Inching Toward Commercial Freedom
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
It's not often I can say it, so enjoy: the Supreme Court did the right thing. It has reversed a century-old rule that criminalized retail price agreements. Good. Great. There are 10 million bad regulations to go.
Now, if you just happen to be reading over the Constitution, you will note that it does not give government power to tell manufacturers what the price of their products should be, or to regulate the terms of the contracts, much less provide a rationale for economy-wide price controls. In fact, if you were reading it for the first time, you might find the assertion that such a power exists to be preposterous on its face. Truly it is. The Constitution gives the federal government no power to regulate the details of economic contracts.
continue reading here ...
From Slate.com:
Impeach Cheney
The vice president has run utterly amok and must be stopped.
By Bruce Fein
Posted Wednesday, June 27, 2007, at 5:06 PM ET
Under Dick Cheney, the office of the vice president has been transformed from a tiny acorn into an unprecedented giant oak. In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III. The most recent invention we know of is the vice president's insistence that an executive order governing the handling of classified information in the executive branch does not reach his office because he also serves as president of the Senate. In other words, the vice president is a unique legislative-executive creature standing above and beyond the Constitution. The House judiciary committee should commence an impeachment inquiry. As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney's multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.
continue reading here ...
2 comments:
I find your choice of using Bruce Fein interesting because he's long been viewed as a hack in Washington circles by the intelligentsia...until he attacks a conservative--then he's lauded as a sage. When supporting the impeachment of Bill Clinton he was called a partisan wing nut; now he's featured prominently in Left wing Slate. How nice.
Your use of Fein to support your shrill campaign against Cheney is also ironic because Fein was the Reagan administrations lead attorney in the House defending the "trading of arms for hostages" scheme against provisions in the Boland Amendment. After all, the money came from the National Security Council and not the CIA--there's a big difference, you know. The difference, precisely as Fein penned it, was that the money came from the Executive Branch and not the government's intelligence agencies, which was forbidden per Boland.
And what was the fine wording of Cheney's Executive vs. Legislative claims that Bruce Fein (and you) see(s) as offensive? Memories are short, and hypocrisy runs deep.
Cheney is correct when he said; "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years."
By "unwise compromises made over the last 30 to 35 years" he's referring, of course, to Watergate and the over-arching powers congress had usurped from the presidency in its post-Nixon, weakened state.
Cheney also stated that it was "wrong" for past presidents to have yielded to congressional demands that, prior to Watergate, would never have been made. I agree.
The Founders designed each of the three branches of our government with powers that were rigidly defined in reach and scope. You cannot disagree that those borders have grown in the Legislative and Judicial branches, and at the expense of the Executive. To deny this would be to have no understanding of American history.
Cheney’s "torture" memo, as it's now referred to was largely written by his chief legal aid, David Addington. Please remember that this document has withstood numerous, unsuccessful challenges in the last four years.
"In light of the president's complete authority over the conduct of war, without a clear statement otherwise, criminal statutes are not read as infringing on the president's ultimate authority in these areas."
Prohibitions on torture "must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority. . . . Congress may no more regulate the president's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield." The same would go for "federal officials acting pursuant to the president's constitutional authority."
Further:
"The Framers understood the [commander in chief] clause as investing the president with the fullest range of power, including the conduct of warfare and the defense of the nation unless expressly assigned in the Constitution to Congress." That "sweeping grant" of power is given because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."
I could not agree more, and to accept the notion that Constitutional rights be extended to non-citizen enemy combatants is radical, indeed. In order to construe that the government's (president's) powers are limited in such fashion is to recognize de facto rights of those he's executing the war against.
Cry for Padilla. Cry for Hamdi and Hamdan, Zabedah and Sheik Mohammed. Hell--cry for everyone in Gitmo and the "secret CIA prisons".
Since Fein cites the Federalist Papers in his hit piece, let’s look at Federalist 2: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence
"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers."
John Jay got it—you don’t.
Ah, yes, the neocon. Quoting John Jay nonetheless.
Funny, in my rendition of July 4th, 1776, Cheney would not be cast as Jefferson.
The neocon dreams for the imperial president, the Empirer who will rule with an iron fist. Foreign wars and intrigue are the opiate of these masses. Forgotten is any lesson in "how things actually work."
Damn the Constitution, Cheney is on our side; ready to lead us toward the vaunted 1,000 year Reich.
Remember dear Neocon, you are not a conservative in the classical definition. You are simply a statist follower dreaming of the omnipotent state.
Socialism is socialism, whether or not it is the product of a Democratic or Republican administration. And, your Cheney leadership gains will bit back hard under a likely Clinton/Obama White House.
Your dreams of an all-powerful executive branch will soon come to roost.
Post a Comment