Assassin #2

According to reports, Ryan Wesley Routh attempted to shoot Donald Trump while he was playing a round of golf.  Some of his social media posts have been reposted by others.  His profile - if it hasn't been doctored - shows him to be a Democrat, anti-MAGA, and LGBT+ member.  Common enough, but obviously against Trump.  He went to Ukraine in 2022 and sought to recruit foreign fighters and increase funding.  A ten-minute interview was also posted which shows him in Ukraine.  He doesn't seem particularly sharp.  How did this guy know when and where to try a shot at Trump?  He was arrested shortly after the incident and is in custody.  Is he another lone wolf like Thomas Matthew Crooks?  Of course, we don't know really if Crooks was a lone gunman, but that is the working assumption.  Will Jack Ruby show up and shoot Routh before he can be interrogated?

The left has so villainized Trump that it appears to be entirely reasonable to assassinated him before he can reclaim power.  This again demonstrates that there is too much riding on elections today.  This should be choosing someone who carries out the laws that Congress has passed.  Those laws should be relatively benign compared to what the states themselves pass.  No, thanks to a century of consolidating power in Washington DC, national elections become more heated each year.  The heat has risen to assassination attempts.  Either we devolve power away from Washington or the boiler will explode into open conflict. 

A Return to Federalism

“The country is coming apart at the seams, and the fundamental reason, in my opinion, is a lack of federalism.  What I mean by that is, is whoever is in power in Washington D.C., whether it’s Republicans or Democrats, roughly 50% of the country is angry about everything that is happening.”

Mark Meckler

Yes.  Absolutely correct.  I have long argued for a federalist approach to most issues.  Abortion law is unchanged in many states.  The most vociferous defenders of Roe v. Wade live in states that have retained the same laws as they had last week.  Their states are pro-choice.  They are protesting about laws in states where they do not live.  Meckler further states:

“There’s too much being decided in D.C., and the way we solve the discord and calm everything down is to take the power away from D.C. and give it back to the states. Then we can debate these issues in the states where it was always intended to be done."

Exactly right.  Decisions made in D.C. become a one-size-fits-all solution for 50 different states.  A gun control policy ideal for New York could be impractical for Wyoming.  A water conservation law that would be perfect for Nevada might be ludicrous for Hawaii.  Each state can come to its own conclusion.

The Supreme Court imposed a policy for all 50 states in 1973.  The current court has announced that each state may decide how it wants to legislate the issue.  Rather than a majority of 9 people deciding for more than 300 million people, the individual states will come to decisions with considerably more input from the voters.

The Dobbs decision does signal a sea change in the court.  If the overbroad interpretation of the 14th amendment was incorrect in the case of Roe v. Wade, then it was also incorrect in a number of other instances.  The pendulum is starting to swing the other direction.

Meckler holds that the country is on a path of dissolution.  He calls it the Great Decoupling.  It could come apart by secession and civil war (I have addressed this with posts on Calexit and Texit) or by a return to federalism.  The central government will lose power either way, but the latter is peaceful and preserves the union.  The question is, can we return to federalism peacefully?

Lose-Lose Situation

Tucker Carlson recently blasted President Trump's lack of action against the widespread unrest throughout the country.  He announced that President Obama would never have allowed things to get this bad.  The National Guard or even the 101st Airborne would have long since retaken the CHAZ and stamped out the riots in various cities.  I generally like that plan.  I'm all for peaceful protests but when they transform into lawless bands of looters and vandals, it's time to read the riot act.  But let's take it to the next step.

Suppose the national guard or the military is deployed to end the riots and stamp out the autonomous zone.  How will that be reported in the media?  Will the president get praise for returning law & order to the cities and protecting the property of private citizens?  Unlikely.  Will the president be denounced as an authoritarian who stomped on the rights of black Americans to protest police brutality?  Oh yeah!  Big time!  If Trump does nothing, he is a weakling in a time of crisis but if he does something, he provides the evidence for the old claims that he is a fascist.  That is how it will be reported.  It is lose-lose.

