Libertarian Front

McCarthyism: A Threat to America

2005-06-09T19:21:00.000-07:00

"I have, here in my hand, a list of 205 names that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." --Joseph McCarthy
While the fifties may seem like a good chapter in American history, it's much darker than that. And one of the bleakest chapters of the fifties all started in a Republican women's club meeting in Wheeling, West Virginia. Although the skeleton of the Red Scare to follow was laid several years earlier. After the end of World War II, the Cold War began. When it was discovered that Klaus Fuchs, a respected German scientist who worked on the Los Alamos Project, was revealed to have passed nuclear secrets to the Russians, a mass panic gripped the country. This hysteria would result in the deaths of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and the rise of Joseph McCarthy.

"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference." --Harry Truman
In 1946, Joseph McCarthy was elected to represent Wisconsin in the Senate by lying about his war record, and smearing primary and general election opposition. His political boat was leaky at best, and McCarthy was desperately trying to find the issue to draw attention away from his blatant corruption. He found it when he was fed some obsolete documents about investigations into the State Department to find communists. The so-called "communist penetration" was a big lie fabricated by a desperate man. It should have ended his career. But it didn't work out that way.

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." --Herman Göring, 1946, founder of the Gestapo and head of the Luftwaffe
At the time, America was willing to be decieved. They were willing to believe that red was everywhere. And the press was right along with them. Joseph McCarthy became, to Americans, a "noble crusader against communism." The truth could not be more different. In reality, McCarthy's witch-hunt ruined thousands of lives. While it is true that some communists, like Alger Hiss, were exposed by McCarthyism, the vast majority of those interrogated by McCarthy and the powerful House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) were innocent. Also, it does not help his credibility that he trampled over and mocked our civil liberties. But McCarthy's stampede would not last.

"Have you no sense of decency sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?" --Joseph Welch, 1954
In 1954, McCarthy took up a fight he could not win-against the army. He challenged the army to remove "communists" from their high up ranks. At first, he once again captivated the public imagination. But this time, his crusade faltered. McCarthy had stepped onto Ike's turf. And the army and President Eisenhower were fighting back. ABC, who needed to fill their afternoon slots, broadcasted the Army-McCarthy Hearings. For the first time, people were able to see McCarthy in action firsthand. They saw a bully, and a charlatan. His public support folded. Though the hearings ended inconclusively, the Senate smelled blood and voted to condemn and remove McCarthy from his post.

For some reason, many, like the notoriously right-wing Ann Coulter, look upon McCarthy as a hero. Such a view is misguided and dead wrong. McCarthy proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the worst move we could do in fighting the Soviets is to act just like them.

By Jehan

Raich v. Ashcroft (Gonzalez)

2005-06-06T21:45:00.000-07:00

Today the Supreme Court continued to destroy the Constitution with a decision against Federalism, against state's rights, and against the rights of the individual. The case of Raich v. Ashcroft (Gonzalez) dealt with the use of medical marijuana and whether or not states that, through referendum no less, allowed it could still see their citizens prosecuted for its use under Federal law. Stevens, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the Controlled Substances Act, saying that since these drugs deal with interstate commerce then they can be regulated. O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist and Thomas (but notably, missing Scalia, to whom I say et tu Antonin?) dissented.

Here is some important parts of the decision:

As we stated in Wickard [v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111, 128129 (1942)], even if appellees activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce. Id., at 125. We have never required Congress to legislate with scientific exactitude. When Congress decides that the total incidence of a practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class. See Perez, 402 U. S., at 154155 (quoting Westfall v. United States, 274 U. S. 256, 259 (1927) ([W]hen it is necessary in order to prevent an evil to make the law embrace more than the precise thing to be prevented it may do so)). In this vein, we have reiterated that when a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence. E.g., Lopez, 514 U. S., at 558 (emphasis deleted) (quoting Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196, n. 27 (1968)).

