Supports The Constitution

I'm reading around the 'net and people touting various candidates say their candidate supports the Constitution. OK. It is good PR. But there is a test. Say to them:

"I never noticed a Prohibition Amendment. Except for Alcohol."

So when a candidate supporter says "my candidate supports the Constitution" check them on it. Ask: "Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment?"

Funny thing is that a Classical Values commenter in decrying my effort to elevate the Drug Prohibition issue stated the Tea Party Manifesto which is (approximately):

Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutional Government, and Free Markets.

So my friend. Where is the Drug Prohibition Amendment? If we don't have one then the Federal Government's institution of such a program is a usurpation of power. Funny how few notice these things.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

They Got It All Wrong

News Weak says the TEA Party folks have made a fetish out of the Constitution but worse - they get it wrong.

In legal circles, constitutional fundamentalism is nothing new. For decades, scholars and judges have debated how the founding document should factor into contemporary legal proceedings. Some experts believe in a so-called living Constitution—a set of principles that, while admirable and enduring, must be interpreted in light of present-day social developments in order to be properly upheld. Others adhere to originalism, which is the idea that the ratifiers’ original meaning is fixed, knowable, and clearly articulated in the text of the Constitution itself.

While conservatives generally prefer the second approach, many disagree over how it should be implemented—including the Supreme Court’s most committed originalists, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas sympathizes with a radical version of originalism known as the Constitution in Exile. In his view, the Supreme Court of the 1930s unwisely discarded the 19th-century’s strict judicial limits on Federal power, and the only way to resurrect the “original” Constitution—and regain our unalienable rights—is by rolling back the welfare state, repealing regulations, and perhaps even putting an end to progressive taxation. In contrast, Scalia is willing to respect precedent—even though it sometimes departs from his understanding of the Constitution’s original meaning. His caution reflects a simple reality: that upending post-1937 case law and reversing settled principles would prove extremely disruptive, both in the courts and society at large.

Ah. So we can no longer follow the law because it would be inconvenient? An interesting argument. However, there is opposition to that sort of thinking.

Tea Partiers tend to sound more like Thomas than Scalia. Every weekday on Fox News, Glenn Beck—“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” according to a recent poll—takes to his schoolroom chalkboard to rail against progressives like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt. “They knew they had to separate us from our history,” he says, “to be able to separate us from our Constitution and God.” In Beck’s view, progressives forsook the faithful Christian Founders and forced the country to adopt a slew of unconstitutional measures that triggered our long decline into Obama-era totalitarianism: the Federal Reserve System, Social Security, the graduated federal income tax. True patriots, according to Beck, favor a pre-progressive vision of the United States.

Me too!

Election day will give us a chance to test those ideas with the electorate. And where do the ideas come from? The Libertarian Party has kept those ideas alive until they could flower.

TEA minus 13 and counting.


Click on the above image and learn how to spread it around.

Boomer Revenge

Well all you boomer haters (hippie punchers) on the right, Real Clear Politics has some news for you.

This senior surge is, like the electorate overall, coming from the right. Democratic seniors and baby boomers are less engaged than past midterms. But at least seven in 10 GOP seniors and baby boomers, including right-leaning independents, are highly engaged. That's roughly 20 points above past norms and their Democratic counterparts this cycle.

The tea party momentum is one factor. Nearly a third of tea party supporters are seniors, according to New York Times/CBS News polling. Almost half are baby boomers.

The people who brought you the Internet Revolution seem poised to bring you the TEA Party Revolution. Oh. Yeah. We have better music too. Suck it up. More seriously. Let us all work together to bring down this abomination.

TEA minus 14 and counting.


Click on the above image and learn how to spread it around.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Commerce Claws

H/T Instapundit

Where's The Party, Man?

Francis Cianfrocca is discussing Class Warfare In America. At the end of his piece he mentions a businessman's lament.

...I had a conversation yesterday with an old friend who runs a high-ten-figure hedge fund. (They're flat for the year, like the rest of the hedge-fund world.) What he wants is to join a political party that believes in not taking people's money and in not telling them what to do: small govt without the bibles. This is something I hear from business guys all the time: the whole "social liberal/fiscal conservative" thing. So far, there's no political movement they can believe in.