What to do?  Trump's initial efforts have been to demand that the mayors and governors of these various cities and states take action.  Governor Jay Inslee has the authority to call up the national guard and deploy it to reassert control of CHAZ.  He has declined to do so despite Trump's emphatic prompting.  By pointing out that the local authorities (all Democrats) who have the authority to put down the riots are doing nothing, the president is blame-shifting.  Is it blame-shifting?  Shouldn't the first group to respond to a local riot be the local police?  If that isn't enough, request state assistance.  If that still isn't enough, call upon the federal government.  Yes, that would be federalism.  Trump has further offered to help, if requested.  No requests.  The locals will neither put down the riots themselves nor will they accept some responsibility by requesting federal aid.  Hmm.  This sounds like a setup.

The people of Seattle voted for the government that is more or less cheerleading for the CHAZ/CHOP.  Elections have consequences.  Minneapolis has a Democrat mayor, a Democrat city counsel, all Democrat Congressional Representatives (Ilhan Omar among them), 2 Democrat senators, a Democrat Attorney General, and a Democrat Governor.  Obviously, the Republican President is the problem.

Sadly, this is all about an election year.  How will a crackdown impact the November election?  More importantly, how will a crackdown be reported?  Trump thinks that he is better off letting blue cities and states burn.  Further, he hopes that blue politicians suffer in the polls and he's going to run ads putting the blame on them.  By contrast, it will be hard for those blue politicians to blame Trump for not taking actions that they refused to take themselves.

Whichever side you are on, we have the worst political class in my life.  Political maneuvering is more important that doing their jobs.  Tragic.

Different Approaches Valid

Ten states account for 42% of the US population but 73% of the Covid infections and 81% of the Covid deaths.  What is it about these states that it hit so much harder than the rest of the country?  If you look only at New York, the state has 6% of the US population but 30% of the infections and 41% of the deaths.  One out of every 68 New Yorkers has been infected and 1 out of 877 has died.  The situation is dire.  However, should the strategy to protect against a worsening of the pandemic in New York also be used in Nebraska?  In Nebraska, only 1 out of every 708 is infected and 1 in 36,500 has died.  What of Hawaii?  1 in 2,344 infected and 1 in 101,000 dead.  Our news media is based in New York and thus the situation there is driving the story.  There should be 50 different strategies, each customized to the situation in that state.

States	Cases	Deaths	Lethality	Population	% of Infections	% of Deaths
NY	288,045	22,179	7.7%	19,453,561	30.0%	40.7%
NJ	109,038	5,938	5.4%	8,882,190	11.3%	10.9%
MA	54,938	2,899	5.3%	6,949,503	5.7%	5.3%
IL	43,903	1,933	4.4%	12,671,821	4.6%	3.5%
CA	42,934	1,694	3.9%	39,512,223	4.5%	3.1%
PA	41,165	1,669	4.1%	12,801,989	4.3%	3.1%
MI	37,778	3,315	8.8%	9,986,857	3.9%	6.1%
FL	31,528	1,073	3.4%	21,477,737	3.3%	2.0%
LA	26,773	1,729	6.5%	4,648,794	2.8%	3.2%
CT	25,269	1,924	7.6%	3,565,287	2.6%	3.5%

These are the numbers to date.  The Lethality is based only on those who have been tested as infected.  Recent studies indicate that the number of infections may be vastly larger than thought, dramatically reducing the lethality, likely below 1%.  Still, a lot of people are dead and this is a crisis in these states and extended lockdowns may be the needed remedy.  But Nebraska, Hawaii, and many other states are entirely justified in taking a different course.

  

Sanctuary Counties

In Virginia, 91 of the 96 counties have declared themselves to be 2nd Amendment sanctuaries.  How is it that the state passed a law that the overwhelming majority of counties oppose?  This is a case of urban centers attempting to enforce their preferences in rural areas.  The urban centers are far more populous than the rural areas and can swamp them with votes.  However, a law that may be appropriate for a densely populated city might be unworkable for a low density area.

It is funny that the party that celebrates sanctuary cities, counties, and states when the issue is illegal immigration is outraged when the same tactic is used for gun rights.  Why is it okay - even commendable - for California and Colorado to ignore Federal law as regards marijuana but it is wrong when that same tactic is used by 'the other side' to protect gun rights?  Either we live by the laws that are passed or we have localities nullify laws they don't like.  Pick one and be consistent.

