I was driving back and forth across Maryland this weekend picking things up and getting things ready for a friend's wedding, and so I got to listen to large chunks of the LP convention on C-Span. A couple points stuck with me:
1. I was impressed by how much Gary Johnson talked about state-level experimentation. As readers know, this is a big deal for me and I think a potential big source of improvement on the health care legislation. Often libertarians shy away from being too loud on this because it risks demonstrating good cost effective ways to have the public sector play a role in health reform (for example). Good to hear him make these points (and at a variety of times during the debate too).
2. The repeated balanced budget promises were scary though. Needless to say, that's not what we need a president proposing in Spring 2013.
3. Lots of "we're the only ones and the only party that care about liberty". Horse shit. And it's getting old. This isn't 2008 when there was a big boost of interest in libertarianism and neophytes could get away with saying dumb things. This is really getting old now.
4. Another thing that shocked me that Gary Johnson said was how happy he was to push things through with executive orders. He talked about one instance in New Mexico with welfare reform where he essentially legislated via executive order. It was a very questionable move, and sure enough the New Mexico Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. The lesson Johnson got from that episode? The legislature was bad because (1.) it didn't legislate a solution that worked, and (2.) I'm very willing to do things by executive fiat even if it's not constitutional. This is the sort of thing that leads people like me to question the adherence of some libertarians to the Constitution. Same with Ron Paul when he just decides what things Congress can't do, because he doesn't like it, even if it's in the Constitution that our elected representative have the authority to do it.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Daniel,
ReplyDeletefirst of all, a balanced budget president is exactly what the US needs in 2013. More than that, the US needs a president who cuts federal spending. A lot. Really really much.
Second, Ron Paul has never decided what the Congress can't do, he has argued against unconstitutional acts of Congress. It would be nice if a Keynesian could mention Ron Paul without lying and distorting, just once. Is there anyone here who denies that the Constitution is routinely ignored by the Congress and White House alike? Looking at the Federal government today, it is difficult to find what actually is in line with the Constitution, and what Constitutionally valid agency acts in accordance with the Constitution.
re:"Second, Ron Paul has never decided what the Congress can't do, he has argued against unconstitutional acts of Congress."
DeleteWell right, he doesn't come out and say he's disputing the Constitutional powers of Congress. Of course he tries to present differently!
The Constitution (deliberately) leaves a lot of what is necessary and proper, and what counts as providing for the general welfare vague. They wanted this to be democratically determined, and they knew different eras would have different answers to these questions (which is why it was vague and not detailed and legalistic). I imagine there's a lot the Congress and different agencies do that I wouldn't consider constitutional, but other people would disagree. That's the point of a deliberative system. People who write these clauses out of the Constitution to get an easy-out seem to me to be consistently bad judges of these sorts of questions, and consistently bad defenders of the Constitution.
The real problem is they've also infected the whole discourse around the Constitution. Somehow Ron Paul becomes a "strict adherent to the Constitution" and others aren't. Their take on these things dominates the discourse, which makes it harder to have a serious discussion of the importance of the Constitution to the modern U.S..
Daniel,
Deleteagain, most of the things Congress does is unconstitutional, something they don't even deny. Same goes for the White House. Like the fact that every war since the WWII has been undeclared. The Patriot Act runs roughshod over the bill of rights, as does the NDAA, and most of the national security apparatus. Add to that the blatant abuse of the GW-clause, supremacy clause and commerce clause. It seems like the DoJ's most important job is to find ways to undermine the Constitution.
So Ron Paul isn't disputing the Constitutional powers of Congress, he is trying to enforce them. Congress has become little more than a rubber stamp for the White House and he wants to change that. But your money where your mouth is. Give us a list of examples of "Constitutional powers" that Ron Paul has tried to deny Congress or the White House. A handful is enough. It should be an interesting read, as it will tell your readers what your understanding of the Constitution really is.
The idea that the Constitution was left deliberately vague as to give the Federal Government basically unlimited powers flies in the face of both recorded history and reason. You forget that the 13 states viewed themselves as independent and sovereign states, and wanted to remain as such. They had no desire to be ruled by a small group of people in the Capital no more than they wanted to be ruled by the British. That is why they gave a specific list of powers granted to Congress, and only those powers. If they wanted it to be vague, then why list anything to begin with? Why not just write "The Federal Government will have those powers it chooses to have"? Why did they include the bill of rights, especially the 10th amendment, if the purpose was to give vast powers to the Feds? And why did the ratifiers demand guarantees that the Feds would only have those enumerated powers, if the stated purpose was the exact opposite? I would really love to hear your thoughts on this.
The Constitution isn't vague, it is very clear. And if you have any doubt, read what was said in the ratifying conventions. That is what actually matters because it was in the ratifying conventions the constitution was adopted by the independent states. T
he reason why Ron Paul "becomes a strict adherent" is that he is the only one who even talks about the Constitution. Nobody else cares about it, let alone knows what it says. Not even the Supreme Court cares about the Constitution, their "decisions" are nothing but ideologically driven judicial activism, with the very rare exception now and then. It was supposed to be a neutral, apolitical branch of government, but it is anything but.
