Liberty Maven

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers.” — Anthony Robbins

---

Subject: Asking the Right Questions About Making Congress Read THEIR Bills

Now that the concept of requiring Congress to read the bills has caught on, it’s being seriously debated.

Some are pretending that they have THE objection that demonstrates how “silly” it is to require members of Congress to pause and read their bills. They write things like,

“Would you also require the legislator to understand the bill? Or is mere reading, with no comprehension, enough? And if comprehension is required, how much comprehension is required, and how would you test that?”

This clever questioner is asking a question to which he already knows the answer. But it has nothing to do with a well-designed law to Read the Bills.

Would this questioner oppose the Constitution because…

* Politicians don’t like to be constrained by it?
* Incumbents have too much important work to do and that document gets in the way?

Sometimes people try to sound clever, and manage to do so, by half. But we should instead ask a better question.

Can we rely on the good nature and intelligence of persons handed the immense power to legislate the lives of others?

No, we can’t. This is not an attack against politicians. No human being can understand all the details they’re called upon to understand. Others will have to help them with details. So let’s ask an even better question:

“Should well-informed citizens be able to help Congress understand the bills, or should Congress only listen to lobbyists?”

Members of the media, watchdog groups, and YOU should be able to view the bill and see what they’re up to — before they get to vote.

DownsizeDC.org’s Read the Bills Act (RTBA) allows citizens to express not only their opinion on how Congress should vote on a bill, but why. RTBA requires . . .

1. A seven day waiting period before a bill is voted on
2. Posting the bill online for every Internet user to read

Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “I want a government small enough to fit inside the Constitution.” — DownsizeDC.org co-founder Harry Browne (1933-2006)

---

Our last Drug War Dispatch generated some concerned emails.

You can read our response here.

What we didn’t mention in the previous Dispatch was the Constitutional problem of the War on Drugs. That’s because . . .

Many people seem not to care what the Constitution requires. Today’s message is for those who do care.

Drug control is NOT a Constitutional power of the federal government. At the very most the federal government could, perhaps, ban the importation of drugs, and prohibit their sale across state lines under the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8.

But nowhere in the Constitution is Congress empowered to prohibit the sale or possession of any item within state boundaries. The Tenth Amendment dictates that whatever Congress is not empowered to do must be left to the States, or to the people. This means Congress cannot . . .

* forbid the personal possession or use of drugs
* prohibit drug sales within the same state
* intervene in other countries with money or troops to fight undeclared drug wars

This means that drug prohibition laws can only exist at the state level. Imagine what could happen if some states had no prohibition laws, while other states had prohibition laws of differing severity. Competing claims about drug prohibition could be tested, in the real world. As it is . . .

Federal prohibition laws not only prohibit the sale and use of drugs, they also prohibit us from learning what would work best.

The 10th Amendment’s Constitutional restrictions on federal power used to be well-known and understood. For instance, those who wanted to prohibit alcohol in the 1910’s knew that the Constitution didn’t give Congress the power to do this. So they had to pass the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure, so in 1933 the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment.

If prohibiting alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, how does prohibiting other drugs NOT require a Constitutional Amendment?

Read More »

What an interesting discussion Judge Napolitano had with the wonderful Robert Higgs on Freedom Watch last Friday.  They discuss how Barack Obama is more easily compared to Herbert Hoover than FDR.

Speaking of Robert Higgs, he will deliver a lecture on Monday evening at George Mason University. The event is free and is hosted by the Mason Economics Club and the Future of Freedom Foundation. For more details see the FFF web site and scroll down to the events section.

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Subject: Our first press release to the national media

Your work has made “reading the bills” a national issue. You accomplished this with zero help from the media. Now Congress and other groups are piggy-backing on your work, attempting to steal both your steam and your thunder, pushing non-reforms like H. Res. 554. Do you . . .

* Want to stake a claim to the results of your work and the need for the real “Read the Bills Act?”
* Let the media know what the “real deal” is

If so, here’s what we want to send to the national media early next week . . .

---

The creator’s of the Read the Bills Act, which inspired a movement, say that a proposed 72-hour rule, permitting the public to see legislation before Congress votes, is “worthless.” But they want the rule, H.R. 554, passed anyway. Why?

“It will pave the way for our Read the Bills Act,” declared Jim Babka, President of DownsizeDC.org.

DownsizeDC.org created its “Read the Bills Act” (RTBA) in 2005. Constituents have bombarded their representatives in Congress with a quarter-million letters supporting RTBA. Babka has also presented it to beltway groups.

