Friday night means public affairs tv excellence with the Independence Institute on Colorado Public Television 12.

First, catch Independence Institute research director David Kopel on on the roundtable show, Colorado Inside Out at 8:00 PM. Then stay tuned for Devil’s Advocate at 8:30. First, incoming Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives Mark Ferrandino sits down with Independence Institute president Jon Caldara about what to expect in the upcoming legislative session. Then Independence Institute constitutional scholar Rob Natelson comes by to explain how Congress ignored the constitutional requirement that spending bills originate in the House in the recent “fiscal cliff” deal, and why it matters.
That’s tonight starting at 8:00 on Colorado Public Television 12.

There are some good reasons to get high on pot.

The Independence Institute held no position on Amendment 64, legalizing recreational marijuana. And I know not everyone is thrilled about Colorado becoming the Amsterdam of America. But like it or not, it is in our state constitution.

So let me throw out this idea – even if you hate pot being legal, there are some great victories for limited government hidden inside this issue.

First, we finally have a state-rights issue that the Left can, must and will understand and fight to preserve.

Marijuana is still very illegal by federal law, but now it’s protected by our state constitution. I am no legal expert on the U.S. Constitution, but I don’t see anything in it that gives the Feds power over Colorado on this one. But what the hell do I know? I didn’t see anything in it that could let the Feds tax us for not buying health insurance.

Pardon me for stealing this phrase, but, this is a great teachable moment. This is a massive opportunity for those of us who fear the growing central authority in D.C. Some portion of the Left will now agree with us. We need to embrace this challenge and take a lead in educating Coloradans about the Tenth Amendment before the Left tries to pervert it somehow.

In order for those who support pot to keep in legal in Colorado, they MUST embrace the Founders’ ideal of Federalism. And I believe we need to help them understand the power of this simple ideal, and why it applies to a whole lot more than weed.

But if you hate Amendment 64 and wish it smothered out of existence, the only way that can happen now is if you embrace what the Left embraces: federal power trumping the expressed wishes of a sovereign state. Perhaps, like health insurance, the Feds can tax us for not purchasing dope, but they’ll have to pervert the Constitution (again) to override the vote in Colorado.

Here’s the second little prize in Amendment 64. Legalized pot MIGHT force some on the Left to face their hypocrisies, like their confusion on property rights and freedom of association.

In Colorado, it is illegal for an owner of a private establishment to allow tobacco smoking in their bar or restaurant. No one here is free to enjoy a cigar and a steak, or a cigarette and a cup of coffee, in the same place and time. Smokers cannot freely associate with other smokers, enjoying their legal product, in private establishments. Smokers are treated like lepers. My elitist hometown of Boulder is about ready to make smoking outdoors on the Pearl Street Mall illegal. Now that about 65% of Boulder voted for pot, will pot smokers and their business owners be treated like their tobacco-smoking brethren?

Tobacco is taxed at an exorbitant rate, regulated to the point of making it a controlled substance. State cigarette tax windfalls are spent on childhood reading programs and building sidewalks. Will the state heap wild sin taxes on pot and spend that money in ways that have nothing to do it?

I am looking forward to owners and customers of pot businesses opening their eyes (if they can pry their baked eyes open) to how abusive regulation destroys what they are trying to build.

We have a problem getting our message of limited government outside of our own echo chamber. If you doubt that, I’ll remind you of the last election. Well, here’s an uncomfortable opportunity to try something different.

Let’s channel our best Voltaire: I disagree with your decision to legalize pot, but I’ll defend to the death your state’s right to do it.

The November 6 election outcome has many friends of the Constitution dispirited. As so often before, they hoped that by defeating federal candidates contemptuous of constitutional limits and replacing them with others, they could help restore our Constitution.

Obviously, that decades-long strategy has failed—spectacularly.

They also have long hoped that by appointing the right people to the U.S. Supreme Court, they could win case decisions restoring constitutional limits. But after 40 years, that campaign has produced only indifferent results. Actually, worse than indifferent: When, through the 2010 Obamacare law, federal politicians overreached further than they ever had before—by imposing a mandate ordering almost everyone in the country to buy a commercial product—the Court didn’t even hold the much-weakened line. Rather, the Court upheld the mandate.

