Ding ding ding! Let the debate begin!

Please join us for the next Free People, Free Markets: Principles of Liberty course!

Five consecutive Tuesdays, May 18th to June 15th

6:30 to 9:30 in the Denver Tech Center

Call us at 303.279.6536 to RSVP

Many of you asked for a Principles of Liberty course to take place on a weeknight, instead of on Saturdays. You also asked that we hold the class somewhere in the south metro area, instead of here at the Independence Institute offices in Golden. Well, you’re in luck! The Spring Free People, Free Markets classes will be held on 5 consecutive Tuesdays at 6:30pm, starting May 18th, down in the Denver Tech Center. Classes will be at the Colorado Contractors Association building at the intersection of I-25 and Arapahoe Road (map). For more information, click here for the official class flyer.

So why should you take our class?

You have a strong love of freedom. It’s a natural part of being human. But too few of today’s adults were taught the fundamentals of a free society. We have a wonderful seminar to offer you. It pulls together the basic principles of liberty and a free market, showing you that these cohesive fundamentals allow society to work well, and to honor the individual. The course material springs from the great thinkers and achievers who shaped America. It is designed for business and community leaders and the general public as well as for college students.

The course makes the moral and philosophic case for free-market capitalism. One of the most important concepts of Western Civilization is the acquisition of property as an unalienable right. The course develops the relationship between economic liberty and political liberty. Participants learn the principles behind wealth-creation. They are introduced to the philosophy of the Austrian School of Economics and its connection to the founding ideas of the American experiment. Participants are awakened to their heritage of economic liberty. It will be more than worth your time.

A few law professors have been arguing that it’s constitutional to force people to buy health insurance, because the Constitution gives Congress power to “regulate Commerce among the several States.”

Under the very broad formulation of the federal Commerce Power issued by the modern Supreme Court, Congress can regulate not just interstate commerce and certain related activities (as the Founders intended) but also any “economic activities” that “substantially affect interstate Commerce.” This, the new argument goes, includes a power to punish non-activity (i.e., failure to buy insurance).

Let’s examine some of the implications of this novel argument:

* The Constitution grants Congress authority to “provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting. . . ” By the same reasoning, Congress enjoys power to punish anyone who doesn’t counterfeit.

* The Constitution grants Congress authority to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations.” Hence, Congress may punish anyone who does not commit those crimes.

* The Constitution grants Congress’ authority to “declare the Punishment of Treason.” Hence, Congress may “declare the Punishment” for people who do not commit treason.

These examples show how ridiculous such “reasoning” is. Ridiculous, but also dangerous, because it can be used to obliterate meaning from the constitutional language, and, thereby, all constitutional limits on government.

Some of the Founders warned us that unscrupulous advocates would try to subvert the Constitution in this way — by arguments those Founders called “sophistry.”

Sophistry is defined by Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) as “subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation.” The term comes from the practice of professional mouth-pieces in ancient Greece, who to demonstrate their rhetorical prowess would construct clever arguments for a proposition, and then just as slyly tear it down.

It’s no secret that University of Colorado economics professor and senior fellow Barry Poulson is a prolific writer.  The man cranks out a consistent bevy of works that are both substantive and interesting (the latter being something you almost never get from an economist).  His latest piece is no exception.

In “Restoring Federalism and State Sovereignty: A Constitutional Path to Prosperity,” Barry gives a brief overview of how we got to where we are – states becoming more and more subservient to Federal power – and the important role the Judiciary played in steering us in that direction.  (I say steering, but Barry would probably say “pushing”).  After years of judicial abdication bolstering Federal powers and all but eviscerating Constitutional constraints, what can we do to turn the ship around?  Is it too late?

Barry offers a few different paths we can take, all Constitutionally compliant.  One of the possible solutions happens to be the subject of yesterday’s post regarding a very special podcast featuring AG Suthers.  Give Barry a few minutes of your time to flesh out some other solutions.  You won’t regret it.

We’ve got an extra special iVoices.org podcast today for you.  Colorado Attorney General John Suthers joins our Research Director Dave Kopel to discuss the lawsuit he and 12 others State Attorneys General have jointly filed, that claims that the health care bill recently signed by President Obama  is unconstitutional via a violation of the 10th Amendment.  States’ rights issues are hot right now and this lawsuit is one of many attacks on the Federal government’s encroachment on state sovereignty.  (You might remember Montana’s legislative finger to the Federal government last year).   AG Suthers makes a good point: if Obama Care is allowed to ride, it will be a dangerous precedent – one that we can never return from.  As the AG puts it, if the Feds can punish you for NOT engaging in commerce, is there any limit to their power?  To get the whole scoop, listen to the podcast on iVoices.org.

If there were any doubt that our constitutional protection has been lost, that doubt should be removed by the congressional vote subjecting the personal health care decisions of every American to central governmental authority.

By an extremely narrow majority, the House of Representatives has crammed a profoundly unpopular and unconstitutional measure down the throats of the American public:  And not only unpopular and unconstitutional, but expensive enough to virtually ensure our nation’s eventual bankruptcy.

Unless it is overturned, nationalized health care will complete the process of changing the Founders’ system of a government dependent on the people to one where the people are dependent on the government.  Citizens will be thoroughly re-molded into subjects.

The unseemly legislative conduct (the Founders would have called it “corruption”) leading up to the vote have communicated even to those previously not paying attention that federal politicians are now absolutely, utterly out of control.  The majority in Congress has rendered it perfectly clear that there is no constitutional or legal restriction they will not violate.

As congressional rumblings about the recent Citizens United decision have suggested, protections for free speech may be next.

