There has been much caterwauling about the death of the Constitution recently in wake of the recent ”’Lawrence v Texas”’ Supreme Court decision. The question I have is: “Where in blue blazes have you people been?” The Constitution has been dying for over one hundred years.

If the criteria for the death of the Constitution is Supreme Court decisions that are inconsistent with the Original Intent and meaning of the Constitution with those held by our Founding Fathers, then this is nothing new. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was just the first of many stakes driven through the heart of the Constitution.

Based upon a false characterization of the operations of a free-market economy, the Sherman Act was a fraud from the start. It should have been ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Commerce Clause, the very basis upon which the Sherman Act was upheld. This goes back to Original Intent.

The Intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to provide the means to prevent trade and tariff wars among the various states, not a means to regulate businesses that operate over state lines. It was to prevent economic protectionism between the states. When the Supreme Court twisted this to mean that Congress could regulate any business transaction between states, and then within the states themselves, it usurped the very power that was supposed to be reserved to the states in Amendment X.

The true intent of the Sherman Act was to restrict competition instead of promote it. The special interests of the day that were unsuccessful in competing against larger, more efficient firms, sought congressional solutions to their inability to compete. That the trusts were in fact providing goods for consumers at ever lower prices was irrelevant.

To quote Congressman William Mason from debates on the Act: “Trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of this country by the ‘trusts’ which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprises.”

This is clearly an admission that benefits to consumers takes second place to the business interests that Mason represents. What he is admitting here is that it is better to protect inept businessmen at the expense of the consumer, rather than let the free market take its course and provide goods at a reduced cost to the consumer.

Sen. Edwards who played a key role in the debate echoes the same sentiment: “Although for the time being the sugar trust has perhaps reduced the price of sugar, and the oil trust certainly has reduced the price of oil immensely, that does not alter the wrong of the principle of any trust.”

What violation of principle? That of lower prices? The fact was that laissez faire capitalism was providing ever increasing amounts of goods at ever lower prices and some businessmen were being driven out of business.

The rise in living standards in this period is unequaled. As reported by the Cato Institute: “Real GNP increased by approximately 24 percent from 1880 to 1890. Meanwhile, the allegedly monopolized industries for which a measure of real output is available grew on average by 175 percent. The more rapidly expanding industries in real terms included steel (258 percent), zinc (156 percent), coal (153 percent), steel rails (142 percent), petroleum (79 percent), and sugar (75 percent).”

It was large numbers of small farmers and small businessmen that pressured their legislators to pass this legislation. And since they were in greater numbers, this is exactly what happened. Again, from the Cato Institute: “The Sherman Act won legislators votes and campaign contributions from farmers and small businessmen who thought antitrust regulation would protect them from their more efficient competitors, and the tariff bill was supported by all U.S. manufacturers, large and small.”

The oft repeated complaint that “Big business” controls the legislative process is turned on its head here. It is the inept little guys, like the unions, ganging upon on the big producers who raise the standard of living for everyone, that demand the special favors.

But the real issue is the legality of the act. Political expediency, and growing socialist sentiment, paved the way for an unconstitutional act that began a usurpation of power by the federal government that has grown to nightmare proportions today. The only real monopoly is the monopoly of government power because it is supported by the force of arms. Everybody else is a piker by comparison.

This deterioration of Constitutional law set the stage for the quick slide of rights the next century. The erosion in protecting the Rights of the Individual, the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in favor of special interest legislation, provided the legal and cultural justification of what was to follow. As the Cato Institute noted:

“A legal philosophy that emphasizes government’s role in protecting private property and individual liberties would urge the courts to strike down such legislation as unconstitutional. Antitrust is, above all else, an abrogation of freedom of contract.”

The next assault on the Constitution was the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no power given Congress to create a central bank. The creation of such an entity could only do more damage than good, as President Woodrow Wilson would acknowledge only three years after passage of the Act that created the system:

“I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but the Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominated men.”

The same year sees the institution of the income tax. What is interesting about this amendment is that the wording is in direct opposition to the Constitution itself.

First Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Amendment XVI

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

In other words, the Congress had the audacity to refute the very language of the Constitution using word for word that self same language. Forbidding just such a tax, levied upon each individual as an individual, which is the meaning of “capitation” and “direct tax,” instead of equally upon all according to apportionment and census, was precisely what Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 was designed to guaranteed. This was a bald faced abdication of the Constitution.

Such shenanigans make a sheer mockery of the Constitution. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Do you think that those men who threw the tea into the harbor, which probably would be considered a terrorist act in today’s climate, would docilely accept the present insane income tax structure? The idea is ludicrous.

Income taxes violate so many other facets of the Constitution that it isn’t funny. Equal protection is violated because the law isn’t applied equally to everyone. Some people pay more, some pay less, even at the same income levels. Some people actually get a negative income tax, the earned income tax credit, another violation of equal protection.

The IRS has the capability to enforce its provisions prior to any judicial determinations, which is a denial of due process. Considering that over one third of the questions put to the IRS are answered incorrectly by the IRS itself, the income tax laws are vague and ambiguous. This too is a denial of due process, the process is too confusing to be clearly understood.

All of the foregoing pales in comparison the destruction of the Constitution that the New Deal and the rest of the socialist programs that have been instituted since these breaches of our founding document. Despite the objection that these laws, items and programs have been found Constitutional at various times by the courts doesn’t mean they truly are Constitutional, just convenient. All of these programs pit one group against another, for the benefit of one group to the expense of another.

Social Security for example violates the equal protection clause. It is different for different individuals and if one’s income is great enough, doesn’t apply at all. It violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 because it too is a direct tax, a capitation tax. The absurdities abound.

Same can be said for Medicare, Medicaid and all the rest of the plethora of social programs. None of these programs pass Constitutional muster, but we accept them as foregone conclusions anymore.

Finally let’s return to the body of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

How many wars has this nation fought of late, including the most recent one, where the Congress has not bothered with a declaration of war? In fact, when was the last time the Congress actually declared war? How many violations of the Constitution do we tolerate as long as we feel it is politically expedient?

This brings us to the uproar over recent Supreme Court decisions. In light of this history these controversial decisions are in keeping with the direction of the Court for the last century or more. There is as much logic and precedence for Griswold or Roe or Lawrence as there is for any of the above. They are no more damaging to the Constitution than the amendment legalizing plunder, also known as the income tax.

Arguably they are less so than this string of economic violations of jurisprudence. The slow destruction of laissez faire capitalism has cost more lives in lower living standards than all the unborn who never will miss the lives they never had. One has to ask why the uproar over the one arena but not the other. It is simply a matter of what your priorities are.

The answer is in the effectiveness of the socialist program in this nation, and the desire to impose religious values on the nation as a whole. The pandemonium over the these decisions is religiously based and have nothing to do with the health of the Constitution. The fact that there isn’t an equal objection to the economic violations to the Constitution as to the supposed moral ones, is proof of it.

The real danger is that the people as a whole are so uneducated as to be completely unaware of what is happening here. Even those who think they oppose socialism are actually supporting it, without even knowing what they are doing.

The Republican Governor of Alabama who recently justified raising taxes upon the wealthy on purely biblical terms is a prime example. Governor Bob Riley said, “Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us, we’ve got to take care of the poor.” This is a conservative Republican? How is this different from the Democrats? The answer is none at all.

This precisely why Republicans don’t have more credibility than they do. In the final analysis they offer no alternative to liberal socialist policies. Next thing you know Governor Riley will be advocating a rise in the minimum wage. Every where you turn it is more of the same. The only line of demarcation between liberals and conservatives is on social issues, which is why the uproar over social issue violations of Constitutional precedence and not economic. It is all about religion and religious values, not Constitutional ones.

It is only with the realization of how badly the Constitution has been undermined that the reality of the danger can be understood. But it only has value in the context of the overall violation of the Constitution and not on the basis of narrow, special interests. One either supports the Constitution, or one doesn’t. It isn’t possible to only support it in part. Advocating for special interests, whether economic or religious will destroy it just the same.

The Communist Manifesto made clear a number of conditions that would indicate the success of socialist progression from Capitalism to the socialist state. These give an indication of how successful the socialist program is proceeding. It is instructive to review this list. These are the elements this nation has fully embraced.

*2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

*5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (the Fed)

*10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Only three out of 10, not too bad. Considering the current state of public education this may be more advantageous than Marx thought. Our current educational system is fully dedicated to politically correct social programming rather than actual education.

On the other hand socialists have made inroads in ways Marx couldn’t have envisioned, which the above article details. And the environmental movement is a unique application of another aspect of the Manifesto.

