THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 708, February 17, 2013
The real "progressive" agenda isn't about
gun control, but population control.
They talk a lot about "a really good plague".
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
Commentary on Part 3 (from one reader) has centered on the issue of immigration. To reiterate the key point (with which the reader agreed), immigration law is what it is. In an ideal world, we all might want it to be different; but the President lacks the executive power to rewrite it unilaterally. This is particularly true in that there is no evidence that he is doing so out of any Constitutional or moral principle other than his personal, and his party's political, expediency.
The correspondent reported his personal experience (in Texas) with immigrants who are fully assimilated and pay taxes for no benefits (since they are not citizens). Conversely, we also know there are many cases of immigrants (more in California) who are not assimilated and live on public assistance, and have become parasites on the American people in other ways. (See, for example, Victor Davis Hanson's many articles on the degradation of the Central Valley in National Review.) All of that said, we are supposed to have one law for everyone. (For example, the assimilated illegals in Texas are often using false or stolen social security numbers; they may be doing the best they can, but they have compounded illegal entry with identify theft and fraud.)
Libertarians know that any law which doesn't encourage broad compliance will be ignored, and the combination of our current border control, immigration, naturalization, and public assistance laws certainly fail in that regard. Much can and should be done to reform that. But until those changes are made, the President's Constitutional obligation is to enforce the law as written — not selectively enforce it to the benefit of his supporters.
3 (updated) Obamacare (Updates from Part 1)
There have been several developments in the Obamacare saga this week:
a. The true costs are becoming apparent, and it's going to be expensive. Much more expensive. This means that more people will be forced out of the private insurance market and into the federal exchange system, which means that:
b. Benefits will be limited due to cost, particularly for the elderly and those with more health problems. A lot of issues come down to equal treatment under the law. The way that seems to work these days is that the law will establish classes of people, and treat all people in any class equally. For example, tax rates and withholdings differ for people who make more than $250,000 per year relative to those who make less. That makes the law even more complex, rather than simpler. Simple law would have one simple, consistent set of rules that apply to everyone. (The Flat Tax, the Fair Tax, and Hermann Cain's 9-9-9 systems all meet that criterion). Obamacare will now have one set of rules for patients below a certain age, and another set for people above that age; that is, it is starting the move toward death panels. Unequal laws should be Unconstitutional (a lapse I note in No Loopholes). But in the near time, the fraud used to force Obamacare on the American people should in and of itself be an impeachable offense.
c. Last, a compromise has been offered which permits religious organizations to be exempted from paying for "reproductive services," but not private organizations owned or managed by people of faith. This is another case of "unequal laws" as well as continuing to serve as a federal "establishment of religion" — in this case, a federal doctrine of free love subsidized by tax monies. Unconstitutional, and impeachable in its own right.
9. Foreign use of drones as a tool for assassination.
This is an interesting case in that the use of drones for assassination of suspected terrorists is supported by those normally opposed to the President's policies, and opposed by his otherwise liberal supporters (though as one conservative pundit was relieved to report, Code Pink didn't wear their vagina costumes to protest the installation of Brennan as CIA director). Of concern is not only the general case of such assassinations, but the particular case of assassination of American citizens, on foreign soil, who are collaborating with anti-American terrorist organizations. (The most extreme opinion I've heard was radio host Michael Savage last night, who in a segment I happened to listen to while driving stated that persons who have left the United States and taken company with anti-American terrorists have abandoned their citizenship and no longer should expect the rights and privileges of citizenship.)
President Bush certainly started the use of drones in this capacity, but President Obama has raised it to a fine art form, if one may call it such.
The Constitution gives the Congress the power to "Call forth the militia…to suppress insurrection" and to suspend habeas corpus. It does not grant the President the unilateral authority to wage war or to murder American citizens without a due process of law. So on a purely legal basis, if the President conducts such acts with the advice and consent of Congress, his actions are Constitutional; otherwise not. Thus, his unilateral actions in this regard violate the separation of powers and constitute outright murder.
10. Domestic use of drones.
It seems very straightforward: the domestic use of drones for any form of surveillance of private property, without a duly executed warrant, is a violation of the fourth Amendment and whatever official who orders such action can and should be impeached. As the President condones such action, he should be impeached as well.
It must be noted that many fear the President — particularly this President — might also use drones domestically to target his political opponents for assassination. There is no evidence that I know of that he has done so, but such an action would again be unambiguous murder.
Was that worth reading?