Weekly Quiz: Test Yourself on this Week’s Events

The weekly quiz is now live in Mypoliscilab. Good luck!

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion on Same Sex Marriage

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review two cases dealing with same sex marriage. Some observers believe this move might result in a decision that will affect gay rights nation-wide. What do you think?

The Colbert Report: Obamacare & the Broccoli Argument

The Tool of Taxation

Old hammer during reconstruction of the building in Pleszew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In graduate school a professor of mine often referred to the “toolbox of government.”  The characterization must have resonated with me because I still use it in my own classes almost fifteen years later.  Of course he was referring to the variety of actions that governments at all levels have at their disposal to implement and otherwise enforce public policy.  For our purposes we can narrow the contents of the “toolbox” down to the bare minimum:

• The power of government to deprive a person of liberty (think incarceration and in the most extreme form, the death penalty)—the hammer.
• The power of government to deprive a person of property (think real property and money)—the hammer.

Confused?  Don’t be.  Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) is credited with expressing the position that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  In this regard the power to tax is the power to punish those who violate the law, ignore regulations, or otherwise challenge the general welfare—the hammer.  The power to tax citizens and residents, businesses, corporations, is generally available to most governments—from Congress to your local water district.  Check your text books, one of the first concurrent or shared powers listed is the power to tax.  Moreover, taxes are ubiquitous—fees: taxes; assessments: taxes; dues: taxes; levies: taxes; taxes: taxes.  The power to tax is the power of government to deprive.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) , much will be made of the taxation aspect of the now upheld health care reform package—especially the individual mandate, which requires people capable of paying for health insurance to do so or risk a penalty (tax).  What do you think, is it the most intrusive tax ever devised by government (in this case by democrats)?  Is it a new tax?  Is it a tax increase (even though it only applies to people who don’t buy their own health insurance—and wouldn’t we otherwise call these people free-riders or equate them to people who don’t buy car insurance and drive up all of our rates)?  With all the hammers we get hit with every day, is this the one we’re really going to object to?  Ouch!  I know how to fix it; where’s my hammer?!

–DENNIS FALCON

Get Ready for Several Weeks of Useless Analysis

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render its ruling on the constitutionality of Obama Care. However, the media coverage of the ruling and the resulting political fallout will be the same. Regardless of the ruling, both republicans and democrats will try to spin the Supreme Court’s ruling in a way that benefits their side. Meanwhile, the news media will overflow with coverage concerning the political impact of the ruling, but will ultimately fail to explain the ruling divorced from the typical horse-race coverage.  Horse race refers to the news media’s focus on which candidate is up or down in the latest public opinion polls. My prediction is that the news media, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama Care, will bombard its audience with poll numbers for the next several days along with a bloviated analysis of said poll numbers with a pretentious and misguided sense of accomplishment for delivering what they consider to be the news. Get ready for several weeks of useless analysis and blatant political spin.

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Due Process and the American Creed

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson writing the Declaration of independence (1776) were all of British descent. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution include references to due process any time a person is in jeopardy of life and property.  While the Amendments themselves do not specifically define what due process is, the Constitution itself provides elements of due process as have subsequent court decisions through the years.  For example, the right to know what one is charged with in all criminal matters is in the Bill of Rights, as are the rights to a public trial and the right to cross-examine witnesses who testify against you.  Any legal proceeding in the United States that fails to uphold these protections is not living up to the protections we claim to value so highly.

A former U.S. Senator is currently fighting for his freedom, as is a former Hall of Fame caliber baseball player.  All over America, people high and low are depending on due process to level the playing field, to diminish the power of Goliath, and to stand a chance when forces that want to destroy them are at play.  In some cases the guilty will go free; in others the innocent will be punished unjustly.  Regardless of the particulars, every American should take a solemn oath to protect and defend the tents of due process, just like the oath sworn by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence.

We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

What do you think?  Is due process something most Americans understand?  Can you identify how various elements of due process have been important in your life?  How important is due process to the American creed? As for me, I pledge my life, my Fortunes and my sacred Honor.

