The Tenther "War On Drugs."

Kurt Schlichter has a piece over at townhall.com about building a "bite me" coalition.  I recommend you go read it.

But it got me thinking: what he's really talking about is a Tenther coalition.  Shrink the Federal Government.  Let the States decide for themselves.  Let the People decide for themselves.  It's a highly Libertarian Tenther coalition, to be sure, since it's focusing on even shrinking State and Local governments, but I could get behind that.

However, whenever we start talking Libertarian policies, we inevitably talk about "the war on drugs."  And, inevitably, someone suggests "just letting the States decide."

As a Dedicated Tenther, I think I need to address some points here- and they're applicable across the Tenther movement.

1) There is a role for the Federal Government.
Advocating for small and limited Federal Government is not the same as advocating for no Federal Government.  The Articles of Confederation were scrapped for a reason.  The EU, which is built on an even shakier confederation, is reeling from one crisis to the next.  A strong Federal Government is necessary for many things.

2) The States' powers and privileges are not sacrosanct.
This is a corollary to number 1.  Wherever the State's powers and privileges conflict with the Federal Government's, the States must take second place.  If they don't, we're back to that whole "Articles of Confederation" thing.  That didn't work out so well.

3) The Default must be Personal Rights
It's easy to get caught up in the Tenth Amendment as being empowering to the States, but the 9th and 10th amendments were designed to be empowering to The People.  The People were supposed to have more control over their specific states, so granting greater rights to the State was supposed to be safer.  I point to Colorado and New York for how that's going.  We must remember that the Power rests with the People; it is delegated to the States and then to the Federal Government.

With those in mind, along with the common knowledge of the 10th Amendment, I propose a Tenther's view of drug policy.

1) Federal drug policy should be as permissive as possible.  Allow it to be imported, place an import duty on it, require it to meet certain standards, etc.  It's getting in anyway, and this would lessen the strength of the black market (though not the strength of the drug growers).

2) State drug policy can be as restrictive as that State wants.  Full legalization for California?  Go for it.  Completely illegal to posses, transport, or sell in Oklahoma?  Sure. 

3) Personal responsibility must be paramount.  If you can't get a job because you're a drug addict, that's not my problem.  Not one dime from the public treasury should be spent on you.  Got high and killed someone in a car wreck?  I'm sorry, "being high" is no longer a mitigating circumstance, it will now (by law, if I had my way) be an exacerbating one.  Sharing needles so you caught some horrible disease?  Sucks to be you, my friend. (For the record, this is how I feel about alcohol and tobacco as well)

Sometimes I'm Just Not Cynical Enough

Just two days ago, I said this:

     4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

You know, someone more cynical than me might point out that the AG would now have the power, at least arguably, to put any member of one of the groups designated by the Secretary of Homeland Security as being a "dangerous person."  So, congratulations, military vets, religious conservatives, and members of gun clubs.  You may no longer be able to purchase firearms.

Yesterday (I just found it today), the Washington Times had this:

The West Point center typically focuses reports on al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists attempting to gain power in Asia, the Middle East and Africa through violence.

But its latest study turns inward and paints a broad brush of people it considers “far right.”

It says anti-federalists “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights. Finally, they support civil activism, individual freedoms, and self government. Extremists in the anti-federalist movement direct most their violence against the federal government and its proxies in law enforcement.”

So there you have it.  Now, simply believing in the Federalist (I love how they have Newspeak-ized the term "anti-Federalist" to mean "anti-Nationalist") system, and that the Federal Government might maybe be overstepping its bounds a little bit makes you a dangerous and violent criminal.

Yay us.

Now, I could go on and on about how there have been no- repeat that: no- violence from "far right groups" in America that I can recall in my life time.  In fact, all of the politically motivated violence I can recall has been from the Left side of the aisle.  Jared Laughner, anyone?  How about that Marx quoting maniac who flew his plane into a building in Austin?

I could, but I won't, because it doesn't matter.  What does matter is that a branch of the US Department of Defense just called everyone who believes in the Federalist system, individual liberty, and self-governance a potential terrorist.  In light of the SCOAMT's Imperial Proclamation above, that seems pretty scary to this "anti-Federalist."

(And, no, the irony of Tenthers being called "anti-Federalist" is not lost on me).

Let it Burn.

On Federalism and Taxation

I haven't posted much "Tenther" stuff in a while.  Rather than swelling on last night's debacle or the coming DOOM, maybe it's time to start talking Conservative Philosophy again.

Today's installment: Federalism and Taxation.

When United States Constitution was being written, this was a highly contested issue.  Three of the Federalist Papers (30, 31, and 32) are devoted precisely to this subject: specifically why that power must be granted to the Federal Government.

Cast through this lens, it behooves us to ask what Federalism says about taxation.  Specifically, where should that power lie, and to way extent?

