McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819

Small-government constitutionalists often decry the supposed recent rise of big government. In fact, this complaint has been heard since the birth of the United States. Before Roosevelt welfare state, before Lincoln successful attempt to impose federal authority upon the South, was the Second Bank of the United States, a precursor of the Federal Reserve. In Maryland, the state legislature passed a tax law targeting this federally chartered bank, the bank sued, and the case ended up before the Supreme Court. The case hinged on constitutional interpretation, and Chief Justice John Marshall, wrote up the the unanimous decision in favor of the federal bank, with reference to the meaning of the word 'necessary' in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the powers granted to the federal government:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
....
To establish post offices and post roads;
....
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Maryland's argument hinged on the assertion that the bank was not strictly necessary for the powers given above, and therefore was unconstitutionally chartered. Chief Justice Marshall argues persuasively against this, first noting:

It was impossible for the framers of the constitution to specify, prospectively, all these means, both because it would have involved an immense variety of details, and because it would have been impossible for them to foresee the infinite variety of circumstances, in such an unexampled state of political society as ours, for ever changing and for ever improving. How unwise would it have been, to legislate immutably for exigencies which had not then occurred, and which must have been foreseen but dimly and imperfectly! The security against abuse is to be found in the constitution and nature of the government, in its popular character and structure. The statute book of the United States is filled with powers derived from implication. The power to lay and collect taxes will not execute itself. Congress must designate in detail all the means of collection. So also, the power of establishing post-offices and post-roads, involves that of punishing the offence of robbing the mail. But there is no more necessary connection between the punishment of mail-robbers, and the power to establish post-roads, than there is between the institution of a bank, and the collection of the revenue and payment of the public debts and expenses.

He also draws the distinction between "necessary" and "absolutely necessary" as used in the Constitution:

Compare these terms as they are used in that part of the constitution now in question, with the qualified manner in which they are used in the 10th section of the same article. In the latter, it is provided that 'no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.' In the clause in question, congress is invested with the power 'to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers,' &c. There is here then, no qualification of the necessity; it need not be absolute; it may be taken in its ordinary grammatical sense. The word necessary, standing by itself, has no inflexible meaning; it is used in a sense more or less strict, according to the subject. This, like many other words, has a primitive sense, and another figurative and more relaxed;

And sums up his guiding principle:

Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.

Now, how is this relevant today? Well, people seem up in arms about federal funding for the arts and, to a certain extent, the sciences which don't help the military. Lets take another look at Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power.... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

Now, on the surface this is talking about the patent office, copyright, etc. However, what is the spirit of this line? Of course, this is interpretation, but it seems fairly apparent that the important part is "promote the progress of science and useful arts". In the 18th century, modern research was unknown, and the government was too focused on its own survival to worry about the National Council for the Arts, but I argue that it is fairly clear that these are things that are "necessary and proper" to "promote the progress of science and useful arts".

Obviously, many strict constitutionalists disagree completely with everything I have said. My goal is not to convince them (although that would be nice) but to point out that this is not a new issue; and that before they start bringing fragments like "our founding fathers" they should look at how our founding fathers judged and interpreted the constitution.

Youtube Today: Sex Before Reading

New McCain attack ad:

And the truth? The bill Obama supported read:

"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."

Not that this simply adds fairly innocuous material to existing sex-ed classes. The wording does specify K-12, but that doesn't mean he wants kindergarteners sex-ed.
Of course, this is obvious, but McCain is betting on the electorate's stupidity and his base's self-delusion, and judging by the random Youtube smears I've run in to, it seems to be working.

Sarah Palin, Part II: How will she affect the election?

I've got a disorganized mess of points, so I'll do this as a bulleted list:

• She's energized the base - social conservatives love her. These people would vote McCain anyway, but now they're donating money and spreading the message, which will have a noticable effect. She also, however, has energized the Democratic base - the prospect of her a heartbeat away is so worrying that it's lead to a flood of effort and donations from the other side.
• Women: She is one. However, her stances, especially no abortion, will probably not lead to any long-term gains in this demographic. 538 has an interesting analysis of this, suggesting that Palin might do well among white mothers, but overall I don't see her having a major impact. If she does, McCain will win the election. Disaffected Hillary Clinton voters should not be voting for her - although some undoubtebly will -, and Obama should by trying to use Clinton as much as he can to attack Palin.
  
• McCain's age: McCain is quite old, and if he dies Sarah Palin will take over. Other than her obvious inexperience, I think that even many McCain supporters - the centrists and the libertarians - would not like to see Palin become president, just based on her political views. The hawks may like her attitude, but she has absolutely no foreign policy experience.

Sarah Palin was a very risky choice to make, but I think it was probably the best decision McCain could make. None of his other choices stood out, and with Palin he has got a lot of coverage and attention, energised and brough in the base, including the Christian Right, who were having doubts, and overshadowed Obama's pick. He knows that this will either win him the election or backfire horribly, and he felt that his alternative was marching steadily along and losing the election by a small margin. Her big weakness, inexperience, is hard for the Democrats to attack without somewhat exposing their own candidate's suppossed lack of experience, and her youth - and possibly her gender - may make it harder for Biden to effectively attack her without seeming elitist. And remember - the Republicans won the last two elections, and in both of them succeeded in tarring their opponent as an elitist.
Coming back to Earth however, although I am worried about the possibility of Palin, I think the pick will backfire. She in horribly inexperienced, from a small isolated state, and doesn't seem to have been properly vetted.
Then again, look what happened in 1988. (Dan Quayle!)