In fact the lack of such a party is why we are in so much trouble. When the Bible thumping gets too loud the fiscal conservatives stop paying attention to the money and go all in on correcting the social flaws in America at the point of a government gun. The swing voters get disgusted. They listen to the promises lies from the Democrats. And when the Ds get in they run wild. The thumpers then start in with the "what happened to the money - you crooks?" Then the conservatives get fiscal for a while and the cycle starts again. In the mean time the socially liberal/fiscally conservative segment of the population is continually whipsawed.

Which leads to the question: do conservatives really want small government or do they want power over people who are in their opinion self-destructive?

If conservatives want small government (for real) I think broadening the coalition might prove helpful. We are going to need all the deviants and dopers we can enlist (and more) to restrict the leviathan and keep it restricted. That means that even if conservatives get power it might not be wise for them to start in on the margins of their coalition. Because you know what happens when you run out of margin. Here is how Bill Whittle describes loss of margin: "Out of altitude, out of airspeed, out of ideas. Eject! Eject! Eject!" The question is: are conservatives tired of getting ejected? Are they smart enough to figure out what to do? My answer is - most likely YES on the first and NO on the second.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

A Democrat Who Gets It

Senator Evan Bayh is retiring. On his way out he had a few choice words.

"I simply reached a conclusion that I could get more done to help my state and the American people by doing something in the private sector," said Bayh, the two-term senator and former governor, on ABC's Good Morning America on Tuesday. "Real accomplishments in a real way."

Now all we have to do is to make the 535 in Washington keep that in mind until the people retire them and we might actually get decent government from time to time.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Three Percenters

You may already know what an Oath Keeper is. But what is a Three Percenter?

Now, seeing the other tab and patch in the photo, you may ask “what is a three percenter?” The narrowest definition is that three percenters are hard-line gun owners who are done backing up and will not comply with more infringements of their right to bear arms. A broader definition would be that they are hard-line Americans who are done backing up and will not comply with further infringement of any of their rights. It also alludes to the three percent of the colonists who took to the field against the King during the Revolution, and the estimation that at least three percent of modern Americans will actively fight, if it comes to it, to preserve liberty. Read this essay for more explanation.

Oath Keepers and Three Percenters are separate groups, but it is not a surprise to see people who consider themselves both an Oath Keeper and a Three Percenter. If you read the supplied links you will see why.

While we Oath Keepers have a specialized mission of outreach to current serving, focused on the oath and on refusing to obey unlawful orders, there’s lots of common ground and shared commitment to the Republic among both groups. Go here to read what the Sipsey Street blog has to say about that.

Naturally the Three Percenters have a blog.

Backyard Conservative discusses Clarence Page and why Clarence thinks we are the enemy.

Clarence Page refers to us as "enemies". You know, usually we conservatives reserve that kind of language for those from overseas who are trying to kill us. But the Left, and let's include Page in that appellation now, calls citizens who object to corruption and criminality--including underage prostitution-- as "enemies". Let us note, a majority of Americans support stopping the funding, and of those who have been closely following the news, 80% recoil in revulsion at ACORN's activities.

But for Clarence Page and many on the Left, it's not my fellow Americans, it's my neighbors as enemies:

Yet, conservatives underestimate their successes in framing this debate long before Hannah put on her hot pants. Most ACORN coverage in major media has been overwhelmingly negative, according to a recently released study by Peter Dreier, a professor of politics at Occidental College, and Christopher R. Martin, a professor of journalism at University of Northern Iowa. Of the 647 newspaper and broadcast news stories about ACORN that they found in 2007 and 2008, most were on allegations of massive voter registration fraud against the organization.

And yet it took video to actually bring them down.

Clarence, I'd watch out if I was you. Your enemies are trained, armed and dangerous. And a lot of them have recent combat experience. In fact a lot of them will be coming home from Iraq in the next year or two. Do you really want to incite a civil war Mr. Page? You might want to look into the history of The Battle of Athens, Tennessee.

