Saturday, January 23, 2010
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Cost of Doing Nothing
How ObamaCare revived the debate over the use and abuse of the Commerce Clause
Damon W. RootJames Madison once described the judiciary as “an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive." Had he lived to see the Supreme Court’s sweeping definition of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, he might have revised that statement.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress possesses the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian tribes.” In the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, the Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to forbid farmer Roscoe Filburn from growing twice the amount of wheat permitted by the Agricultural Adjustment Act and then consuming that extra wheat on his own farm. In 2005, the Court reinforced this decision, holding in Gonzales v. Raich that medical marijuana cultivated and consumed entirely within the state of California still counted as commerce “among the several States” and was thus open to the depredations of the Controlled Substances Act. As Justice Clarence Thomas observed in his Raich dissent, “If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything—and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”
If the Democrats in Congress succeed in passing any of the health care bills currently under debate, Justice Thomas may get another chance to set his colleagues straight. Every leading bill features a so-called personal responsibility provision, also known as the “individual mandate,” which would require all Americans to either purchase or secure health insurance. And as the Senate version bravely asserts, this requirement is perfectly constitutional thanks to the Commerce Clause: “The individual responsibility requirement...is commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce.”
Is that true? Not according to Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, the author of a leading law review article on the original meaning of the Commerce Clause and one of the lead attorneys involved in the Raich case. In a recent paper entitled “Why the Personal Mandate to Buy Health Insurance Is Unprecedented and Unconstitutional,” Barnett and co-authors Nathaniel Stewart and Todd Gaziano make the strongest and most compelling case yet that the individual mandate is “unconstitutional as a matter of first principles and under any reasonable reading of judicial precedents.” READ MORE REASON
Free Speech for All
Will the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision destroy American democracy? You might think so given the responses of its critics. The Citizens United decision, far from signaling the fall of the republic, strengthens the First Amendment and freedom of speech.
Let's start with the facts of the case. Citizens United, a nonprofit political advocacy group, produced a film called "Hillary: The Movie" about the current Secretary of State, who at the time was a presidential candidate. The movie did not reflect well on Ms. Clinton but did not explicitly advocate her defeat in the 2008 presidential contest. Citizens United planned to show the film in theatres, sell it as a DVD, and make it available on-demand on cable TV. The group also planned to run ads marketing the movie.
What could be the problem with Citizens United's plans? Supporters of Hillary Clinton would not like the movie, but the First Amendment protects all speech, especially criticism of powerful political figures.
Citizens United knew, however, that distributing the movie—or even running ads for it!—was illegal under the McCain-Feingold campaign finance "reform." That is, part of McCain-Feingold prohibited advertising about candidates funded by corporations or labor unions during primaries and general elections.
But Citizens United is a corporation—that it's a nonprofit doesn't matter—Hillary Clinton was a candidate, and the movie most definitely discussed the merits of her candidacy. Showing the movie and even advertising it would thus be illegal unless the courts invalided the relevant section of McCain-Feingold as a violation of the First Amendment (as the Supreme Court already has with several other parts of the law).
The courts have long upheld campaign finance regulations as a way to prevent corruption (or the appearance of corruption) in elections. Contributors to campaigns might buy favors from candidates once they are in office, for example, so contribution limits are supposed to deter such exchanges. Read The Rest @ CATO
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Dr. Richard Davis January Letter to Editor
Here we go into another election year. I hope to make this one a little different. I believe that continuing the campaign process as it has been will continue to bring the results it has been providing. Therefore:
- I will take no campaign contributions; buy no yard signs, bumper stickers or ads. The 4+ million dollars the other parties put into the last campaign would have served any number of better uses on the Shore. Keep your money here.
- I will have little or nothing to say about my opponents as individuals. I have little doubt they are fine, honorable people. Their parties, however, have spent us into near (if not complete) bankruptcy. They have, for seventy five years, expanded the size, scope, and power of the federal government at the expense of the individual citizens. They have repeatedly and almost systematically subverted the limits placed on the federal government by the Constitution. They have maintained American troops in foreign countries long beyond any reasonable need or justification, waging at least seven wars of varying length without any Congressional declaration of war.
