Tag Archives: regulation

An Appellate Court Gets One Right

Posted on by
Reply

The Tenth Circuit has issued a temporary injunction against President Joe Biden’s (D) rule requiring outdoor recreational groups under contract to the Federal government or doing their business on Federal property to pay their employees $15/hr, whether the value of those employees’ work output is that valuable or not.

The “plaintiffs have demonstrated an entitlement to relief from the minimum wage order in their particular circumstances,” the court ruled, and enjoined the government from enforcing the $15-an-hour minimum wage mandate, which recreational companies said would force some of them out of business.
The court also granted the request because it found the plaintiffs were “likely to succeed on the merits” and “suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief.”

The Pacific Legal Foundation had brought the case last fall, arguing that

the requirement amounts to “an executive power grab to force a social agenda through federal contractors.”

That power grab, as the PLF argued, is barred by our Constitution:

Only Congress can make law setting minimum wages. The president can’t establish a minimum wage through administrative fiat. The Constitution says that only Congress can make laws that bind the public.

Indeed. This is what Art I, Sect 1, makes that explicitly clear:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Biden-Harris knows this full well, as do his Cabinet Secretaries in on or otherwise supporting the grab.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party pushing its social engineering agenda with no regard for statute or Constitution—those are just speed bumps on their road to control.

Gun Control

Posted on by
Reply

In the matter of Bianchi v Frosh, a Maryland gun control case in which the State has

designated specified firearms as assault weapons and prohibited them from being transported into the state or from being possessed, sold, transferred, or purchased in the state[]

Mountain States Legal Foundation has filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. The article itself is worth the read, but what drew my eye is this position of the Fourth Circuit in its appellate ruling in Kolbe v Hogan, Jr. referenced in passing by JtN.

Are the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “like” “M-16 rifles,” i.e., “weapons that are most useful in military service,” and thus outside the ambit of the Second Amendment?  The answer to that dispositive and relatively easy inquiry is plainly in the affirmative.

This test manufactured by the Fourth Circuit deliberately ignores our history and the actual text of our Second Amendment.

A significant fraction of the artillery—cannons—our Continental Army used in our Revolutionary War were privately owned, as were the powder and shot privately manufactured and provided. A significant fraction of our combat ships—privateering ships—in our nation’s Revolutionary War were privately owned, as were the powder and shot privately manufactured and provided.

The Fourth Circuit’s test also deliberately ignores another bit of our history: our Second Amendment was written as defense against an overreaching, abusive government like the one we fought that war to be free of. And our Declaration of Independence outlines the duty of all Americans: [W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations…it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…. which requires suitable weaponry.

The Fourth Circuit’s test also deliberately ignores the text of our Second Amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. There’s not a jot or a tittle in there of “except if a government official, including a judge, thinks otherwise.” Nor is there a single minim about government being authorized to specify the purpose for which an American citizen might choose to arm himself and to bear those arms.

The Fourth Circuit’s opinion can be read here.

Monarchism Returns to Canada

Posted on by
Reply

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has invoked his nation’s Emergencies Act because Canada’s national security is at risk from the truckers’ peaceful protests against his government’s…over-exercise of Federal power.

The blockades are harming our economy and endangering public safety. We cannot and will not allow illegal and dangerous activities to continue.

As is typical of modern-day liberals, who resemble 18th century monarchists more than they do actual liberalism, Trudeau is shifting blame for the crisis in Canada, while also mischaracterizing the actual crisis.

What’s actually harming Canada’s economy are the vaccinate-or-be-fired mandates that prevent, for instance, Canada’s shipping industry from shipping.

The actual crisis is Trudeau’s monarchical invocation/misuse of the Emergencies Act to directly assault Canadians’ individual liberties, demanding, in the present instance, vaccinations in complete disregard of those personal liberties. Trudeau’s invocation is aimed at Canadians’ right to protest their government’s misbehaviors and is nothing more than a personal power grab in response to his ego being bruised by those peasants not listening to him.

Maybe the truckers need to go truly nationwide and without any sort of blockade, even by Trudeau’s fevered standard, simply refuse to ship anything at all, at least to Federal government facilities.

Proving Their Point

Posted on by
Reply

Freedom Convoy convoy/protests, in salute to and support of, the Canadian Freedom Convoy are planned for Brussels and France. The convoys have the same purpose, too: to protest the Wuhan Virus vaccine mandates and health papers “passports” required by the Belgian and French governments and to demand their end.

But.

A wide perimeter around the city of 1.1 million would be set up to keep an excess of trucks out of the center of Brussels.
Brussels Mayor Philippe Close said in a Twitter message that officials decided to ban the “Freedom Convoy” protest because organizers failed to seek permission to hold the event.

Imagine that. Needing Government permission to protest Government’s diktats.

And this:

Citing “risks of trouble to public order,” the Paris police department banned protests aimed at “blocking the capital” from Friday through Monday. Police will put measures in place to protect roads and detain violators.
Blocking traffic can lead to two years in prison, 4,500 euros (more than $5,000) in fines and a suspended driver’s license, the police department said in a statement.

Don’t you dare question your Government Betters.

Which proves the point of the truckers’ protests most admirably.

And, the proof has gone live.

Parts of the French “Freedom Convoy” made it to the Arc de Triomphe monument, where French police tear gassed them to drive them away and deny their protest.

The irony abounds.

No More Private Ventures

Posted on by
Reply

Our Progressive-Democrat-controlled government is continuing its actions to limit our private economy, this time moving explicitly against private enterprises.

In a meeting that starts at 10 am ET [last Wednesday], the Securities and Exchange Commission plans to vote on a proposal that would force hedge funds and private-equity funds to provide basic disclosures to their investors and guard against conflicts.

Because “private” can’t be allowed; Know Better Government must control what private companies do.

Because Know Better Progressive-Democrats must “protect” us grindingly stupid average Americans from our own foolishness or stupidity. Never mind that no one forces us to invest in hedge funds or private-equity funds, with or without knowing the financial details of those funds.

Such decisions used to be our responsibility. But now Progressive-Democrats insist on arrogating our responsibilities to themselves.