The fundamental fallacy behind the federally-centered strategy lies in assuming federal politicians and federal judges will somehow restore limits on federal power. That is implausible as an abstract proposition. And practical experience over many decades also shows that strategy to be a failure.

There are several reasons for the failure of the federal election strategy. First, for this approach to work, you have to elect a majority—actually a super-majority (at least 60 in the Senate)—of constitutionalists to Congress. You also have to elect a person of similar views to the presidency. And you have to do this so they are all in office at the same time.

Second, constitutionalists face inherent handicaps running for federal office: Most are by nature non-political, and therefore don’t make good or persistent politicians. Their views prevent them from promising farmers more subsidies, seniors more health care, or students more loans. And those views also discourage campaign contributions.

Third, even when constitutionalists do achieve federal office, a critical proportion of them forget or weaken their commitments amid the enticements of Washington, D.C. and the fleshpots of power.

The Founders foresaw this sort of thing. That’s why they inserted in the Constitution’s Article V language allowing the states to respond to federal abuse by amending the document. At the behest of 2/3 of the states, all convene together to propose constitutional amendments, which 3/4 may ratify.

This provision was designed explicitly to enable the states to bypass federal politicians.

Incredibly, however, the convention method of proposing amendments has never been used. This largely explains why our governmental system is so unbalanced today.

Year after year, well-meaning people have rejected the convention approach in the vain hope that federal elections are the answer. In the light of Tuesday’s results, they need to re-assess. This reassessment is now more urgent than ever, because even more than the Constitution is at stake. So also is our national solvency.

It’s Monday. Booooooo. No one likes Mondays. But allow me to help you cope with today.

If you happen to be male and reading this, then I’m certain you did not attend our women-only renewable energy debate we had this past Wednesday. I snuck in to watch for a few minutes here and there and let me tell you, it was fantastic. (It was even better than I thought after I listened to the full debate audio). We had an all-star panel for the debate, highlighted by none other than Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center and Reason Magazine. If you were unable to attend the debate either because of your gender or your day job, check out the full debate audio here.

Secondly, I’d like to point you towards a couple of articles from I.I. authors that deserve a look. First, Ben DeGrow of the Education Policy Center saw a sneak preview of Hollywood’s take on the school choice/reform movement called “Won’t Back Down.” Ben admits in his review for Ed New Colorado that even though Won’t Back Down is no Citizen Kane, it still gets across a vital message: School reform will not wait!

Finally, frequent I.I. guest author Ari Armstrong published an op-ed in yesterday’s Denver Post arguing against Amendment 65, which appears on this November’s ballot and would demand that Colorado legislators get on board with more onerous and restrictive campaign finance reform. In other words, to be FOR Amendment 65, one must be against free speech. Ari is fervently pro-First Amendment rights however, and thus, makes a good case against Amendment 65. You might recall that our Research Director Dave Kopel is also a big fan of free speech rights and recently appeared on KNUS to debate Ken Gordon on the issue. You can hear that debate audio here.

Independence Institute Research Director, Law Professor, and Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel spoke at the University of Colorado at Denver on Sept. 11, 2012. The anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is a good time to consider how to enhance protection against all forms of terrorism through policy changes which safeguard civil liberties. One of the best such changes is removing restrictions against licensed carry on campus, because such restrictions make colleges into safe zones for mass murderers and other criminals.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 was a landmark case protecting political speech – whether in the form of a guy standing on the sidewalk promoting or bashing a political candidate or that same guy giving money on behalf of his corporation for or against a political candidate or cause. The Court found that restricting political contributions, even from groups of people formed as corporations, was antithetical to our Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular. On the heels of that decision, the anti-speech interests around Colorado began constructing a plan to combat the ruling.

What ultimately ended up happening was a coalition of forces, mostly on the Left, raised a ton of money (irony?) to put Amendment 65 on this November’s ballot. As it appears on the ballot, Amendment 65 is titled, “Colorado Corporate Contributions Amendment.“Part of the Amendment 65 campaign’s stated goals is to overturn the Citizens United ruling.

