Skip to main content

MoveOn Watch: The Nuclear Option

Resistance to the Nuclear Option, to the placing of Bush's judges on the bench, has nothing to do with preserving the "time honored rules of the Senate". It's about preventing a rollback of "laws from the bench" that socialist judges have foisted on the United States for the past 70 years. shows this in their latest missive. According to

If you care about the minimum wage — and you don't want judges ruling it unconstitutional — now's the time to act.

If you care about environmental laws — and you don't want judges striking them down — now's the time to act.

If you care about your right to privacy — and you don't want the government telling your family how to live, worship, or even how to die — now's the time to act.

In fact, I do want judges striking them down - because they are patently unconsitutional.

So-called "Progressives" (aka Socialists) have abused the power of the Federal judiciary for over 70 years. Starting with FDR's stacking of the Supreme Court, "progressive" federal judges have ignored the plain text and plain meaning of numerous parts of the US Constitution, and have read into other clauses ridiculous interpretations.

The relevant constitutional clause for the things MoveOn is concerned about here is:

Article I, Section 8:
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Amendment 10:
The 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 FDR court re-interpreted Article I, Section 8 (the "Commerce Clause") to mean the Federal government had the authority to regulate any action that might however distantly be related to Interstate commerce.

However, that is a nonsensical interpretation because pretty much any action taken in business in some way eventually interacts with or influences interstate commerce. The Commerce Clause was intended to prevent the several States from engaging in trade wars with each other, making laws that gave advantage to their own citizens over the citizens of other states. The Founders would surely be horrified that it is being used to give carte blanche to any intrusive law Congress might devise.

The minimum wage affects a contract between an employer and employee that does not cross state lines. Environmental laws generally affect actions that do not cross state lines. By my plain reading of the Constitution, these laws at the Federal level are unconstitutional. The Founder's intent was for the States to have most of the power, but for the Federal government to set some ground rules.

But that didn't stop the progressives. They wanted their social agenda implemented, and damn the Constitution. So they took a short-cut. They put judges on the bench who invented ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution, and "legislated from the bench". Instead of doing it the right way - petitioning the people, changing minds and ideas at the grass-roots level - they simply implemented their social programs by government fiat. No wonder so many people to this day resent this - that is not democracy, it's dictatorship of the judiciary.

So, finally, jurisprudence is coming around to the fact that it's time to repair the damage done by the FDR court, and MoveOn is worried that 70 years of plainly unconstitutional law is going to be declared unconstitutional.

If MoveOn is so concerned about Federal minimum wage and all the other bunk the socialists have foisted on us through a stacked bench, then it's time to show us what "grass roots" really is. MoveOn, I challenge you to take your case straight to the people: explain why you think the minimum wage is important, and begin the process for a Constitutional amendment. If your idea is truly good, you will win the war of ideas and you will get your Amendment - and that is the correct way to change the Constitution and the power of the Federal government.


Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…