*7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

If one looks at issues like “wetland” environmental laws this last facet is more than pertinent. Private property rights have been under general attack for decades.

The fact is the huge budget deficits needed to service the burgeoning socialist agenda and the many pork barrel projects that service local special interests are more than sufficient to advance the program of socialism. Thus Marx is still having the last laugh.

Before religious social programmers cry and moan about the death of the Constitution because their beloved moral issues are compromised they need to eschew the mortality inherent in the violation of economic precedence first, which far predates the demise of social issues law. Otherwise it is just more of the same hypocrisy that enables the murder of the Constitution in the first place.

Ref.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv13n3/reg13n3-dilorenzo.html

”’Don Newman, a free-lance writer living in Honolulu, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

There has been much caterwauling about the death of the Constitution recently in wake of the recent ”’Lawrence v Texas”’ Supreme Court decision. The question I have is: “Where in blue blazes have you people been?” The Constitution has been dying for over one hundred years.

If the criteria for the death of the Constitution is Supreme Court decisions that are inconsistent with the Original Intent and meaning of the Constitution with those held by our Founding Fathers, then this is nothing new. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was just the first of many stakes driven through the heart of the Constitution.

Based upon a false characterization of the operations of a free-market economy, the Sherman Act was a fraud from the start. It should have been ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Commerce Clause, the very basis upon which the Sherman Act was upheld. This goes back to Original Intent.

The Intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to provide the means to prevent trade and tariff wars among the various states, not a means to regulate businesses that operate over state lines. It was to prevent economic protectionism between the states. When the Supreme Court twisted this to mean that Congress could regulate any business transaction between states, and then within the states themselves, it usurped the very power that was supposed to be reserved to the states in Amendment X.

The true intent of the Sherman Act was to restrict competition instead of promote it. The special interests of the day that were unsuccessful in competing against larger, more efficient firms, sought congressional solutions to their inability to compete. That the trusts were in fact providing goods for consumers at ever lower prices was irrelevant.

To quote Congressman William Mason from debates on the Act: “Trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of this country by the ‘trusts’ which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprises.”

This is clearly an admission that benefits to consumers takes second place to the business interests that Mason represents. What he is admitting here is that it is better to protect inept businessmen at the expense of the consumer, rather than let the free market take its course and provide goods at a reduced cost to the consumer.

Sen. Edwards who played a key role in the debate echoes the same sentiment: “Although for the time being the sugar trust has perhaps reduced the price of sugar, and the oil trust certainly has reduced the price of oil immensely, that does not alter the wrong of the principle of any trust.”

What violation of principle? That of lower prices? The fact was that laissez faire capitalism was providing ever increasing amounts of goods at ever lower prices and some businessmen were being driven out of business.

The rise in living standards in this period is unequaled. As reported by the Cato Institute: “Real GNP increased by approximately 24 percent from 1880 to 1890. Meanwhile, the allegedly monopolized industries for which a measure of real output is available grew on average by 175 percent. The more rapidly expanding industries in real terms included steel (258 percent), zinc (156 percent), coal (153 percent), steel rails (142 percent), petroleum (79 percent), and sugar (75 percent).”

It was large numbers of small farmers and small businessmen that pressured their legislators to pass this legislation. And since they were in greater numbers, this is exactly what happened. Again, from the Cato Institute: “The Sherman Act won legislators votes and campaign contributions from farmers and small businessmen who thought antitrust regulation would protect them from their more efficient competitors, and the tariff bill was supported by all U.S. manufacturers, large and small.”

The oft repeated complaint that “Big business” controls the legislative process is turned on its head here. It is the inept little guys, like the unions, ganging upon on the big producers who raise the standard of living for everyone, that demand the special favors.

But the real issue is the legality of the act. Political expediency, and growing socialist sentiment, paved the way for an unconstitutional act that began a usurpation of power by the federal government that has grown to nightmare proportions today. The only real monopoly is the monopoly of government power because it is supported by the force of arms. Everybody else is a piker by comparison.

This deterioration of Constitutional law set the stage for the quick slide of rights the next century. The erosion in protecting the Rights of the Individual, the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in favor of special interest legislation, provided the legal and cultural justification of what was to follow. As the Cato Institute noted:

“A legal philosophy that emphasizes government’s role in protecting private property and individual liberties would urge the courts to strike down such legislation as unconstitutional. Antitrust is, above all else, an abrogation of freedom of contract.”

The next assault on the Constitution was the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no power given Congress to create a central bank. The creation of such an entity could only do more damage than good, as President Woodrow Wilson would acknowledge only three years after passage of the Act that created the system:

“I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but the Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominated men.”

The same year sees the institution of the income tax. What is interesting about this amendment is that the wording is in direct opposition to the Constitution itself.

First Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Amendment XVI

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

In other words, the Congress had the audacity to refute the very language of the Constitution using word for word that self same language. Forbidding just such a tax, levied upon each individual as an individual, which is the meaning of “capitation” and “direct tax,” instead of equally upon all according to apportionment and census, was precisely what Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 was designed to guaranteed. This was a bald faced abdication of the Constitution.

Such shenanigans make a sheer mockery of the Constitution. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Do you think that those men who threw the tea into the harbor, which probably would be considered a terrorist act in today’s climate, would docilely accept the present insane income tax structure? The idea is ludicrous.

Income taxes violate so many other facets of the Constitution that it isn’t funny. Equal protection is violated because the law isn’t applied equally to everyone. Some people pay more, some pay less, even at the same income levels. Some people actually get a negative income tax, the earned income tax credit, another violation of equal protection.

The IRS has the capability to enforce its provisions prior to any judicial determinations, which is a denial of due process. Considering that over one third of the questions put to the IRS are answered incorrectly by the IRS itself, the income tax laws are vague and ambiguous. This too is a denial of due process, the process is too confusing to be clearly understood.

All of the foregoing pales in comparison the destruction of the Constitution that the New Deal and the rest of the socialist programs that have been instituted since these breaches of our founding document. Despite the objection that these laws, items and programs have been found Constitutional at various times by the courts doesn’t mean they truly are Constitutional, just convenient. All of these programs pit one group against another, for the benefit of one group to the expense of another.

Social Security for example violates the equal protection clause. It is different for different individuals and if one’s income is great enough, doesn’t apply at all. It violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 because it too is a direct tax, a capitation tax. The absurdities abound.

Same can be said for Medicare, Medicaid and all the rest of the plethora of social programs. None of these programs pass Constitutional muster, but we accept them as foregone conclusions anymore.

Finally let’s return to the body of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

How many wars has this nation fought of late, including the most recent one, where the Congress has not bothered with a declaration of war? In fact, when was the last time the Congress actually declared war? How many violations of the Constitution do we tolerate as long as we feel it is politically expedient?

This brings us to the uproar over recent Supreme Court decisions. In light of this history these controversial decisions are in keeping with the direction of the Court for the last century or more. There is as much logic and precedence for Griswold or Roe or Lawrence as there is for any of the above. They are no more damaging to the Constitution than the amendment legalizing plunder, also known as the income tax.

Arguably they are less so than this string of economic violations of jurisprudence. The slow destruction of laissez faire capitalism has cost more lives in lower living standards than all the unborn who never will miss the lives they never had. One has to ask why the uproar over the one arena but not the other. It is simply a matter of what your priorities are.

The answer is in the effectiveness of the socialist program in this nation, and the desire to impose religious values on the nation as a whole. The pandemonium over the these decisions is religiously based and have nothing to do with the health of the Constitution. The fact that there isn’t an equal objection to the economic violations to the Constitution as to the supposed moral ones, is proof of it.

The real danger is that the people as a whole are so uneducated as to be completely unaware of what is happening here. Even those who think they oppose socialism are actually supporting it, without even knowing what they are doing.

The Republican Governor of Alabama who recently justified raising taxes upon the wealthy on purely biblical terms is a prime example. Governor Bob Riley said, “Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us, we’ve got to take care of the poor.” This is a conservative Republican? How is this different from the Democrats? The answer is none at all.

This precisely why Republicans don’t have more credibility than they do. In the final analysis they offer no alternative to liberal socialist policies. Next thing you know Governor Riley will be advocating a rise in the minimum wage. Every where you turn it is more of the same. The only line of demarcation between liberals and conservatives is on social issues, which is why the uproar over social issue violations of Constitutional precedence and not economic. It is all about religion and religious values, not Constitutional ones.

