Tag Archives: responsibilities

An Overstated Case

Posted on by
Reply

A couple of Wall Street Journal news writers have laid out the concerns in the Supreme Court’s consideration of whether President Donald Trump (R) can fire Lisa Cook, a Federal Reserve Bank governor.

It will test whether the court’s conservative majority, which has spent years eroding the independence of regulatory agencies, is willing to make an exception for the institution that controls interest rates, inflation, and the stability of the global financial system.

One out of three isn’t all that terribly bad, but the first and third items are of critical importance.

[E]roding the independence of regulatory agencies…. What independence? They were created as instruments of the Executive Branch. As such, under our Constitution, they cannot be independent, for all that Congress averred it so. That would be a violation of our Constitution’s carefully constructed separation of powers. Those agencies are entirely under the authority of the President as the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch. Far from years of eroding the independence, the Court has been glacially slow in recognizing the agencies’ lack of independence.

The stability of the global financial system? Really?

It’s certainly true that the US, with our enormous economy and the size of our market for the global economy, even in today’s tariff regime, exerts outsize influence on the global economy.

However, it exerts influence only, not control.

The impact of our central bank on the global economy is as much—at least—the outcome of other nations’ government decisions as it is that of our own decisions. They don’t get to hide behind us or our central bank in their decision-making, nor do they get to blame us or our central bank for the poor outcomes of their decision-making. The stability of the global financial system is an affair of collective responsibility, not one of unilaterality.

Ellison Returned some Money

Posted on by
Reply

Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison (D), who seems deeply connected with his State’s multi-billion dollar welfare fraud via his lack of action on when advised years prior to the current public exposure, returned some $2,500 in illegally donated money. When called on all the donations from welfare fraudsters, Ellison answered the call.

Ellison had already returned a $2,500 campaign contribution to a donor who was indicted in September 2022 for the food aid fraud. The donor, Liban Alishire, later pleaded guilty to wire fraud and money laundering and awaits sentencing, court records show.

Never mind that that’s not all the money that folks who had defrauded the State or are charged with defrauding the State but whose trials have not yet begun that Ellison has not yet given up. The larger question here concerns these $2,500, which were returned to the fraudster. Those dollars could easily have supported the fraudster’s benefit, his defense bills or his potential restitution bill, for instance.

There are alternatives for what could have been done with Ellison’s illegally funded donations; he still can use those alternatives for the rest of his…donations.

State Senator John Hoffman [D], who received eight questionable donations that totaled about $3,300, sent all of the money to the US Marshals Service because the donated money might have been obtained through fraud.
“It was the right thing to do,” he told The Center Square.

But not Ellison. He still put it to his own and his donor’s good use.

Lost in the Reporting

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps carefully ignored in the reporting. The Free Press has its collective panties in a wedgy over an FBI raid on Washington Post news writer Hannah Natanson. It seems that, pursuant to the FBI’s investigation into the leak by a defense contractor of classified information, the FBI executed a warrant on Natanson and seized two of her laptops, her phone, and a smartwatch.

Of course that raid, part of what should be a thorough investigation of the leak and the defense contractor’s role in it (if any), has the “fourth estate” in a tizzy. The Committee to Protect Journalists issued a statement:

Without assurances that journalists can protect their reporting materials, accountability journalism will suffer a major setback, eroding yet another mechanism for government accountability.

That’s true up to a point. However, “accountability journalism” doesn’t place those news writers outside our laws. Were that so, that self-appointed title would be laughably hypocritical. If news writers are going to traffic in stolen goods—as leaked classified information most assuredly is—than of course those news writers must be held accountable: they must be arrested, brought to trial, and if convicted, jailed.

Of course, the FBI has not said Natanson was directly involved (or involved at all) in the leak, but that is beside the point of press accountability—a point the press is busily ignoring at the top of its collective lungs.

Were they Tipped?

Posted on by
Reply

The lede raises the question in my mind.

On New Year’s Day, an oil tanker partially filled with sanctioned crude slipped out of Venezuela’s main export terminal and sailed toward Iran. The next day, another tanker escaped with Venezuelan oil, scrambling its signals to hide its course. Satellite imagery later confirmed it was headed to China.

Just two days later, US forces and law enforcement personnel entered Venezuela and seized the nation’s dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife, bringing them back to the US for trial.

That timing raises my question: did someone tip off the Venezuelans that we were coming, and that’s why at least one of them left while only partially loaded? Or was that all the oil Venezuela had available for shipping at the time?

Public Keeping and Bearing

Posted on by
Reply

Our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment is brief and crystal clear:

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.

The Supreme Court has already ruled, several times, that a well regulated militia is an outcome facilitated by individuals keeping and bearing arms, it’s not the purpose of that. The Court has further clarified that to mean shall not be infringed is nearly all-encompassing, with only a few carefully enumerated locations that can bar individuals from bringing their firearms. That short list includes locations like polling places, post offices, public-accessible private facilities like places of business that post clear signs prohibiting them on the premises. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc, et al. v Bruen is one example of this.

Hawaii wants to outlaw carrying firearms altogether, having devised and enacted a State law that bars carrying anywhere—private enterprises, even other folks’ homes—unless those places are explicitly posted permitting the carrying. As the Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly note,

A shop could theoretically post a sign on the door—or the parking lot entrance?—saying it doesn’t object to concealed carry. But it’s easy to see why a proprietor might hesitate, since a “Pistols Welcome” banner might alienate other customers. Businesses have an incentive to accept whatever is the default.

Hence the effective ban on carrying firearms that the State is attempting. The State argues that

[a] default of no guns…fits Hawaii’s custom and “unique history,” dating to King Kamehameha III, who banned weapons in 1833.

Bruen, though, says otherwise.

[W]hen the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The Nation’s historical tradition, not any particular State’s personal choice. Bruen is as crystalline as is our basic right under the 2nd Amendment. Hawaii’s statute needs to be struck down completely.