Of Constitutional Conventions and Secession

In late September of this year, Harvard Law School will be hosting a Conference on the Constitutional Convention. Rather than being an actual Convention for forming a new government like that held at Philadelphia, it more closely resembles the much less famous Annapolis Convention. Think of it more as a grand jury rather than as a courtroom jury. This convention is being sponsored by the Left and the Right.

I have to admit, I am a bit skeptical about this. Were our current Constitution more strictly obeyed, in particular in matters of federalism and limitation of powers, I think our system would be working smoother. Any change to our system would require 3/4ths of all states to sign on to. The problem this convention is going to run up against, and which is no real secret, is that there are two dominant political philosophies that are pulling in the opposite direction. Statists on the Left will want to remove obstacles to government action while Tea Partiers like myself wish to see restrictions tightened. Realistically, there is no compromise that will satisfy these diametrically opposed notions.

Let me illustrate this point. Lawrence Lessig, the Left sponsor of this convention, argued at the Huffington Post that if our Founding Fathers could compromise enough on slavery to create a functioning government, surely our differences can also be put aside to find meaningful compromise. Lessig is wrong, however. The Founding Fathers did compromise, as did later generations in 1820 and 1850 under the notable leadership of Henry Clay, but none of them actually found a solution to the problem of slavery. In the end, what eliminated the problem was not rational discussion but the death of over half a million Americans during our Civil War. Compromise postponed dealing with the problem; it did not solve it.

The Left and the Right in this nation have a very different idea as to the proper role of government, which in turn leads to different interpretations as to the legal powers of the government. This is best appreciated in the current debate over ObamaCare's constitutionality.

SCOTUSblog has held a symposium on this very issue with a number of top legal scholars from both sides. This is not the time and place to go over the merits of each side's case (I have done that elsewhere), but just consider how radically different their views are. One the pro side, defenders of the ACA say that Congress may regulate interstate commerce or any activity that could potentially impact interstate commerce, even on an infinitesimal level. Against this, detractors point out that any moment of our lives could theoretically be used to impact interstate trade and that this basically gives Congress carte blanche, that Congress may only invoke this power to regulate existing trade that does in fact cross state lines. Where, exactly, are these two sides to compromise, either with existing Constitutional language or with any proposed amendments that both sides would have to agree to? The Left will not allow any constitutional movement Right; the Right will not allow any constitutional movement Left; ergo, we will not move as one unit.

Perhaps rather than a political marriage counseling session, we may wish to consider a political divorce? If this convention is really about spit balling ideas, I don't see why secession should be so quickly dismissed. Let's get this out of the way right now: this is not an advocation of slavery. Yes, 150 years ago the Confederate States broke away largely (but not entirely) because of slavery, but it is a non sequitur to then imply that every secession act is thereby about slavery.

Would it be an easy process? Absolutely not, but neither would it be impossible. The Soviet Union managed to break apart fairly peaceably. Southern Sudan split from Sudan and Montenegro has recently joined the world by splitting apart from the rump of Yugoslavia. A call for secession is not a call for violence; we could split and go our separate ways, assuming both sides are willing to concede the independence of the other group.

The details of such a secession can be discussed later. I'm not necessarily advocating this position; I am advocating, however, that we at least examine it. I have no illusions about it being the saving grace that will create a perfect world. Politics would still exist within whatever nations are created by the division, but I believe it would be much less over principles and more over which form of administration is best to achieve fairly agreed upon principles. I see no particular reason why the divided nations could not peaceably coexist.

Anyway, it is an idea that would actually go somewhere. To try to shift the whole United States left or right via a constitutional change is impossible. Any changes all sides would agree to are likely to be dealing with extremely minor problems.

I am looking forward to seeing what this convention produces.

The Daily Snark 8/16

“You can’t just make money on SUVs and trucks,” Obama said during a town hall forum in Cannon Falls, Minn. “There is a place for SUVs and trucks, but as gas prices keep on going up, you have got to understand the market."