It is only with the realization of how badly the Constitution has been undermined that the reality of the danger can be understood. But it only has value in the context of the overall violation of the Constitution and not on the basis of narrow, special interests. One either supports the Constitution, or one doesn’t. It isn’t possible to only support it in part. Advocating for special interests, whether economic or religious will destroy it just the same.

The Communist Manifesto made clear a number of conditions that would indicate the success of socialist progression from Capitalism to the socialist state. These give an indication of how successful the socialist program is proceeding. It is instructive to review this list. These are the elements this nation has fully embraced.

*2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

*5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (the Fed)

*10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Only three out of 10, not too bad. Considering the current state of public education this may be more advantageous than Marx thought. Our current educational system is fully dedicated to politically correct social programming rather than actual education.

On the other hand socialists have made inroads in ways Marx couldn’t have envisioned, which the above article details. And the environmental movement is a unique application of another aspect of the Manifesto.

*7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

If one looks at issues like “wetland” environmental laws this last facet is more than pertinent. Private property rights have been under general attack for decades.

The fact is the huge budget deficits needed to service the burgeoning socialist agenda and the many pork barrel projects that service local special interests are more than sufficient to advance the program of socialism. Thus Marx is still having the last laugh.

Before religious social programmers cry and moan about the death of the Constitution because their beloved moral issues are compromised they need to eschew the mortality inherent in the violation of economic precedence first, which far predates the demise of social issues law. Otherwise it is just more of the same hypocrisy that enables the murder of the Constitution in the first place.

Ref.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv13n3/reg13n3-dilorenzo.html

”’Don Newman, a free-lance writer living in Honolulu, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

There has been much caterwauling about the death of the Constitution recently in wake of the recent ”’Lawrence v Texas”’ Supreme Court decision. The question I have is: “Where in blue blazes have you people been?” The Constitution has been dying for over one hundred years.

If the criteria for the death of the Constitution is Supreme Court decisions that are inconsistent with the Original Intent and meaning of the Constitution with those held by our Founding Fathers, then this is nothing new. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was just the first of many stakes driven through the heart of the Constitution.

Based upon a false characterization of the operations of a free-market economy, the Sherman Act was a fraud from the start. It should have been ruled unconstitutional on the basis of the Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution, otherwise known as the Commerce Clause, the very basis upon which the Sherman Act was upheld. This goes back to Original Intent.

The Intent of the Framers of the Constitution was to provide the means to prevent trade and tariff wars among the various states, not a means to regulate businesses that operate over state lines. It was to prevent economic protectionism between the states. When the Supreme Court twisted this to mean that Congress could regulate any business transaction between states, and then within the states themselves, it usurped the very power that was supposed to be reserved to the states in Amendment X.

The true intent of the Sherman Act was to restrict competition instead of promote it. The special interests of the day that were unsuccessful in competing against larger, more efficient firms, sought congressional solutions to their inability to compete. That the trusts were in fact providing goods for consumers at ever lower prices was irrelevant.

To quote Congressman William Mason from debates on the Act: “Trusts have made products cheaper, have reduced prices; but if the price of oil, for instance, were reduced to one cent a barrel, it would not right the wrong done to the people of this country by the ‘trusts’ which have destroyed legitimate competition and driven honest men from legitimate business enterprises.”

This is clearly an admission that benefits to consumers takes second place to the business interests that Mason represents. What he is admitting here is that it is better to protect inept businessmen at the expense of the consumer, rather than let the free market take its course and provide goods at a reduced cost to the consumer.

Sen. Edwards who played a key role in the debate echoes the same sentiment: “Although for the time being the sugar trust has perhaps reduced the price of sugar, and the oil trust certainly has reduced the price of oil immensely, that does not alter the wrong of the principle of any trust.”

What violation of principle? That of lower prices? The fact was that laissez faire capitalism was providing ever increasing amounts of goods at ever lower prices and some businessmen were being driven out of business.

The rise in living standards in this period is unequaled. As reported by the Cato Institute: “Real GNP increased by approximately 24 percent from 1880 to 1890. Meanwhile, the allegedly monopolized industries for which a measure of real output is available grew on average by 175 percent. The more rapidly expanding industries in real terms included steel (258 percent), zinc (156 percent), coal (153 percent), steel rails (142 percent), petroleum (79 percent), and sugar (75 percent).”

It was large numbers of small farmers and small businessmen that pressured their legislators to pass this legislation. And since they were in greater numbers, this is exactly what happened. Again, from the Cato Institute: “The Sherman Act won legislators votes and campaign contributions from farmers and small businessmen who thought antitrust regulation would protect them from their more efficient competitors, and the tariff bill was supported by all U.S. manufacturers, large and small.”

The oft repeated complaint that “Big business” controls the legislative process is turned on its head here. It is the inept little guys, like the unions, ganging upon on the big producers who raise the standard of living for everyone, that demand the special favors.

But the real issue is the legality of the act. Political expediency, and growing socialist sentiment, paved the way for an unconstitutional act that began a usurpation of power by the federal government that has grown to nightmare proportions today. The only real monopoly is the monopoly of government power because it is supported by the force of arms. Everybody else is a piker by comparison.

This deterioration of Constitutional law set the stage for the quick slide of rights the next century. The erosion in protecting the Rights of the Individual, the purpose of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in favor of special interest legislation, provided the legal and cultural justification of what was to follow. As the Cato Institute noted:

“A legal philosophy that emphasizes government’s role in protecting private property and individual liberties would urge the courts to strike down such legislation as unconstitutional. Antitrust is, above all else, an abrogation of freedom of contract.”

The next assault on the Constitution was the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank. There is no power given Congress to create a central bank. The creation of such an entity could only do more damage than good, as President Woodrow Wilson would acknowledge only three years after passage of the Act that created the system:

“I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world – no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but the Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominated men.”

The same year sees the institution of the income tax. What is interesting about this amendment is that the wording is in direct opposition to the Constitution itself.

First Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:

“No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

Amendment XVI

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.”

In other words, the Congress had the audacity to refute the very language of the Constitution using word for word that self same language. Forbidding just such a tax, levied upon each individual as an individual, which is the meaning of “capitation” and “direct tax,” instead of equally upon all according to apportionment and census, was precisely what Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 was designed to guaranteed. This was a bald faced abdication of the Constitution.

Such shenanigans make a sheer mockery of the Constitution. Remember the Boston Tea Party? Do you think that those men who threw the tea into the harbor, which probably would be considered a terrorist act in today’s climate, would docilely accept the present insane income tax structure? The idea is ludicrous.

Income taxes violate so many other facets of the Constitution that it isn’t funny. Equal protection is violated because the law isn’t applied equally to everyone. Some people pay more, some pay less, even at the same income levels. Some people actually get a negative income tax, the earned income tax credit, another violation of equal protection.

The IRS has the capability to enforce its provisions prior to any judicial determinations, which is a denial of due process. Considering that over one third of the questions put to the IRS are answered incorrectly by the IRS itself, the income tax laws are vague and ambiguous. This too is a denial of due process, the process is too confusing to be clearly understood.

All of the foregoing pales in comparison the destruction of the Constitution that the New Deal and the rest of the socialist programs that have been instituted since these breaches of our founding document. Despite the objection that these laws, items and programs have been found Constitutional at various times by the courts doesn’t mean they truly are Constitutional, just convenient. All of these programs pit one group against another, for the benefit of one group to the expense of another.

Social Security for example violates the equal protection clause. It is different for different individuals and if one’s income is great enough, doesn’t apply at all. It violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 because it too is a direct tax, a capitation tax. The absurdities abound.

Same can be said for Medicare, Medicaid and all the rest of the plethora of social programs. None of these programs pass Constitutional muster, but we accept them as foregone conclusions anymore.

Finally let’s return to the body of the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

“To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.”

How many wars has this nation fought of late, including the most recent one, where the Congress has not bothered with a declaration of war? In fact, when was the last time the Congress actually declared war? How many violations of the Constitution do we tolerate as long as we feel it is politically expedient?

This brings us to the uproar over recent Supreme Court decisions. In light of this history these controversial decisions are in keeping with the direction of the Court for the last century or more. There is as much logic and precedence for Griswold or Roe or Lawrence as there is for any of the above. They are no more damaging to the Constitution than the amendment legalizing plunder, also known as the income tax.

Arguably they are less so than this string of economic violations of jurisprudence. The slow destruction of laissez faire capitalism has cost more lives in lower living standards than all the unborn who never will miss the lives they never had. One has to ask why the uproar over the one arena but not the other. It is simply a matter of what your priorities are.

