Anyone who hasn't visited this stretch of the Outer Banks should give it a try one summer. This is my third year in the Duck/Corolla area, and it is truly a great place to take a relaxing vacation with family and friends.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Vacation
I'm on my annual trip to Duck, North Carolina with a close friend, and will not return until August 9th. I am planning a post shortly after my return with my opinion on the Brett Favre fiasco, a subject which I am beginning to build a strong opinion on.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Fad or Revolution? Looking Back on Ron Paul's Bid for the Presidency
While Congressman Paul's presidential campaign had been winding down for some time, he officially called it quits on June 12, 2008, contributing the remainder of his campaign finances to a new lobbying group called "Campaign for Liberty." This was Paul's second serious run at the presidency, with his first ending in relative obscurity as a Libertarian candidate in 1988. As a self-identifying Libertarian I supported Dr. Paul during the primary process, an effort which proved to be difficult to maintain commitment to as the campaign failed to pick up meaningful momentum, receiving oblique and somewhat patronizing coverage by the mainstream media. Most of Dr. Paul's press revolved around his fundraising success, which was indeed noteworthy considering his lack of relative support in the polls and delegate counts. Despite his status as a cult hero among independent conservatives and Libertarians, Paul revealed himself in the campaign to have a handful of glaring faults that contributed to his inability to get a foothold in the primary process. Unfortunately he did not possess the necessary social and aesthetic qualities to glaze over these shortcomings (ala Barack Obama).
Nothing made me cringe more during Dr. Paul's public appearances than when he would, with admirable vigor, proclaim the United States' complicity in the threat it faces abroad from Islam. This was a position that obviously did not endear him to the mainstream of the Republican Party, as it was that very part of his party he was indicting in the Iraq fiasco. He blamed the FOXNews crowd and its constituents as troublemakers in a conflict he insisted the United States had no role while downplaying the significance of Islam as a catalyst, even going so far as to lay the blame for Islamic terrorism at the doorstep of the U.S. for its overreaching foreign policy. Paul's inability to articulate a coherent foreign policy, other than asserting that the Iraq war and just about every war previous since WWII has been "unconstitutional," was clearly a weakness in his campaign. His naivety on the subject of Islamic terrorism seemed to amount to nothing more than a stubborn refusal to recognize that there are people out there with some pretty ridiculous ideas about the world who mean to do us harm. While Paul was right to recognize that Iraq was a war of choice with a questionable beginning, he fails to notice that had Bush not chosen to invade we still would be facing a determined enemy of Muslim maniacs. Even if Bush and the neocons are guilty of exploiting the threat, there is no denying the presence of a considerable foreign danger.
While Paul's positions on terrorism served to keep him safely tucked into the fray of the Republican Party, his weaknesses as a politician kept him from being taken seriously by a general audience as well. Dr. Paul is a well below average TV debater; even his fellow debaters on the stage seemed to be befuddled by his questions and answers. Unlike the insufferable media darlings Clinton, Obama, and McCain, the Congressman is no social butterfly, and makes no sacrifices of his principles to score cheap points with the media (Obama: see campaign finance et al., McCain: see ethanol et al.).
But I am not so foolish as to think that if Dr. Paul was indeed a gifted politician and orator that he would be a contender in any primary or general election. It is of course the content of Paul's message that is his roadblock to prominence, a message that seems to travel further and further from influence as the party and the country continue to move to the left.
His classic Republican positions on spending, social programs, immigration, and foreign policy fall more or less on deaf ears as the party continues to be ruled by "movement" conservatives. While McCain and Obama will bicker endlessly until November about who is more an agent of change, Dr. Paul will retreat again into the shadows of a fading ideological camp of the Republican Party. While he has likely made his last foray into national politics, this old style Republican hopes that Paul's name appears on the ballot, so that me and others like me may (quietly) voice our opposition to the direction of the party. And as we stubbornly refuse to fall in line with the mainstream, we will wait patiently for the next articulate voice of the true conservative message.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
UI is Under Construction...
