The First Union of the States, 1777-1788

Before the highly revered U.S. Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.  The current supreme law of the land didn’t come about until twelve years after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and five years after the end of the American Revolutionary War in 1783.  This Fourth of July, here’s to holding on to traditions while remembering we can always make things a little better!

A Simple Supreme Court Reform

Add one more justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, bringing the total to 10 justices.  This eliminates the so-called swing vote and the less-than-satisfying 5-4 decision.  With ten justices, the court can only move with a 6-4 majority and no single justice becomes unduely influential.  This fairly simple change, will subtly make the court’s involvement in setting the course of the nation that much more difficult.  In short, the court will have to want to set policy that much more.

Click here for an article on why some are upset by the swing vote.

Getting Control of the Speculators

Presidential aspirants, John McCain and Barack Obama, have been blaming high prices on those greedy, good-for-nothing oil speculators.  And they aren’t alone.  In fact, a lot of people are calling for more market speculator regulations.  This is the wrong attitude and Robert Samuelson of the linked article explains why:

From 2002 to 2007, oil rose 177 percent, corn 70 percent, copper 360 percent and aluminum 95 percent. But that’s just the point. Did “speculators” really cause all those increases? If so, why did some prices go up more than others? And what about steel? It rose 117 percent — and has increased further in 2008 — even though it isn’t traded on commodities futures markets.

…

Despite the U.S. slowdown, the world economy has boomed. Since 2002, annual growth has averaged 4.6 percent, the highest sustained rate since the 1960s, says economist Michael Mussa of the Peterson Institute.

…

In 1999, surplus world oil capacity totaled 5 million barrels a day (mbd) on global consumption of 76 mbd, reckons the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Now, the surplus is about 2 mbd — and much of that is high-sulfur oil not prized by refiners — on consumption of 86 mbd.

As Mr. Samuelson points out, a better explanation for high costs is basic supply and demand.  Politicians selling a story about how they can help (in this case by punishing the speculators as a scape-goat) are likely to only make things worse.  After all, look at ethanol.  As much as a third of this year’s U.S. corn crop could go to ethanol, thanks in part to government subsidies.  This is very much related to higher food prices.  Now, McCain and Obama are asking you to believe they will offer help with one hand while the other pilfers your cupboard.

Part of the Washington Establishment

A week ago during the Sunday service, my pastor asked those who had been living in Washington, D.C. for five or less years to stand up.  Looking around, I saw this was a majority and I was not amoung them.  My short stay this transient region seems to have dragged into something more permanent.

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a historic decision on the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Were they right? Should individuals or society in general get to keep and bear arms?

Here is a line of interpretive reasoning of my own (I do not know if this is any way related to other reasonings, including the recent decision):

• The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.“
• The entire amendment can be divided into four clauses (A, B, C and D, in order) at the commas.
• Each of the four clauses could probably be given various meanings and should be analyzed in a historical context to understand the meanings of the various words (for example: “Militia”, “free State” and “Arms). For simplicity, this discussion will try to use a fairly bland and ordinary meaning, that will hopefully not contradict any deeper historical meaning.
• Starting with the easiest clause, D - “shall not be infringed”, the meaning is fairly straight forward. Some “thing”, “right” or “entity” shall not be infringed or curtailed. To find out the subject of this clause, the other clauses must be analyzed.
• B - “being necessary to the security of a free State”, is the next easiest clause to ponder. This clause makes little sense if applied directly to the final clause D - “shall not be infringed”. This and the use of the word “being” suggest this clause is a descriptive clause of one or both of the other two remaining clauses.
• Therefore, either A or C or perhaps some combination of the two will provide the all important subject for what “shall not be infringed” (clause D).
• If A is the subject alone, then C is a descriptor of A. Likewise, if C is the subject alone, the A is a descriptor of C. Thus, it would seem that either alone or in combination the result is the same. A and C provide the subject (to clause D) by some relationship between the two (A and C). Please stay with me.
• This suggests then the subject as: A described by C, “A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”; or C described by A, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, A well regulated Militia”. But these two interpretations are nearly the same: “A well regulated Militia, being the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”; or “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, being A well regulated Militia”.
• Or put another way, “A well regulated Militia” is defined as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” or “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is called “A well regulated Militia”.
• Finally then, it could be said (choosing the order of words as they are written as a convention): “A well regulated Militia”, which has as an essential definition “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, “shall not be infringed”. In order for a well regulated Militia to exist or not be infringed, there also must exist people with the right to keep and bear Arms. To “keep and bear Arms”, there must be people that can own and use various weapons (a fairly ordinary meaning).