People Not to Vote For: #2 - Sarah Palin

The other rising young star of the Republican party, Sarah Palin, is, if possible, even worse then Bobby Jindal. I'll spend a paragraph explaining why I don't like her, and then turn to a more objective analysis of the effects her vice-presidential nomination might have on the campaign.
Reasons not to vote for a presidential ticket including Sarah Palin:

1. Inexperience. Far more than Obama. First term governer of a fairly small (in population) and isolated state, and before than mayor of a city of less than 10,000 residents. The first time she ever left the country was in 2007. When asked a few months ago about the vice-presidency, she said that before she could answer someone would have to tell her what a vice-president actually does.
   
2. She believes in abstinence-only sex education, believing that anything else encourages teenagers to have sex. She has a 17-year old daughter who is pregnant (Update:It's all okay now, since she's marrying the guy. Look, he even tattood her name on his finger! It must be true love), yet still thinks that this is a good idea.
3. On the issues: A 'real' conservative, she's against abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, supports the teaching of intelligent design, etc.
   
4. Character. This is a purely personal judgment, but still. The event that sticks in my head is when her most recent child was born, the one who has Downs'. Her waters broke while she was in Texas on a speaking engagement, but instead of going to a hospital, she took her commercial flight to anchorage, and then drove a few hours to a different city to go to the hospital there. Total time taken: about 8 hours. And then she named him 'Trig'.

Youtube Today: Shameless Republican Exploitation of 9/11 (Again)

Keith Olbermann was demoted from his role as political co-anchor at MSNBC, due to his supposed liberal bias. The straw that broke the camel's back - his reaction to this video, which was played (and broadcast on MSNBC) at last weeks Republican National Convention. If you haven't clicked the link yet, click and watch the video and the reaction. If you still haven't clicked: The video basically claims that Iran has been engaged in a war with the United States for decades, and directly implies that Iran was responsible for 9/11. This is all narrated over shots of Iranian militants intersperced with graphic 9/11 footage.
Choice quotes (emphasis mine):

"The first attack occurred in Iran."

"This enemy, sworn to our destruction, has been at war with us for decades. This we now know."

"It is a war we never chose to fight, and for too long we've looked the other way. But the enemy is wrong; this is a war America will win. We'll have a president who knows how."

I honestly don't know how the RNC gets away with this. How much self-delusion must an intellegent person commit to overlook this and continue to support it and the people behind it? I can even understand people as accepting this coming from far-right talk show hosts, but not from the party itself.

If you can find any redeeming value in that video clip, please comment.

People Not to Vote For - #1: Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal is young, from a visible and growing minority, and the future of the republican party. He graduated from Brown with honors, and went on to be a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, reading political science. In his first political post, as secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health, took Medicare from a giant deficit to a surplus. At the age of 28 he became the president of the University of Louisiana system, and a few years later, after an unsuccessful gubernatorial run, he was elected to the House by the Louisiana's 1st Congressional District. In 2007, he once again ran for governor, and this time won handily, becoming the youngest sitting governor at age 36.

So: He's popular, intelligent, and fiscally responsible. He's the son of immigrants, and the first Indian-American governor, in a southern, racist, state. What's not to love?

As it turns out, a lot. Onto the issues:

• Bobby Jindal is against abortion. Really, really against abortion. Even in cases of rape, incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. (However, procedures that indirectly cause an abortion and are needed to save the life of a woman are ok. And emergency contraception is too, as long as you ask for it in the emergency room, and you've been raped. I'm not making this up: click)
  
• In Congress, he voted against repealing the PATRIOT act, and voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag-burning.
• As Governor, he supports the teaching on intelligent design, and signed into law this: (quoted from the official website of the Governor of Louisiana:
  

  SB 144 by Senators Nick Gautreaux, Amedee, Dorsey, Duplessis and Mount provides that on a first conviction of aggravated rape, forcible rape, second degree sexual battery, aggravated incest, molestation of a juvenile when the victim is under the age of 13, or an aggravated crime against nature, the court may sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration. On a second conviction of the above listed crimes, the court is required to sentence the offender to undergo chemical castration.

  This bill also provides that a court may instead order a physical castration instead of the chemical castration.

• He's a batshit insane convert to Catholicism. Now, I don't have a problem with most Catholics, but when you're an undergraduate and you perform an exorcism on your classmate, then write an vivid, detailed article about it for the New Oxford Review, you've got issues. The actual article is subscription only, so I can't offer any choice quotes - I've read it, but can't track it down again - but it is creepy. Read the start here.

Convinced yet? Now, this guy may be fine for Louisiana, but the Republicans believe that he is the future, and seem to be working him up for a possible presidential bit in 4 or 8 years. (He's also been mentioned as a vice-presidential nominee, but I really doubt that will be happening: he's too young for McCain, and he'd damage his own prospects by hitching himself to the Straight Talk Express). This man in dangerous; he is intelligent, charismatic, and a minority, and appeals to the Christian right. If he ever gets elected to national office, he could be a new Nixon, except instead of mixing intelligence with an amoral, evil streak, he'd mix it with crazy theoctatic impulses. And that is far worse than anything Nixon ever did.

So please, don't vote for Jindal. If you're liberatarian, hate him because he voted for the PATRIOT Act and against flag-burning. If you're evangelical, hate him because he's Catholic. If you're southern, hate him because he's not white. If you're a Democrat, you should already hate him.