The argument of the Federalists was that the scope of a power must be equal to the scope of the object of that power, and that if the object of a power was unlimited in scope, then the power must be unlimited (but not infinite- I'll come back to this).  Put more concretely, the "object" in this case is the functioning of the government in times of war as well as times of peace.  Since there can be no knowable limit on the scope of a war, then the power to Tax must also be unlimited.

Now, this does not mean, as I said, that the power should infinite.  The limit to which they were primarily referring was the idea that the Federal Government would not be able to  issue taxes at all, or would only be able to tax foreign trade (imports and exports).  Their argument was that the Federal Government must be able to levy taxes within the Union itself.

The Papers list a variety of reasons for this, but ultimately they come down to a question of trust and practicality.  If a war were to occur, loans would be necessary to pay for it.  However, the nation would probably already be in debt.  If the Federal Government could not levy taxes, then it would be dependent upon the States for that tax revenue.  Now, ask any banker, but I'm pretty sure giving a loan to someone who says, "Oh, yeah, and that other guy will pay you back" is not going to happen.

That's an ultra-simplified version of the problem, but it should suffice.

On the other end, though, were those who were afraid that the Federal Government would so tax the people that the opposite would be true- instead of the Federal Government being dependent upon the States for funds to operate, the States would depend on the Federal Government.

The Federalists' answer to that objection was to point to the separation of powers- specifically that the State Governments were supposed to be sovereign in their own territories, and that the Senate would exist specifically as the States' voice in the Federal Government.  They believed, as do modern Tenthers, that the States would act in their own best (even selfish) interests and thus limit the taxation levied by the Federal Government.

What they did not foresee were the 16th and 17th Amendments.  The 16th basically voids part of the original constitution by allowing the Congress to lay a direct tax (in this case, on income) without regards to any apportionment or census (that is, it expressly gave Congress the ability to rob Peter to pay Paul).

That would be bad enough, but might have been limited if the States had been allowed to keep their seat at the negotiating table.  Instead, the 17th Amendment robbed them of that place.  The 17th Amendment turned Senators from representatives of the States into additional representatives of the People.  But the People already had a seat at the negotiating table- the House of Representatives.

If you want to think of them this way, the 16th and 17th Amendments are diametrically opposed to the 9th and 10th Amendments.  Where the 9th and 10th Amendments are the Federalism Amendments, the 16th and 17th are the Tyranny Amendments.

If Taxation must lie with the Federal Government, then it cannot be a direct tax.  If taxation must be a direct tax, then it cannot lie with the Federal Government.  To have a direct tax that is administered by the Federal Government is a poison pill which will eventually destroy the Federalist nature of the Union.

It already is.  Maybe it already has.

Mitt Romney: Tenther?

In last night's presidential debate, Mitt Romney seemed like a full-on Tenther.  Who'd have thought I'd ever type that?  But, nevertheless, it's there:

On helping the Middle Class:

"But the president mentioned a couple of other ideas I'll just note. First, education. I agree: Education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we've got 47 of them, housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We've got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to get in the training they need for jobs that will really help them."

On ObamaCare:

"The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation and whisking aside the 10th Amendment, which gives states the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America to have a stronger, more vibrant economy."

On the Role of Government:

"But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we're seeing right now is, in my view, a -- a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working."

On Education:

"Well, the primary responsibility for education is -- is, of course, at the state and local level."

And back on Health Care:

"We'll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured and we'll focus on getting the cost of health care down."

This is not the Mitt Romney I expected.

Don't get me wrong.  He was saying the same things to Republicans during the Primaries, and I acknowledge that (however grudgingly).  But two things there: one, when talking about the role of the Federal Government versus the States during the primaries, it was where he seemed least comfortable.  I don't know if it's because of practice, or just in comparison, but last night he seemed very comfortable and sure of what he was saying.  Second, in the Primaries, he was running for Republicans- it's just the thing you say to Republicans if you want to win the Primary. 

Last night, he could have let off the gas on the Federalism talk.  He didn't have to talk about "the primary responsibility for education" being "at the state and local level."  He could have simply acknowledged that the Federal Government can't do it alone, or some-such.  That would have been "good enough" for many republicans, and would have been nice and safe for the moderates.  He didn't have to mention the 10th Amendment explicitly, but he did.  Many Americans don't even know what the 10th Amendment is. 

Perhaps the most telling thing, because this is forgotten even by some Tenthers, is that he mentioned the People's rights.  Let's look at the 10th again:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now let's look at what Romney said about the roll of government: "...what we're seeing right now is ... a trickle-down government approach, which has the government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams."

Mitt Romney obviously gets it much better than I thought.  Again, anyone could say these things, but to say them as smoothly and surely as he did?  When he had, in essence, two debate opponents?  To do that, he has to believe it- at least at some level.

Whether he knows it or not, Mitt Romney is a Tenther.