Pax Hammericana

Long Live Judicial Activism

This has already been disseminated elsewhere, but this excellent article from George Will should give conservatives and libertarians reason to cheer judicial activism.

It also reminds me of Madison's belief in the large republic -- the ugly truth, that flies in the face of both liberal and conservative communitarians, that the power closest to the people is the only just power.  Madison (and Will, for that matter) gave ample reason for classical liberals to reconsider local power as the basis of their political philosophy.  In other words, the federal government is not the only, and sometimes not the worst, oppressor. 

Will's arguments remind me of another guy who advocates judicial activism on the basis of natural rights.

The natural rights critique of government power -- that scourge of left-liberals and conservative theocrats -- has many eloquent spokesmen, past and present. 

It Never Stops

I suppose I need to hire staff or start blogging full-time, because if I wait even more than half a day to blog there is some new outrage to try to make people aware of.  Then there are just some things that blow all the other things away.  THIS is what I'm talking about in that respect.

Just in my own little corner of the world, I am actively engaged in the following issues:

Debating FOR free market health care;
working to provide a fair policy at my employer to help provide insurance to families without screwing those without families;
Working AGAINST using public resources to defeat Oklahoma House Bill 2513, which would allow concealed carry of handguns on campus;
Arguing to counteract the lies and hysteria about secondhand smoke that has led to the proliferation of smoking bans...

and on and on on.  It just never stops.  My mind is tempted to say that there must be some root cause.  And I suppose morally there is.  Certainly, as human beings, we will perpetually struggle against one another to establish our own moral vision.  But I am also reminded of the Founders' prophecy: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilence."

Still, I hope over time to discover how it is that the powerful places of policymaking were overtaken by do-gooders, authoritarians, and other seedy types -- and why it is that the struggle for liberty seems to take place largely beyond the walls of power.

Oklahoma Legislative Round-Up: Round 1

Around in these parts, we're in the early days of the legislative session, where bills are struggling to work their way out of committee like so many butterflies struggling to escape the cacoon.  There's my fruity metaphor for the day. 

Anyway, there were some important issues coming into the session:  some of the normal stuff (funding for education and roads, tax cuts, etc.), but also things of a more interesting nature from a national point of view. 

As some of you know, an issue I have been keeping an eye on for several years now is the Real ID Act.  Seeing as the Department of Homeland Security has thrown down the gauntlet to the 17 states that have refused or delayed implementation, I have been curious as to when and how the various states will capitulate or be bought off. 

I went back to read the final anti-Real ID Oklahoma law, and I was surprised at how strong the language really was.  Any change to the law must be done by statute passed by the legislature.  A number of states, and an earlier version of the Oklahoma bill, left that discretion in the hands of the governor. 

Anyway, here are just a few interesting bills winding their way through.  I will update this periodically:

• House Joint Resolution 1080:  This legislation, authored by Rep. Banz, calls what is apparently a constitutionally required constitutional convention.  Apparently, Oklahoma is supposed to have one of these every 20 years.  It has been 38 since the last one.  Ordinary citizens can become delegates, so I will keep you posted on how this works!
• House Joint Resolution 1089:  Authored by Rep. Charles Key, this legislation asserts the sovereignty of Oklahoma under the Tenth Amendment.  In practical terms, this legislation declares null and void any federal action in Oklahoma that is not explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution.  Philosophically, Rep. Key endorsed Ron Paul for president, so this is not a shocker.  I am less clear on how this legislation will work in practice.  If passed and executed, it would lead to a very different state of affairs -- and probably mountains of legal action.
• More on the above: I suspect Rep. Key's motivation has to do with DHS' grandstanding on the implementation of the Real ID Act among the 17 states that have rejected it.  The most consistent argument against the Act is that it violated the Tenth Amendment, pushing the federal government into an area of governance that it had no explicit authority to take.
• Still more:  Rep. Key's legislation is just the latest in a growing number of confrontations between the states and the federal government.  Also on the Real ID Act, after DHS' grandstanding, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer rallied the 17 states and called for a confrontation on the issue.  Also in Montana, state and federal legislators recently uploaded a webpage declaring the state's right to secede from the Union if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the Second Amendment does not constitute an individual right to bear arms.  Contention between the states and the federal government seems to be reaching new levels.  The number of states allowing and licensing medical marijuana continues to grow unabated, even as the federal government uses more draconian measures of crushing this federalist experiment.   
• House Bill 2444:  This simple piece of legislation authorizes the Oklahoma Ethics Commission to create a "No Gifts" database, where legislators can put their name and ask lobbyists not to offer gifts of any kind, even small gifts such as meals.  The bill passed the House Rules Committee by a wide margin, with only two opposing votes -- one of whom is Rep. Rob Johnson, a legislator who usually places very high in the list of legislators receiving gifts from lobbyists.