As a fan of federalism, my preference is for localities to govern themselves.  Cities should not be allowed to strong arm rural areas because they have more votes in the legislature.  This is resolved at the federal level with the bicameral legislature but is meaningless at the state level thanks to a Reynolds v. Sims, which negated the point of bicameralism.

Self-Defense Right vs. Property Rights

I am ambivalent on this proposed Florida bill.  On the one hand, if a business owner is going to deny patrons the right to defend themselves should the need arise, then those business owners should be liable should the worst happens.  If Bob left his handgun in his car when he went to dinner at Pasta House only to then be shot by crazed shooter George, Bob has a good reason to be upset with Pasta House.  Should Pasta House guarantee the safety of its clients if it implements a no gun policy?  On the other hand, Bob was perfectly free to go across the way to the Linguini Palace that allows guns.  Pasta House believes that a no gun policy will drum up more business and has every right to limit who or what comes on the premises.

 

I would lean toward the first view.  The likely result would be a no gun insurance policy market arising with an amazingly low premium.  As the policy would only have to pay when a disarmed gun owner - who was licensed for concealed carry - was injured or killed in a manner where being armed may have prevented it.  Such a situation is going to be extremely rare.  By requiring the business to take responsibility for its clients' safety, the government both supports citizen self-defense rights and the private property owner still has the right to restrict guns.

 

At the very least, it would be useful to see how such a policy works in one state.  If it is a catastrophe, Florida can repeal it and other states can learn from the mess.  If it proves to be a great success, other states can learn from that too.  Federalism allows for such experimentation.

 

Of note, do the proponents of the law have a case where a gun owner was injured or killed in an attack at a business that restricted guns?  I would think that is a miniscule number and that this law is more of a virtue signaling effort.

Unrepresentative Capitol

Hillary Clinton won 48.01% of the popular vote while Trump won 47.03%.  Clearly, the country is pretty evenly divided.  However, the capitol city, Washington DC, voted 92.8% for Hillary and 4.1% for Trump.  This is the place where the representatives of the country come to make policy and yet it is overwhelmingly biased in favor of one party.  That cannot be healthy for a democracy or a republic.  An evenly divided nation is ruled by a city that has clearly chosen one side over the other.  Of course, as the seat of government, it is only to be expected that government employees would be in favor of government.  One party is far more pro-government than the other.  This bias is inherent and cannot be changed.  However, the impact can be diminished by limiting the authority, size, and reach of government.  Limited government?  Where have I heard that?

Dissolve the Political Bands

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another... they should declare the causes which impel them to separation.

Declaration of Independence

 

In the wake of Trump's victory, some in California are calling for the Calexit.  Here in Texas, there had been calls for a Texit during the Brexit campaign.  These secession movements are a sign of rising tyranny from a central government.  The states believe that the central government is going to impose laws and/or taxes upon them that they do not want.  Secession is a perfectly valid solution and I applauded the Brexit.

 

However, another solution would be to diminish the power of the central government in matters that can be managed by the state.  That is called federalism.  If California wants to have boys in the girls' room, there is no need for the federal government to impose that rule on Montana too.  Let Montana decide.  If Massachusetts wants a mandatory universal healthcare system called Romneycare, fine by me.  But don't impose it on all the other states and call it the Affordable Care Act.  If Texas wants everyone to wear a gun in public, don't force that on New York too.  The federal government is suppose to limit itself to interaction among the states (e.g. prevent a trade war between North and South Dakota) and foreign policy.  Most of the money that the federal government currently spends is not authorized by the Constitution.

 

The United States was formed from a secession movement that we now call the American Revolution.  The British Empire felt that the colonies were not paying their 'fair share' for the recently concluded French & Indian War while the colonials were incensed that they would be taxed by a far off parliament in which they had no representation.  The secession movement was successful and we celebrate it annually.