I'm pretty sure I just peed myself a little. Nobody wants to buy SUVs and trucks? President Stimulus himself is lecturing others about not understanding the market?

Let me let you in on a little hint here, Mr. President. The "market" isn't a term for "what the President wants us to buy." It means the collective input of all people's economic decisions. Do you know how we learn what it is people want to buy? By what they purchase, in this case SUVs and trucks. So yes, they can make money on SUVs and trucks; I'm puzzled as to how you thought it would be otherwise.

The Daily Snark 8/15

One of the benefits of the Tea Party movement is the expansion of political literacy. People like Hayek, Nozick, Rand, von Mises, Rothbard, and others are being read by people who never really bothered to think about such things before. Of course, the people in Washington are a bit ticked that the masses would do their own thinking and whatnot, so you get lots of charges of racism and hatred and such. My favorite one, though, is that the Tea Party folks are ignorant. Yes, nothing makes one ignorant like reading.

The Daily Snark 8/13

Apparently, we need yet another analysis of the game of Monopoly. Nothing that should surprise anyone at all familiar with the game, but I'm going to be snarky about this comment:

For others, it's a Machiavellian affair that tosses love and loyalty aside in favor of a capitalistic bloodlust where there is but one goal: Drive mom, dad, grandma and weird Uncle Steve into bankruptcy as soon as possible.

Sigh...the most significant aspect of capitalism is personal choice. If Monopoly was capitalistic, you would choose on which property you wished to land on. You would always pay the lowest possible rent and no monopolies would ever be formed. In fact, the only way Monopoly works as a game is because you are forced to buy from other people against your wishes.

You know, like ObamaCare.

Anyway, it's my experience that you want to get your hands on the orange and red properties. The green properties are expensive and don't pull their own weight; the dark blue's are similar but at least you only have two to develop there. Use utilities as trading pieces. Always look for trades. More than anything else, that is the key, finding someone you can trade with to build a monopoly before other people can. Never let just one person have a monopoly.

The Daily Snark 8/12

Low hanging fruit. I should be ashamed about even picking this as my snark target for today.

And then I realize, oh my God, the majority of Americans who voted in 2008 picked this guy.

Nothing is wrong with out political system, per se. It was designed, intentionally, to be slow and deliberative. We are supposed to air our differences and move forward where consensus can truly be found.

You'll note, that doesn't leave a lot real estate in the middle ground on which we can move forward together. Certainly not enough to run an economy from Washington. But then, that was never the idea, either.

In light of that fact, statements like "start passing some bills that we all know will help the economy right now" appear ridiculous. I don't know of any bills existing that everyone knows will help the economy. When Republicans and in particular Tea Partiers say more government spending will not improve the economy, we're not playing politics. We actually mean that.

This isn't a game and neither side is really "playing politics" here. Both sides have principles they wish to defend; those principles are nearly diametrically opposed to each other. There is no middle ground on which to compromise. On those issues which nearly everyone does agree on, progress is made, quietly and without much fanfare.

If the President has a plan, I should like to hear it. If he has a strong case to make for more government spending, something other than "it works, don't ask for proof," I should like to hear it. What I am tired of hearing is our "leader" complaining the opposition will not capitulate on demand.

Mr. President, we will not quit the field just because you cry about how we won't let you have your way. It is your responsibility to provide an outline as to what that plan might actually be, in detail, and reasons why we should believe it will work. Mind you, this plan must be in line with justice rather than class warfare. That is the only realistic way to win from a position of elected office in this nation. You don't have any real experience in that, but you should remember how easy it is to criticize from out of office. In 2008, you put on a clinic. Now you actually have to play defense. Man up and do so, or announce that you will not seek reelection.

The Daily Snark 8/11

A Rasmussen poll taken a few days ago (and which I am only now getting around to) says that roughly 17% of Americans believe our government has the consent of the people.