The answer is in the effectiveness of the socialist program in this nation, and the desire to impose religious values on the nation as a whole. The pandemonium over the these decisions is religiously based and have nothing to do with the health of the Constitution. The fact that there isn’t an equal objection to the economic violations to the Constitution as to the supposed moral ones, is proof of it.

The real danger is that the people as a whole are so uneducated as to be completely unaware of what is happening here. Even those who think they oppose socialism are actually supporting it, without even knowing what they are doing.

The Republican Governor of Alabama who recently justified raising taxes upon the wealthy on purely biblical terms is a prime example. Governor Bob Riley said, “Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us, we’ve got to take care of the poor.” This is a conservative Republican? How is this different from the Democrats? The answer is none at all.

This precisely why Republicans don’t have more credibility than they do. In the final analysis they offer no alternative to liberal socialist policies. Next thing you know Governor Riley will be advocating a rise in the minimum wage. Every where you turn it is more of the same. The only line of demarcation between liberals and conservatives is on social issues, which is why the uproar over social issue violations of Constitutional precedence and not economic. It is all about religion and religious values, not Constitutional ones.

It is only with the realization of how badly the Constitution has been undermined that the reality of the danger can be understood. But it only has value in the context of the overall violation of the Constitution and not on the basis of narrow, special interests. One either supports the Constitution, or one doesn’t. It isn’t possible to only support it in part. Advocating for special interests, whether economic or religious will destroy it just the same.

The Communist Manifesto made clear a number of conditions that would indicate the success of socialist progression from Capitalism to the socialist state. These give an indication of how successful the socialist program is proceeding. It is instructive to review this list. These are the elements this nation has fully embraced.

*2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

*5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (the Fed)

*10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

Only three out of 10, not too bad. Considering the current state of public education this may be more advantageous than Marx thought. Our current educational system is fully dedicated to politically correct social programming rather than actual education.

On the other hand socialists have made inroads in ways Marx couldn’t have envisioned, which the above article details. And the environmental movement is a unique application of another aspect of the Manifesto.

*7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

If one looks at issues like “wetland” environmental laws this last facet is more than pertinent. Private property rights have been under general attack for decades.

The fact is the huge budget deficits needed to service the burgeoning socialist agenda and the many pork barrel projects that service local special interests are more than sufficient to advance the program of socialism. Thus Marx is still having the last laugh.

Before religious social programmers cry and moan about the death of the Constitution because their beloved moral issues are compromised they need to eschew the mortality inherent in the violation of economic precedence first, which far predates the demise of social issues law. Otherwise it is just more of the same hypocrisy that enables the murder of the Constitution in the first place.

Ref.

https://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv13n3/reg13n3-dilorenzo.html

”’Don Newman, a free-lance writer living in Honolulu, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:newmand001@hawaii.rr.com

“Malia Lt Blue top Image”

When my friend Matt Waggner told me there is a business in Haleiwa that specializes in shark adventure tours, I could not even picture what that would be like. He told me the business, North Shore Shark Adventures, has employees who take visitors three miles out in the ocean, throw bloody fish guts into the water to attract sharks, and then put the visitors in a tiny cage so they can watch huge toothy sharks swim around them. I thought he was nuts.

Who in their right mind would do such a stupid thing? I asked him.

I was hoping you would, he said.

Not wanting to be a complete chicken, I thought about his offer. Sure I probably swim with the sharks often when I am surfing or kayaking in the deep blue, but the key is I don’t ”’know”’ the toothy fellows are in fact below me, eyeing me up.

However, should I take the plunge and go on the shark adventure, there is little doubt that not only would I see a shark or two, but I would look pretty tasty to them. After all, the bloody fish guts would likely only wet their appetite, not be enough to supplement their diet.

In a moment of weakness I agreed to go and it was at that moment that I started to hear all the news reported in the local and national media about sharks.

First the man on Oahu was bit on the foot by a shark, which later was reported to be a ”’Great White Shark.”’ I thought about that for a minute, … OK more than a minute. A great white shark like the kind in the motion picture Jaws could probably swallow the entire cage I’d be swimming in with room to spare.

Just as the great white shark image began to fade and I was coming to grips with the cage in the ocean concept, a story ran on KITV about great white sharks and how they are known to pass through Hawaii. I imagined a great white shark and his friends swimming by just as I jumped in the shark cage. Would they bother to stop and taste me? Would the fish blood be just like catsup on a Malia burger?

Flipping through the channels trying to get away from the shark news, I turned on the Discovery Channel, only to see sharks, sharks and ”’more sharks.”’ It seemed everywhere I looked there were sharks. Was it a sign of something and if so what? I asked myself.

Time flew by and the night before I was to go on the shark adventure, my life started to flash before my eyes. I realized if the shark did break through the cage and eat me, or tip the cage over and eat me, that I was leaving an awfully messy desk behind. Look at all that work someone else would have to do, I thought to myself, starring at my desk and surrounding files. And my car needs cleaning, and I have so many stories to write, not to mention I still have 10 years until my 8-year-old son goes to college. And he is in the phase where he still actually likes me and isn’t yet embarrassed by me, so he might actually be sad and miss me if I am eaten to bits.

The daylight came and I headed out to the North Shore. No turning back now. I would tempt fate and go for it. It wouldn’t be the first time I’d done something crazy. In fact, it wouldn’t even be the 100th time. But I could not shake the bad feeling deep in the pit of my stomach.

I boarded a boat with five other people, three other guests and a captain and assistant. Right away I noticed a black baseball bat on the side of the boat.

“What’s that for,” I asked unsure if I wanted to know.

“Just in case the shark jumps up toward the boat,” said Matt, who decided to accompany me on the shark adventure. I eyed the bat some more, hoping he was kidding, but I never did find that out.

As we rode deeper and deeper into the sapphire blue ocean, waves rocking us from the side as we headed straight out, we could see the entire landscape of the North Shore of Oahu. It was breathtaking.

Fifteen minutes later, we arrived at an odd looking scene — a tiny metal jail like cage big enough for two people bobbing up and down in the waves.

The captain explained two at a time could put on masks and snorkels, climb into the cage and float around for 15 to 20 minutes.

He gave the last minute instructions as he whipped those fish blood and guts I’d heard about into the water. Like clockwork, sharks, virtually invisible to the passengers on the boat, rose to the surface in less than a minute and began to circle.

The captain warned everyone, as the hungry sharks started to lick their chops and eye us from the water, not to put our hands or feet outside of the cage.

”’No kidding.”’

What fool needs to be reminded to keep their hands and feet in the cage when 6- to 8-foot sharks with rows and rows of teeth are just inches away?

Understandably, the other female passenger on the boat was not sure she wanted to go in the cage and she motioned for me to go first, even though I was hoping she’d go first. As I stood there pondering the final moments before the plunge, the waves began to pick up and so did the wind and the cage rocked wildly from side to side. I prayed … OK God, if you don’t think I should go in, then let the cage sink right now, … … … … .

Only the wind responded. The cage stayed afloat. So be it, I said accepting my fate.

Inside the cage, I had the choice to watch the sharks from above the water or to go under the water and go nose to nose with them. As I went under the water, I saw 8 to 10 sharks circling around me and below me and I was extremely thankful for the thin metal bars.

Just as I became a little comfortable with the shark in the water idea and began to enjoy their beauty, strength and grace, and see the shiny blue fish around them, the sharks started to move in even closer (if that was possible) and bang the cage. The sharks hitting the cage jolted me and made a loud startling sound underwater. Whoosh! I popped my head up out of the water, whipped off my mask and asked the captain a stupid question: “are they supposed to be doing that … banging the cage like that?”

“Bad sharks,” he said, jokingly. “Stop banging the cage.”

Hmmm, I thought, what kind of answer is that? Guess it is normal activity for them.

But in lifting my head to talk to the captain, I noticed the boat somehow had floated away from the cage and we were now about 10 feet from what I considered safety — the deck of the boat.

That is when I decided the whole concept was so crazy that I’d just have to let go of my fears and enjoy the experience — sharks bumping, waves crashing, cage rocking, wind blowing and all. Even when a big piece of fish floated into the cage under my feet and the sharks came in closer eyeing it.

We got to take one more dive with the sharks before we left, but then the wind and waves picked up even further and the captain told us it was time to head for shore.

We nearly flew above the water, waves crashing on the edge of the speeding boat and showering us with their cool mist.

Back safe on land, I realized how silly my initial fears were, how needlessly I’d psyched myself out, and how glad I was I took the shark challenge.