Two days before the election the GIs ran an advertisement in the Post-Athenian: “These young men fought and won a war for good government. They know what it takes and what it means to have a clean government—and they are energetic enough, honest enough and intelligent enough to give us good, clean government.” A couple of pages farther on, the Democrats had their say: “Look at the facts—and you will vote for the Democratic ticket. The campaign fight is as old as the hills—it is the story of the outs wanting back in.”

The next day, the paper reported that veterans from Blount County had offered to come help watch the polls. Mansfield began building an army of his own. “It has come to my attention,” he announced, “that certain elements intend to create a disturbance at and around the polls. … In order to see that law and order is maintained … I will have several hundred deputies patrolling the county.” He hired all of them from outside the county, some from out of state. They would crowd inside every voting precinct. And they would be armed.

August 1, 1946: Election Day found voters lined up early in the largest turnout in local history. Joining them were some three hundred of Sheriff Mansfield’s special deputies. Trouble began early. At 9:30 A.M. Walter Ellis, a legally appointed GI representative at the first precinct in the courthouse, was arrested and jailed for protesting irregularities.

There is way more. The short version? The veterans got into a fight with the Democrat Machine (sound familiar?) and routed them by force of arms.

Does Clarence - and the rest of the Democrat crew - really want to get into a fight with people determined to restore honest government? We shall see won't we?

A Constitutional Town Hall

E. J. Pagel sent me this e-mail.

PANEL OF CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCATES JOINS CITIZENS AT ROCKFORD TOWN HALL MEETING.

As a follow up to the recent town hall meetings held by senators and house representatives across the United States, the citizens of Rockford, IL have invited a panel of 10 experts from around the state of Illinois to join in the discussion of the constitutionality of various legislation including health care reform, income taxes, and Cap and Trade.

The citizens of Illinois are invited to attend a town hall meeting on Thursday, September 24th at 7:00 PM at Veterans Memorial Hall at 211 N Main St in downtown Rockford to discuss issues including health care reform, income taxes, and cap and trade with a panel of advocates assembled from around the state of Illinois. After the recent town hall meetings with representatives, some citizens have been left with more questions than answers. Many questions were directed towards the constitutionality of various legislation including H.R. 3200 (America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009) so we've brought in some experts who can give some definitive answers to these questions and recommendations as to what can be done about it. The panel will answer and discuss the impact and constitutionality of various issues and will field questions from the public.

Contacts: Rogene Hamilton,
crs at
mchsi
dot com

Jonathan Cobb
jonathanacobb
at
gmail
dot com

I have no idea if these folks are actually Constitutional Experts. In any case it is not the first time the question has been asked.

If you need a copy of the Constitution to take to the meeting you can buy it here:

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation

Keep Yo Effn Mouth Shut

Will we still have a Constitutional Republic in four years? I have my doubts.

A new White House policy on permissible lobbying on economic recovery and stimulus projects has taken a decidedly anti-First Amendment turn. It's a classic illustration of Big Government trying to control every aspect of a particular activity and in the process running up against civil liberty.

Check out this passage from a post on the White House blog by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform (emphasis added):

"First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

"Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest - after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

"Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact."

Evidently these guys have never heard of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Obama may be a Constitutional scholar, but it is more than evident that actually reading the document is not a requirement for such an appellation.

I wonder if this phrase added to many of my posts comes under the restrictions:

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

Because Polywell is getting some stimulus funds but the award is not final.

H/T Small Dead Animals

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Obama - Guilty Until Proven Innocent

It is not Mr. Obama who will be guilty though. It is you. Obama has a plan to raise business taxes which I discussed in
The War On Business Continues. As part of that plan the rules of evidence for innocence and guilt will be changed. You will be guilty until you prove you are not.

Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.

Now suppose you have done nothing wrong? Where exactly will you be able to find the evidence?