“Public pressure and my presentations are what led the Republicans to pick-up ‘reading the bills’ as a talking point. But when the people witness how worthless their approach is, demands to pass our RTBA will increase.”

The 72-hour rule makes cosmetic changes to House rules.

House members are supposed to receive readable copies of bills three days before a vote. The rule is rarely followed.

The rule changes that time requirement from 3 days to… 72 hours.

It also requires that the public gets the bill at the same time. Babka likes this real change, however…

“It’s only a rule; not a law. So it can be waived in many instances, and doesn’t apply in others. There’s no enforcement mechanism to penalize Congress when they violate their rules. And three days isn’t nearly enough time to read the monster-sized bills Congress routinely passes.”

DownsizeDC.org’s ‘Read the Bills Act’ can’t be waived and requires Congress to…

* Read the entire bill out-loud before a quorum
* Post all bills on the Internet for seven days before voting

If ignorance of the law is no defense for citizens, such ignorance must not be permitted to Congress. That’s why RTBA also provides citizens with a solid legal defense against laws passed in violation of these requirements. Babka concluded:
Read More »

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “While few would argue that criminals ought to be able to keep the proceeds of their crimes, civil forfeiture allows the government to seize and keep property without actually having to prove a crime was committed in the first place. . . . Proceeds from civil forfeiture at the state and local level usually go back to the police departments and prosecutors’ offices, giving them a clear and unmistakable incentive to seize as much property as often as possible.” – Radley Balko

---

The government wants to seize the home of a widowed cancer survivor. She hasn’t been charged with any crime, but her now-dead husband once grew marijuana on their property. He used it to ease his chronic pain. Under federal civil asset forfeiture law, that might be enough for the government to take this woman’s home.

Such outrages are nothing new in the War on Drugs, but we’re seeing more abuses as criminal law becomes increasingly federalized. For instance, federal agents are now exploiting the 2006 Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act to seize bank accounts and computers.

The leader of a new Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering task force admits that unlike criminal cases where the suspect is presumed innocent until proved guilty, in civil asset forfeiture cases . . .

* if you lose property to an asset forfeiture seizure you must prove your innocence in order to get it back
* you have no 5th amendment protections — even your silence can be used against you

Civil asset forfeiture is also alive and well at the local level, where police steal money from citizens in order to pay for new equipment.

Under Illinois law, the state can withhold cash, cars, or other property for six months without even a preliminary hearing! Under the law, three innocent people had to wait over a year to get their cars back. They, along with three innocent people who had money stolen from them, have argued the Constitutionality of the Illinois law.

The “good” news is that this law will be argued in the Supreme Court this month in Alvarez v. Smith.

The bad news is that the most positive outcome is likely to be only a reduction of the time you must wait before a preliminary hearing. The Court isn’t expected to strike down the law, even though civil asset forfeiture proceedings clearly violate the 14th Amendment provision that no state “can deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law.”

Congress can do what the Court will not. Tell your representatives to abolish Civil Asset Forfeiture using our Educate the Powerful System.

Use your personal comments to mention the example of the widow who may lose her home because her now dead husband grew marijuana that he used to ease his pain from cancer.

You can send your message here.

Read More »

This is very good news for gun rights fighters. The Supreme Court has accepted the case to answer the question on whether the 2nd Amendment applies, or is “incorporated”, to the states.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners.

The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court’s decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The new case tests whether last year’s ruling applies as well to local and state laws.

While this is good news for hopeful gun rights activists it raises questions for die hard Constitutionalists. The dirty details of “incorporation” reveals some divisions among us. I’ve previously discussed my own thoughts on “incorporation”, but I can certainly understand the opposing viewpoint. The question came up earlier this year when the states rights argument was utilized by the anti-gun rights Senators in reference to the Thune amendment that would have permitted concealed carry reciprocity between the states.

The conventional wisdom is that the Supreme Court has a very good chance of voting in favor of 2nd Amendment incorporation. Perhaps, the more interesting thing, similar to Heller, will be what the majority opinion says at the conclusion of the case.

Glenn Beck had Ron Paul on his radio show this morning to discuss Paul’s new book “End the Fed“. The discussion turned toward predicting what America will look like within the next 3-5 years. Unsurprisingly both Beck and Paul do not have a rosy prognostication. In fact their discussion was downright scary.

The discussion lasts about 14 minutes. Following the interview Beck reiterates that he doesn’t agree with Ron Paul on some things, but when it comes to the Fed Glenn says he is “Dead Right.” Following that Beck goes into a discussion on foreign policy as it relates to Afghanistan.