Now back to the Legislature I went (smelling just a little fishy) prepared to cover political stories of betrayal, plunder and deception and the fall out from the special session. A funny thing happened when I got there. Everywhere I looked, there were sharks — only this time they were on land and posing as our elected officials.

”’Malia Zimmerman, president and editor of Hawaii Reporter, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

“Malia Lt Blue top Image”

When my friend Matt Waggner told me there is a business in Haleiwa that specializes in shark adventure tours, I could not even picture what that would be like. He told me the business, North Shore Shark Adventures, has employees who take visitors three miles out in the ocean, throw bloody fish guts into the water to attract sharks, and then put the visitors in a tiny cage so they can watch huge toothy sharks swim around them. I thought he was nuts.

Who in their right mind would do such a stupid thing? I asked him.

I was hoping you would, he said.

Not wanting to be a complete chicken, I thought about his offer. Sure I probably swim with the sharks often when I am surfing or kayaking in the deep blue, but the key is I don’t ”’know”’ the toothy fellows are in fact below me, eyeing me up.

However, should I take the plunge and go on the shark adventure, there is little doubt that not only would I see a shark or two, but I would look pretty tasty to them. After all, the bloody fish guts would likely only wet their appetite, not be enough to supplement their diet.

In a moment of weakness I agreed to go and it was at that moment that I started to hear all the news reported in the local and national media about sharks.

First the man on Oahu was bit on the foot by a shark, which later was reported to be a ”’Great White Shark.”’ I thought about that for a minute, … OK more than a minute. A great white shark like the kind in the motion picture Jaws could probably swallow the entire cage I’d be swimming in with room to spare.

Just as the great white shark image began to fade and I was coming to grips with the cage in the ocean concept, a story ran on KITV about great white sharks and how they are known to pass through Hawaii. I imagined a great white shark and his friends swimming by just as I jumped in the shark cage. Would they bother to stop and taste me? Would the fish blood be just like catsup on a Malia burger?

Flipping through the channels trying to get away from the shark news, I turned on the Discovery Channel, only to see sharks, sharks and ”’more sharks.”’ It seemed everywhere I looked there were sharks. Was it a sign of something and if so what? I asked myself.

Time flew by and the night before I was to go on the shark adventure, my life started to flash before my eyes. I realized if the shark did break through the cage and eat me, or tip the cage over and eat me, that I was leaving an awfully messy desk behind. Look at all that work someone else would have to do, I thought to myself, starring at my desk and surrounding files. And my car needs cleaning, and I have so many stories to write, not to mention I still have 10 years until my 8-year-old son goes to college. And he is in the phase where he still actually likes me and isn’t yet embarrassed by me, so he might actually be sad and miss me if I am eaten to bits.

The daylight came and I headed out to the North Shore. No turning back now. I would tempt fate and go for it. It wouldn’t be the first time I’d done something crazy. In fact, it wouldn’t even be the 100th time. But I could not shake the bad feeling deep in the pit of my stomach.

I boarded a boat with five other people, three other guests and a captain and assistant. Right away I noticed a black baseball bat on the side of the boat.

“What’s that for,” I asked unsure if I wanted to know.

“Just in case the shark jumps up toward the boat,” said Matt, who decided to accompany me on the shark adventure. I eyed the bat some more, hoping he was kidding, but I never did find that out.

As we rode deeper and deeper into the sapphire blue ocean, waves rocking us from the side as we headed straight out, we could see the entire landscape of the North Shore of Oahu. It was breathtaking.

Fifteen minutes later, we arrived at an odd looking scene — a tiny metal jail like cage big enough for two people bobbing up and down in the waves.

The captain explained two at a time could put on masks and snorkels, climb into the cage and float around for 15 to 20 minutes.

He gave the last minute instructions as he whipped those fish blood and guts I’d heard about into the water. Like clockwork, sharks, virtually invisible to the passengers on the boat, rose to the surface in less than a minute and began to circle.

The captain warned everyone, as the hungry sharks started to lick their chops and eye us from the water, not to put our hands or feet outside of the cage.

”’No kidding.”’

What fool needs to be reminded to keep their hands and feet in the cage when 6- to 8-foot sharks with rows and rows of teeth are just inches away?

Understandably, the other female passenger on the boat was not sure she wanted to go in the cage and she motioned for me to go first, even though I was hoping she’d go first. As I stood there pondering the final moments before the plunge, the waves began to pick up and so did the wind and the cage rocked wildly from side to side. I prayed … OK God, if you don’t think I should go in, then let the cage sink right now, … … … … .

Only the wind responded. The cage stayed afloat. So be it, I said accepting my fate.

Inside the cage, I had the choice to watch the sharks from above the water or to go under the water and go nose to nose with them. As I went under the water, I saw 8 to 10 sharks circling around me and below me and I was extremely thankful for the thin metal bars.

Just as I became a little comfortable with the shark in the water idea and began to enjoy their beauty, strength and grace, and see the shiny blue fish around them, the sharks started to move in even closer (if that was possible) and bang the cage. The sharks hitting the cage jolted me and made a loud startling sound underwater. Whoosh! I popped my head up out of the water, whipped off my mask and asked the captain a stupid question: “are they supposed to be doing that … banging the cage like that?”

“Bad sharks,” he said, jokingly. “Stop banging the cage.”

Hmmm, I thought, what kind of answer is that? Guess it is normal activity for them.

But in lifting my head to talk to the captain, I noticed the boat somehow had floated away from the cage and we were now about 10 feet from what I considered safety — the deck of the boat.

That is when I decided the whole concept was so crazy that I’d just have to let go of my fears and enjoy the experience — sharks bumping, waves crashing, cage rocking, wind blowing and all. Even when a big piece of fish floated into the cage under my feet and the sharks came in closer eyeing it.

We got to take one more dive with the sharks before we left, but then the wind and waves picked up even further and the captain told us it was time to head for shore.

We nearly flew above the water, waves crashing on the edge of the speeding boat and showering us with their cool mist.

Back safe on land, I realized how silly my initial fears were, how needlessly I’d psyched myself out, and how glad I was I took the shark challenge.

Now back to the Legislature I went (smelling just a little fishy) prepared to cover political stories of betrayal, plunder and deception and the fall out from the special session. A funny thing happened when I got there. Everywhere I looked, there were sharks — only this time they were on land and posing as our elected officials.

”’Malia Zimmerman, president and editor of Hawaii Reporter, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

“Malia Lt Blue top Image”

When my friend Matt Waggner told me there is a business in Haleiwa that specializes in shark adventure tours, I could not even picture what that would be like. He told me the business, North Shore Shark Adventures, has employees who take visitors three miles out in the ocean, throw bloody fish guts into the water to attract sharks, and then put the visitors in a tiny cage so they can watch huge toothy sharks swim around them. I thought he was nuts.

Who in their right mind would do such a stupid thing? I asked him.

I was hoping you would, he said.

Not wanting to be a complete chicken, I thought about his offer. Sure I probably swim with the sharks often when I am surfing or kayaking in the deep blue, but the key is I don’t ”’know”’ the toothy fellows are in fact below me, eyeing me up.

However, should I take the plunge and go on the shark adventure, there is little doubt that not only would I see a shark or two, but I would look pretty tasty to them. After all, the bloody fish guts would likely only wet their appetite, not be enough to supplement their diet.

In a moment of weakness I agreed to go and it was at that moment that I started to hear all the news reported in the local and national media about sharks.

First the man on Oahu was bit on the foot by a shark, which later was reported to be a ”’Great White Shark.”’ I thought about that for a minute, … OK more than a minute. A great white shark like the kind in the motion picture Jaws could probably swallow the entire cage I’d be swimming in with room to spare.

Just as the great white shark image began to fade and I was coming to grips with the cage in the ocean concept, a story ran on KITV about great white sharks and how they are known to pass through Hawaii. I imagined a great white shark and his friends swimming by just as I jumped in the shark cage. Would they bother to stop and taste me? Would the fish blood be just like catsup on a Malia burger?

Flipping through the channels trying to get away from the shark news, I turned on the Discovery Channel, only to see sharks, sharks and ”’more sharks.”’ It seemed everywhere I looked there were sharks. Was it a sign of something and if so what? I asked myself.

Time flew by and the night before I was to go on the shark adventure, my life started to flash before my eyes. I realized if the shark did break through the cage and eat me, or tip the cage over and eat me, that I was leaving an awfully messy desk behind. Look at all that work someone else would have to do, I thought to myself, starring at my desk and surrounding files. And my car needs cleaning, and I have so many stories to write, not to mention I still have 10 years until my 8-year-old son goes to college. And he is in the phase where he still actually likes me and isn’t yet embarrassed by me, so he might actually be sad and miss me if I am eaten to bits.

