Tag Archives: politics

A Thought on Gun Rights

Posted on by
Reply

The city of Lowell, MA, and its police chief have one. It’s dead wrong, too. The city’s new law, pushed by its Police Superintendent, William Taylor,

requires residents applying for a license to carry handguns to write “an essay” and pay upwards of $1,100 for training.

Aside from the outlandish cost being just another means of denying licenses to American citizens (training required in Texas, for instance, costs around $300), there’s this, from police department spokesman, Captain Timothy Crowley:

If you want a license to carry a firearm unrestricted wherever you want and whenever you want, the superintendent is just looking for some documentation as to why. That is not unreasonable to most people.

Yes, it is unreasonable to most people. It’s also wholly and cynically unconstitutional. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says on the matter:

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.

Notice that. There’s nothing in there that says, “Shall not be infringed unless Government disapproves the man’s reason.” There’s nothing in there that even grants Government a right to ask, much less to know, a citizen’s reason to keep and bear his Arms. Just for clarity’s sake, too, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is entirely an individual right, and not a collective one.

No. The only legitimate way to require licenses to keep and bear is, after training, on a will issue basis.

Full stop.

Empirical Socialism

Posted on by
Reply

Bernie Sanders style. You remember him: the Independent Senator from Vermont, Democratic Party Presidential candidate, avowed Socialist, and as of Monday night’s Democratic Party Town Hall “debate” an avowed Democratic Socialist. In that “debate” (because it really wasn’t a debate; the three candidates appeared sequentially and answered carefully selected questions—and not even the same ones), Sanders assured us, one and all, that he really will raise taxes on us if he’s elected President.

From The Washington Examiner we get a list of just how bad his tax increase will be.SandersTaxes

To put that in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal revenues over the next 10 years will be a total of $41.6 trillion, meaning that Sanders would raise taxes by 47% over current levels.

Guess what happens when Government takes that much money away from working Americans, removes that much money from the economy?

Yup.

It Must Be Dissolved

Posted on by
Reply

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, that is. Consider this example of its egregious behavior. When one of CFPB’s internal judges decided that

a New Jersey lender [PHH Corp] took illegal “kickbacks” from mortgage insurers, boosting costs for borrowers[,]

he fined the company $6 million. PHH appealed.

Richard Cordray, Director of the CFPB, took personal charge of the case and raised the penalty to $109 million. How dare a private company dispute with the CFPB!?

This abuse of power, even a power that the Democratic Party-controlled House and Senate conferred on the CFPB, together with a budget consisting of a blank check drawn on the Federal Reserve Bank System, when they created this thing six years ago, is a clear demonstration of the need to get rid of the CFPB and everything and everyone associated with it.

PHH’s case has been appealed to the DC Circuit, but there’s no need to wait. Get rid of this abusive, unaccountable board. Put this abusive, unaccountable Boyar out of a job.

The Supreme Court and Utilities

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the federal government’s ability to spur incentives for industrial businesses, schools and other large energy consumers to reduce power usage at times of peak demand.

The court, in a 6-2 ruling by Justice Elena Kagan, said the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission acted within its powers when it issued an order in 2011 requiring higher levels of compensation for some power customers that agreed to reduce their electricity use.

The Court likely is right on this, in that FERC’s rule is within the confines of the underlying law. However, this still is the government picking winners and losers, and this still is the government dictating to private enterprise what it must do.

The corrective answers that are required, then, are two: one is to withdraw FERC’s authority to issue such rules, to rescind Congress’ delegation of such rule-making to FERC (such a rescission is required across the board, but that’s for another writing).

The other required answer is to alter the underlying law that the FERC rule was…fleshing out. It’s a law that is no longer necessary and that, as the FERC rule demonstrates, has become vulnerable to Executive Branch abuse.

That law is Section 201 of the Federal Power Act, which

empowers FERC to regulate “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.”

Congress’ authority (not an Executive Branch agency’s) to regulate interstate commerce is constitutionally limited to regularizing commerce among the States, not to dictate the terms of that commerce. Of course, for Congress to recover this authority and its limits, a third required answer consists of correcting a number of Supreme Court mistakes regarding how far Big Government may reach inside any State to regulate commerce there.

Party vs Party

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve been on about a critical difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in past posts. The difference of interest is in each Party’s belief in actual (republican) democracy: the Democrats prefer to settle deals behind closed doors and out of the public’s eye, and the Republicans are not at all timid about having their discussions out loud and out in front of their constituents and American voters generally. One Party talks democracy; the other Party lives it.

Here is that difference made manifest. Iowa Caucus‘ table lays out, side by side, the two Party’s procedures for running a caucus. It’s a long-ish table; I’ll summarize the salient points here.

Both parties use straw votes at caucus centers to identify Party voter preferences for candidates.

The Republican caucus has no minimum threshold for a candidate to get a delegate selection from the caucuses. There’s no guarantee that the succeeding conventions within Iowa will use the results of the straw poll for formal selection of delegates to the Party’s national convention, but there’s no pressure not to.

The Democrat caucus actively silences minority candidates—anyone with less than 15% of the caucus-goers’ support can kiss his role in the Iowa contest good-bye: he’s disqualified. Further, those caucus-goers who amount to that less than 15% support are actively pressured to change their allegiance to another candidate. It gets…better: that 15% threshold and active pressure to change allegiance carries through to every stage of formal Iowa delegate selection for the Democrats’ national convention.

So much for the value of the little guy’s input.