Now this one is a doozy...

In the process of A Jake Sullum ripping of Bush's not-so-conservative conservatism primarily focusing on the anti-Partial-Birth abortion bill, an important point on abuse of the interstate commerce clause comes up...

As Independence Institute scholar David Kopel and University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds noted in a 1997 Connecticut Law Review article, this language is baffling "to any person not familiar with the Commerce Clause sophistries of twentieth century jurisprudence... Unless a physician is operating a mobile abortion clinic on the Metroliner, it is not really possible to perform an abortion 'in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.'"

Ok, you're probably thinking "big deal" right now. But consider this: if the government defense of it were to reinterpret interstate commerce to include any commerce (something along the lines of "it's money going into the economy, therefore we have the right to blahblahblah"), then this would appear to open up a loophole, no? Say that a doctor performs a 3rd-trimester abortion & doesn't officially charge for it, choosing instead to be compensated by a non-monetary trade later. No money has been exchanged, so it can't be commerce, it's "charity work".

Think about what this would mean. How would they close that one up? And what about it spreading to other areas? If they were to slip up somewhere along the way, it could be conceivable to circumvent the drug laws if you dealt in a barter/favors-trade setup.

Then again, the type of response to such a royal hack job might be catastrophic. Still, it's worth a bouncing.

-More on the protectionism going around: Greenspan weighs in briefly, along with someone from the IMF.

If his warning about "irrational exhuberance" during the DotCom bubble is any indication, this is a bad omen...


-An interesting take on judicial activism from Thomas Sowell: "The judges may be too brainy for the position of interpreting such a simple thing as the US Constitution."

Boredom leading to unnecessary hair-splitting? I can understand that, and have suspected similar for awhile. There has been a phenomenon of people with high status as scholars overusing it. Hell, I myself to a lesser extent have in the past done worse at tasks I found easy than at more intellectually challenging pursuits, in that respect I can even understand what they're going through. Doesn't make it right though, considering the position. It's of much more importance than if, say, a former physics professor were to get a job as an NFL referee and boff a few calls.

National Review editors fly off the handle on gays again?

After exposing some obvious pandering vaguities from the Democratic presidential candidates (which should be damning to anyone, opposed or supporting), this slides out:

The erosion of marriage in our law and culture helped carry the Massachusetts court to its conclusion. The court recognizes that we have severed many of the links among marriage, sex, and the raising of children. But it does not follow from that indisputable premise that our law and culture do not link these things at all, or that they should not link them.

This point assumes that the law must move the culture as much as the culture moves the law -- with no explanation of why. To them, if people veer from a certain set of values, it is the job of government to step in where the public will not. What is the difference between this viewpoint & that of more left-leaning types that the role of government is to make people "nicer" by some arbitrary standard?

They can believe all they wish that religious-based morality, specifically judeo-christian, is what keeps the country going, but shifting towards enforcing it by law is akin to someone attempting to make 2+2 not equal 4. It is not the job of politicians to keep the innerworkings of society humming, nor could they conceivably do it.

A court could just as easily conclude that to the extent that the courts themselves have broken these links, they should go back and re-create them. It could just as easily conclude that the people of Massachusetts have conflicting and sometimes inconsistent views about the nature of marriage, and that the law may reflect that muddle without needing judicial correction.

They could've, federalism does allow some leeway. However, it does not enshrine the resulting preference as unopposable: if they had chosen to keep their old law then that's all it would mean. Though clearly, had the ruling went the other way, the reaction here would've been one of vindication. I myself believe the current ruling was correct, but I am not going to complain if other states do not see it that way. Different areas have different ways of conduct, the problem is one of range: states are gradually coming around to civil unions or gay marriage (whichever you call it) on their own -- and their response is to attempt an amendment blocking them all at once*.

Really, this shouting ignores a quite important question anyway: why is it the federal governments business at all?

(* - As you may remember, I proposed instead a "clarification amendment" explicitly removing the question from the federal level, since apparently the 10th Amendment isn't enough.)

First steel, now textiles...

Cass Johnson, interim president of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, praised the administration for granting import relief for all three products categories the industry had asked to be covered. "Clearly, the enormous surges we have seen in Chinese imports in these categories and the damage they have caused to our industry, workers and communities warranted such action," Johnson said in a statement.

Now why would he say anything different, whether this was "warranted" or not? I do believe this would be a "special interest", no?

The administration came under heavy pressure from lawmakers representing textile states in the South. The administration will need votes from Republican House members from this region in order to pass upcoming free trade agreements it is negotiating with various nations.

"I'mma need their support on free trade, so lemme contradict myself real quick an' shield them from competition."
^^^^in a better world, this would backfire miserably.

I thought this was a capitalist country? What the hell are we doing?