The daylight came and I headed out to the North Shore. No turning back now. I would tempt fate and go for it. It wouldn’t be the first time I’d done something crazy. In fact, it wouldn’t even be the 100th time. But I could not shake the bad feeling deep in the pit of my stomach.

I boarded a boat with five other people, three other guests and a captain and assistant. Right away I noticed a black baseball bat on the side of the boat.

“What’s that for,” I asked unsure if I wanted to know.

“Just in case the shark jumps up toward the boat,” said Matt, who decided to accompany me on the shark adventure. I eyed the bat some more, hoping he was kidding, but I never did find that out.

As we rode deeper and deeper into the sapphire blue ocean, waves rocking us from the side as we headed straight out, we could see the entire landscape of the North Shore of Oahu. It was breathtaking.

Fifteen minutes later, we arrived at an odd looking scene — a tiny metal jail like cage big enough for two people bobbing up and down in the waves.

The captain explained two at a time could put on masks and snorkels, climb into the cage and float around for 15 to 20 minutes.

He gave the last minute instructions as he whipped those fish blood and guts I’d heard about into the water. Like clockwork, sharks, virtually invisible to the passengers on the boat, rose to the surface in less than a minute and began to circle.

The captain warned everyone, as the hungry sharks started to lick their chops and eye us from the water, not to put our hands or feet outside of the cage.

”’No kidding.”’

What fool needs to be reminded to keep their hands and feet in the cage when 6- to 8-foot sharks with rows and rows of teeth are just inches away?

Understandably, the other female passenger on the boat was not sure she wanted to go in the cage and she motioned for me to go first, even though I was hoping she’d go first. As I stood there pondering the final moments before the plunge, the waves began to pick up and so did the wind and the cage rocked wildly from side to side. I prayed … OK God, if you don’t think I should go in, then let the cage sink right now, … … … … .

Only the wind responded. The cage stayed afloat. So be it, I said accepting my fate.

Inside the cage, I had the choice to watch the sharks from above the water or to go under the water and go nose to nose with them. As I went under the water, I saw 8 to 10 sharks circling around me and below me and I was extremely thankful for the thin metal bars.

Just as I became a little comfortable with the shark in the water idea and began to enjoy their beauty, strength and grace, and see the shiny blue fish around them, the sharks started to move in even closer (if that was possible) and bang the cage. The sharks hitting the cage jolted me and made a loud startling sound underwater. Whoosh! I popped my head up out of the water, whipped off my mask and asked the captain a stupid question: “are they supposed to be doing that … banging the cage like that?”

“Bad sharks,” he said, jokingly. “Stop banging the cage.”

Hmmm, I thought, what kind of answer is that? Guess it is normal activity for them.

But in lifting my head to talk to the captain, I noticed the boat somehow had floated away from the cage and we were now about 10 feet from what I considered safety — the deck of the boat.

That is when I decided the whole concept was so crazy that I’d just have to let go of my fears and enjoy the experience — sharks bumping, waves crashing, cage rocking, wind blowing and all. Even when a big piece of fish floated into the cage under my feet and the sharks came in closer eyeing it.

We got to take one more dive with the sharks before we left, but then the wind and waves picked up even further and the captain told us it was time to head for shore.

We nearly flew above the water, waves crashing on the edge of the speeding boat and showering us with their cool mist.

Back safe on land, I realized how silly my initial fears were, how needlessly I’d psyched myself out, and how glad I was I took the shark challenge.

Now back to the Legislature I went (smelling just a little fishy) prepared to cover political stories of betrayal, plunder and deception and the fall out from the special session. A funny thing happened when I got there. Everywhere I looked, there were sharks — only this time they were on land and posing as our elected officials.

”’Malia Zimmerman, president and editor of Hawaii Reporter, can be reached via email at:”’ mailto:Malia@HawaiiReporter.com

“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

— Play Foul Ball

By Jeff A. Talyor and the Reason staff

College presidents across the Southeast are finding out what it is like
to have millions of dollars in their pockets, while being surrounded by
elected officials who think they know just what to do with the money. If
academics ever wondered how tobacco execs and gun makers feel, well, now
they know.

Atlantic Coast Conference have been routing around political stumbling
blocks in their quest to expand their collegiate athletic league. The
biggest threat to the ACC merger — and indirectly to the taxpayers who
fund the state-supported schools in the conference — remains a veteran
of the wars against guns, tobacco, and Microsoft: Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal.

Three Big East schools (Miami, Syracuse, Boston College) have already
been invited to join the ACC. Adding Virginia Tech to the list calms
politicians in Virginia. Gov. Mark Warner and others insisted that the
University of Virginia, an ACC charter member, not leave VPI behind. In
effect, the ACC feels it can buy UVa’s vote by adding Tech to the mix.

But the ACC still must deal with the suit filed by the Big East
conference alleging conspiracy, and therefore it has to deal with
Blumenthal. The Connecticut AG proved during the legal assault on
Microsoft that he was bulldog tough and relentlessly parochial.
Blumenthal led the phalanx of state AGs who sought a pound of flesh from
Microsoft that even the Department of Justice’s antitrust division did
not sanction. Blumenthal and the states wanted to penalize Microsoft for
its success with its Office suite while DOJ focused on Redmond’s Net
browser and operating systems.

“Today is really D-Day for American consumers and customers, but it is also Independence Day for America’s inventors, dreamers, entrepreneurs,” Blumenthal declared when 20 states and DOJ sued Microsoft back in May of 1998. That Microsoft emerged essentially unscathed by its antitrust ordeal — except for ridiculous sums spent on league defense — must’ve been a black day that consumers somehow missed.

But that doesn’t mean Blumenthal came out a loser; quite the contrary.
The goal of any state AG is to keep his or her name in the papers as a
fighter for the local folks, whether the foe is software companies, gun
makers, or rival college leagues. In that regard the Big East-ACC fight
is right up Blumenthal’s alley.

The ACC may snicker at claims that it’s conspiring to destroy the Big
East, but this is where ACC officials may not appreciate whom they’re
dealing with. Blumenthal proceeded on the guns and tobacco fronts using
the tenuous argument that those products somehow produced outsized
public expenditures that the state had to recoup. The Microsoft case
involved the even foggier premise that consumers were somehow getting
gypped, or someday would get gypped once Microsoft cornered the market
on all online commerce.

By contrast, the Big East’s dissolution would definitely cost the
University of Connecticut real money — perhaps millions. UConn was
counting on expanding its football program to fill the vacuum in and
around NYC. That kind of commitment isn’t cheap and will likely go by
the boards should the Big East fall apart or go back to being a
basketball-only league.

For that reason, Blumenthal’s suit has standing enough for a court to
take seriously. That leaves ACC members with the prospect of having to
pay legal fees for years to fight the suit, or try and settle it for
some large sum.

Or they could take the easy way out, and invite UConn to become the 14th
member of a conference that threatens to grow to grotesque proportions,
if only to avoid legal problems. Welcome to the big leagues guys.

— Visit to a Spooky Place

By Jeff A. Taylor and the Reason staff

The remote sensoring of sensitive areas has already begun — in Nevada.
Legendary Area 51, aka Groom Lake, has long been off-limits to mere
citizens. But now it appears that a buffer zone around the top-secret
airbase has been secretly expanded.

One long-time Area 51 observer found remote sensing devices on public
land outside of the base’s own 25-mile security perimeter. Soon after
Chuck Clark showed the devices to a local TV station, he received a
visit from the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Using a sealed search
warrant, the feds seized items from Clark’s home. Clark was out of town
when the raid occurred — was he under surveillance? — and has yet to
be charged with a crime.

The Pentagon might have very good reasons for monitoring who comes and
goes from public lands far from a top-secret base. But they are surely
classified. And something must be done with the data the sensors
collect. That’s probably classified, too. The Bureau of Land Management
may or may not have been told that the sensors were going in. But
bureaucratic hubris will make it hard for BLM to admit it was left
outside the loop.

Thus, secrecy and surveillance radiate out from the state with what
amounts to very little oversight and zero public input.

https://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1330758&nav=168XGVQf

”’Above articles are quoted from Reason Express, Reason’s Weekly Dispatch, June 24, 2003”’ https://www.reason.com

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

— Today’s Tort Suits Are Stranger Than Fiction

By Professor Michael I. Krauss, J.D.