I suppose some disclosure is in order: I opposed Johnson in a 2006 run for the Oklahoma House of Representatives.  I have never had personal animosity toward the man, but his penchant for gifts and his opposition to this bill are unnecessary and uncalled for. 

I hope this will be our first interactive post, where people will do their own research and keep up with important legislation.  You can search all current legislation, the text of bills, etc. at http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/WebBillStatus/main.html. 

Hurray for the Big Men

Yesterday, Oklahoma City mayor Mick Cornett declared victory for the sales tax for Ford Center upgrades.  At a victory party with the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, no less, Cornett declared a "golden age" for Oklahoma City.

The article reads as a who's who of mutual back patting.  Just try counting the times that civic and political leaders recall the "big league city" theme that formed the basis of the campaign for the tax.  Keeping in line with standard journalistic ethics these days, no one representing the 38.1% of voters who opposed the tax was quoted in the in the article.

And so the first chapter of this epic comes to a close.  For the meager price of an estimated $121 million, Oklahoma City has bought itself a team that will most likely leave its current lease in Seattle, will most likely be sued by Seattle for breach of lease, and has received a purchase offer from Microsoft's CEO and another major investor.  These investors have offered to cover 50% of improvements to Key Arena in Seattle -- 50% more than the Sonics owner offered to OKC, but still 50% too little.

More on this to come.  

Too Little, Too Late

No one will read this before today's March 4th voting is over, but the more I pay attention to them, the more I find municipal special elections to be a time of depression and anger.

Oklahoma City voters today will decide on extending a sales tax to pay for improvements to the Ford Center in order to lure an NBA team -- in all likelihood, the Seattle Supersonics.  Ironically, Seattle has doled out welfare to the team in the past, but the city was unwilling to do so again, meaning that the new Oklahoma owners of the team needed to come home to seek the welfare dole.

Luckily for them, city officials have been more than willing to comply.  Ignoring the economics of the issue -- which incontrovertibly prove that this type of welfare for the rich never pays off for a city -- these officials have appealed to the image of the City.  OKC is growing, the say, and this is the thing that will prove we are a world-class city.  I wish I could vote against this tax.  It is the most regressive, unjust tyranny foisted upon the poor (in a state where sales tax is still charged on food) so that the property values of the wealthy can rise fast enough to keep pace with their bloated egos.  No matter what happens today, OKC will deserve what it gets.

I think there is one upshot of local elections:  turnout is so small that local, dedicated groups of anti-tax voters could make a real difference.  Ironically, local taxes could be the most just, keeping money in the community for the benefit of the community -- unlike federal income taxes, which are taken from Oklahoma and given to special interests in California or North Dakota.  But, like all taxes, special interests know how to manipulate the system for their personal gain. 

One More Re-Post

I lied about the last one being the last re-post.  I am moving over this entry from an older blog focused more on spiritual matters.  It is from 2005, but I still find it very timely.