The blog is undergoing yet another facelift, hopefully the last one as I settle on a permanent look for the outlet of my thoughts. The bird's eye view of Oriole Park at Camden Yards may seem strange as a title picture, but it will seem less unusual as I expand the scope of the blog beyond political jibjab (not that I need an excuse to feature the most beautiful stadium in baseball in my title section). UI will soon begin to include book, music, and movie reviews, and some of my many opinions on professional sports. I'm hoping this expansion in topics will result in more frequent posting by me, since I should be motivated to write more often as more of my interests will fall under the purview of the blog.
I've been grateful to those few who have read my writing, and fewer still, to those who have taken the time to make comments and offer criticism. I hope the introduction of new topics to the blog will encourage more opinions to be heard in the comments section. Thanks to those who have emailed me in support of the blog; I would probably do it anyway if no one read it but it is nice to know that my thoughts are being absorbed by at least some people. As always, I welcome comments, questions, and suggestions as to the new style of Unbridled Inquiry. Thanks.
Matt J.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Judicial Junk: Modern Jurisprudence in the Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court is truly one of the unique establishments of our government. Of the three branches as outlined by the Constitution, it is the only one whose members are not elected by public vote. American voters have no direct say in the men and women whose job it is to interpret the most far reaching law of the land. Supreme Court justices are provided with just about the most job security anyone will find anywhere, especially in government; their tenures can only be ended by voluntary retirement, impeachment (to which only Associate Justice Samuel Chase has been subject to in the Court's history, in 1805, and he was acquitted), or death. At first glance, this would seem to be antithetical to a democracy, but the framers of the Constitution, in all their brilliance, reconciled this supposed inconsistency with two ingenious safety devices. Firstly, nominees to the Supreme Court are chosen solely by presidents, who are of course popularly elected. The second device is precisely what makes these choices nominees, in that in order for them to become Supreme Court justices, they must be approved by the Senate (in one unfortunate mistake, the framers did not specify what constituted Senate approval). The framers must have recognized that the citizenry could lend its input to the Judicial branch through its votes in the Executive and the Legislative.
While it is not included in the text of the Constitution, it was quickly established after its ratification in Marbury v. Madison (1803) that the mandate of the Supreme Court is to be the chief arbiter of the Constitution. As one of the earliest and most defining decisions of the court, this interpretation of the its duties became the widely accepted responsibility of the court. This makes perfect sense, for as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the opinion of the court in Marbury:
If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty]. This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.This defined role of the Supreme Court, known as judicial review, is a third and critical safeguard for the relative undemocratic nature of the Supreme Court. Admittedly, this doctrine is not found in the original text of the Constitution, but it has been established for so long, and for so long was the operative method of the court, that it has become woven into the fabric of our judicial system. You would be hard pressed to find a more unchallenged example of stare decisis (precedent) in the court's history. As unelected officials, these justices do not have power to make laws, rather, to interpret the existing laws as outlined in the Constitution. They are bound by the foundational laws of the Constitution which cannot be challenged or disputed unless by amendment, a process in which the Supreme Court plays no role. Critics will say that this requires justices to have a nearly supernatural ability to discern some underlying meaning, or original intent, of the text itself and apply it to a wide range of cases that go beyond the scope of the Constitution. They will also say that this requires judges to strike down all laws violating the Constitution despite the consequences of their ruling. Thinking of this sort widely expands the power of the Supreme Court, and is the source of the famous "legislating from the bench" approach to jurisprudence. How can we reconcile this with the indirect nature of how the court's members are chosen, and still purport to be a democracy? How can we expect accountability to the law from nine people whose tenure is without public review, barring the exceedingly rare case of impeachment? We cannot, on both counts.
