Please, please, pul-eze. Stop kicking the can down the road. Don’t make me live through hyperinflation on top of unending war, major recession, a pandemic that largely shut down the U. S. economy, and cities succumbing to anarchy and violence.
Spending by issuing yourself credit can go on until it can’t.
I completely agree with Sen. Gary Hart’s proposal in an op-ed in the New York Times:
We have recently come to learn of at least a hundred documents authorizing extraordinary presidential powers in the case of a national emergency, virtually dictatorial powers without congressional or judicial checks and balances. President Trump alluded to these authorities in March when he said, “I have the right to do a lot of things that people don’t even know about.†No matter who occupies the office, the American people have a right to know what extraordinary powers presidents believe they have. It is time for a new select committee to study these powers and their potential for abuse, and advise Congress on the ways in which it might, at a minimum, establish stringent oversight.
Secret powers began accumulating during the Eisenhower years and have grown by accretion ever since. The rationale originally was to permit a president to exercise necessary control in the case of nuclear war, an increasingly remote possibility since the Cold War’s end. An obscure provision in the Communications Act of 1934 empowers the president to suspend broadcast stations and other means of communication following a “proclamation by the President†of “national emergency.†Powers like these have been deployed sparingly: A few days after the Sept. 11 attacks, a proclamation declaring a national emergency, followed by an executive order days later, invoked some presidential powers, including the use of National Guard and U.S. military forces.
Senior members of both parties should convene hearings by first requesting, or if necessary, subpoenaing, the documents themselves. Those from previous administrations familiar with these documents should be called to testify, as well as current officials, including the national security adviser, the attorney general and the White House counsel.
The most obvious first question is why these far-reaching powers are kept secret, not only from Congress but also from the American people. The second question is why they are necessary at all. And ultimately, should not there be permanent congressional oversight of any suggestion for calling these powers into operation? Under what dire conditions should our system of checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches be abandoned in favor of a dictatorship? And once a dictatorship is declared, what would be required to return us to our historic democratic system of government?
We are being presented with a rare opportunity to correct the delegation of powers. Should Joe Biden be elected president there is no prospect whatever that the review being proposed would go forward. Similarly, if President Trump is re-elected and the Republicans regain control of the House, the same would apply.
A government of laws and of enumerated powers requires that we know what the heck the law actually is.
The Sierra Club is cancelling its founder, John Muir:
It’s time to take down some of our own monuments, starting with some truth-telling about the Sierra Club’s early history. That will be followed by posts on how we’ve had to evolve on issues of immigration and population control, environmental justice, and Indigenous sovereignty. We will also devote a post to a discussion of how the Sierra Club is working to center the voices of people we have historically ignored, so we can begin repairing some of the harms done.
The most monumental figure in the Sierra Club’s past is John Muir. Beloved by many of our members, his writings taught generations of people to see the sacredness of nature. But Muir maintained friendships with people like Henry Fairfield Osborn, who worked for both the conservation of nature and the conservation of the white race. Head of the New York Zoological Society and the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History, Osborn also helped found the American Eugenics Society in the years after Muir’s death.
And Muir was not immune to the racism peddled by many in the early conservation movement. He made derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes, though his views evolved later in his life. As the most iconic figure in Sierra Club history, Muir’s words and actions carry an especially heavy weight. They continue to hurt and alienate Indigenous people and people of color who come into contact with the Sierra Club.
As part of their remediation of their racist history they pledge:
For all the harms the Sierra Club has caused, and continues to cause, to Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of color, I am deeply sorry. I know that apologies are empty unless accompanied by a commitment to change. I am making that commitment, publicly, right now. And I invite you to hold me and other Sierra Club leaders, staff, and volunteers accountable whenever we don’t live up to our commitment to becoming an actively anti-racist organization.
To begin with, we are redesigning our leadership structure so that Black, Indigenous, and other leaders of color at the Sierra Club make up the majority of the team making top-level organizational decisions. We will initiate similar changes to elevate the voices and experiences of staff of color across the organization. We know that the systems of power that got us here will not enable the transformational change we need.
Is environmentalism inherently racist?
I do not think that federal law enforcement officers should have been used in Portland. I think that the local officials should have ended the lengthy protests a long time ago. At the very best sending in federal law enforcement officers was a poor second choice.
Look up the videos. They do not depict lawful assemblies. Illegal fireworks were clearly in evidence. Setting fires and tearing down barriers are classic examples used in illustrating when a lawful assembly has become unlawful and a riot.
In his regular Wall Street Journal column William Galston muses about the profile of the individual whom Joe Biden should pick as a running mate:
The woman Mr. Biden chooses—yes, it will be a woman, as he has pledged—must be perceived as having the experience to step into his shoes at a moment’s notice. Those with limited records in national politics are unlikely to meet this standard of credibility, as are those who have never held elective office.