State Lotteries and Prophetic Religion

I had this letter regarding the establishment of the recently passed state lottery published in the April 10, 2005 edition of the Sunday Oklahoman (USA):

"The Oklahoman’s stories on the start-up of the Oklahoma lottery have proven again one thing about our state government: It seems more interested in creating cushy jobs for bureaucrats and lawyers, benefiting from addiction and false hopes and spending time selling its projects than it does thinking through the implications of all its wild schemes. The case in point is the decision to seek outside legal counsel for various lottery issues. Although this is probably the best decision the lottery commission can make, it means that a handful of attorneys will get a nice government contract while the retailers selling the tickets will be paid, literally, pennies.

"Of course, if retailers don’t feel the lottery is worth their trouble, they don’t have to sell the tickets. But how will the lottery produce $150 million a year for education if we don’t give retailers incentives to sell tickets? The cost of starting a lottery is something that would have been good to think about before selling the idea to the public. Then again, if the government can’t see beyond its own interests in tort reform and reckless spending, why should we expect it for something like the lottery?"

I wrote this not so much to help retailers get paid more, but on the basis of what I have recently been studying in scripture: that the Christian faith must be a prophetic faith. What I mean by this is that Christian faith requires more than favoring liberal welfare policies or conservative "preservation of marriage" acts. The Christian faith must also look at the world through the lens of biblical justice.

The word "justice" is often understood to mean giving someone what they deserve, which is the definition that we have inherited from ancient Greece and Rome. Biblical justice, on the otherhand, encompasses both our negative obligations -- what we must NOT do -- AND our positive obligations -- what we MUST do. Because of all the prophetic sayings, Jesus included, commanding us to look after orphans, widows, and the poor, people have assumed that this meant God favored the poor. As I study the scriptures, I am more convinced that the idea of justice is for everyone -- but that the rich generally have more friends on their side to help them find "justice"! The God of the Bible does not reject the rich for being rich; He rejects the rich for becoming rich by taking advantage of others, and particularly those who are vulnerable.

That is the reason I have opposed any and all state lotteries. "Conservative" Christians oppose lotteries because they "go against the Bible" (although it is actually hard to find anything in the Bible specifically about gambling). I think a better approach is this: lotteries take advantage of the poor and vulnerable. Study after study shows that the poorer a person is, the more likely they are to play the lottery. So no matter what the state uses the money for, that money has been gained by taking advantage of other peoples' vulnerability. Meanwhile, more attorneys and bureaucrats with government connections are getting good jobs with this dirty money. When Jesus and the prophets speak about defending orphans and widows, this type of state-sanctioned cruelty is exactly the place to start.

If You Drive, You Consent

Last re-post.  I was encouraged to recently learn that Washington State, despite the best efforts of its current governor, refuses to engage in such blatant disregard for the Fourth Amendment.  Supposedly their resistance to checkpoints is based in their state constitution's privacy protections, although I have not yet investigated the matter further.

But for most of us, the following is our reality:

Sunday, November 4, 2007

If You Drive, You Consent...

THIS from the Daily Oklahoman:

"A joint operation between the Oklahoma County Sheriff's department and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol to cut down on traffic violations and thwart other criminal activity netted 102 arrests in a 12-hour period during the weekend, a sheriff's spokesman said. ...

"Checkpoints were set up in six locations across the metro area, and the officers were looking for everything from drivers with no state licenses to drunken drivers to other criminal activity. ...

"[The OK County Sheriff] said the sweeps are going to become a staple in Oklahoma County, with similar events scheduled in the future."

Apparently we've come to the point where it's acceptable to be stopped for any reason. Anyone who can comment on the legal basis for dragnet checkpoints would be greatly appreciated.

For those of you interested in journalism, the only quotes in the piece came from, you guessed it, the Oklahoma County Sheriff.

Responsive Representative Government

Another re-post of some non-responsive, cloak-and-dagger correspondence with my congressman's office on the matter of a national ID card for immigrants.