I have heard that Mr. Obama is a Constitutional Scholar. Where is the evidence?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

A New Secular Religion

OK. Here is the deal. Communism is a secular religion. Now we could attack it by countering with religion which means attacking not only the economic understanding but in addition you have to make a non-believer a believer. That is a two factor problem.

Easier to reduce it to a one factor problem. Define a secular religion that makes a republic work. We could call it Educated Patriotism.

Let me start with the first precept:

Honesty is the best policy

Here is the second:

Doubt. Even the truth.

Money Following The Money Followers

Spengler explains why America with all its problems is still a safe haven for the world's capital. He blames it on hockey moms.

Why do Asian investors depend on American capital markets? Given the near breakdown of key sectors of the American market, one might expect Asians to bring their money home. Quite the opposite has happened: Asian currencies have fallen sharply against the American dollar.

Spengler says Asian markets can't absorb Asian savings. Which is rather odd. Given the low state of economic development and high returns on capital it would seem Asia would be an ideal place for Asian money. Yet it is not.

What does America have that Asia doesn't have? The answer is, Sarah Palin - not Sarah Palin the vice presidential candidate, but Sarah Palin the "hockey mom" turned small-town mayor and reforming Alaska governor. All the PhDs and MBAs in the world can't make a capital market work, but ordinary people like Sarah Palin can. Laws depend on the will of the people to enforce them. It is the initiative of ordinary people that makes America's political system the world's most reliable.

America is the heir to a long tradition of Anglo-Saxon law that began with jury trial and the Magna Carta and continued through the English Revolution of the 17th century and the American Revolution of the 18th. Ordinary people like Palin are the bearers of this tradition.

It is the basic honesty of ordinary people that make America work. When dishonesty rears its ugly head ordinary people go to work to clean out the pigsty. They wipe the lipstick off the pig and take it to the abattoir to eliminate the problem.

The fact that ordinary people safeguard their rights and have the means to challenge established interests does not exclude the possibility of fraud on a grand scale.

Asian investors were cheated by a conspiracy of the financial industry and the ratings agencies, which sold them ostensibly low-risk securities that turned out to be toxic. The just-approved US$700 billion support package for American banks sets America back to a regime of oligarchy, according to New York Times columnist David Brooks. Despite this fraud and its attendant humiliation, and despite the deterioration of governance in American markets, Asian investors are putting more rather than less money into America, judging from the decline of Asian currencies against the dollar in the course of the crisis.

One doesn't see demonstrations by wronged peasants in the small towns of America. There never were peasants - American farmers always were entrepreneurs - and the locals avenge injury by taking over their local governments, which have sufficient authority to make a difference. At the capillary level, school boards, the Parent Teachers' Association, self-administered religious organizations and volunteer organizations incubate a political class entirely different from anything to be found in Asia. There are tens of thousands of Sarah Palins lurking in the minor leagues of American politics, and they are the guarantors of market probity.

Rights. That is the key. In most of the world the people are servants of the government. In America they have this peculiar notion that government is the servant of the people. And where did that peculiar idea originate? In Anglo Saxon Culture. From the Magna Carta to the Constitution of the US of A. In Anglo Saxon Culture there is not just a belief in honest government but also a demand for it.

It is true that Asian economies depend on American consumers and an American recession is bad for Asian currencies. But why don't Asians consume what they produce at home? The trouble is that rich Asians don't lend to poor Asians in their own countries. Capital markets don't work in the developing world because it is too easy to steal money. Subprime mortgages in the US have suffered from poor documentation. What kind of documentation does one encounter in countries where everyone from the clerk at the records office to the secretary who hands you a form requires a small bribe? America is litigious to a fault, but its courts are fair and hard to corrupt.

Asians are reluctant to lend money to each other under the circumstances; they would rather lend money in places where a hockey mom can get involved in local politics and, on encountering graft and corruption, run a successful campaign to turn the scoundrels out. You do not need PhDs and MBAs for that. You need ordinary people who care sufficiently about the places in which they live to take control of their own towns and states when required. And, yes, it doesn't hurt if they own guns. Popular gun ownership places a limit on the abuse of state power.