Back in 1997, shortly after tobacco companies had agreed to settle
lawsuits with the various states’ Attorneys General, one Mark F.
Bernstein wrote a parody of the settlement in the Wall Street Journal.
Bernstein’s parody, entitled “A Big Fat Target,” excoriated “junk food”
sellers for raising our cholesterol, makers of kids’ movies for
encouraging spectator lifestyles, and “Wisconsin Cheese Lords” for
clogging our arteries. Mr. Bernstein recognized that his critique of
these producers was “a bit preposterous,” given our free will to consume
these industries’ products. But as he concluded, “It is too hot to
exercise. Dieting demands will power, and why bother if you’re just a
victim? Come on, America. Get off that couch and sue.”

To paraphrase Art Buchwald, parody of tort law is becoming more and more
difficult to write. Teenagers in New York City recently filed a lawsuit
against McDonald’s Corp., alleging that that corporation’s food “caused”
them to gain as much as 200 pounds in weight and to develop heart
disease and diabetes. One, who stands 5′ 9″, tips the scales at 270
pounds; another, more diminutive at 5′ 3″, weighs 200. These plaintiffs
frequented restaurants “nearly every day of the week,” says their
lawyer, Samuel Hirsch. Hirsch contends that “toy promotions” and “Happy
Meals” were a “lethal combination,” literally forcing these
impressionable youths to over-consume at McDonald’s.

Concern for the young doesn’t stop Mr. Hirsch from also representing one
Caesar Barber, 56, who is suing McDonald’s, Burger King Corp., KFC Corp.
and Wendy’s International for “making him overweight.” Mr. Barber, 5′
10″ and 272, has had two heart attacks, but still consumes fast food
three or four times every week. Presumably more resistant to small toys
than the teenagers, Mr. Barber was allegedly hypnotized by restaurants’
advertising. For instance, he believed that advertising that
(accurately) asserted that burgers were 100 percent beef “meant it was
good for you. I thought the food was OK. The fast food industry has
wrecked my life. I was conned. I was fooled. I was tricked.”

Tort suits against Big Fat are but the latest round in the trial bar’s
“blame the inanimate object” game. These suits follow in the footsteps
of litigation against “Big Tobacco,” gun makers, and former suppliers of
lead paint, all of which are products that can be used in harmful ways.
Professor John Bahnzaf of George Washington University’s School of Law,
one of the promoters of this game, has admitted that he would prefer to
tax to death products he does not like. Alas, pesky elected legislators
refuse to enact the taxes Bahnzaf and other gurus know we need to
protect us from temptation. So litigation, before unelected judges, is
used to obtain what can’t be got using the proper constitutional
techniques.

The gun and lead paint suits have been spectacularly unsuccessful, as
have been tobacco suits (other than the settlement with the states).
Lawsuits against Big Fat will fail in the end. But they will cost
defendants tens of millions in lawyers’ and court fees and will result
in payoffs to Mr. Hirsch and to the rest of the plaintiffs’ bar. That’s
what these suits are about. They are not about tort law.

For there is absolutely no proof that the food sold by Big Fat is
“defective and unreasonably dangerous” (the legal standard for
liability). True, if an individual consumed nothing other than Big Macs,
that individual’s diet would be unbalanced and relatively unhealthy. But
none of the defendants advise or recommend that anyone consume their
food exclusively. Indeed, even the preposterous post-pubescent
plaintiffs in Mr. Hirsch’s “class action” allegedly consumed fifteen
meals per week at home. One wonders what they ate there. There is no
such thing as bad food (unless of course, the food is adulterated or
poisoned). There are merely poor eating habits.

Until recently, we assumed that a citizen’s free choices were the legal
cause of both caloric intake and sweaty out-take. But if there is no
free will, as the plaintiffs maintain, there are many more culprits than
Big Fat.

Why isn’t Mom the “cause” of Junior’s obesity? She could have
declined to give Junior the funds needed to go to the fast food joint;
she could have fed Junior salads at home; she could have signed Junior
up for the soccer team. Mom, unlike Wendy’s, actually has what the law
calls a “special relationship” with Junior — she has affirmative duties
toward her child. Or maybe the public schools “cause” Junior’s obesity:
over 79 percent of high schoolers get no physical education during any
given week.

While we’re at it, why not sue zoning boards for “causing”
Junior’s obesity? They segregate quarter-acre single-family residences,
“making” us take our cars to shops and community centers. What about
carmakers, come to think of it? They “force” us to buy their motorized
couches with their ubiquitous TV ads and zero-percent financing. What
about oil companies, that price gasoline so low that we are “forced” to
take the car instead of walking a mile to the bus stop? If we relax
principles of tort, we have lots of candidates for liability.

Those who back the lawsuits against Big Fat deplore the “epidemic” of
obesity, as if it were the equivalent of smallpox or polio epidemics
which resulted in mandatory vaccination programs. But smallpox and
polio, unlike obesity, spread involuntarily. The obesity “epidemic” is
not of this ilk. It is a complex result of shifts in living patterns and
of cultural phenomena that lead to choices to over-consume food and
under-consume exercise. Those choices, if socially inappropriate, may be
criticized. Existing legislation may inadvertently contribute to the
problem, and new laws (reforming zoning bylaws, or relaxing the public
school monopoly, or modifying the food stamp program) may have a useful
role to play in solving the problem. But reducing obesity is not within
the scope of tort law. Suing Big Fat is a big fat mistake.

”’Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law and a member of the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, an education and research organization headquartered in Potomac Falls, Virginia.”’

”’Above article is quoted from Virginia Institute”’
https://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2003_05.html

”Evergreen (Today’s Quotes)”

“From an economist’s viewpoint, American health care policy is in a
completely predictable cost, service and access death spiral. American
policy fails to recognize that the person who generally best understands
the value of and need for medical care is the individual or the family
who is seeking it. Rationing and managed care solutions to cost control
are doomed to failure because they inherently stand in the way of
consumer sovereignty.” — Randall J. Pozdena, Cascade Policy Institute
October 2002

“A fool and his money are soon elected.” — Will Rogers

”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’
mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/

“Dick Rowland Image”

”Shoots (News, Views and Quotes)”

— Play Foul Ball

By Jeff A. Talyor and the Reason staff

College presidents across the Southeast are finding out what it is like
to have millions of dollars in their pockets, while being surrounded by
elected officials who think they know just what to do with the money. If
academics ever wondered how tobacco execs and gun makers feel, well, now
they know.

Atlantic Coast Conference have been routing around political stumbling
blocks in their quest to expand their collegiate athletic league. The
biggest threat to the ACC merger — and indirectly to the taxpayers who
fund the state-supported schools in the conference — remains a veteran
of the wars against guns, tobacco, and Microsoft: Connecticut Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal.

Three Big East schools (Miami, Syracuse, Boston College) have already
been invited to join the ACC. Adding Virginia Tech to the list calms
politicians in Virginia. Gov. Mark Warner and others insisted that the
University of Virginia, an ACC charter member, not leave VPI behind. In
effect, the ACC feels it can buy UVa’s vote by adding Tech to the mix.

But the ACC still must deal with the suit filed by the Big East
conference alleging conspiracy, and therefore it has to deal with
Blumenthal. The Connecticut AG proved during the legal assault on
Microsoft that he was bulldog tough and relentlessly parochial.
Blumenthal led the phalanx of state AGs who sought a pound of flesh from
Microsoft that even the Department of Justice’s antitrust division did
not sanction. Blumenthal and the states wanted to penalize Microsoft for
its success with its Office suite while DOJ focused on Redmond’s Net
browser and operating systems.

“Today is really D-Day for American consumers and customers, but it is also Independence Day for America’s inventors, dreamers, entrepreneurs,” Blumenthal declared when 20 states and DOJ sued Microsoft back in May of 1998. That Microsoft emerged essentially unscathed by its antitrust ordeal — except for ridiculous sums spent on league defense — must’ve been a black day that consumers somehow missed.

But that doesn’t mean Blumenthal came out a loser; quite the contrary.
The goal of any state AG is to keep his or her name in the papers as a
fighter for the local folks, whether the foe is software companies, gun
makers, or rival college leagues. In that regard the Big East-ACC fight
is right up Blumenthal’s alley.

The ACC may snicker at claims that it’s conspiring to destroy the Big
East, but this is where ACC officials may not appreciate whom they’re
dealing with. Blumenthal proceeded on the guns and tobacco fronts using
the tenuous argument that those products somehow produced outsized
public expenditures that the state had to recoup. The Microsoft case
involved the even foggier premise that consumers were somehow getting
gypped, or someday would get gypped once Microsoft cornered the market
on all online commerce.

