"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology."


Wednesday, June 29, 2005

The President's Speech

The president’s speech on Iraq didn’t provide any new strategy or plan, nor any announcement of greater troop levels or shift in administration attitude. It didn’t have to. What the president needed to accomplish last night, and what has been so sorely lacking in recent months, is some context and perspective. All Americans have seen recently, whether it be in their newspaper or on the nightly news, are headlines and images of another car bomb going off and the deaths of more American soldiers and innocent Iraqis. All they’ve heard is hysterical rants from their leaders in congress, whether it be Teddy Kennedy labeling Iraq a "quagmire" and "George Bush’s Vietnam", or Chuck Hagel going so far as to say we are losing there.

What they haven’t seen or heard is what else is going on in Iraq, of all the political and military developments in that country that are making the jihadists so barbarically cruel and desperate. They haven’t heard about the progress that coalition forces are making in training Iraqi defense units, or the progress American forces are making in rounding up and arresting or killing members of Zarqawi’s network. All they have heard is an over emphasization of the terrorist attacks and scarcely a word about why we are over there in the first place and why Americans are sacrificing their time, money, talents, and lives there.

That is exactly what Americans needed to hear from the president last night, the full context of what’s going on there and why we are doing what we are doing. And to the president’s credit, that’s exactly what they did hear.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Goodbye Shelby Foote

Since fifth grade one of my great interests has been American history, especially the American Civil War. I have always been transfixed by that period, one of our nation's most trying and defining times, and better understanding the Civil War has given me an added perspective and context when looking at contemporary issues that would have been previously absent. Though there have been many great works written on the Civil War, the best I have come across has been the Civil War trilogy by Shelby Foote. His excellent use of historical narrative and astonishing depth of knowledge (if the reader didn't know better they'd think Mr. Foote had actually been there) have given me great pleasure and inspiration, and his works have encouraged me to learn all I can on the subject.

It is because of this and other reasons that I looked upon the news of his death today with great sadness. In the coming months and years I look forward to finishing up his Civil War epic and further enjoying his contribution to the Ken Burns Civil War series. Though Mr. Foote is no longer with us, his contribution to Civil War scholarship will continue for many years to come.


Hat Tip: Polipundit

Monday, June 27, 2005

Ten Commandment Cases

On the final day of it’s 2004 session the Supreme Court handed down it’s much anticipated decisions in two cases regarding the constitutionality of public displays of the ten commandments on government grounds. In McCreary County v. ACLU Kentucky the court ruled 5-4 that such a display in a county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, while in Van Orden v. Perry the court ruled, also in a 5-4 decision, that a similar display on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol did not violate the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The swing judge in the two cases was Justice Breyer.

Today’s seemingly contradictory rulings are the fruits of it’s inability or refusal to return to the original meaning of "establishment" in the Establishment Clause, which can easily be determined by simply reading the clause’s actual text, which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". In other words, congress is constitutionally prohibited from passing a law that endorses a specific religion or that coerces the people to in some way support a certain religion, through financial contributions or other means. Congress is also prohibited from enacting any measures that would prevent the people from freely practicing the religion of their choice. The text of the clause clearly doesn’t prohibit the placement of a monument or display such as the ten commandments on government property, for a monument or a display is not a law and it certainly doesn’t prevent anyone from freely practicing religion as they see fit.

When the court strays away from the original meaning of the constitution like this it commits itself to passing judgements in areas where it has no business or qualification to. By ruling that certain monuments and displays constitute state establishment of religion, the court establishes itself, as Justice Thomas put it, as a "theological commission", passing judgement on the religious meaning and significance of each and every symbol, monument, display, etc. that exists on any piece of public ground in the nation. To do this is an exercise in futility, for entirely different people will attach entirely different meanings and significance to one single display. Furthermore, as Justice Thomas brilliantly pointed out in his concurrence in Perry, applying such a test, "fails to capture completely the honest and deeply felt offense he (the nonadherent) takes from the government conduct. For the adherent, this analysis takes no account of the message sent by removal of the sign or display, which may well appear to him to be an act hostile to his religious faith." No matter what decision a court makes in a situation like this, either leaving or removing such a monument, they are going to inevitably offend someone.