You know maybe that old f**ker Mao was on to something when he said political power comes from the barrel of a gun. His problem was that he did not trust his own people with guns or political power. Uprisings of the people against their presumed masters can be so inconvenient. And that in a nutshell is the weakness of the rest of the world and the strength of America. Americans are jealous of their rights and will defend them with the barrels of their guns if push comes to shove.

The Battle of Athens, Tennessee should be a lesson to all American politicians. Let us hope the politicians learn their lesson before they wind up on the wrong side of the guns.

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Con Law

Senator/Presidential Candidate Barack Hussein Obama wants to create a civilian National Security force. I'm not sure the Senator, who is a constitutional law scholar, understands the US Constitution. We already have a civilian National Security force. He can read all about it in the amendments to the US Constitution. Specifically the Second Amendment.

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 Militia is the US National Security force and it consists of all the able bodied persons who are armed and of a certain age group (I think it is all those people between the ages of 18 to 45 - but I need to look it up) by act of Congress. The people of the US are already empowered to defend their country. All that is required is that they visit their local gun store (except in Washington DC and a few other major cities - Chicago, the Senator's home town comes to mind) and get armed.

Don't get me wrong. I think this is a good idea. It is just that the Senator is 200+ years late to the party. I wonder if he slept through his Constitutional Law classes.

H/T Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Crooks

Rob Payne is complaining about how big corporations are buying government. He sees this as a big right wing plot. Or at least a corporate plot since they "invest" in both parties. However, they are not the only ones.

The ecology industry has its hands in the pie. The government gives out global warming grants.

In fact any where government money goes a part of it flows back to our Congress Crooks.

The only way to get out of this mess is to restrict government power.

That was the idea behind the Constitution.

However, it is not something the "progressives" want to hear. The truth is that any interest will eventually co-opt government oversight. It happened with the ICC and every other attempt that has been made. The FDA? Tell me about it.

Smaller government is the only hope. An impossible dream to be sure. Perhaps curtailing its growth is possible.

Treatment vs Recreation

Tim Wu at Slate is taking a look at a subject I have been discussing for years. The idea that illegal drugs do the very same things that legal drugs do. Treat what are called emotional problems.

Over the last two decades, the FDA has become increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature, likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments" as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is practicing medicine.

This other drug legalization movement is an example of what theorists call legal avoision. As described by theorist Leon Katz, the idea is to reach "a forbidden outcome … as a by-product of a permitted act." In a classic tax shelter, for instance, you do something perfectly legal (like investing in a business guaranteed to lose money) in order to reach a result that would otherwise be illegal (evading taxes). In the drug context, asking Congress to legalize cocaine or repeal the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 is a fool's errand. But it's far easier to invent a new drug, X, with similar effects to cocaine, and ask the FDA to approve it as a new antidepressant or anxiety treatment. That's avoision in practice.

Are the new pharmaceuticals really substitutes for narcotics? The question, of course, is what counts as a substitute, which can depend not just on chemistry but on how the drug in question is being used. But as a chemical matter the question seems simple: In general, pharmaceuticals do the same things to the brain that the illegal drugs do, though sometimes they do so more gently.

As many have pointed out, drugs like Ritalin and cocaine act in nearly the exact same manner: Both are dopamine enhancers that block the ability of neurons to reabsorb dopamine. As a 2001 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, Ritalin "acts much like cocaine." It may go further than that: Another drug with similar effects is nicotine, leading Malcolm Gladwell to speculate in The New Yorker that both Ritalin and cocaine use are our substitutes for smoking cigarettes.

Eric Scheie at Classical Values made that exact point in his post about Schizophrenia and Tobacco. I made that point in posts such as
Addiction or Self Medication?
and
Cannabinoids - the Key to many Pains?
and
Capitalism, Pain and the War on Drugs
and
The Pain Enforcement Administration
and
Better than Viagra
and
PTSD and the Endocannabinoid System
and
The War On Unpatented Drugs
and a host of others which you can find on my page Drug War Articles.