Ron Paul has always made the point that if you don't like certain parts of the constitution, then change it through the amendment process. Don't ignore it, which is what you seem to be advocating. It is because of ignoring the constitution the US has gone from a relatively free society to a fascist police state, overrun by bureaucrats and regulators. It is because of this the US has the Patriot Act, the NDAA, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, a host of unconstitutional departments like USDA, DHS, Department of Education etc, the Federal Reserve and its fiat paper money, the DEA, the FDA and most of the other abbreviations in the alphabet from Hell and a tax code that is thousands of pages long. And a military empire and endless undeclared wars.
But I would think that as a Keynesian you welcome all that, especially the warfare state, because all of the government spending, borrowing and inflation that brings with it. The government spends what 3.5 trillion a year? Much too little in your opinion I'm sure.
re: "The idea that the Constitution was left deliberately vague as to give the Federal Government basically unlimited powers flies in the face of both recorded history and reason."
DeleteRight. It would be nonsense to suggest that the federal government is given unlimited powers by the Constitution. The whole point of the Constitution is to limit the federal government. If you want to argue with someone who thinks the Constitution gives the federal government "basically unlimited powers" go find someone who thinks that. I certainly don't.
re: "You forget that the 13 states viewed themselves as independent and sovereign states, and wanted to remain as such. They had no desire to be ruled by a small group of people in the Capital no more than they wanted to be ruled by the British. That is why they gave a specific list of powers granted to Congress, and only those powers. If they wanted it to be vague, then why list anything to begin with?"
Gee, thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea.
Daniel,
DeleteI'm glad to hear that you don't think the Constitution gives the Federal government unlimited powers, although I don't see much opposition to the idea in your writings or what you advocate. But lets discuss a few examples. Is the Federal Reserve and the Legal Tender laws constitutional in your opinion? And how about the bail-outs and the stimulus packages of Bush and Obama. Were they constitutional?
"Gee, thanks for the history lesson. I had no idea."
You're welcome, I knew you had no idea.
Kaj-
ReplyDeleteThe constitution was deliberately vague. Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, and John Adams all clearly read the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause as giving the federal government expansive powers. Madison argued for a time that the limited-government reading that Ron Paul likes was the correct reading. But even he implicitly gave the expansive-government reading his blessing, when he created the Second Bank of the United States. Paul's constitutional scholarship leaves something to be desired.
Will,
Deleteno, the Constitution was not and is not vague. It is quite explicit, which also is made clear by the ratifying conventions. Personally, I don't know what can be clearer than an explicit list of powers and an amendment saying that everything not explicitly delegated to the Feds is retained by the states.
The issue of a central bank, for instance, was discussed at the convention and explicitly rejected. The fact that the US got a Second Bank of the United states simply proves that even the Founders started ignoring the Constitution, as Adams did with his alien and sedition act. Ignoring the constitution to enhance your own power was present even then, even though it's of course nothing like today.
Ron Paul's constitutional scholarship is quite impeccable, but if you have concrete examples of failures on his part, do share and lets discuss.
Kaj -
DeleteFor the third time now: yes, we all agree there is a clear list of enumerated powers that limit the Congress. What is vague is the content of those enumerated powers, specifically the power to appropriate money to provide for the general welfare and the power to do whatever is necessary and proper to implement the aforementioned enumerated powers.
"general welfare", "necessary", and "proper" are vague and open to debate.
If you want to discuss these things, stop repeating things like "they made a list of powers". We know that.
re: "The fact that the US got a Second Bank of the United states simply proves that even the Founders started ignoring the Constitution"
Another theory that fits the evidence is that your view of the Constitution is different from that of the founders and of almost all modern Americans, and of almost all Americans throughout American history.
re: "Ron Paul's constitutional scholarship is quite impeccable, but if you have concrete examples of failures on his part, do share and lets discuss."
We have Kaj.
Daniel
ReplyDeleteThe welfare clase, even Hamilton conceded that it had no meaning. The general welfare was to come from Congress executing its enumerated powers, for which it may needed to appropriate money. The powers of Congress would be exactly the same with or without the welfare clause.
Same goes for the necessary and proper clause. It simply means that Congress should take the necessary and proper actions to execute its enumerated powers.It is actually a limitation, barring Congress from taking inappropriate action, such as outlawing free speech for instance. Yet they did.
These clauses have been deliberately mystifed to justify abuse, as has the commerce clause.
What is so strange or controversial in claiming that even in the early days, the constitution was ignored? Adams ignored it completely when he introduced the Alien and Sedition Act. You seem to think that the mere fact that a law was passed makes it constitutional.
The issue of creating a central bank was discussed in the Constitutional Convention and expressly rejected, so the Second Bank as well as the Fed are unconstitutional, because there exists no amendment allowing th Federal Governmen to establish any form of central bank, or to issue fiat paper currency and certainly not to enact Legal Tender laws which effectively outlaw the only constitutional money.
Thus far, you haven't recognized a single law, deparment, agency or action taken by Congress or the White House you deem as unconstitutional. And you absolutely have not shared in any concrete examples of Ron Paul's failed constitutional scholarship. Like you never answered my list of questions about Krugman's alien-claim.
Stop saying that you have done this or that when you clearly haven't, becuase that IS dishonest.