–DENNIS FALCON

Related articles

• Can the President Kill You? by Andrew P. Napolitano (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• Substantive Due Process News (volokh.com)

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion on the Affordable Care Act

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News Poll, a majority of Americans do not support the Affordable Care Act signed by President Obama two years ago. What do you think?

Anonymous Money and Campaign Financing

Abuses in the electoral processes associated with American democracy often result in the passage of legislation and regulations that are represented to the public as “reforms” that will correct the problems.  In fact, there is a relatively stable pattern of abuses, public outcry, and reform that many believe began in the early 1970s and continues to this day.  Specifically, campaign financing and the role of big money in the electoral process has been the focus of many such reform efforts.  Most recently, McCain-Feingold attempted to reign in “soft money” and issue ads—among other things—leading indirectly to the most significant change in American elections since sliced bread.  Just over two years ago the Supreme Court, in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission ruled, in essence, that corporations had the same rights as individuals to spend their own money as a form of free speech protected by the First Amendment.  Alas, we have witnessed the birth of the latest round of abuses and reforms that will dominate the money and politics debate for the next ten years (if we last that long).

The “baby,” the Super PAC, is the instrument being used by big money to influence the outcome of the 2012 federal election cycle.  Donors are giving money to non-profit corporations that have been established to serve some basic cause, which in turn are collecting and funneling money to Super PACs that have been created to promote particular candidates.  Because the donations are going directly to non-profit corporations donors do not have to be identified to the media or federal campaign finance regulators.  In other words, anonymous money, the complete and absolute opposite of transparency and reform has found a welcome and protected place in American electoral politics.  Any attempt to sell this as good for America can only be judged for what it is, the outright abandonment of one-person one-vote in the United States and the ascendency of government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.  To claim as some have that there has always been a place for secrecy and privacy in American politics, citing examples such as the secret ballot and the use of aliases by the authors of the Federalist Papers can only be characterized as the most shameful sophistry.  How’s this for an example of anonymity, wearing a white hood and sheet to protect my right to privacy?  Why not, seems there are no limits after all.

What do you think?  Is there any way to keep money from corrupting the political process?  Is money an integral and unavoidable feature of democracy  in the United States?

–DENNIS FALCON

The Constitutional Right to Plea Bargain?

In the Fall of 2011 the Supreme Court will be looking at the right of defendants to plea bargain.  Plea bargaining accounts for the resolution of the vast majority of criminal cases brought in the United States.  A typical plea bargain involves a criminal defendant’s pleading guilty to an agreeable offense or offenses—escaping more serious charges that usually carry much stronger penalties.  The benefits for the defendant are obvious; the benefits for the prosecution are also.  Criminal trials and the investigations that can precede them can be very expensive affairs.  In many cases, the prosecution may have substantial evidence, making a conviction likely.  However, criminal jury trials are notoriously unpredictable.  Rather than risk an acquittal or a hung jury, plea bargains guarantee that a defendant will be adjudicated as guilty.

In the two cases coming before the Court individuals are alleging that they were denied their Constitutional Rights to due process, a fair trial, and the assistance of counsel.  Each case presents a different aspect of the practice of plea bargaining, but each case has been reached the level of Supreme Court review, suggesting that the constitutional issues are important.  Based on what you know, does the Constitution specifically provide for plea bargaining?  If not—if plea bargaining is not a fundamental right but is just a practice that has developed as a matter of practicality—what do you believe the Court may rule on the matter?  More importantly, what are the possible ripple effects that might follow the possible rulings in these cases?  If the Court rules that plea bargaining is a Constitutional right, will courts in all fifty states be expected to meet new national standards related to the practice of plea bargaining?  If the Court rules that plea bargaining is not a constitutional right will law enforcement agencies and courts around the country become more aggressive in their practice of plea bargaining?  The criminal justice system in the United States is one of the most strained of all national and state institutions.  The Court’s ruling in these and other cases can have a significant impact on how prosecutors and defendants relate for years to come.

–DENNIS FALCON

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion On Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart Decision

Recently the Supreme Court dismissed the discrimination class action case brought against Wal-Mart by 1.5 million past and current women workers at Wal-Mart. Some believe the Court’s decision dealt a brutal blow to women workers in support of capitalist offensive against workers. What do you think?