I think all together they make a pretty good case about why the pharmaceutical companies support the war on drugs. They don't want the competition from substances you can grow in your back yard or in your basement. As I put it in my post Addiction or Self Medication?:

It turns out that anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problem in the United States. They are worth $46 billion a year to the pharmaceutical industry. You don't suppose this fact has any thing to do with the pharmaceutical industries being in the forefront of the Drug Free America campaign do you? Of course not. They are just trying to keep you from being addicted to natural products at the cost of 1/10th of a cent per dose when they are more than willing to sell you an FDA and doctor approved, pharmacy sold product that will do the job for a dollar a dose. They have only your best interests at heart. Just ask their accountants.

Plainly one of the reasons we have between a quarter and a half-million drug users and suppliers in prison and why we arrest about a three quarters of a million pot smokers a year is that the medical cartel doesn't want the competition.

And you thought it was because drugs were bad for you. Well they are. If you don't buy from the cartel you can go to jail.

HT Instapundit

Cross Posted at Classical Values

Respecting Tradition

Randy Barnett has been doing some writing on Libertarians and War. Most recently this Wall Street Journal piece. Which has spawned a lot of discussion with Randy at the Volokh Conspiracy.

A number of commenters have noted that the Iraq War started without a declaration of war, but instead Congress gave the President an authorization to use military force (AUMF) and gave him the money to back up that authorization. Not good enough for some Libertarians.

What ever resources (including judgment) Congress put in the President's hands with respect to our jihadi (a term from the American Colonial period) enemies can be rescinded if the Congress sees fit. In fact some Dems are trying to do just that.

This is not a usurpation of power. It is delegating to the executive the implementation of the wishes of Congress. Just as the executive enforces laws Congress passes. That is the traditional role of the executive. Don't Libertarians have any respect for tradition?

Sometimes, I think reality makes Libertarians crazy.

Cross Posted at Classical Values and at The Astute Bloggers

The Constitution

Here is a really fine site about the Constitution a subject that should be of great interest to all Americans.

At this point in time, although opinions abound, I shall say no more.

Testing the Limits of the Law

An interesting discussion of the limits of the Fourth Amendment is taking place at The Volokh Conspiracy. It concerns the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Ninth Circuit in reference to drug smuggling cases. Here is my take on the question:

It looks to me from what little I know about the law that the DOJ is looking for more Drug War opportunities to shred the Fourth Amendment.

If you go back into the history of the country and study the case of John Hanncock's sloop "Liberty" and its run in with British revenuers in support of British mercantilist policies you will see where the Fourth Amendment in part originated.

We have a similar mercatilist policy, in support of the pharmaceutical, alcohol, and tobacco companies, of keeping competing products which are easy to manufacture off the market.

For this very reason Benjamin Rush an MD of the time and signer of the Declaration of Independence thought medical liberty ought to be written into the Constitution to prevent doctors and pharmaceutical companies from becoming monopolists. Which in fact has happened. The goal of bringing herbal medicine and vitamins under the control of the FDA is also in furtherance of this mercatilists/monopolist policy.

The reason medical costs are so high is that government controls who can enter the market through a series of "health and safety" regulations. In other words government is not just interested in an informed consumer which the initial regulations provided for. The government now controls entry into the market through control of the medical guild and the pharmaceutical industry.

It was just such restraint of trade that the Fourth Amendment was aimed at.

The Fourth Amendment in fact a limited the taxing power of the state by giving smugglers an advantage. If taxes are low smuggling is not profitable. High taxes forces the state to become intrusive in its searches.

We are in the mess we are in re: Drug Prohibition because we have forgotten what animated the founders: the British mercatilist system of monopoly profits and taxes.

The situation we are in today is actually worse. The monopoly on drug importation has been given to criminal gangs. What I like to call Republican Socialism: price supports for criminals.

In cases where there is actual harm done to a citizen, i.e. an actual crime, probable cause is not too difficult a standard to meet. Where there are willing buyers and sellers that standard is much more difficult. The government must go on fishing expeditions. To limit the taxing power of the state unreasonable searches (fishing expeditions) were in effect outlawed. As in so much of the law made by the Supreme Court these days "unreasonable" is getting more and more narrowly defined. In fact many would argue that it has been defined almost out of existence.