I am not so radical as Clarence Thomas. I do not expect Supreme Court justices to make guesses on exactly the mindset of the framers when they put quill to parchment, and then apply them to the modern and complex cases that come before the court today. I believe there will be good and bad arguments as to the interpretation of the Constitution that will scale with evidence, reasonableness, and logic. There is a reasonable argument to be made, for example, that parts of the Constitution establish a right to privacy, specifically the Ninth Amendment. Arguments such as those made by Sandra Day O'Connor in Grutter v. Bollinger, regarding the University of Michigan's use of racial preference in its law school admissions, clearly draw not even tenuous support from the Constitution, and in the case of Grutter, are even contradictory to it. It seems to me that any mechanism that lends preference to one person over another solely on the basis of race is in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, especially as it has historically been interpreted by the court. Also in Grutter, O'Connor seemingly put an expiration date on the ruling: "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer by necessary to further the interest approved today." Is this a Supreme Court justice talking, or a legislator? Is she interpreting the law, or making it up based on what Justice O'Connor deems society needs? If it is the latter, isn't that the responsibility of the legislature, and not the Supreme Court? Perhaps the most salient question is this: If the use of racial preference in Michigan's admissions will be unconstitutional in 25 years (I'd love to know where she got 25 years, by the way), why is it constitutional now? How do future societal changes, whatever they may be, change anything about what the Constitution says on the matter? The answer is simple: she isn't making her ruling based on any real interpretation of the Constitution. This is distinctly different from arguments for rights to privacy, because right or wrong, many privacy rights advocates draw their logic from the words of the Constitution.
Sadly, O'Connor's jurisprudence is not unusual among her fellow Supreme Court justices or in the lower courts. "Activist" judges such as these draw their ruling inspiration from politics, personal values, and other illegitimate forms of evaluating cases. Even the champions of originalism, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, are not impervious to the temptation to obfuscate their mandate as Supreme Court justices (see: Bush v. Gore). Where does this leave us with our judicial system? The Supreme Court confirmation process is manifestly broken, as nominees are largely able to tread water just enough to be confirmed with little real investigation as to their jurisprudence. It also emphasizes the importance of the upcoming election, for that is where the people have the most power to influence their Supreme Court. With John Paul Stevens at 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 75, Antonin Scalia at 72, and Anthony Kennedy at 71, the next president will almost surely have an opportunity (or three) to nominate someone to the Supreme Court. The question voters must ask themselves is simple: which candidate is more likely to nominate judges who will honor their mandate as arbiters of the Constitution, and not agents of social change? If you believe in the importance and influence of the Supreme Court, this question will significantly guide your choice in November.
Monday, June 9, 2008
When Myth Becomes Law: The Prohibition of Marijuana (Part 2/3)
Anyone with some familiarity of World War II history will recognize Hitler's "the bigger the lie" concept, and while eons less sinister, it is similar to how marijuana has come to be so terribly misunderstood. Cannabis is one of those sad examples of where legislation is not based on the evidence, indeed, it seems the foundations of marijuana law are based on just about anything except an objective perception of the facts. It is useful to investigate the source of marijuana prohibition, its history, and its motives.
In response to the increasing opium problem China, the United States sponsored the International Opium Convention in 1912, which was the first international initiative to control drug trade. The Convention became exponentially more significant when it was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I). The Convention's original agreement made no mention of cannabis. In 1925, however, as scrutiny of "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" increased, the United States together with Egypt and China, signed a revised agreement prohibiting hashish to be traded among countries that had outlawed its use (Completely speculation on my part, but the rise of terms like "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" to describe what had always been known as cannabis seems to be indicative of a racist component of these prohibitions. I would imagine associating hashish with Indians and using the Spanish word for cannabis would be powerful propaganda tools at a time where prejudice toward these two groups flourished in the United States). As cannabis had yet to be federally outlawed in the U.S. and its importation was still allowed in the form of hemp, its prohibition had yet to reach its zenith.