 

A little over four score years later, some of those colonies - now states in the resulting union - decided to secede.  Some in the North were perfectly happy to let the South and its dreadful institution of slavery be cast off from the nation.  Many were not.  In this case, secession was an effort to redraw city limits so the police didn't have jurisdiction over the crimes being committed.  This secession movement was unsuccessful.  Antonin Scalia held that the Civil War determined the Constitutionality of secession but I disagree.

 

Either events allow people to dissolve political bands or they do not.  In the case of the Revolution, they did.  In the case of the Civil War, they did not.  Secession movements are healthy and send important signals to the central government to hold a loose rein.  As Princess Leia noted, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

 

The government which governs least, governs best.  By Thomas Jefferson's standard, we have very bad government, the kind of government from which states would rationally want to secede.  Will the government loosen its grip or will secession movements gain steam?  I far prefer the former but, should that grip tighten, would wholeheartedly support the latter.

Brexit

Why is the Brexit bad?  I have heard a lot about the British people being stupider than Republican primary voters who chose Trump as the nominee.  Gee, let's insult vast swathes of people.  But if one opposes Brexit, shouldn't one also have preferred for the United States not to declare independence from England back in 1776?  The UK has morphed into a client state of a legalistic European empire based in various parts of the continent.  A once powerful nation, the guarantor of the Pax Britannica, had been reduced to an administrative district in the European Union.  It's like being demoted from CEO to middle management.  Who wants that?

 

Unlike many continental powers, the UK has lots of options for trading partners in the Anglosphere, many of whom are part of the British Commonwealth.  Moreover, much as the EU may be miffed by this mini-rebellion, it needs access to the British markets.  As Daniel Hannan has said, the UK has merely repatriated sovereignty to the UK.  Rather than merely have a representation in the European Empire, the UK assumes captaincy of its fate.  Nelson and Wellington would approve.

 

I admit some bias here.  As a big fan of Federalism, I have a default position against all centralization of authority and almost always favor more power for localities.  If the city can't do it, then look to the county.  If the county can't do it, look to the state.  If the state can't do it, then - and only then - look to the national government.  Will that result in a variety of standards?  Yes, but they will be standards that the local peoples have chosen for themselves rather than had imposed upon them from a distant potentate.  The Brexit is a move toward more local control, which is a good thing.

President comes out of the Closet

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”

Barack Obama, 1996

It is interesting how this quote has suddenly arisen.  Where was it in 2008 when Senator Obama was declaring his belief that marriage was between one man and one woman?  Clearly, he has always been in favor of gay marriage but he didn't think it would play well on the national stage.  Best to keep that under his golf hat and instead offer his gay supporters the bone of repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Of course, as most lobbies do, they agreed that was great but then asked what have you done for us lately?  Campaign cash was being log-jammed by his failure to come out and reassert his 1996 position.

Thus, the President evolved back (devolved?) to a previously held position.  And suddenly the cash started flowing.  Hmm.  I recall the constant complaints that Bush and Cheney were in the pockets of Big Oil.  Does the same apply to Obama?  This seems like a pretty clear quid pro quo.

Politically, I am curious about the decision.  Blacks are probably the most unsympathetic group to gay marriage and they are also Obama's most loyal voting block.  Though I doubt it will impact the percentage of this voting block he wins, I suspect he has just suppressed the turnout.  Secondly, the day after North Carolina adopts an amendment defining marriage as one man one woman, Obama comes out for the other side.  Why not announce a few days earlier and perhaps alter an outcome he clearly opposes?  Third, Obama can't wait to consolidate more and more power in Washington DC, but on this one issue, he is a Federalist.  Yes, he thinks states should decide.  Perhaps he read my recent blog on Federalism.

Let's look at the states.  Every state that has put the vote to the people has failed to adopt gay marriage.  Where it has succeeded is in State Supreme Courts like Massachusetts; the justices there discovered that John Adams had provided for Gay Marriage when he penned the state constitution in 1780.  No judicial activism there.  More than 30 states have amended their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage and thus constrain such judicial shenanigans.  42 states define marriage as one man one woman.  Federalism has been hard on Obama's evolved position.

This was about getting campaign cash in exchange for words that are not backed by action.  However, Obama better be wary.  In a few months, his backers might declare that his coming out for gay marriage was great but what have you done for us lately?