I don't think this poll was actually measuring people's belief in the consent of the people for government as it is whether people think the government has done things correctly. When we give consent, it is to particular powers of the government, not particular results. Roughly no one is happy about the massive amount of debt we have, but if you asked people if they support spending on Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Education, and what have you, you'll find support being significantly higher than 17%. You'll also likely find that "consent" given for those programs will be much higher, yet not for the resulting deficits.

Let me put it this way: if you consent to eat like a pig and never exercise, you can't "not consent" to being obese later. It is the logical outcome of the actions you do consent to.

Government has grown so large and pervasive that most people have no idea what they are consenting to. So long as their lives go on as usual, they won't care, as Dahl pointed out in Who Governs? The only real option for "the people" is to 1) stay complacent and happy when times are good and 2) get angry and toss out the bums when times are bad. Problem is, poor decisions made when times are good can have negative impacts later on, but since things are good now, people don't pay attention and intervene. When times get bad, most people don't have a clue why that is, and so they react with passion but without intelligence. This creates a devastating feedback loop in democracy, as politicians that need to be reelected in the short term will favor policies that may be nice in the short term but could be devastating in the long term. Since people vote based on how times feel rather than a more objective, rational basis, this political behavior will be rewarded.

Anyway, I hope that poll is wrong. If 83% of the people believe the government does not have the consent of the governed (or are at least not sure of it) and there hasn't been a revolution, then this country is ripe for tyranny.

The Daily Snark 8/10

Europe's third and fourth largest economies are already on the fritz. If France starts to teeter and the whole weight of upholding the Eurozone falls on Germany, it's all over. To use yesterday's analogy, France doesn't even have to be past that point of no return to spook markets into a panic; the very idea that one of the two remaining pillars of strength might go under will be enough to sound the death knell of the Euro.

Yikes, people. Yikes.

The Daily Snark 8/9

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have always been an important subject to me. My grandfather was a combat engineer in the Pacific during that war. The alternative to bombing Japan was invading it. People, like Greg Mitchell at The Nation, seem to think Japan would have thrown up their hands by that point anyway and that the bombings were not necessary.

The Battle of Okinawa, fought from April to June 1945, says otherwise. The closer we got to Japan, the worse the battles became. In this one campaign, the United States suffered many more deaths than Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Mitchell doesn't point out that on August 10th, the day after the Nagasaki bombing, the Empire of Japan did not end the war. On August 11th, after two nuclear bombings and being attacked by the U.S.S.R., Japan did not surrender. On August 12th, Japan did not surrender. On August 13th, Japan did not surrender. Mind you, people are dying on every one of these days. On August 14th, Japan did not surrender. On the 15th, after a failed coup attempt by a military faction to continue the war, Japan finally capitulated.

The point here is simple enough: on August 9th, 1945, it was far from obvious to anyone that Japan would give in without another nuclear demonstration.

Had the atomic bombs not been dropped, it seems highly unlikely that Japan would have surrendered without being invaded. The American plan for that invasion, Operation Downfall, would likely have lead to the deaths of millions of Japanese and Americans. My grandfather, as an engineer, would have been key in turning Kyushu into a gigantic, unsinkable aircraft carrier in order to invade Honshu.

When given the choice between my grandfather (a person with no role in creating this war) dying in that invasion, and hence my own nonexistence, or the destruction of a city in the nation that launched this conflict, I feel no moral compunction about supporting the latter. No, nobody is arguing that the atomic bombing was a pleasant experience, but that does not justify having more Americans killed in order to protect the people who launched the war in the first place.

International law and justice is an unholy mess. In the end, the argument against using the atomic bombs is an argument in favor of risking my existence. No muddled argument about non-existing standards of international morality and ridiculous claims about Japan suddenly being willing to surrender will change my mind on this issue.