If Anslinger is the Adolf Hitler of our sad story, William Randolph Hearst is the Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Hearst, who was the most powerful media mogul of the time (perhaps akin today to Rupert Murdoch, but even more influential), used his newspapers to propagate the myths permeating society about marijuana. It should be noted that any coordination or cooperation between Anslinger and Hearst's efforts are tenuous, although some strange coincidences exist. I invite you to investigate these further at your own pleasure. Nevertheless, Hearst was an agent in the dissemination of lies about marijuana that would eventually lead to its full prohibition and in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act and its later cousin, the Controlled Substances Act. Hearst was known to have significant financial interest in the timber industry, which controlled the production of paper. This industry was threatened by the discovery in 1916 that hemp could be used to make paper that was "favorable over that made of pulp wood." As hemp was readily available and relatively easy to produce, it posed a potentially significant problem for the timber industry. The problem would never manifest itself, however, as the Marihuana Tax Act and its related laws would ensure in 1937, as Hearst's publications continued to criticize marijuana. Interestingly, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was in strong opposition to the Marihuana Tax Act, started the LaGuardia Commission, investigating the fantastical claims against cannabis that were becoming entrenched in public opinion. Prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine in 1944, the LaGuardia Commission systematically contradicted claims that smoking marijuana results in insanity, deteriorates physical and mental health, assists in criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency, is physically addictive, and is a "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs. Despite this scientific study, no changes were made to national policy, a reoccurring theme in subsequent studies on the subject that found similar results, such as the Nixon Administration's National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.
As time went on, no self corrections were made in either public opinion or federal legislation. The damage had been done. Soon, mandatory sentencing guidelines were passed in the 1950s, repealed, and then reestablished in the 1980s. The fractured agencies that had previously enforced drug laws were combined in 1973 into the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling marijuana." In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the federal government to ban marijuana, even medicinal use, under their interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. What a sad state of affairs.
Prior to the 1900s, not only were there no laws prohibiting the use of cannabis, it was a staple commodity in the United States, highlighting its many uses and functions. Chief of these functions was hemp, which was used to make rope, clothing, and sails. In the late 1800s, cannabis was used more frequently in medicines, and was available at pharmacies without restriction. At the turn of the century, however, cannabis regulation began to pop up in the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Maine, California, Texas, and Indiana. Also at this time, cannabis was being referred to more commonly as "Indian hemp," referring to traditions in some Native American tribes that used the psychological effects of cannabis as a spiritual aid. As more Native Americans were assimilated into the U.S., coupled with an increase in immigration from Mexico, where recreational use of cannabis was far more widespread (introducing the term "marijuana" for the first time), more Americans became aware of the use of cannabis as a drug.
In response to the increasing opium problem China, the United States sponsored the International Opium Convention in 1912, which was the first international initiative to control drug trade. The Convention became exponentially more significant when it was incorporated into the Treaty of Versailles (ending World War I). The Convention's original agreement made no mention of cannabis. In 1925, however, as scrutiny of "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" increased, the United States together with Egypt and China, signed a revised agreement prohibiting hashish to be traded among countries that had outlawed its use (Completely speculation on my part, but the rise of terms like "marijuana" and "Indian hemp" to describe what had always been known as cannabis seems to be indicative of a racist component of these prohibitions. I would imagine associating hashish with Indians and using the Spanish word for cannabis would be powerful propaganda tools at a time where prejudice toward these two groups flourished in the United States). As cannabis had yet to be federally outlawed in the U.S. and its importation was still allowed in the form of hemp, its prohibition had yet to reach its zenith.
As the influence of the federal government grew, so did the prohibitions of cannabis. The Uniform State Narcotics Act of 1932 established a standard of drug trafficking enforcement that gave the states power to more strictly police illicit trade of banned substances. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics strongly encouraged all state governments to adopt the law. By this time, almost all of the states had some kind of cannabis reg
ulation for non-medicinal use. For the first time, there was federal and multiple state collaboration in policing cannabis trade for recreational use. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and its head, Harry J. Anslinger, are the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler of my original analogy, respectively. Anslinger used the FBN to spread propaganda about the dangers of marijuana use, and myths about marijuana exploded into the public consciousness. Anslinger claimed marijuana caused people to commit violent crime, act overtly sexual, and overall irrational. Through the FBN, Anslinger organized the production of propaganda films (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4), radio advertisement, and print advertisement (pictured), that echoed his message. Theories about Anslinger's motives abound, but it is clear his motivation had much to do with the 21st Amendment, repealing the prohibition of alcohol, that had been established in the 18th Amendment (and we should note how much of an unmitigated disaster the prohibition of alcohol was). Anslinger, previous to his leadership of the FBN, was the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, which was charged solely with enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. When this group was dissolved, many of Anslinger's employees and friends were left unemployed, and the infrastructure that had been in place for alcohol prohibition was left abandoned. Some believe Anslinger filled the void by implicating marijuana as a drug dangerous to public health. Other historians believe Anslinger was misled by racially driven and inaccurate studies of cannabis use at the time, which claimed to be of scientific origin. Whatever the reason, Anslinger had begun a cycle of ignorance that continues to be felt to this day.