The court’s two decisions today also fail to apply any cohesive precedent or jurisprudential principle to be used on similar cases in the future. Without any clear definition of the Establishment Clause and it’s meaning, Justice Thomas aptly pointed out that such cases will inevitably be decided by "judicial predilections". If the court had simply followed the meaning of the Establishment Clause than it would have substantiated a precedent lower courts and future Supreme Courts could clearly follow. Instead, by distorting and stretching the meaning of the constitution the court has once again raised more issues than it has settled.

Saturday, June 25, 2005

Kelo v. New London

Of all the rights we as Americans enjoy, the three most basic ones, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, are "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." That third right, the pursuit of happiness, is maybe the most important of the three because it states that every individual has a right to own and enjoy their own private property and the fruits of their labor. As the founders believed, this right was the surest and often only way to defend the individual from the power of government or an overbearing establishment. Furthermore, the right of sovereignty over one's private property was part of nature's law and it was government’s purpose to defend and protect that right. Yet this basic principle in our nation’s founding was turned on it’s head in the Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Kelo v. New London, a ruling that dictates government has an almost all encompassing right to seize and transfer personal property to whomever it pleases.

The court’s rationale in this case is an appalling expansion and reshaping of the Takings Clause in the 5th amendment from it’s original and intended meaning. As the clause states, private property may not be taken by government unless it is for "public use", and not without "just compensation". As Justice Thomas wrote in his dissent, public use means "that either the government or it’s citizens as a whole must actually ‘employ’ the taken property", i.e. the property must be used for public services such as roads, bridges, etc. In other words, the Takings Clause allows government to take private property only in the above circumstances and prohibits it from taking it for anything else. However for some unexplained reason the majority of justices didn’t see it this way, instead stretching the term "public use" to mean anything that might serve the public purpose or interest. According to the court, government can now seize any piece of private property so long as, as the WSJ put it, "they can plausibly argue that any kind of public interest will be served." This is a blatant government land grab, for now government can remove anyone from their private property, no matter how long they’ve owned it or worked for it, and give it to another private entity so long as that private entity can provide a greater tax revenue and as Justice Thomas stated, "a vague promise of new jobs". Struck by this, Justice Scalia cynically asked during oral arguments, "[y]ou can take from A and give to B if B pays more taxes?"

In two consecutive weeks now the Supreme Court has stretched the original definition of the constitution to absurd and troubling degrees, last week in it’s ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, and this week in Kelo v. New London. Both decisions have resulted in government, both local and national, receiving expanded and excessive power, and both have struck large blows to the Federalist principles of this country. What we are increasingly left with is a government that is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers and one that no longer represents what our founding fathers had labored so hard to create.

Hat Tip: George Will, Opinion Journal, Powerline, UShistory.org

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

New Social Security Proposal

A new Social Security reform proposal has been picking up momentum among conservatives on capitol hill within the last couple of days. The proposal, crafted by Sen.’s Demint, Santorum, and Graham, calls for the creation of personal savings accounts funded by the Social Security surplus, which the program’s trustees estimate will last until 2017. The plan has also been endorsed today by four GOP members of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security and Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas. Said Thomas, "I applaud these Members for developing GROW accounts to ensure Social Security dollars are spent on Social Security, and I support their efforts to find common ground on which we can move forward."

Though I would much rather see the creation of permanent personal savings accounts (under this plan contributions to PSA’s will only last until the surplus runs out), I support this proposal for two major reasons. One, it creates personal savings accounts. I have argued more than once on this site that personal savings accounts simply make more sense and are much fairer to workers than the current system, and they are the best way for lower income workers to actually build some wealth in their lifetimes. Though these same workers will be forced to continue to pay into the current system under this proposal, they can at least take some of their share of leftover payroll tax money and invest it. Furthermore, if and when the surplus does run out in 2017 these accounts will have existed for ten to twelve years, more than enough time for PSA’s to succeed and to create a popular demand for permanent accounts. This will prevent the Democrats from demagoging the issue by claiming that PSA’s will destroy the program or individuals’ retirement will be gambled on the equivalent of a game of roulette.