By contrast, the Big East’s dissolution would definitely cost the
University of Connecticut real money — perhaps millions. UConn was
counting on expanding its football program to fill the vacuum in and
around NYC. That kind of commitment isn’t cheap and will likely go by
the boards should the Big East fall apart or go back to being a
basketball-only league.

For that reason, Blumenthal’s suit has standing enough for a court to
take seriously. That leaves ACC members with the prospect of having to
pay legal fees for years to fight the suit, or try and settle it for
some large sum.

Or they could take the easy way out, and invite UConn to become the 14th
member of a conference that threatens to grow to grotesque proportions,
if only to avoid legal problems. Welcome to the big leagues guys.

— Visit to a Spooky Place

By Jeff A. Taylor and the Reason staff

The remote sensoring of sensitive areas has already begun — in Nevada.
Legendary Area 51, aka Groom Lake, has long been off-limits to mere
citizens. But now it appears that a buffer zone around the top-secret
airbase has been secretly expanded.

One long-time Area 51 observer found remote sensing devices on public
land outside of the base’s own 25-mile security perimeter. Soon after
Chuck Clark showed the devices to a local TV station, he received a
visit from the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Using a sealed search
warrant, the feds seized items from Clark’s home. Clark was out of town
when the raid occurred — was he under surveillance? — and has yet to
be charged with a crime.

The Pentagon might have very good reasons for monitoring who comes and
goes from public lands far from a top-secret base. But they are surely
classified. And something must be done with the data the sensors
collect. That’s probably classified, too. The Bureau of Land Management
may or may not have been told that the sensors were going in. But
bureaucratic hubris will make it hard for BLM to admit it was left
outside the loop.

Thus, secrecy and surveillance radiate out from the state with what
amounts to very little oversight and zero public input.

https://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1330758&nav=168XGVQf

”’Above articles are quoted from Reason Express, Reason’s Weekly Dispatch, June 24, 2003”’ https://www.reason.com

”Roots (Food for Thought)”

— Today’s Tort Suits Are Stranger Than Fiction

By Professor Michael I. Krauss, J.D.

Back in 1997, shortly after tobacco companies had agreed to settle
lawsuits with the various states’ Attorneys General, one Mark F.
Bernstein wrote a parody of the settlement in the Wall Street Journal.
Bernstein’s parody, entitled “A Big Fat Target,” excoriated “junk food”
sellers for raising our cholesterol, makers of kids’ movies for
encouraging spectator lifestyles, and “Wisconsin Cheese Lords” for
clogging our arteries. Mr. Bernstein recognized that his critique of
these producers was “a bit preposterous,” given our free will to consume
these industries’ products. But as he concluded, “It is too hot to
exercise. Dieting demands will power, and why bother if you’re just a
victim? Come on, America. Get off that couch and sue.”

To paraphrase Art Buchwald, parody of tort law is becoming more and more
difficult to write. Teenagers in New York City recently filed a lawsuit
against McDonald’s Corp., alleging that that corporation’s food “caused”
them to gain as much as 200 pounds in weight and to develop heart
disease and diabetes. One, who stands 5′ 9″, tips the scales at 270
pounds; another, more diminutive at 5′ 3″, weighs 200. These plaintiffs
frequented restaurants “nearly every day of the week,” says their
lawyer, Samuel Hirsch. Hirsch contends that “toy promotions” and “Happy
Meals” were a “lethal combination,” literally forcing these
impressionable youths to over-consume at McDonald’s.

Concern for the young doesn’t stop Mr. Hirsch from also representing one
Caesar Barber, 56, who is suing McDonald’s, Burger King Corp., KFC Corp.
and Wendy’s International for “making him overweight.” Mr. Barber, 5′
10″ and 272, has had two heart attacks, but still consumes fast food
three or four times every week. Presumably more resistant to small toys
than the teenagers, Mr. Barber was allegedly hypnotized by restaurants’
advertising. For instance, he believed that advertising that
(accurately) asserted that burgers were 100 percent beef “meant it was
good for you. I thought the food was OK. The fast food industry has
wrecked my life. I was conned. I was fooled. I was tricked.”

Tort suits against Big Fat are but the latest round in the trial bar’s
“blame the inanimate object” game. These suits follow in the footsteps
of litigation against “Big Tobacco,” gun makers, and former suppliers of
lead paint, all of which are products that can be used in harmful ways.
Professor John Bahnzaf of George Washington University’s School of Law,
one of the promoters of this game, has admitted that he would prefer to
tax to death products he does not like. Alas, pesky elected legislators
refuse to enact the taxes Bahnzaf and other gurus know we need to
protect us from temptation. So litigation, before unelected judges, is
used to obtain what can’t be got using the proper constitutional
techniques.

The gun and lead paint suits have been spectacularly unsuccessful, as
have been tobacco suits (other than the settlement with the states).
Lawsuits against Big Fat will fail in the end. But they will cost
defendants tens of millions in lawyers’ and court fees and will result
in payoffs to Mr. Hirsch and to the rest of the plaintiffs’ bar. That’s
what these suits are about. They are not about tort law.

For there is absolutely no proof that the food sold by Big Fat is
“defective and unreasonably dangerous” (the legal standard for
liability). True, if an individual consumed nothing other than Big Macs,
that individual’s diet would be unbalanced and relatively unhealthy. But
none of the defendants advise or recommend that anyone consume their
food exclusively. Indeed, even the preposterous post-pubescent
plaintiffs in Mr. Hirsch’s “class action” allegedly consumed fifteen
meals per week at home. One wonders what they ate there. There is no
such thing as bad food (unless of course, the food is adulterated or
poisoned). There are merely poor eating habits.

Until recently, we assumed that a citizen’s free choices were the legal
cause of both caloric intake and sweaty out-take. But if there is no
free will, as the plaintiffs maintain, there are many more culprits than
Big Fat.

Why isn’t Mom the “cause” of Junior’s obesity? She could have
declined to give Junior the funds needed to go to the fast food joint;
she could have fed Junior salads at home; she could have signed Junior
up for the soccer team. Mom, unlike Wendy’s, actually has what the law
calls a “special relationship” with Junior — she has affirmative duties
toward her child. Or maybe the public schools “cause” Junior’s obesity:
over 79 percent of high schoolers get no physical education during any
given week.

While we’re at it, why not sue zoning boards for “causing”
Junior’s obesity? They segregate quarter-acre single-family residences,
“making” us take our cars to shops and community centers. What about
carmakers, come to think of it? They “force” us to buy their motorized
couches with their ubiquitous TV ads and zero-percent financing. What
about oil companies, that price gasoline so low that we are “forced” to
take the car instead of walking a mile to the bus stop? If we relax
principles of tort, we have lots of candidates for liability.

Those who back the lawsuits against Big Fat deplore the “epidemic” of
obesity, as if it were the equivalent of smallpox or polio epidemics
which resulted in mandatory vaccination programs. But smallpox and
polio, unlike obesity, spread involuntarily. The obesity “epidemic” is
not of this ilk. It is a complex result of shifts in living patterns and
of cultural phenomena that lead to choices to over-consume food and
under-consume exercise. Those choices, if socially inappropriate, may be
criticized. Existing legislation may inadvertently contribute to the
problem, and new laws (reforming zoning bylaws, or relaxing the public
school monopoly, or modifying the food stamp program) may have a useful
role to play in solving the problem. But reducing obesity is not within
the scope of tort law. Suing Big Fat is a big fat mistake.

”’Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at the George Mason University School of Law and a member of the Board of Scholars of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, an education and research organization headquartered in Potomac Falls, Virginia.”’

”’Above article is quoted from Virginia Institute”’
https://www.virginiainstitute.org/viewpoint/2003_05.html

”Evergreen (Today’s Quotes)”

“From an economist’s viewpoint, American health care policy is in a
completely predictable cost, service and access death spiral. American
policy fails to recognize that the person who generally best understands
the value of and need for medical care is the individual or the family
who is seeking it. Rationing and managed care solutions to cost control
are doomed to failure because they inherently stand in the way of
consumer sovereignty.” — Randall J. Pozdena, Cascade Policy Institute
October 2002

“A fool and his money are soon elected.” — Will Rogers

”’Edited by Richard O. Rowland, president of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii. He can be reached at (808) 487-4959 or by email at:”’
mailto:grassroot@hawaii.rr.com ”’For more information, see its Web site at:”’ https://www.grassrootinstitute.org/