In addition, Mr. Biden should give priority to African-American candidates. He owes his nomination to unwavering African-American support at the campaign’s critical juncture. The disproportionate effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the demonstrations sparked by the killing of George Floyd moved issues facing this community to the center of national politics.
The selection of an African-American running mate would guarantee the unity and enthusiasm of the Democratic Party, while the failure to do so would be dispiriting for a crucial portion of Mr. Biden’s coalition. Although religious conservatives were likely to support the eventual Republican nominee in 2016, Donald Trump’s selection of Mike Pence was a powerful signal that he didn’t take their support for granted. In this one respect, Mr. Biden should follow Mr. Trump’s example.
Mr. Biden is an effective congressional negotiator, but his presidential schedule, much of which would likely be dominated by foreign policy, would force him to delegate much of this job to others. A vice president who could work with Congress on Mr. Biden’s behalf as he did for President Obama would be a force multiplier. The vice president should also have the capacity to manage specific portfolios for the president, as Al Gore did with the National Partnership for Reinventing Government and Mr. Biden did with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Summarizing the qualifications:
Try as I might I can’t think of anyone who meets all of those qualifications. If you’re willing to accept someone older than Mr. Biden, Eleanor Holmes Norton would fit. Not only is Maxine Waters older than Joe Biden, she would violate the “first do no harm” requirement as well. Condoleezza Rice has the fatal flaw of being a Republican. Additionally, she has never held elective office.
Kamala Harris is too inexperienced (she has additional issues as well). Tammy Duckworth isn’t black and is too inexperienced. Stacy Abrams is not sufficiently experienced. Elizabeth Warren isn’t black. Cory Booker isn’t a woman. Donna Brazile has never held elective office.
My attention was captured today by two very different op-eds with one thing in common. Both reminded me of the definition of golf as a game in which an elusive ball is inserted into an obscure hole with implements singularly unsuited to the purpose. The first op-ed was by Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and appears in the New York Times:
Wearing a mask is not a political statement; it is about protecting our loved ones from the spread of this deadly virus. I know the president has begun to understand that — he wore a mask on his visit to the Walter Reed military hospital this month. And on Monday, he tweeted that “it is Patriotic to wear a face mask when you can’t socially distance.â€
I applaud his statement, and urge him to back it up by issuing a nationwide mask mandate like Michigan’s, requiring masks on public transport, indoors, or outdoors when a distance of six feet cannot be maintained. It allows exemptions for small children, when eating or drinking, communicating with a hearing-impaired person, officiating at a religious service and for those engaged in a public safety role. The president has the chance to save tens of thousands of lives. I am hopeful that he will seize this opportunity.
In the meantime, be smart, be safe and mask up, America.
Enforced how? My view is that laws or directives without even a good faith attempt at enforcing them weakens the law more generally, casting it into disrepute. Many states and local governments have declared their unwillingness to enforce federal law? I can see some jurisdictions declaring an inalienable right to bare faces. There are some things that the federal government and federal laws are good for. I don’t think that ensuring people wear facemasks is one of them.
In an otherwise unrelated op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Texas Sen. Ted Cruz pitches a law he has drafted:
Local leaders who allow rioters to destroy lives and businesses need to be held accountable. That’s why I’m introducing the Restitution for Economic losses Caused by Leaders who Allow Insurrection and Mayhem Act—Reclaim for short. The bill would hold state and local officials liable when they abdicate their legal duty to protect the public in cases where death, serious bodily harm or significant property damage have occurred.
Specifically, my bill would allow for treble damages, meaning a plaintiff could be awarded triple the amount of the damage done to his property. It would also establish a federal cause of action, which would empower victims of violence in autonomous zones to take legal action against senior local or state lawmakers who have tolerated or encouraged radicals to take over the area. Finally, when politicians refuse to defend innocent Americans, this bill would remove or limit federal funding under grant programs that supply important law-enforcement and crime-prevention programs for local governments.
Here in Illinois we do not have the power to remove elected officials at will. Barring some unforeseen accident Mayor Lightfoot will continue to serve until the next election, several years hence. How does punishing the taxpayers of Chicago protect property or business owners? If his law ensured personal liability I would support it wholeheartedly but that does not seem to be the case.