Addiction or Self Medication

"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize an undercover dictatorship. To restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of medical science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic. The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom." abridged quote --Benjamin Rush, M.D., a signer of the Declaration of Independence

Let me start this little essay on the uses of marijuana with an idea. A very simple idea. An idea that strikes at the very heart of the drug war and it's moralistic foundation. The very idea that those who use unapproved drugs are the lawful subjects of religiously motivated government persecution.

What we call addiction is in fact self treatment of undiagnosed pain.

This is a truly revolutionary idea. If it is in fact true then the whole notion of a drug war to save the children is a lie from beginning to end. Those of you who have read my article on heroin have a window into this new idea. What I tried to show in that article was that medical research shows that victims of sexual abuse and severe physical abuse ( PTSD ) are many times more likely to get addicted to heroin than the general public.

Let us next look at the case for marijuana.

Natural molecules similar to an active ingredient in marijuana play a part in helping the brain clear fearful memories and keep them from being permanently debilitating. The British journal Nature has reported this discovery by scientists at the Max Planck Institute of Psychiatry in Munich, Germany. The scientists of the Institute say that this has implications for the treatment of post traumatic stress disorder and other fear based conditions.

It turns out that anxiety disorders are the most common mental health problem in the United States. They are worth $46 billion a year to the pharmaceutical industry. You don't suppose this fact has any thing to do with the pharmaceutical industries being in the forefront of the Drug Free America campaign do you? Of course not. They are just trying to keep you from being addicted to natural products at the cost of 1/10th of a cent per dose when they are more than willing to sell you an FDA and doctor approved, pharmacy sold product that will do the job for a dollar a dose. They have only your best interests at heart. Just ask their accountants.

All humans show fear reactions to dangerous situations. However, in the case of one out of ten people ( surprisingly the same percentage of people who are susceptible to substance addiction ) the fear does not die down in the absence of the dangerous situation. The fear stays at debilitating levels even in the absence of danger. These people have a definite if ordinarily invisible problem. You cannot find this problem with x-rays. It is possible that this problem could be found with a many thousand dollar PET scan. Or you could take a few puffs of a joint and see if that helps. If the joint was legal. Which it is not.

Pankaj Sah of Australian National University believes that chronic marijuana users are self medicating for anxiety problems. He goes on further to say that we self medicate for head aches with aspirin and this causes no social problems. He speculates that people experiencing emotional problems are taking cannabis for relief. Of course since this medicine is not doctor approved it is against the law. Especially it is against Federal Law as a number of states have made medical use of marijuana legal. The Feds in California know how to stop this though. They put the sick, the dying and the pain wracked in jail to show their compassion. You don't suppose it has anything to do with maintaining at all costs the State and Federal $50 billion dollar drug war do you? Not a chance. They are the government and they have only your best interests at heart. Trust them.

You can read a good review of the report here.

Let me leave you with a final quote from a Supreme Court Judge:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." Justice Brandeis

That quote and an impassioned speech for the right of self medication can be found here

Making the Pledge

The original pledge of allegiance was written in 1892 by utopian socialist Francis Bellamy who's cousin authored the novel "Looking Backward" to express the utopian ideas Francis espoused. Their idea was to create a planned economy to insure social, economic, and political equality for all. So far it hasn't worked as planned. He wrote the pledge for a flag ceremony to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus coming to America. Francis was big in the NEA. (The National Education Association) so the pledge got distributed to schools all over America.

The original pledge reads: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' Obviously there have been a few changes over the years. There is a site by a man who wrote a book about the pledge who gives a good short history of it.

Let us deal with the pledge as currently written:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands one Nation under God indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all."

Starting at the beginning: "I pledge allegiance, to the flag ". Why on earth would rational humans pledge to follow a flag? No matter what. Flags have covered the good and the bad. Nixon loved to cover himself in a flag. Does that make me an automatic follower of Nixon if he cover's himself in the flag? I hope not. No real American would ever pledge to a flag. What s/he might pledge to I will get to later.