Secondly, this proposal will put an end to congress’ common practice of taking the Social Security surplus and spending it on other government programs. Without the surplus the federal government will be forced into reducing spending as well as giving money back to those to whom it belongs, and not to the spending addicts of both parties who reside in congress.

The Demint/Santorum/Graham plan will also test whether congressional Democrats are really interested in working to fix Social Security or whether they are simply interested in defeating the president. Their main argument against personal accounts has been that they will divert funds from the current system and create an even larger national debt. Under this plan neither will happen, with the current Social Security system being left intact and only the leftovers being used to create personal savings accounts. Also, the program's solvency will be aided because all revenue collected from the payroll tax will be spent on Social Security. Democrats have said all along that they could support personal accounts on top of or in addition to the current Social Security system, and now we will find out whether they meant it or not.

Hat Tip: From The Bleachers, The Washington Times

UPDATE (12:39 P.M. 6/23/05): Opinion Journal further explains the particulars and benefits of the Demint-Ryan plan, as it is now called.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Democrats' Demise

More and more it seems like the Democratic Party is pushing itself closer to the edge. Sen. Dick Durbin’s comments on the Senate floor on Tuesday are just the latest example of this, and they are only symptomatic of the larger problem the Democrats have, which is their ridiculous penchant for spouting off ludicrous and offensive remarks. This problem isn’t a result of a lack of discipline either, but rather the public eruption of their own private feelings for this president and the Republican Party, which are feelings of unabashed and unapologetic hatred. The Democratic Party that once actually stood for something and pushed for what they believe in has now degenerated into a party motivated not by what they believe is best for the country but by how they can best stop and humiliate President Bush and Republicans. The fact that in their crusade to bring down the president and the GOP they are also bringing down the military and this country seems irrelevant to them, and they seem completely ignorant of the fact that the people they are hurting most are themselves. As President Richard Nixon said following his resignation, those you oppose or don’t like don’t win unless "you hate them, and then you destroy yourself." With each passing diatribe that a prominent Democrat undertakes the more they destroy their party and condemn it to only smaller minorities in the halls of congress and throughout the country. Unless someone emerges within the party to bring them back, back to the days where people like me could envision being a Democrat, they will destroy themselves.

Some Republicans might welcome this demise as well, for in their view the more the Democratic Party declines the more the Republican Party will grow. And in many ways they are correct. However this country is best served by having two viable political parties vying for public approval, providing competing ideas, visions, and alternatives. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in today’s editorial, the Democratic Party’s decline has had adverse effects on Republicans as well, as evidenced by the lack of spending discipline by members in congress. Can anyone truly argue that if we Republicans had a viable competitor in the Democratic Party we would still indiscriminately spend the taxpayer’s money, especially if the Democrats were led by a Clinton-esque budget hawk who preaches the end of big government? Of course not. A weak and self-destructive Democratic Party might help us maintain and build our majorities in the halls of government, but it certainly doesn’t help our ability to govern effectively with those majorities.

In the end, the Democrats’ demise hurts everyone, and not just the Democrats themselves.

Hat Tip: From The Bleachers, WSJ Opinion Journal

UPDATE (12:55 P.M. 6/17/05): Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics aptly addresses the absurdity and hypocrisy of Sen. Durbin's comments from earlier this week.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Gonzales v. Raich

In Gonzales v. Raich the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision which ruled that the seizure by federal agents of two individual’s personal marijuana plants grown for the purpose of medicinal consumption, permitted in the state of California, was constitutionally justified. According to the court, it was necessary and proper to seize these plants under the federal Controlled Substances Act, which falls under congress’ constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.