This past Wednesday the 19th, local radio station KGNU hosted a debate on Amendment 65, featuring our Research Director Dave Kopel and former legislator Ken Gordon. As you might imagine, Dave took the position in favor of political speech and thus, against Amendment 65, while Ken Gordon argued against political speech and in favor of Amendment 65. You can hear the full 60 minute debate here on iVoices.org.

Want to hear the country’s foremost authority on the Second Amendment? Independence Institute Research Director, DU Law professor, and Second Amendment expert Dave Kopel is speaking on terrorism, the right to bear arms, and licensed carry on college campuses tomorrow at CU-Denver. He’ll also be fielding Q and A on gun control so bring your questions.

Details: Tuesday, September 11th from 12:30 to 1:30 at CU-Denver.
Room: Tivoli 320.
Topics: Terrorism, the right to bear arms, and licensed carry on college campuses.
Here is the Facebook event page.

This morning on 850 KOA’s Mike Rosen Show, two of our senior fellows joined Mike in studio to discuss the lawsuit against our Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR). Officially called Kerr v. Hickenlooper in federal court, the suit attempts to kill TABOR in Colorado because it allegedly violates our United States’ Constitution’s guarantee clause. The guarantee clause, ehem, guarantees us a “republican” form of government. No one expected the lawsuit to go very far and indeed, it came as quite a surprise when one of our federal judges allowed the suit to proceed.

Now we defenders of the TABOR amendment are left scratching our heads wondering how this could be, and curiously, whether there is any merit to the case. That’s where senior fellows Penn Pfiffner of our Fiscal Policy Center and Rob Natelson of Constitution Studies come in. In their 30 minute segment on the Mike Rosen program, they explain the background of the case, why it matters, and most importantly, why it’s total bunk (and deserves to be thrown out).

When any tragic event erupts anywhere around the country involving a firearm, our Research Director and Second Amendment scholar Dave Kopel is in high demand for commentary. Below you’ll find the synopsis of Dave’s commentary on the Aurora theater shooting thus far. I’ll continue to update this page as more comes out.

Aurora Theater Shooting Coverage:

PBS News Hour.
July 23, 2012. Kopel appears at 4:04, at start of a 10 minute segment.

Colorado Inside-Out.

Patricia Calhoun, Mike Littwin, April Washington, and Kopel discuss the Aurora murders. July 20, 2012. 27 mins.

Postgame: more on the murders.

Don’t turn Aurora killer into celebrity. USA Today.
July 19, 2012.

Kopel and Eugene Volokh quoted in New York Times, on Colorado gun laws.
July 20, 2012.

Brady Campaign staff and Kopel webchat on USA Today. July 19, 2012.

Size of ammunition cache not unusual, say gun experts.
By Joey Bunch. Denver Post. July 22, 2012.

Kopel and Piers Morgan agree: Thursday would have been the better day for a gun control debate. CNN. July 19, 2012. Transcript.

CNN Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz bemoans “a troubling thing that television does,” namely the rush to “turn such an atrocity into ideological fodder while the victims are still being treated.” As an example, plays Morgan/Kopel interchange, with Morgan insisting a gun control debate must take place on the night of the crime. July 22, 2012. Transcript. Video.

A Land Without Guns: How Japan Has Virtually Eliminated Shooting Deaths.
By Max Fisher. The Atlantic. July 23, 2012. Discusses Kopel’s article on Japanese gun control. (Spanish text of the article available here.) The article is an excerpt from a chapter in Kopel’s book The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? The book was named Book of the Year by the American Society of Criminology, Division of International Criminology.

Public health leaders ‘afraid to say guns’. By Katie Kerwin McCrimmon and Diane Carman. Health Policy Solutions. July 24, 2012.

Tuerie d’Aurora: armes à feu à profusion. By Nicolas Bérubé. La Presse (Montreal). July 23, 2012.

Denver sörjer offren efter skjutningen. Swedish National Radio. July 22, 2012.

USA’s vapenlagar ohotade trots Denver-skytten. Swedish National Radio. July 22, 2012.

NPR: Talk of the Nation, hosted by Neal Conan. July 25, 2012.

Here is our constitution scholar Rob Natelson explaining the ObamaCare Supreme Court ruling on my TV show:

Here is Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen on the saga of the Waldo Canyon wildfire.