Then we have "of the United States of America," which was added so that immigrants would know which flag to keep in mind during the flag presentation at the flag ceremony. This at least keeps your average tin horn dictator from appropriating the fine symbol of our freedom or slavery depending. And for a while that flag did represent actual 100% slavery. These days for most of us it has been reduced to about 33% not counting the aggravation. Such a deal.

"...and to the REPUBLIC ". What does it mean this Republic? Why not democracy? We have a Republic because a Republic stands for a government of limited powers. There are things that cannot be decided by a majority. Like the right to speak freely. The right to petition the government for redress of grievances. The right to practice the religion of your choice or none at all. These rights are so fundamental that even if the sections of the Constitution that guaranteed them were repealed they would still be in effect. This is what it means to live in a Republic. The individual can stand up to the state and sometimes win.

"...for which it stands". Well the flag can stand for one thing one day and something else the next. This is not a standing you can navigate by.

"...one Nation". By 1892 this had been pretty well settled but not to every one's liking. So we needed a reminder. The Civil (such as it was) War and the War for the Theft of California had pretty well settled the issue. One nation - sea to shining sea - with a few minor exceptions. Like women. But I'd say the sentiment was correct if not the actual policies. We are doing better even if progress seems to come by the inch.

"...under God" - requested by the Knights of Columbus was added in 1954. Making the oath a pubic prayer. Well we all know what Jesus said about public prayer. But hey, this is a Christian God fearing Nation. No need to listen to Jesus.

"...indivisible" That civil war thing again. I hear some Mexicans want California back these days. Some things are never properly settled. I note they haven't asked for Texas. Probably too many Texans living there. Some still remember the Alamo. History is hardly ever settled. On any side. Americans are for the most part rational about this though. They want to forget history. It is usually so inconvenient. And thank God Americans hate inconveniences.

"...with liberty and justice for all." A very noble sentiment. And the proper purpose of the government of a Republic. We do not wish to have a government where wealth has its privileges. Neither do we want a government that steals from the poor or the rich. Government was one of the traditional means by which the rich stole from the poor. Today we also let the poor steal from the rich. Pretty soon only the thieves will have any money. We are a work yet in progress on liberty and justice. Gaining ground in some areas losing it in others.

So what would I replace the pledge with?

"I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America and to the Republic which it creates, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Since I have already covered the pledge let me cover the changes and one part that I didn't change.

Why the Constitution? Any one can wrap themselves in a flag. It is more difficult to wrap ones self in the charter of a strictly limited government. Every Federal Office holder in America is sworn to preserve and defend the Constitution. It is part of the military induction oath. Ordinary citizens should join in the effort to preserve and defend the Constitution. Especially ordinary citizens.

"...and the Republic which it creates" this is the key. The Constitution founded the Republic. It defined its nature. Codified its limits. We are a Republic defined by a written Constitution.

Now the part that ought to be changed but I left the same. I'm against the "under God" bit as long as it is government mandated. But I will grant that there is a segment of the population very sentimental about its public displays of Godliness so for the sake of sentiment I'm willing to let this pass. We can come back to this some other day. No point in alienating everyone all at once.

That is it. A real American pledge.

At one point though recited in public schools across America the pledge was a private document subject to citizen input. In 1942 it was made a part of the official government flag code by Congress. There was a war on and patriotism needed to be enforced. It says in the flag code that any changes to the pledge must be made with the consent of the President. Well I got news for him. The country is run by the people not the President. At least according to the Constitution. So if you want to pledge to something infinitely more important to the country than the flag pledge to the Constitution.

One other slightly extraneous point. We are supposed to be a free market driven society yet a course in economics is not a requirement for graduation from public school. Why is that? How will we ever keep our Republic free if we don't teach our children well?


Published 03. 9. 02 at 22:52 Sierra Times

M.L. Simon is an industrial controls designer for Space-Time Productions and independent political activist

Cross Posted at Classical Values 22 October 2010.