Don’t Run for Federal Office, Tenthers. It’s a Trap!

We might be losing another good man to the federal beast.

South Carolina state Senator Lee Bright has decided to primary Lindsey Graham next year in an attempt to throw the notorious liberty hater out of government once and for all.

Certainly, Bright would be an improvement over his predecessor, assuming he can unseat the incumbent. Sen. Lindsey Graham is perhaps the biggest enemy of the Bill of Rights in the Senate. Even in the Congressional cesspool, he stands out as especially verminous. Bright would represent the people of South Carolina better than Graham ever could, and he’s off to a good start calling Graham a ‘community organizer for the Muslim brotherhood’ in one of his first interviews as a candidate. Superficially, there is a lot here for a liberty activist to like.

But upon closer review, Bright is making a mistake. Liberty is not going to be reclaimed by winning a federal election. If he pulls off the upset and wins, Bright will join a small handful of senators who talk tough against big government. Like Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, he can raise a big stink and draw attention to the corruption going on within the federal government, but he will likely be very ineffectual in restoring our constitutional rights. Conversely, staying  put as a state senator, he could actually be effective in reclaiming liberty for South Carolinians by nullifying federal laws.

Details

The Cost of Third Parties and the Founder’s Economic System

Recently, Harry Reid, said “We must work past medical insurance, to a one payer system.”

Well I agree with him, (for once). But my one payer system is this – individuals responsible for their own healthcare.

We need to get back to pay for your services healthcare.  We need to have the third party control over our healthcare removed.  This includes the government, insurance companies and employers.

With all of these out of the way, the cost of healthcare will be subject to the marketplace, and this will allow healthcare costs to drop.  This is because the individual consumer of healthcare will now be courted by healthcare providers.  And we all know, if a business wants to attract customers, they offer a better quality product at better prices than competitors.  Costs go down and better quality services and products result.

The disconnect between patient and medical cost is what has allowed those costs to soar far beyond the pocketbook of most people.  The evolution to a system of third party payers created a situation where developers do not need to concern themselves with a product that will serve many.  They can go out and create all sorts of expensive abstract medical equipment without having to worry about whether there is a need.  All that research and development is expensive, and since there isn’t a consumer for the pie in the sky products, the cost is spread over all the other products the company offers.  I am not bashing big industry here. It is reasonable that they must cover their costs in some way.  However, in a free marketplace where they need to focus on lowering costs to attract users to their products, they will more likely choose an item that will have more usefulness.

Those of you who read history, might recall that there was a time when an injury or illness that required a doctor might include bartering for the doctor’s services.  Chickens, milk, corn, a quilt or even a return service would settle the bill.  Well, you might say things are so much more expensive now; you can’t do that. But I am hearing of local physician groups offering outside of insurance, healthcare.  Depending upon the area you live, the costs vary.  Your costs could be $100/month for entire family.  When you need the services of the doctor, you just call for an appointment.  I have heard in some other areas, its $10/month for a person.

Details

Stop and Frisk: No Feds Needed.

Recently a Federal Judge, Shira Scheindlin, declared the New York City Police departments “Stop and Frisk” procedure Un-Constitutional and called for a federal monitor to watch over the police department to ensure Police Officers are in compliance with the constitution.

This happened without a peep of protest from any New York State elected official, Judge or lawyer.

You would think that Governor Cuomo would be at the fore of the angry protest against Federal intrusion into what is clearly a State Police power. Where does Justice Scheindlin believe her authority to rule on this matter come from? Not the United States Constitution.

The “Stop and Frisk” procedure is clearly un-Constitutional, however, it is the New York State Constitution that matters.

Details

Where is the Power to Suspend Habeas Corpus?

The Constitution’s Suspension Clause (Art. I, Section 9, cl. 2) limits when the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended. But the Constitution doesn’t seem to grant the federal government power to suspend the writ in the first place. Why not? And why limit a power never given?

In an Aug. 17 Wall Street Journal piece, constitutional law professor Nicholas Quinn Rosenkrantz infers that Congress has the sole suspension authority from the structure of the constitutional text. He writes:

“Since the Suspension Clause appears in Article I of the Constitution, which is predominately about the powers of Congress, there is a strong argument that only Congress can suspend the habeas writ.”

He concludes that when President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ, he probably intruded on Congress’s prerogative, and thereby exceeded his constitutional authority. (Professor Rosenkrantz also gives Lincoln credit for trying to cure the constitutional defect.)

Details