Wait a minute! This doesn’t answer the big question. You’ve nearly ignored clause B and glossed over the meaning of “the right of the people“. Does the phrase “the people” mean: all people together make decisions regarding bearing arms (collective view); or the each member of “the people” can make decisions on bearing arms (individual view)?

…To Be Continued (next installment)…

Speculative Markets vs. Speculative Government

Presidential hopeful Senator John McCain has often demonstrated a lack of market economy understanding. This is troubling. As John Stossel points out, McCain has criticized “oil speculators”, suggesting more “oversight” is needed. Yet, McCain has called for a $300 million prize for a scientist who could come up with a long-lasting car battery.

What’s the difference? Oil speculators are betting on future movements in the price of oil. Government sponsored prizes are betting on what future technology may or may not be a good idea (policy) to develop. Why should John McCain get to play around with predicting the future? At least, oil speculators are tied in some way to their own resources. The government is playing with other people’s money. Who is likely to be more invested in making the right decisions?

As John Stossel notes, speculators play a useful role in markets and ultimately in making sure products make it to those in need. If the government chooses incorrectly, who says “you messed up, you wasted our time and money on something that wasn’t the best course of action”? If speculators choose incorrectly, there are many voices in the market waiting to realign to the better option.

Corporations Aren’t Forever

Yesterday, U.S. Sugar and the state of Florida announced a huge deal whereby the state is essentially buying out U.S. Sugar. Thus, a 75 year corporation is wrapping up business. As circumstances change, it should be completely natural for owners/investors to evaluate their current positions and redistribute them if necessary. In short, the owners of U.S. Sugar must surely think there are better ways to invest their resources than in the Florida sugar industry. Corporations aren’t forever and should come and go as needed.

Obama: Private Funds Over Public Financing

Today, Senator Barack Obama has declared he won’t accept public financing for for the U.S. Presidential election:

Obama told supporters in an e-mail message Thursday that he would not accept about $85 million in public funds when he becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.

In the e-mail, Obama said the public campaign financing system allowed “special interests [to] drown out the voices of the American people” and asked his supporters to “declare our independence from a broken system.”

….

Since January 2007, Obama has raised more than $272 million, including nearly $31 million in April. During that time period, McCain has raised less than half that amount, roughly $100 million. In April, the Arizona Republican brought in about $18 million.

Bravo! Perhaps, he will make a similar realization about other failing public institutions. Keep on privatizing, Mr. Obama!

Are There Myths About Illegal Drugs?

ABC’s John Stossel says there are myths about illegal drugs in the U.S. Myths that lead to bad drug policy.

Myth No. 1: Heroin and cocaine have a permanent effect.

Truth: There is no evidence of that.

Myth No. 2: If you do crack once, you are hooked.

Truth: Look at the numbers – 15 percent of young adults have tried crack, but only 2 percent used it in the last month. If crack is so addictive, why do most people who’ve tried it no longer use it?

People once said heroin was nearly impossible to quit, but during the Vietnam War, thousands of soldiers became addicted, and when they returned home, 85 percent quit within one year.

Myth No. 3: Drugs cause crime.

Truth: The drug war causes the crime.

Few drug users hurt or rob people because they are high. Most of the crime occurs because the drugs are illegal and available only through a black market. Drug sellers arm themselves and form gangs because they cannot ask the police to protect their persons and property.

In turn, some buyers steal to pay the high black-market prices. The government says heroin, cocaine and nicotine are similarly addictive, and about half the people who both smoke cigarettes and use cocaine say smoking is at least as strong an urge. But no one robs convenience stores for Marlboros.

This post is food for thought, not a position by this author or blog.

Dance Craze Sweeping the Nation: The Obama Jig

To the left, to the left;

Now to the right, to the right;

Around in a circle, and out with the wool;

Over the eyes, here comes a surprise!

Only months ago, Senator Barack Obama was telling voters how bad NAFTA was. This week the candidate says he might have gotten a bit “overheated”:

“I’m not a big believer in doing things unilaterally,” Obama said. “I’m a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people.”

Sounds good, but then so much of what Mr. Obama says sounds good. Dialog? With whom? He’s already cornered both sides of the issue.