Stop Defending Roberts

I’m not a constitutional scholar. There’s your disclaimer. But, the idea that Chief Justice John Roberts has helped the conservative/libertarian/constitutional cause by limiting Congress’ Commerce Clause power by making the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate constitutional under the taxing power is getting silly. Many conservative pundits have tried to calm the waters among grassroots conservatives and libertarians by saying that, although the ruling was a blow to our expectations, there is a silver lining. To say that the “police” powers of the Commerce Clause were staunched and all we have to do, thankfully and almost easily in their minds, is to fight these taxing powers at the ballot box. This makes me think that “experts” really don’t know, nor understand, what it’s like to be a “non-expert”.

If one is to remark about the broad police powers of the government, what should and often does come to mind? Taxation. The taxing power of the government is one of the most onerous, awesome and frightening powers the government has. Think about it: the massive combined federal, state, and local governments command us to pay a certain amount of money to them to support their operation (I’m not going to argue about the Social Contract or other fundamental things). This is usually based on what you and I do. If you work, you pay an income tax. If you invest, you pay taxes on profits and/or losses. Hell, even when you die, your family pays a tax on your estate (dying is doing something). What is this command to pay backed by? Violence. Guns. Threats. Loss of Freedom. Loss of property. The various levels of government have untold resources to compel its citizens to pay their share. How much more powerful of a policing power can there be?

Just because Roberts did not use the Commerce Clause to uphold the ACA, does not mean we’re any better off. The taxing power seems just as, if not more, scary to me. 

Mandate = Tax

Well. There you have it. The "Affordable" Care Act has been found (for the most part) constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts massaged his opinion to say that the individual mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, but constitutional under Congress' taxing power. So, the federal government can tax us into oblivion in order to force us to buy something we may not want. Great precedent huh?

Here's a link to the 193-page opinion.

Intrigue in Egypt

Ouch. The Egyptian people have chosen the Muslim Brotherhood candidate, Mohammed Morsi, as their new president. But are we actually seeing a "transition to democracy" in Egypt? Well...

The Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) had recently suspended the powers of the presidency to control the military and inserted broad powers for itself. The country's highest court had thrown out legislative election results and the new constitution. The SCAF was the true guiding hand in Egypt for the past year, so why did the Brotherhood candidate win over the man who seemed to be the natural fit for the military, Ahmed Safik?

Safik was a former prime minister for Hosni Mubarak. He was seen as the status quo, "old guard" candidate. The Brotherhood had been banned from political activities under Mubarak. So many questions come out of this: 

Does the Brotherhood have more influence in the military than most think? 

What type of constitution will come out of a Brotherhood-dominated legislature, assuming there is one (though it seems clear that's the path the people are headed down)?

What of relations with Israel and the United States, as well as the broader Middle East region (specifically Turkey, Syria and Iran)?

Will the fundamentalist Brotherhood be able to contain itself from onerous religious laws after the celebrations in Tahrir Square die down? 

Was there a deal cut between the Brotherhood and SCAF (obviously, yes)? How extensive was it (besides the military's suspension of basic democratic controls). Closely connected to this is: 

Was this result a fait accompli as the military and the Brotherhood negotiated "power sharing" roles? (In order to win the presidency, the Brotherhood had to agree to give up power over the military and the military would support Morsi).

Politics is politics wherever you go and politics is about power (getting it, holding it, maintaining it, expanding it, etc.). So all of the great chants about democracy and freedom will often be a mask to cover naked power grabs. If the Egyptian military is/was more concerned about power, than national security, then this result is not surprising. Same goes for the Brotherhood; give up some powers in the hopes of gaining others they may find more important (religious, social control). Heck, if the Brotherhood plays their cards right, they may be able to get the upper hand on the military over time. Come to think of it, both sides are probably thinking the same thing (make the deal, wait out the clock, maneuver incessantly and take total control). 

The thought of a large and powerful military, working along side a known religious fundamentalist group in a (soon-to-be formerly) secular and open society should give our government and many of the freedom and liberty-loving people around the world pause. No need to get hysterical just yet, but watch and wait. I don't see much good coming out of this development...