Under the common law a lawful assembly consisted of three or more people assembled together for lawful purposes. A lawful assembly could become unlawful if it became “violent and tumultuous”. As noted in Blackstone’s Commentaries:
Riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies must have three persons at least to constitute them. An unlawful assembly is when three, or more, do assemble themselves together to do an unlawful act, as to pull down inclosures, to destroy a warren or the game therein; and part without doing it, or making any motion towards it. A rout is where three or more meet to do an unlawful act upon a common quarrel, as forcibly breaking down fences upon a right claimed of common, or of way; and make some advances towards it. A riot is where three or more actually do an unlawful act of violence, either with or without a common cause or quarrel: as if they beat a man; or hunt and kill game in another’s park, chase, warren, or liberty; or do any other unlawful act with force and violence; or even do a lawful act, as removing a nusance, in a violent and tumultuous manner. The punishment of unlawful assemblies, if to the number of twelve, we have just now seen may be capital, according to the circumstances that attend it; but, from the number of three to eleven, is by fine and imprisonment only. The same is the case in riots and routs by the common law; to which the pillory in very enormous cases has been sometimes superadded. And by the statute 13 Hen. IV. c. 7. any two justices, together with the sheriff or under-sheriff of the county, may come with the posse comitatus, if need be, and suppress any such riot, assembly, or rout, arrest the rioters, and record upon the spot the nature and circumstances of the whole transaction; which record alone shall be a sufficient conviction of the offenders. In the interpretation of which statute it hath been holden, that all persons, noblemen and others, except women, clergymen, persons decrepit, and infants under fifteen, are bound to attend the justices in suppressing a riot, upon pain of fine and imprisonment; and that any battery, wounding, or killing the rioters, that may happen in suppressing the riot, is justifiable. So that our antient law, previous to the modern riot act, seems pretty well to have guarded against any violent breach of the public peace; especially as any riotous assembly on a public or general account, as to redress grievances or pull down all inclosures, and also resisting the king’s forces if sent to keep the peace, may amount to overt acts of high treason, by levying war against the king.
The provision for freedom of assembly guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution:
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.
should be considered in that light. The emphasis above is mine. There is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to riot or even to assemble unlawfully. The purpose of the freedom of assembly provision is to ensure that the Congress does not make otherwise legal assemblies illegal not to render all assemblies legal.
What constitutes “violent and tumultuous”? Generally, shouting, marching, and carrying signs are all lawful. Throwing rocks is not. When rocks are thrown by those in the assembly, the assembly changes from a lawful one to an unlawful one.
This will vary somewhat from state to state. In some states the common law understanding continues to prevail; in others unlawful assembly and mob action may be defined more narrowly.
I think that the big social media sites have sown the seeds of their own destruction by editing content. The problem is that they are presently being used as organizing tools for violent protests. I would suspect that editing content opens them up to liability suits for damages caused by the protests or even suits by cities and states to recover the costs they incur. They can no longer argue that they had no idea of what was happening.
The Chicago story being report in the national news is that of a shooting at a funeral on the South Side. From ABC 7 Chicago:
CHICAGO (WLS) — Chicago police said 15 people were shot at a funeral in the city’s Auburn Gresham neighborhood Tuesday evening.
The shooting took place around 6:30 p.m. in the 1000-block of West 79th Street. Rhodes Funeral Services is located on that block.
Police said a black car was driving westbound on 79th Street when occupants inside began firing at the attendees of a funeral. People at the funeral returned gunfire.
There is speculation that the funeral was of an individual affiliated with a gang. Shoot-ups at such funerals are not unheard of here.
As of yesterday the number of homicides in Chicago has exceeded that of 2017, the most violent year of recent memory and, by my calculation, the most violent ever adjusted to population. The Auburn Gresham neighborhood in which the shootings occurred is one of the half dozen or so neighborhoods in which most of the homicides have taken place.
Did the U. S. lockdown policy close too late, open too early, or otherwise? That’s the issue considered by Phillip Magness at American Institute for Economic Research (basically a libertarian thinktank). Using a “stringency index” published by the University of Oxford Blavatsky Blavatnik School of Government, he arrives at the following:
Any number of factors explain the development of the U.S. pandemic at the moment, with little connection to the timing of the lockdowns back in March or the tepid and bureaucratically managed reopening process.
Notably, severe COVID outbreaks appear to be overwhelmingly concentrated in nursing homes – a problem that is not meaningfully addressed by lockdowns, and which did not even figure into the considerations of the Imperial College model on which they were premised. We are also seeing the clear geographic dimensions of the pandemic’s spread. After ravaging the Northeast while it was under full lockdown, viral hotspots have now moved to previously unaffected areas – and irrespective of their remaining or reinstated lockdown policies, as California shows.
My own view is that local policies (whether national, state, or city) and practices have had relatively little effect on outcomes or the progress of the disease. What have really mattered are demographics and plain, dumb luck. If I had to pick one consequential behavioral factor, it would probably be social cohesion.