Listen to the audio below.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Ron Paul appeared on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central last night to discuss his new book “End the Fed“. It was quite a stellar interview. Paul used the opportunity to educate Jon Stewart’s viewers about moral hazard, among other topics.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Ron Paul
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h

Quote of the Day: “The JUSTICE Act will allow intelligence agents to monitor terrorism suspects while putting checks in place to ensure that law-abiding Americans’ privacy and civil liberties are protected.” – Sen. Daniel Akaka

---

Following 9/11, Congress passed the gargantuan USA PATRIOT Act, without reading it. The PATRIOT Act and the FISA Amendments Act were written to protect Americans from terrorism, but they’ve left people unprotected from their own government.

• The Patriot Act authorized “sneak and peak” warrants that allow the government to search your home without your knowledge.In 2008, this power was used just three times in terrorism investigations and 760 times in regular criminal investigations.
• It also authorized National Security Letters (NSLs). NSLs allow federal agents to seize your personal records without a warrant, even when there’s no suspicion of wrongdoing. The FBI can also prohibit you from telling anyone that you’ve been searched because of an NSL. The FBI was found to have abused this power thousands of times.
• Under the FISA Amendments Act, government can engage in wiretapping without a warrant

The good news is that some parts of the PATRIOT Act will expire at the end of the year unless Congress renews them. This provides an opportunity to roll back many dangerous provisions. Toward this end Senator Russ Feingold introduced the JUSTICE Act (S. 1686) on September 17, Constitution Day. JUSTICE stands for the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts. This bill would . . .

• narrow the scope of “sneak and peak” warrants so they can’t be used in common criminal cases
• ensure judicial review of NSLs and require that they only be used in terrorism or espionage investigations
• prevent roving wiretaps of unnamed suspects that allow the government to monitor the conversations of innocent people
• revoke the retroactive immunity provision of the FISA Amendments Act that has shielded the telecom companies that collaborated with the government in illegal surveillance
• provide additional privacy protections outlined here

In short, the JUSTICE Act would give government agents powerful tools to spy on suspected terrorists, while preventing them from spying on YOU.

We would prefer to repeal the PATRIOT Act entirely, but until that can happen the provisions of the JUSTICE Act would move things in the right direction. Please take action to pass the JUSTICE Act.

• Go to our new campaign “Roll Back the Patriot Act” and send your letter to Congress
• If your Senator is on the Judiciary Committee, please also call him or her on the phone and urge him or her to support the JUSTICE Act. If your Senator is not on the Committee please call the Committee Directly to urge them to vote the JUSTICE Act out of committee. You can see a list of the Committee members here.
• The phone number for the Senate Judiciary Committee is 202-224-7703

Read More »

One book near the top of my must-read list is Thomas DiLorenzo’s Hamilton’s Curse.  Having previously read The Real Lincoln and listened to DiLorenzo speak in person and on talk shows like Baltimore’s Ron Smith Show, I am already a fan.  Today at the Future of Freedom Foundation, George C. Leef references DiLorenzo’s book as he gives his own scathing rundown of how Hamilton and his legacy has greatly ruined this country.  Here’s a small piece:

…Hamilton looks pleasant enough in his portrait on our $10 bill, but he was an arrogant egomaniac.

Hamilton was a determined opponent of Jefferson’s laissez-faire philosophy at every turn. When it came to trade, he demanded high protective tariffs because he thought, in the mercantilistic tradition, that if a nation produced “its own” goods rather than purchasing them from “other countries” it would become stronger. Mercantilism was inseparable from economic nationalism — the foolish and destructive idea that political boundaries have great economic significance. (We still suffer grievously from this idiocy, of course.) Individual American consumers would be harmed by artificially high prices for items they might have bought less expensively from producers in other countries, but Hamilton was not concerned about the problems of individuals. His obsession was with “strengthening” the nation.

In the early years of the United States, Hamilton battled against Jefferson’s reading of the Constitution as placing severe limits on federal authority. To Hamilton and his Federalist allies, the wording of the Constitution, especially the enumerated powers of Congress, meant nothing more than an intellectual game of trying to invent interpretations that gave the government “inherent” powers that it was not specifically given. Contrary to the sensible, restrictive reading of the Constitution defended by Jefferson, Hamilton insisted that the General Welfare and Commerce Clauses were meant to give the federal government almost limitless powers.

Leef then goes on to discuss the traitorous presidencies of Lincoln, Roosevelt, and disasters in the form of the 17th Amendment, the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act.  I highly recommend reading the entire article.