I, and millions of others, exist because of those bombs. I will not be made to feel guilty because I exist and the expense of a warmongering nation. The innocent people in Nagasaki certainly were wronged, but they were wronged by their own government that viciously attacked other nations, not by the nations that defended themselves.

Why Our Credit Rating Was Downgraded

Simply put, this is why credit agencies are beginning to distrust the American government's ability and willingness to pay back its debt in the long term. Robert Reich is not some random leftist political blogger; he is a former Secretary of Labor. When people who have been entrusted with high power in this nation are saying we ought not deal with the massive amount of debt we are under until it crushes us, credit agencies have good reason to be fearful of our financial sanity.

Consider Reich's analogy in the first two paragraphs. Basically, it's all wrong. One faction, the Tea Party, is refusing to turn on the hoses because the faction in power (the Left) refuses to deal with the long term water shortage problem, but they did manage to find water to fill an Olympic sized swimming pool which they named the Stimulus.

Reich's entire position is, we'll deal with that massive debt crisis when it hits. It is almost unbelievable that anyone would take that position. Let me use a different analogy to explain why: imagine the country is a canoe on the Niagara River. One of the paddlers, the Tea Party, is saying we need to go on shore now rather than move closer to the Falls. The other paddler, the Reich leftists, says that's a "long term problem" that can be dealt with later and isn't worth putting off fun now for.

Here's the problem: at some point, the current will become so strong that even if the paddlers turn around and go full steam, the current will still carry them over the Falls. We don't know where this point is, other than that it exists at some point before we actually go over the Falls.

The Tea Party risked a short term but large cut in government spending with the debt ceiling debate. The Left, on the other hand, is risking catastrophic economic collapse within the next decade. If you look at the deal reached, no significant cuts are made. We're staying in the canoe and moving to the point of no return.

S&P is the lifeguardish figure in the analogy. Their sole goal is to warn when people are acting irresponsibly. I think it is justified that they would be blowing their whistle right about now.

Reich goes on to mention that European nations are actually past that point of no return and are going to go over the Falls. Amazingly, he then goes on to say that America has plenty of money and won't ever find a point of no return. Our debt is now over 100% of the GDP, but we have plenty of money, apparently! Yes, we could pay off our debt, but it would bankrupt our nation. The same could be said of those European nations if they were willing to bankrupt their citizens. They're not, and neither will we be.

Probably the biggest concern I have here is that Reich honestly seems to think more government spending will somehow improve the economy. The United States has increased its spending by 30% in three years, jobs have disappeared, economic growth has been anemic at best, but Reich thinks yet more spending (and more debt) will solve our problem, all of this in light of Europe's debt implosion.

The American Left is out of bullets. They tried spending incredible amounts of money to stimulate the economy, but in fact it actually backfired and made things worse. Rather than admitting that they were wrong, this faction has opted to scream at the Tea Party for trying to deal with a very serious and very real debt problem that will overtake us in the next decade if we do not change course immediately. Since the day dreamers have the Senate and the White House, no long term solution (which, admittedly, will be painful) is possible. We have a party that believes tomorrow's apocalyptic problems should be put off until the day after tomorrow. That is why S&P downgraded our credit rating.

The Daily Snark 8/8

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly.

The only faction that actually saw $14,300,000,000,00.00 in debt as a problem that needed to be addressed is the one responsible for the rating downgrade? And the party saying this, the one that asked for $2,500,000,000,000.00 in new debt with absolutely no cuts in spending over the next 17 months, is not responsible? That party which passed the Stimulus, an $800,000,000,000.00 failure, is not responsible for that debt, but those who opposed it are?

Does anyone actually want to explain this to me? I'm just going to assume that those on the Left realize how wildly irresponsible they are in blaming the only faction looking for a long term solution but don't want to admit it to other people. The alternative is to believe they are guilty of some deep doublethink.

And no, blaming the only people trying to find a solution to the debt problem is not a realistic alternative.