Federalism makes more Happy Citizens

I have many times argued that most domestic governing should be done at the state level rather than the federal level.  Some say it is better to do it at the federal level on the basis of efficiency and uniformity but that is exactly why it shouldn’t be done at that level.  Federalism allows good ideas to spread and bad ones to be abandoned since it is easy to compare results of policies from state to state.  A federal policy can be compared with nothing.  Opponents can forever argue it was bad policy but provide no solid proof while proponents can claim the policy is excellent without fear of contradictory results.

For simplicity, let us consider the United States of Alpha & Beta.  There are only two states, each of which has a population of 1 million.  70% of the population of Alpha is in favor of banning English Muffins.  Beta only has 35% of its population favoring such a ban.  Senator Able of the great state of Alpha proposes legislation to ban English Muffins.  700 thousand people from Alpha are for it while 350 thousand from Beta are in favor.  That makes a narrow majority of 1 million 50 thousand vs. 950 thousand.  The bill passes and the President signs it into law.  The result is that almost half the nation is unhappy with the English Muffin ban.

Let us try that again on a state level.  Assemblyman Anderson proposes a state ban on English Muffins in Alpha.  The populace is overwhelmingly in favor and the bill is soon signed into law by the governor.  Now, 700 thousand citizens of Alpha are pleased with the ban while 650 thousand citizens of Beta can continue to eat English Muffins.  Thus, 1 million 350 thousand citizens are happy.  And those who feel strongly one way or the other on the ban have someplace more to their liking.  This is a very important factor.  If Alpha discovers that a large number of its citizens flee to Beta on account of the muffin policy, the state might consider a repeal of the ban.

The states are meant to be laboratories.  A federal policy that covers all states makes such impossible.  Even if a federal policy was a truly brilliant and wonderful idea, the states would have adopted it one by one as they saw great results in neighboring states.  However, bad or wasteful national policies (e.g. the Mohair Subsidy) are unlikely to be repealed.  Or, to take a recent example, Obamacare is opposed by 26 states.  Why not let each of those 24 not opposed adopt a healthcare system rather than inflict an untested national solution on all 50.  If one of those 24 achieves brilliance, the other states can follow its success.  If the results are disastrous, the other 26 might be vindicated in their opposition.

A policy that might please most New Yorkers could infuriate a majority of Texans or vice versa.  Gambling is legal in some states and not in others.  Even prostitution is legal in one state but the others have not found it worth emulating.  Massachusetts has a healthcare law which has not been sufficiently successful to win converts from other states.  Therefore, is it not best for each state to see to its own populace and the federal government to concern itself merely with comity among the states?  That was the intent of the constitution.

Obamacare and the 17th Amendment

When the Constitution was written, the Founders decided to have a bicameral legislature. The House of Representatives was to be the People’s House, the number of members determined by population. The Senate was to give equal representation to each state, thus every state received 2 senators.

Senators were selected by the state legislatures, making them wholly answerable to those same legislatures for re-election. State legislators took a dim view of Senators transferring power from the state (them) to the federal government (someone else in a distant capitol). The 17th Amendment to the Constitution upended that balance. The Senate became a second People’s House with fewer members and a lower turnover rate. The state governments now had no representation in the federal government.

That brings us to Obamacare. Currently, 26 states are suing the federal government over a variety of issues with the health care overhaul and have requested the Supreme Court to overturn it. Those 26 states have 52 senators, not only more than the 40 needed to stop legislation but a majority of the senate. And yet Obamacare passed with 60 votes. Prior to 17th Amendment, the health care overhaul could not have passed with so much opposition from the state governments.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, there has been a steady transfer of power from the states to the federal government. Oddly enough, senators owe no allegiance to the governor or legislators of their state. It is a hard sell to say ‘I prevented the federal government from taking power from our great state and will continue to gum up the federal works if re-elected.’ It is much easier to say ‘I brought billions of federal dollars to our state and I’ll bring back even more if re-elected.’

Few things would do more to restore federalism and representative republicanism than to repeal the 17th Amendment. The federal government would have a much tougher time inflicting unfunded mandates on the states; there are more than 150 such mandates.