The New National I.D.

With the "Real ID Rebellion" in full swing (so much so that the debate has largely died down), it is interesting to watch how politicians are trying to win public approval for a national ID by arguing for a special "card" for immigrants.

Regardless of one's position on the immigration issue, we ought to take pause to consider the dangers of profiling a minority for purposes of distributing federally-controlled cards. We also must consider the unintended consequences for those who belong to targeted groups but are in the country legally.

Rep. Frank Lucas (Oklahoma District 3) advocated this type of I.D. card in at least one townhall meeting last spring. In response, I contacted his office to clarify his stance on the issue. I was cleaning out the ODFP email account today and found a great example of responsive politics at work: I sent my last message to Lucas' office on May 9th and still have received no response. I post below the email conversation in full.


Date:
Wed, 9 May 2007 07:40:24 -0700 (PDT)
From:
hammerm@odfp.org View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject:
RE: Lucas stance on immigration
To:
"Perry, Craig"

Hi Mr. Perry,

No worries on the delay. My specific interest was on what specific proposals Mr. Lucas supports concerning stricter standards for driver's licenses and Social Security card access. I am happy to call, but in my past contact with congressional offices I have generally found that policy statements are often available in written form. Nonetheless, I am happy to do whatever is easiest for you.

Thank you for being in touch,
Mike

"Perry, Craig" wrote:

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Are there specific questions that you have concerning these issues? My direct line is 202-226-4695 if that would be more convenient.






__________________________________
Craig Perry
Legislative Assistant
Office of Congressman Frank D. Lucas (OK-03)
2311 Rayburn Building
p. (202) 225-5565
f. (202) 225-8698


From: hammerm@odfp.org [mailto:hammerm@odfp.org] Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 2:19 PMTo: Perry, CraigSubject: Lucas stance on immigration

Dear Mr. Perry,

I am a resident of Stillwater , which is also where my organization is based. I have been reading in the papers about Mr. Lucas' position on immigration reform, especially as concerns stricter standards for keeping driver's licenses and Social Security cards out of the hands of illegal immigrants. I am interested in learning more about his specific proposals on this issue. Your office's main switchboard told me you were the person who deals with this issue.

Thank you very sincerely for your help,
Mike

Some Things Socialism Can't Buy...

Some things socialism just can't buy... For those who think socialized medicine will answer America's healthcare ills: "Name that drug -- many patients can't" (AP/Yahoo News): http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071011/us_nm/medication_errors_dc Our only way forward as a nation is to get people more involved in their own care and to start thinking of being a "patient" more like being a "consumer."

The Death of Liberty By a Thousand Fingerprints

As mentioned, I am moving materials over from other places.  This is the first of several re-posts to keep up with important stories from the past.

Saturday, September 29, 2007

The Death of Liberty By a Thousand Fingerprints

There's nothing like having a society that justifies everything "for the children."  In this case, it's an overeager food service manager wanting to make sure students have enough time to eat. The solution? An expensive biometric system with which kids pay for lunch, naturally:

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1665119,00.html

Apparently schools have used this system in other ways in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Best/worst line in the article:
"Now Tom McCraley, the 760-student school district's superintendent, says that before considering finger scanning, 'I'd want to make sure parents had a full understanding about it.'"

It's the same old line, time and again: If people just understood [fill in the privacy invasion], then suddenly they'd be OK with it. What's so hard about the idea that parents don't want their children tracked, scanned, monitored, and controlled by other people? Before Tom McCraley or any other superintendents take up their posts on the taxpayer doll, I'd want to make sure they have a full understanding about privacy rights and parental choice.

Personally, I think this is a great case study in how one error leads to another. For example:

"Allen says the system has helped add at least 10 minutes to lunch periods that in some schools last just 20 minutes. "

My first thought about this article was: what's so hard about giving the students 10 extra minutes for lunch?