Wickard v. Filburn, by the way, was a case where a man exceeded his federally allowed amount of wheat he could grow, by a few hundred bushels I believe, but he used it to feed his cattle. The Court held that he broke the law and had to pay a fine, and upheld the federal law deciding how much crop you could grow to artifically inflate prices during the depression (supposedly to help farmers). You apparently don't even own your "own" land thanks to the commerce clause.

Stevens continued:

Wickard thus establishes that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself commercial, in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.
The similarities between this case and Wickard are striking...

Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U. S. C. §801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Thus, as in Wickard, when it enacted comprehensive legislation to regulate the interstate market in a fungible commodity, Congress was acting well within its authority to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8. That the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no moment.

Stevens pays some mention to Lopez and Morrison (two cases in recent times that actually stopped expanding the commerce clause, and were the ray of hope for this case):

Unlike those at issue in Lopez and Morrison, the activities regulated by the CSA are quintessentially economic. Economics refers to the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. Websters Third New International Dictionary 720 (1966). The CSA is a statute that regulates the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities for which there is an established, and lucrative, interstate market. Prohibiting the intrastate possession or manufacture of an article of commerce is a rational (and commonly utilized) means of regulating commerce in that product.

Scalia did not join in the reasoning of Stevens, unlike the other 4 in tha majority, and his opinion turned on what he sees as "necessay" and "proper," a ban on even intrastate commerce by Congress on controlled substances:

T]he authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce...

That simple possession is a noneconomic activity is immaterial to whether it can be prohibited as a necessary part of a larger regulation. Rather, Congresss authority to enact all of these prohibitions of intrastate controlled-substance activities depends only upon whether they are appropriate means of achieving the legitimate end of eradicating Schedule I substances from interstate commerce.

By this measure, I think the regulation must be sustained. Not only is it impossible to distinguish controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate, but it hardly makes sense to speak in such terms. Drugs like marijuana are fungible commodities. As the Court explains, marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market.

O'Connor dissented:

Whatever the specific theory of substantial effects at issue (i.e., whether the activity substantially affects interstate commerce, whether its regulation is necessary to an interstate regulatory scheme, or both), a concern for dual sovereignty requires that Congress excursion into the traditional domain of States be justified. That is why characterizing this as a case about the Necessary and Proper Clause does not change the analysis significantly. Congress must exercise its authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause in a manner consistent with basic constitutional principles. . . .

[T]hat authority must be used in a manner consistent with the notion of enumerated powers — a structural principle that is as much part of the Constitution as the Tenth Amendments explicit textual command. Accordingly, something more than mere assertion is required when Congress purports to have power over local activity whose connection to an intrastate market is not selfevident. . .

Relying on Congress' abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in ones own home for one's own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California's experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case. For these reasons I dissent.

Thomas filed a solo dissent as well:

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

[I]n order to be "necessary," the intrastate ban must be more than a "reasonable means [of] effectuat[ing] the regulation of interstate commerce." Brief for Petitioners 14; see ante, at 19 (majority opinion) (employing rational-basis review). It must be plainly adapted to regulating interstate marijuana trafficking — in other words, there must be an obvious, simple, and direct relation between the intrastate ban and the regulation of interstate commerce.

He continued:

[N]either in enacting the CSA nor in defending its application to respondents has the Government offered any obvious reason why banning medical marijuana use is necessary to stem the tide of interstate drug trafficking. Congress' goal of curtailing the interstate drug trade would not plainly be thwarted if it could not apply the CSA to patients like Monson and Raich. That is, unless Congress aim is really to exercise police power of the sort reserved to the States in order to eliminate even the intrastate possession and use of marijuana.

