the grounds that the Colorado constitutional amendment has sparked crime increases in their own states. To the extent that can be shown, it’s an argument worth having.

Enter President Barack Obama through his Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, in Verrilli’s brief to the Supreme Court, in which Obama urged the Court to reject the case:

Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here—essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State—would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction.

Here’s what our Constitution says about the Supreme Court’s role in disputes between States, which Verilli’s brief also cites:

In all Cases…in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

Verrilli’s brief also cited the First Judiciary Act, a hoary old law passed by the First Congress’ first session in 1789 averring, among other things, that the Supreme Court in particular has

original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

Notice those two cites: there is nowhere contained within either any caveat or limit. There is nothing that says, “Except when it’s inconvenient to Government,” or “Except when there’s something else,” or….

Despite that, the Solicitor General, in his brief (undoubtedly written for him by that better lawyer than his lawyers—it certainly contains Obama’s depth and style of legal thinking [/snark]), made the claim that taking the case would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of the Court’s role in settling a dispute between States.

Nonsense. This is a textbook example of a dispute between States, and it’s directly within the Court’s constitutionally mandated function, especially as fleshed out by Congress and a President who signed the fleshing-out into law. The Court may decide it’s a bogus beef, and that would be a useful precedent to set.

But it’s entirely a Supreme Court decision. Verrilli and his boss know this full well.

A Difference in Philosophy

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister David Cameron is…discussing…the British requirements for continued membership in the European Union with the rest of the leadership of the EU. One of the points of contention is the degree of welfare participation migrants from mainland EU should receive while in Great Britain. Cameron wants to

curb[] welfare benefits for other EU citizens working in the UK for four years.

EU leaders have voiced strong opposition to his plan, saying it would breach the fundamental principle of free movement of people within the bloc.

The EU leaders’ objection, of course, is nonsense. A benefits freeze would leave migrants free to come and go as they please; the British position is a benefits freeze, not a movement restriction. The only thing being frozen would be the migrants’ ability to freeload off the British taxpayer.

Cameron also points out that a benefits freeze would help reduce migration to the UK. Well, duh. Reducing the incentives to come where the freeloading is easy certainly reduce the amount of movement in that direction.

The difference between Cameron and the European leaders is the difference between a measure of self-determination and individual responsibility on the one hand, and Government Knows Better on the other.

Who Doesn’t Trust the PRC Government?

Posted on by
Reply

Recall late last summer when the People’s Republic of China’s stock market melted down over the PRC government’s interference in currency exchange rates and its subsequent failures to handle the stock market result of that. In a Wall Street Journal article centered on a different matter was this little tidbit [emphasis added].

While China’s main stock index is up 20% since August, it is still down 33% from its June peak. About 15% of Chinese stocks remain suspended from trading, and trading volumes are at one-third of their June levels.

Hmm….

Allies and Arms

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration announced a $1.83 billion arms sale to Taiwan on Wednesday, drawing an immediate rebuke and threats of retaliation from Taipei’s rival Beijing.

To be sure, the stuff being sold to the Republic of China is dated and includes intangibles in addition to hardware; it consists of

two decommissioned US Navy frigates, anti-tank missiles, amphibious assault vehicles and Stinger surface-to-air missiles. There’s also support for Taiwan’s capabilities in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and a weapons system to defend against anti-ship missiles.

These get directly, if in a limited fashion, to the People’s Republic of China’s ability to conduct an invasion of the island.

The PRC’s Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang:

China resolutely opposes the sale of weapons to Taiwan by the US.

If the PRC doesn’t like it, clearly we’re on the right path. Aside from that, and more importantly, the RoC is both a long-standing friend and a critical ally in Asia. We should be supporting them. In spades and with weaponry among a host of support means.

Kudos to Obama for taking this small step toward redressing the shortfall in the RoC’s ability to defend itself. We need to do much more of this.

What’s He Afraid Of?

Posted on by
1

Chinese President Xi Jinping called for individual countries to have broad authority to regulate the Internet at home, outlining a digital future in which governments could set online standards and challenge the free flow of information and content across borders.

Why is the leadership of the PRC so terrified of the free flow of information, of free speech?

Oh, wait.