There is no “good” response to these outrages – that is, “good” in the sense of easy and foolproof: After all, the very people who perpetrated them also control America’s nuclear arsenal.  There are only responses that, while difficult, offer real hope of success.  Here are a few:

*    Widespread court challenges, on every colorable constitutional, legal, and technical ground we can think of.  State governments can take a leading role in this, by virtue of the fact that state governments are more likely than individuals to have standing in federal court.  State governments and officials also have much to lose if the feds are allowed to complete their health care takeover.

*    Health care provider non-compliance:  To the extent they can, physicians and other providers should opt out of the system.  Their choices include partial or complete refusal to participate in Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs; refusal to take any but direct-payment patients; reduced work hours; and even career change and early retirement.  Students considering a medical career should now reconsider.  Given the ominous nature of the federal health care coup d’etat, my guess is that a lot of this will happen anyway.

*    State constitutional amendments.  One excellent idea is the amendment proposed in Colorado guaranteeing that the state will never participate in any system that denies patients and physicians the right to their own health-care decisions.

*    Civil disobedience.  This should include state non-compliance with federal health-care mandates and peaceful resistance by providers and citizens at every level.  The model here should be the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s.

*    Redoubling efforts for the 2010 elections.  The people responsible for this bill should be cleaned out of Congress – all of them.  In addition, we need to gear up for 2012 and ensure that state lawmakers elected in 2010 fully understand their constitutional obligations.

*    Amend-to-Save.  A clean sweep of Congress is not enough.  There is now no escaping it – we need amend our Constitution to save it, or we will not have any Constitution left.

There is nothing new in this last proposal.  Our fathers, grandfathers, and their predecessors all adopted constitutional amendments designed less to change the system than to preserve it.  Again and again, the American people adopted formal amendments to rein in the politicians and restore or reinforce Founding principles.

Thus, the Ninth Amendment made clear that federal powers were not to be interpreted too expansively.  The Tenth Amendment clarified that the central government had no authority other than that granted by the Constitution.  The Eleventh reversed a Supreme Court opinion that conflicted with the dominant understanding of the ratifiers.  The Twenty-First Amendment restored control over alcoholic beverages to the states, where the Founders had left it.  The Twenty-Second Amendment restored the two-term presidential tradition set by Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.  The Twenty-Seventh, although not finally adopted until 1992, had been proposed by James Madison and sent to the states by the First Congress.  The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth (the post-Civil War amendments) were more radical, but also principally fulfilled the ideals of the Founding.

Now we need a Twenty-Eight, Twenty-Ninth, and Thirtieth Amendment – not so much to change the Founders’ Constitution as to restore it.  How?   Congress will not reform itself.  Fortunately, the Founders recognized that when Congress veered completely out of control, there had to be a way to amend without its consent.  Hence, they wrote into the Constitution a procedure whereby two-thirds of the states could propose amendments, which would then be drafted by a convention, and approved only if three-quarters of the states ratified them.

We now have no choice: We are going to have to use that method.  That’s why state legislative races are so important this year.

It’s a little colder today in hell.  Despite my ego’s protests, I’ve decided to share this wonderful space I like to call the Cauldron with a man much smarter than I.  Drum roll please….. I’d like to welcome senior fellow, Rob Natelson.

Rob has been a Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute for many years.  He’s a nationally-recognized constitutional scholar with an awesome publication record – not just in constitutional law, but in many other fields.

Rob also has a wealth of practical political experience in several different states – including Colorado and particularly Montana.  For example, during the 1990s he led a successful movement to transform Montana from a state dominated by a collectivist, anti-freedom mind-set to a state much more respectful of personal freedom.  He ran a statewide radio talk show, and in 2000 he ran second among five Republican and Democratic candidates in the Montana “open” gubernatorial primary.

Before embarking on an academic career, Rob practiced law in Colorado, taught on various occasions at the University of Colorado and the University of Denver, and wrote a regular column for the Rocky Mountain News (RIP).  He spends a lot of time in the outdoors — hiking, skiiing, and sometimes camping and shooting.  He has been an guest several times on some very popular iVoices podcasts.

Rob is particularly known as an expert on our American Founding Fathers and the intent behind the U.S. Constitution, so many of his comments will be about the Constitution.  Expect to see remarks about personal rights, states’ rights, out-of-control judges, and how our government disregards its constitutional limits.  But you can expect him to weigh in on all sorts of topics. (Of course, his opinions are his own – not necessarily those of me, the Independence Institute, or of his current employer.)

Would a white male Supreme Court nominee be called a racist if he said, “I would hope that a wise Caucasian male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life”?

Would he have a snowball’s chance in hell of being confirmed?

The Independence Institute, one of the original state-based think tanks, is almost 25 years old.  This effective little organization was the brain child of a young Mr. John Andrews. I am greatly indebted to this man.  Not only has he been a strong friend when times seemed bleak, a fine mentor and a fellow freedom fighter, but quite simply, if he didn’t create Independence back then, I’d likely be flipping hamburgers now. You see, and I know this doesn’t come as any surprise to you, but I have absolutely no employable skills. How I backed into this gig is anyone’s guess.  But if John didn’t create Independence back then, the only thing I’d be saying into a microphone now is “would you like fries with that?”

Well now the former Colorado Senate President is going back to his roots as the director of the Centennial Institute, a new think tank being created by Colorado Christian University. Centennial will work to enhance public understanding of the issues relating to “faith, family and freedom.”  They couldn’t have chosen a better man to lead it.  And, in pure self-interest, this gives me possibility of another job in about 15 years.