Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Version 4.0

The Supreme Court, like every other branch of government, has become the playground of special interests. These interests are reflected in their decisions, and in their departure from the Constitutional principles is evident in their arguments as well. The discussion below is intended to help people think about the role of the Supreme Court in a principled way, rather than as a group to which they can appeal to achieve personal benefits or impose moral views on others through their decisions.

The Purpose of Government is the Happiness of the People

James Madison

When the U.S. Founders established the Constitution, their goal was to establish the best system for all people to pursue happiness. In Federalist 62, Madison stated:

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities. Most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert that in the American governments, too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in what increases the security for the first.

The Declaration of Independence is the Mission Statement of the United States. The Constitution is the legal structure designed to achieve it, and the Federalist Papers are the best explanation of the principles behind it.

The recent Supreme Court decisions on Arizona’s enforcement of illegal immigration and “The Affordable Health Care Act” show little knowledge of the means by which that object can best be attained because they retained a more myopic focus on justifying positions based on legal precedent and popular culture rather than the principles of sound governance that concerned the Founders.

The Supreme Court Reflects Political Factions

Continue reading →

An image based on fear not science

Rio+20

June 20-22, 2012 will be the dates for a big conference on the environment called Rio+20. It will be held in Rio de Janiero. Before then, and during the event, we will hear many arguments about climate change and why we need a green economy. The climate is always changing, and I believe in the value of science, living sustainably, and thinking “green.” However, I have yet to be convinced that what the United Nations has told us is based on good science or that UN agencies really have the ability to “care” for the environment and, if they did have the ability, they would be the right authority to enact taxes because of conflicts of interest. And, further I have come to be suspicious of the motives of any government or corporate official that uses the logic of fear to garner support that will increase his or her wealth or power.

The Cause and Solution to Sea-Level Rise

Unscientific linear logic

As a case in point, lets look at the issue of sea level rise. In the climate change debate there is much discussion of the rise of oceans as a result of glacial melt. Glacial melt, the argument goes, is a result of global warming; and global temperature rise is caused by the human activity that causes greenhouse gases; and greenhouse gases are created by carbon emissions, such as from burning  fossil fuels.The solution, it is argued, is to have a global authority tax the use of carbon fuels and take the money to create sustainable environment programs. Continue reading →

The purpose of a constitution is to regulate the flow of power, not to pass laws

In recent years, particularly in the state of Minnesota, constitutional amendments have become viewed as an alternative method of passing legislation when it is threatened with an executive veto. Such amendments get placed on the ballot by the legislature for a voter referendum. If passed, they become law with any action by the governor. The problem is that the purpose of a Constitution is to establish the parameters and machinery of government, including how legislation gets passed, and rights of citizens that must be protected—not as the vehicle for passage of individual laws.

The purpose of a constitution is not an alternative place to enact taxes or laws relating to the specific goals of political factions or interest groups. That is the purpose of the legislature, and a governor’s veto is an established check on the power of the legislature designed to ensure that bills serve the interest of all parties before getting signed. If a bill cannot get enough votes to override a governor’s veto it should be killed. Our founders did not intend contentious issues that had a simple majority to be an adequate form of government as it does not protect the people from what they called “mobocracy.” Continue reading →

Newsweek, September 21, 2009

We all knew that the Affordable Health Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, would lead to lead to rationing. Shortly after Barack Obama became President, he and Nancy Pelosi began promoting such reforms–to redistribute a shrinking pie more equitably. Instead of doctors and patients, or even insurance companies, deciding who would receive medical care, when they would receive it, and how much they would receive, there will now be 160 panels of bureaucrats whose primary mission is to reduce health care costs to the government.

As 2014 approaches, what Sarah Palin called “death panels” are starting to take shape. In this recorded interview with Mark Levin, Jeff, a neurosurgeon, describes what it will mean for his profession.

“If someone over 70 years old has a bleed on the brain in the middle of the night, I have to wait for a panel in Washington to tell me whether I can operate…. I’ve been 9 years in medical school and 10 years in training and now I’ve got people who don’t know a thing about what I am doing telling me when I can or cannot operate.” Without special permission to operate, the new prescription for a bleed on the brain for people over 70 years of age will be “comfort care.” Such decisions will not be determined by a doctor’s evaluation of whether a surgery would provide the patient with many more years of a high quality life; they will be a death sentence.

Continue reading →