However the argument that the two instances in this case fall under the category of interstate commerce is absurd. The plaintiffs, Dianne Monson and Angel Raich, both grew a minute number of cannabis plants within their homes, and personally consumed the cannabis as prescribed by their physicians to assist in the treatment of ailments in which they suffer from. They never bought nor sold the cannabis, nor did it ever cross state lines. As Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, "at the time of the founding, the term " ‘commerce consisted of selling, buying, and bartering, as well as transporting for these purposes" and "commerce, or trade, stood in contrast to productive activities like manufacturing and agriculture." With this in mind the activities in this case do not constitute intrastate commerce, let alone interstate commerce.

Yet this irrefutable fact does not stop the majority from ruling that the federal government’s actions under the CSA still fall within congress’ regulatory powers enumerated in the commerce clause. In the majority and concurring opinions, the court opines that the CSA, and actions taken by federal agents under the authority of the CSA, fall under congress’ authority in the necessary and proper clause, which gives congress the authority to enact any laws or measures necessary in executing it’s powers. Under the court’s rationale, it is necessary to regulate non-commercial activities such as the ones in this case so that congress can fully exercise it’s power to regulate interstate commerce. In essence, the court believes that non-commercial activity such as the personal growth and consumption of marijuana affects the greater, interstate cannabis market, and thus congress and the federal government have regulatory authority over such activities under the commerce clause.

Not only is the court’s ruling an abuse of the commerce clause, but it is also an infringement on the federalist principles laid out in the 10th Amendment, which states, "[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The activities in this case were and are not commercial, and have no relevance or effect upon the interstate cannabis market. Therefore congress has no right to regulate or interfere with such activity, with that power only belonging to the individual states. If this no longer remains true and congress can regulate anything and everything under the Commerce Clause, then as Justice Thomas put it, "the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

Hat Tip: WSJ, Jonathan H. Adler, Amber Golding & Hofstetter

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Washington State Public Opinion

Strategic Vision just released a poll on the state of public opinion here in the Evergreen State. The most interesting item from this poll is Dino Rossi's numbers in head-to-head matchups, one against Gov. Gregoire and the other against Sen. Cantwell, who is up for reelection next year. If the 2008 gubernatorial election were held today Rossi would trounce the governor by about twenty points and if it were '06 he would convincingly beat Sen. Cantwell by twelve. Furthermore, Rossi is not only the only potential GOP candidate who is beating Sen. Cantwell right now, but he is also the only one who the senator is not receiving fifty percent of the vote against. This emphasizes the pressure that is on state Republicans to convince Rossi to run and take advantage of the senator's soft approval numbers next year( her Job Approval is at 48%), for though there are other viable potential candidates on the GOP side, former congresswoman Jennifer Dunn for example, Rossi is far and away the best candidate available and has the best chance of unseating Washington's junior senator in '06.

Hat Tip: Sound Politics

UPDATE (10:53 6/14/05): Survey USA just released a batch of approval ratings for every United States senator and in that poll Sen. Cantwell has a 55-30% approval rating, seven points higher than her approval in the Strategic Vision poll I commented on above. If you average the two polls together her approval is 51.5%, not great but strong enough to give her the advantage against whomever the Republican nominee will be in '06, with the exception of Dino Rossi, who is the most popular political figure within the state right now.

Hat Tip: Polipundit

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

It's Over....Finally

Judge John Bridges’ ruling of the day before yesterday finally put an end to the unending saga that the Washington State gubernatorial race had become. Through the whole ordeal we in this state have seen recounts, dead people voting, and court challenges, and we still don’t really know who won. Though the ruling was a defeat for Republicans, I am honestly glad that this whole mess is over and the state and the party can finally move on.

Of course, if I had had my choice this thing would have ended months ago, immediately after the state legislature refused to call for a new election and Gov. Gregoire was sworn in. My opposition to a court challenge wasn’t based on the merits of our case, but rather in the fact that conceding at that point in time was best for the state and the party. The last thing our state needed was a protracted legal battle that would undermine the legitimacy of not only the individual holding the governor’s office, but of the office itself. Even if we had been successful in getting a new election and then won that election, would we really want to hold an office that has been damaged in the process and will remain so for the three and a half years Rossi would have served in office, without any of the influence and prestige that usually goes with the office? I certainly didn’t.