I agree with the dissent. This is a state's rights issue obviously. Thomas hit it right on the head, and now Federalism is dead. Even Scalia has left us! There are four justices on that court that don't give a damn about federalism and they were joined by Scalia and Kennedy, whom I had thought would have voted with the states. This is a horrible decision. What to do? We take back our Constitution! Do not let them enforce this. Make the Supreme Court meaningless. Bring back "popular constitutionalism" -- the "judicial review" that we had before Marbury v. Madison where the people decided. I will post more later, but this case really got to me, especially the fact Scalia, whom I hold so much respect for, has left us hanging out to dry on this one. Kennedy I could take -- he's been lost for quite some time. But Scalia?! Scalia! I'm heartbroken.

And to the Republic, for which It stands

2005-06-05T20:27:00.000-07:00

What is America? Is it a Republic? A Democracy? A Democratic Republic?

The answer is it was founded as a Republic. As the Honorable Ron Paul of Texas explained in a speech:

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

You can find the whole of that speech here, and it comes highly recommended.

What we have today is something very different. A Republic, by classical definition (nevermind what the "progressives" have done to it's current one), is a government with no dominant factor. A democratic Republic of course is a Republic with a dominant factor -- also known as an oxymoron. So what we have today is a democracy. Why you ask?

Consider the 17th Amendment, which made Senators responsive to direct popular vote in elections, instead of the indirect way of having state legislatures pick whom they felt would best represent their state. The impact of this was enormous. What had once been a carfully planned balance of types of government, with only the House of Representatives being the democratic branch, now tilted heavily towards democracy. But you ask -- how is democracy bad?

Now we move to the defintion of what a democracy is. It means merely majority rule. A republic, on the other hand, has no dominant factor to rule it -- so what is left to rule is law. In a democracy, we are not ruled by laws but by the whim of man. Since the 17th Amendment we have seen an explosion in federal government power at the expense of the states and the people. Are they connected? No doubt but to what degree I cannot know. What is for sure is that the government we have now is beyond the scope imaginable in our founder's worst nightmares. What had been designed as a Federal Republic, one that shared soverignty with the seperate states, had now become a behemouth monster.

What shall we do? The first step is to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th Amendments. Both were pushed by progressives in order to democratize and force equality of outcomes upon the people. Both are repulsive to the original Constitution. Another step involves the judiciary, of which I will talk about later. And finally, and this is the hardest step, we need to make popular sovereignty more than just an empty abstraction, and make "the people" more than just rhetoric replayed again and again along the campagn trail. Ordinary Americans ought to have active control and sovereignty over our Constitution and over our government. While this end is necessary, I am at a loss as to how to peaceablly bring it about.

John Galt, AKA The Last Cold Warrior

Terrorism-Where the Left and Right are Wrong

2005-06-05T11:20:00.000-07:00

Leftists think terrorism is a crime, like prostitution and rape. Neoconservatives consider it a dangerous spectre that needs to be eradicated. Neither are right. Contrary to popular belief, terrorists do not hate us because "They hate democracy." They hate us because of our foreign policy.

Dating back to the Treaty of Versailles, the West has insisted on pushing their interests in the faces of the Arabs. Just take Iran for example. Britain treated it like a colony, making millions off their oil while the Iranians had next to nothing. Eventually, the people of Iran rioted, and a new system of government was installed, reducing the shah to a figurehead. America responded, at the urgings of the British, by returning the shah to power.In 1979, more rioting broke out in Iran, and the shah was forced to flee for his life. The radical cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Komeini seized power and declared Iran an Islamic republic. It remains so to this day.

Terrorism cannot be contained like communism or fascism. It's not a system of government or economy. It's a form of brainwashing which cannot be wiped out by force alone. We must keep ourselves out of the Middle East, and stop throwing gasoline onto smoldering fires.

by Jehan

Badnarik's Constitution Class

2005-06-04T11:48:00.000-07:00

Download free all seven installments of a timeless classic, Libertarian 2004 Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik's class on the U.S. Constitution. These insightful and comprehensive lectures by one of the nation's leading Constitutional scholars are must-see TV for any individual who seeks to debate our great nation's foundation.

Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class

-Siko

Welcome!

2005-06-03T21:49:00.000-07:00

This is John Galt Speaking.