ulation for non-medicinal use. For the first time, there was federal and multiple state collaboration in policing cannabis trade for recreational use. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) and its head, Harry J. Anslinger, are the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitler of my original analogy, respectively. Anslinger used the FBN to spread propaganda about the dangers of marijuana use, and myths about marijuana exploded into the public consciousness. Anslinger claimed marijuana caused people to commit violent crime, act overtly sexual, and overall irrational. Through the FBN, Anslinger organized the production of propaganda films (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM_vLk1I6G4), radio advertisement, and print advertisement (pictured), that echoed his message. Theories about Anslinger's motives abound, but it is clear his motivation had much to do with the 21st Amendment, repealing the prohibition of alcohol, that had been established in the 18th Amendment (and we should note how much of an unmitigated disaster the prohibition of alcohol was). Anslinger, previous to his leadership of the FBN, was the Assistant Prohibition Commissioner in the Bureau of Prohibition, which was charged solely with enforcing the prohibition of alcohol. When this group was dissolved, many of Anslinger's employees and friends were left unemployed, and the infrastructure that had been in place for alcohol prohibition was left abandoned. Some believe Anslinger filled the void by implicating marijuana as a drug dangerous to public health. Other historians believe Anslinger was misled by racially driven and inaccurate studies of cannabis use at the time, which claimed to be of scientific origin. Whatever the reason, Anslinger had begun a cycle of ignorance that continues to be felt to this day.If Anslinger is the Adolf Hitler of our sad story, William Randolph Hearst is the Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. Hearst, who was the most powerful media mogul of the time (perhaps akin today to Rupert Murdoch, but even more influential), used his newspapers to propagate the myths permeating society about marijuana. It should be noted that any coordination or cooperation between Anslinger and Hearst's efforts are tenuous, although some strange coincidences exist. I invite you to investigate these further at your own pleasure. Nevertheless, Hearst was an agent in the dissemination of lies about marijuana that would eventually lead to its full prohibition and in the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act and its later cousin, the Controlled Substances Act. Hearst was known to have significant financial interest in the timber industry, which controlled the production of paper. This industry was threatened by the discovery in 1916 that hemp could be used to make paper that was "favorable over that made of pulp wood." As hemp was readily available and relatively easy to produce, it posed a potentially significant problem for the timber industry. The problem would never manifest itself, however, as the Marihuana Tax Act and its related laws would ensure in 1937, as Hearst's publications continued to criticize marijuana. Interestingly, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who was in strong opposition to the Marihuana Tax Act, started the LaGuardia Commission, investigating the fantastical claims against cannabis that were becoming entrenched in public opinion. Prepared by the New York Academy of Medicine in 1944, the LaGuardia Commission systematically contradicted claims that smoking marijuana results in insanity, deteriorates physical and mental health, assists in criminal behavior and juvenile delinquency, is physically addictive, and is a "gateway" drug to more dangerous drugs. Despite this scientific study, no changes were made to national policy, a reoccurring theme in subsequent studies on the subject that found similar results, such as the Nixon Administration's National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse.
As time went on, no self corrections were made in either public opinion or federal legislation. The damage had been done. Soon, mandatory sentencing guidelines were passed in the 1950s, repealed, and then reestablished in the 1980s. The fractured agencies that had previously enforced drug laws were combined in 1973 into the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled that it was "not cruel or unusual for Ohio to sentence someone to 20 years for having or selling marijuana." In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional for the federal government to ban marijuana, even medicinal use, under their interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. What a sad state of affairs.
The third and final section of this three part piece on marijuana in the United States will focus on the economic consequences of marijuana prohibition.
Sources:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