Conceding back in January would have been the best for the party as well, for such an act of graciousness and honor would have stood in stark contrast to the way the Democrats conducted themselves throughout the whole process. As I said at the time, "acting gracefully and with dignity and honor at a time when the opposition hasn’t will go a long ways towards elevating the Republican Party to it’s rightful place above the Democrats in the eyes of many Washington voters." As polls have shown, the Democrats, and Gov. Gregoire specifically, have been damaged politically for acting in such a blatantly partisan manner, and my fear has been that by litigating this election to death the Republicans would be digging themselves into the same hole. By losing one then, we could have insured winning more in the future, and hopefully we still will.

To Rossi’s credit, he conceded soon after the ruling, preemptively ending what most had viewed as an inevitable appeal to the state supreme court. With this election finally behind us Republicans can now turn their focus to where it should be: electing Republicans to the state legislature and national congress next year, and sending a Republican (possibly Rossi himself) to the governor’s mansion in ‘08. As a result of this past election the Democrats are in a politically weak position, and as a result we Republicans are stronger now than we have been in quite some time, and provided we take the right approach we can send Republicans to Olympia who can clean up the mess that has come from twenty years of Democratic governors.

Sunday, June 05, 2005

One Year Anniversary



February 6, 1911-June 5, 2004

WE MISS YOU PRESIDENT REAGAN

The Inheritance Tax

In the May 9, 2005 edition of The Weekly Standard, Irwin M. Stelzer penned an interesting and thoughtful piece in opposition to the repeal of the federal inheritance tax, or "Death Tax" as it is more commonly known. What makes his argument compelling, though I don’t agree with it, is the conservative case he makes for the tax’s existence, except in his first point, which is the inheritance tax’s repeal will force the federal government to search for other sources of revenue, "sources far more likely to create disincentives to economic growth." This point is only a conservative one in disguise, for I and most other conservatives look at the repeal of the inheritance tax as a means in forcing the federal government into cutting spending, not into seeking other avenues to maintain current levels.

Mr. Stelzer also argues that the repeal of the inheritance tax hampers the equality of opportunity that conservatives always trumpet, for large inheritances provide recipients with wealth that they did not earn on their own personal merit, instead creating an "incentive to indolence" as he calls it. Not only that, but he chastises conservatives who are uncomfortable with the welfare program but also oppose the inheritance tax, for in his view welfare and living off of a large inheritance are the same because both diminish the incentive to work.

Though he has a point, the similarities between the two pretty much end after that. One who lives off of welfare is not contributing to the country’s economy, and is instead taxing resources from it. An individual living off of a large inheritance on the other hand is spending that money and thus contributing to, not taxing from, the resources of the economy.

Furthermore, it is not the government’s place nor the tax code’s purpose to compel certain types of behavior, in this case to compel individuals to live off of their own wealth and not the wealth of their parents and patriarchs. Supporting the inheritance tax on this basis is no different than the justifications liberals use for all of their proposed and adopted social engineering programs. As Mr. Stelzer acknowledges in his article, it is human nature for parents to expend as much effort, usually more, on behalf of their children’s welfare as their own. The inheritance tax violates this irrefutable fact of human nature and natural law, and it’s repeal is thus justified.

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

It's Wictory Wednesday!

It's Wictory Wednesday (I apologize for the late post) and today we are donating to Sen. Rick Santorum, who is in for a tough reelection fight next year. Sen. Santorum's likely opponent will be state treasurer Bob Casey Jr., a pro-life moderate who is doing very well against Sen. Santorum in recent polls. Pennsylvania is a moderately blue state, which makes Sen. Santorum, one of the Senate's most vocal conservatives, open to a tough challenge from a Democrat such as Mr. Casey. Sen. Santorum could very easily be defeated in this race, which is why it is so important that he receives support and assistance from national Republicans and conservatives.

Polipundit's post for today is here and the Wictory Wednesday blogroll can of course be found on the tool bar on the right-hand side of this site.