- I will do my best to communicate with the voters through these letters, which will also be on my website (www.davis4congress.com) and will welcome any opportunities to address any groups who contact me. (I prefer to answer questions on issues of concern to such groups, rather than wasting your time with broad speeches that may pass by your individual concerns.)
Please contact me!
Sincerely,
Richard J. Davis D.D.S.
Libertarian for Congress, First DistrictDr. Davis On The Issues - The Series
I would begin by seeking Constitutional justification for any and all programs, looking to phase out those not included in the authorization of the Constitution. While the ideal would be immediate termination, I believe that many of these programs have grown so large and intertwined that a phase out over four to six years would be more practical, so as to reduce the economic and social disruption resulting from the sudden withdrawal of employment and funding that has entered into so many individuals’ planning as an accommodation to the way the system works now.
I feel it is unfair, however theoretically justified, to make a sudden dramatic change in the rules without adequate warning, even if it is to make a return to the original rules. As a general guideline, I would advocate for any given program a 10% reduction in budget and staff the first year, 20% (of the original base) the second year, 30% the third, and the final 40% the fourth year. I would personally recommend beginning with the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, as I do not feel these belong at the federal level.
My recommendations for phasing out Social Security are already covered on my website. I would advocate elimination of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and reduction of the Department of Health and Human Services to a Public Health Service dedicated to the tracking of (and prevention of spread) of communicable diseases. I am sure others can identify preferred candidates for reduction or elimination, but I believe my examples provide an obvious place to start and plenty of work to begin on.
Dr. Richard Davis
2010 District 1 Congressional Candidate for The Maryland Libertarian PartyTuesday, January 19, 2010
CATO Policy Analysis
Obama's Prescription for Low-Wage Workers: High Implicit Taxes, Higher Premiums
House and Senate Democrats have produced health care legislation whose mandates, subsidies, tax penalties, and health insurance regulations would penalize work and reward Americans who refuse to purchase health insurance. As a result, the legislation could trap many Americans in low-wage jobs and cause even higher health-insurance premiums, government spending, and taxes than are envisioned in the legislation.
Those mandates and subsidies would impose effective marginal tax rates on low-wage workers that would average between 53 and 74 percent— and even reach as high as 82 percent—over broad ranges of earned income. By comparison, the wealthiest Americans would face tax rates no higher than 47.9 percent. READ MORE @ CATO
Click Here for to download the Study
Game allows players to take charge of Md. budget
The Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute has produced a video game that allows visitors to its Web site to try balancing Maryland's budget.
The institute identifies itself as a small, nonpartisan, public policy think tank that focuses on state finances and programs. It has produced written reports and presentations to community and advocacy groups for half a century, director Neil Bergsman said.
Bergsman said that the group's mission is to increase civic literacy and to help people consider the investments the state is making with their tax dollars. He added that the group's traditional methods weren't reaching enough people.
"We realized that communicating in (traditional) ways is only going to reach a pretty narrow audience," Bergsman said.
So about a year ago they came up with the idea of using a video game to better engage people about budget issues. Read More at The Daily Times
Bailing out the Banks Was Wrong, but New Tax Won't Make It Right
The Obama administration has just proposed a new fee — otherwise known as a tax — on the country's largest financial institutions.
The tax aims to recover the difference between the bailout funds provided to these institutions a year and a half ago and the amounts ultimately returned to the Treasury. In so doing, the tax will allegedly reduce the federal deficit by some $90 billion.
This tax has popular appeal because the bailed-out financial institutions are now earning large profits and appear ready to announce huge bonuses for their executives. Given an unemployment rate of 10%, populist demand to punish bankers and financiers is almost inevitable.
Yet the proposed tax is misguided at every level.
The tax will not fall solely or even mainly on its desired political target, the shareholders and highly paid executives of large financial firms. The true burden of a tax often lands far from its intended target as the target attempts to shift the burden. READ MORE @ CATO
Monday, January 18, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sam Adams on a Sunday Afternoon
"Our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil and religious liberty."
Dr. Davis On The Issues - The Series
"I believe Congress needs to establish and consult with a large, multipartisan panel of state governors and legislative leaders to reestablish and clearly define the tenth amendment. If necessary, a clarified version should be established and debated through the constitutional amendment process."
2010 District 1 Congressional Candidate for The Maryland Libertarian Party
MLK Says....
"I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together. "
The Constitution
"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. "