Liberals are trying to kill the prospect of a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) in the ongoing battle over the debt ceiling. Some on the Right respond that they might settle for a “clean” BBA. But there are two types of a clean BBA, one of which would be even worse than the terrible mess we have today.

Some advocate that the BBA should require only that federal outlays cannot exceed federal tax revenues. They see it as two numbers, where the former must be less than the latter.

But this misses one critical point. If BBA only requires government to spend less than it collects, there are two ways to fix it. The first is cutting spending, and the second is raising taxes.

Many supporters of a clean BBA are not too worried. Although acknowledging the risk, they’re willing to take it on the grounds that they can use the prospect of electoral defeat to exert political pressure on members of Congress to ensure they don’t vote for tax increases.

But what about the courts? What if a judge orders a tax increase?

(more…)

In the face of public sector union reforms, leaders within these unions plan on embarking a new strategy to defeat reformist implementations.

On April 28, Newberry Library in Chicago hosted a debate on whether states can stop collective bargaining. Panelist Stephen A. Yokich, an associate general counsel for UAW, unveiled a radical idea for combatting new state restrictions on public sector collective bargaining. His strategy on behalf of the unions is to obtain a Supreme Court ruling stating that collective bargaining by public sector unions is a protecting right under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution!

The Equal Protection Clause is found in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This section states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The Supreme Court has held that this clause protects classes of race, national origin, gender, or religion from laws which are discriminatory, have discriminatory intent, or have disparate impact. Never has the Supreme Court ruled that this guarantee for “equal protection of the laws” applies to any particular group of organized workers! Such a suggestion lies far outside the judicial mainstream and defies the meaning and intent of this important clause.

When a member of the audience questioned the validity of such a novel constitutional law argument, the UAW lawyer replied, “We change what we think about the Constitution in order to adapt to the times that we are in.” Candid response, indeed.

(more…)

The Commerce Clause that regulates interstate commerce is at issue in the legal battle of Obamacare.  Can the federal government tell individuals that they must buy insurance?  Not as well known is how the same commerce clause is destroying farms and raising food prices by stopping the flow of water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers to the Central Valley in California.      The feds at the urging of the state government has literally turned off the tap, destroying prime farmland in order to benefit the sex lives of the Delta Smelt.

Approximately 85-90% of the water from this primary source has been shut off to the Central Valley.   The smelt is a fish so insignificant that no one other than the Bezerkely-enviro-wackos and some local fisherman have heard about this tiny fish.

The smelt is fish that is native to California and, for the most part, is known to fisherman simply as “bait”.   The California enviros’ zeal to increase the population of smelt has led to a terrible federal, legal decision that shut down the water to thousands of farmers in the Central Valley; the nation’s largest and most productive farm land.    Thousands of farmers there are suffering with unemployment over 20%, scores of farms have been lost and tens of thousands of agricultural workers are now without jobs.   If California didn’t have enough economic problems, you can add shooting yourself in the foot.  The inmates are now officially running the asylum.   If we needed a poster for enviro-insanity it would be the promotion of the lowly smelt over the interests of: farmers, food production, food prices, jobs and California families.

(more…)

Abbot Justin Brown and his fellow monks are being threatened with crippling fines and even jail time.  Their crime?  Selling caskets.

Today, they are fighting back in a big way.

In 1889, a group of monks from Indiana fulfilled their dream of establishing a monastery in the Gulf South.  The monastic lifestyle they embody is simple and contemplative.  Their creation, the Saint Joseph Abbey, has had a powerful and positive impact in Louisiana.

For several centuries, monks have supported themselves financially by excelling at common trades such as farming and brewing beer.  The monks at Saint Joseph Abbey have been able to preserve and maintain their quiet lifestyle through farming and harvesting timber.

The monks make simple wooden caskets in which to bury themselves. In the early 1990s, Bishops began requesting the caskets, which led to inquiries from other interested people.  The demand continued to build:   People were eager to share in the monks’ view of the simplicity and unity of life and death through burial in a simple monastic casket.

As Abbot Justin Brown puts it:

The monks of Saint Joseph Abbey have been making caskets for over a hundred years.  People who ask for them want to share in that noble simplicity that our coffins express. We’re not a wealthy monastery and we need the income that Saint Joseph Woodworks could generate for the health care and the education of our own monks.

On November 1, 2007, the monks opened their Saint Joseph Woodworks.  But before they could sell even one casket, they were threatened with crippling fines, jail time and even a lawsuit.

Why?

(more…)

Congress wants the White House staff director involved in the now-infamous “gatecrasher” dinner to explain what happened. She won’t, because President Obama is invoking executive privilege. While there’s a decent claim for executive privilege here, Barack Obama’s hypocrisy is nothing short of stunning.

Most people have heard about the Virginia couple who apparently crashed the White House official dinner for the prime minister of India on Nov. 24. (It’s called an “official dinner” instead of a “state dinner” because the prime minister is not India’s head of state.) Congress has launched a probe and is demanding answers as to how uninvited people could end up shaking hands with the president of the United States and posing for photos with the VP and chief of staff.

One person Congress wants to speak with is Desiree Rogers, the White House Social Secretary. For dinners in previous administrations, the White House Social Office posted staffers at the entrance with a list of the invited guests to make sure fiascos like this can’t happen. Rogers, who holds her job because she’s an old buddy of First Lady Michelle Obama, evidently didn’t care enough to take this simple precaution.

But Congress won’t get the chance to ask Rogers, because President Obama is invoking executive privilege. That’s the legal doctrine for the president and certain executive-branch officials around him to refuse to testify in court or before Congress.

(more…)