Federal Government

Guantonamo Prisoner’s Rights

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Economics Federal Government Libertarianism US Foreign Policy War on Terrorism on by

Steven Taylor gets it right with regard to US District Judge Green’s ruling that the Guantonamo Bay prisoners have constitutional protections:

While I am amenable to the argument that non-citizens may not have the same rights under the Constitution as citizens (depending on the exact circumstances), I do adhere to the notion that there are fundamental hunan rights, many of which are, in fact, detailed in the US Constitution. As a result I cannot abide by the concept that we have the right to indefinitely detain human beings who �might� be a threat. Either they are a threat or they are not, and there needs to be a legitimate process by which to determine that fact.
The issue to me is that there has to be some standard applied to these detainees, and since it seems we have been unable to construct a viable one, I am not sure the proper course isn�t the Constitution.

The key is that as human beings we all have certain fundamental rights. That some of them are detailed in the US Constitution does not restrict their application to only US citizens.

Dissent

This entry was posted in Constitution Domestic Terrorism Federal Government Libertarianism US History on by

Geof Stone, author of Perilous Times, is guest blogging at Lawrence Lessig’s place.
Start here:

Can we learn the lessons of history? Can we avoid repeating the mistakes of the past? Given the pressures and fears of war, can we discipline ourselves both as individuals and as a nation to respect civil liberties even in a time of war? And is it even sensible to talk seriously about civil liberties in wartime? What do you think?
Then go back to the main blog page to pick up subsequent entries.
What do I think? In brief: our servants shall not infringe on our freedom.
I am, though, going to follow this thread closely and may have more to say as it progresses. And, I added Stone’s book to my Amazon Wish List (I’ll probably buy it when I place my last xmas order).

Wine and Commerce

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Federal Government Libertarianism on by

Lynn Kiesling is a bit unhappy with Justice Souter. Her words to him: with all due respect, sir, bite me.
I second this.
The case argued before the Supremes yesterday has to do with interstate sale of wine, the commerce clause, and the 21st amendment. In the grand scheme of things this is pretty important stuff . Lynn’s post has links to additional informative material.
I do, though, hate to see so many bright folks wasting energy on issues that should not even be up for discussion. A much more interesting and valuable constitutional amendment than some of the others that have been floated recently would be something like:

federal, state and local governments may not interfere with commerce between or amongst individuals and associations of individuals. Federal, state, and local governments may provide services for the adjudication of disputes related to fraud, theft, or contractual disagreement. Adjudicants may, by mutual agreement, use alternate dispute resolution services.

And strike the commerce clause, the 21st amendment and anything else gets in the way of me, Lynn, or anyone else making consensual exchanges of whatever we want to exchange domestically or internationally.

Federalism?

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Drug Laws Federal Government Government Libertarianism on by

Jonah Goldberg thinks federalism is a good thing and rues the apparent abandonment of the concept by bush and other conservatives:

The virtue of a federalist, republican form of government is that the more you push these decisions down to the level where people actually have to live with their consequences, the more likely it is they will be a) involved and interested in the decision-making process, and b) happy with the result. Federalism is also morally superior because it requires the consent of the governed at the most basic level.
Goldberg, though, believes the “most basic level” is the individual state when, in fact, state level legislation exhibits the same problems as federal legislation, e.g., it can not properly take into account the local1 context and, as above, legislators at all levels are disconnected from the consequences of their decisions, their feedback loops are broken, the have likely been captured by moneyed interests, and their citizens are poorly served.
It is time for us, the citizens, to eliminate the federal, state, and, perhaps, city monopolies on creating law and implement federalism carried to a more appropriate level, a polycentric government structure.
Via Running Scared.
1At the level where human interactions take place.

LEAP

This entry was posted in Capitalism Constitution Drug Laws Federal Government Libertarianism on by

I haven’t thoroughly investigated Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) but their byline suggests that they have taken a step in the right direction:

Current and former members of law enforcement who support drug regulation rather than prohibition.

I’d rather see outright freedom but if we have to go through a regulatory stage on the way that is better then the current morass.
At first look this organization looks to be worth of support and they have a flyer you can print and hand out to your local law enforcement folks.
There is a lot of written material linked on their site and I’m sure I’ll have more to say as I read through it.
Via …muttered the ogre.