The more I hear people criticize Governor Rick Perry for saying New York’s decision to legalize same-sex marriage was “their business,” the more I want to put a “Perry 2012” bumper sticker on my car. And when that criticism continues, because he also said things like “that is fine with me” and “that is their call,” I actually wonder if we understand freedom at all.

Honestly folks, do we have the courage to be free?

After all, Perry is only saying what he’s been saying for years, and what Thomas Jefferson spelled out in the Kentucky Resolutions (1798).  Namely, that states enjoy a sovereignty that allows them to make decisions apart from the federal government and apart from the consensus of other states.

Perry bases these statements on the Tenth Amendment, which clearly states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” While this amendment does many things, one of the most important things it does is set clear limitations on the power of the federal government. It also demonstrates that our Founders believed every power not explicitly “delegated” to the federal government belongs to the states, “or to the people.”

Does Perry agree with same-sex “marriage”? Certainly not: which is why he supported an amendment to the Texas Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2005.  But Perry understands that just as Texas had every right to define and protect traditional marriage within their borders, so too other states have the right to foolishly undermine that same institution within theirs. (I think New York’s decision was stupid, but the expression of freedom doesn’t have to be smart in order to be legitimate.)

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Mario Loyola to discuss the court challenge of Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid, how the Tenth Amendment plays a role in that argument and the growing overreach of the federal government.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

ObamaCare’s Next Constitutional Challenge
Renowned legal scholar Richard Epstein co-authors Wall Street Journal column with Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Mario Loyola
The Texas Public Policy Foundation amicus brief submitted to the 11th Circuit
Mario Loyola at Texas Public Policy Foundation

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson is joined by Pejman Yousefzadeh and Elizabeth Blackney to discuss TSA’s growing search efforts outside of airports, state efforts to restrict intrusive airport searches, and Tim Geithner’s call for new taxes.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Surprise! TSA Is Searching Your Car, Subway, Ferry, Bus, AND Plane
Authorities Conduct Random Inspections at Port of Brownsville
TSA Misses Man’s Loaded Handgun (VIDEO)
A Second Chance for Texas To Pass Anti-Groping Bill Making TSA Patdowns a Crime
Geithner: We Need ‘Revenue Increases;’ Cutting Deficit by Spending Cuts Alone ‘Irresponsible’

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Pej on Twitter
Follow Elizabeth on Twitter

Wednesday’s federal court decision on Arizona’s immigration law is being rightly criticized for a number of reasons. But there are three silver linings to this situation, which may result in the rule of law prevailing in the end.

On July 28, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction—meaning she stopped from going into effect—most of the key provisions in Arizona’s new law. As I’ve written previously, this law should be held constitutional because it’s not an immigration law; it doesn’t determine who can become a citizen or who can be on American soil. Instead it’s a police-power law, where Arizona says that if you’re not permitted to be in this country, then you’re trespassing if you enter Arizona, and if you have a run-in with the cops for some other reason, then those cops can ask if you’re in this country illegally.

This is not an immigration law. It’s also not racist. It’s not racial profiling. And it’s not usurping the role of the federal government (which has abysmally failed here).

Instead, it’s an employment law and property law. That authority arises from Arizona’s police power to make laws for public safety, health, and societal welfare—which the Constitution reserves to the states through the Tenth Amendment.

But as bad as the federal court’s decision is, there are three silver linings to it that could see the rule of law prevail in the end, to the benefit of everyone—including foreigners who want to work here.

(more…)

California has many problems these days, including a severe water shortage.  Unfortunately, big-government policies at the federal level have made this problem far worse than it needed to be.

The natural drought has been exacerbated by a man-made drought:  draconian application of the Endangered Species Act that restricts the availability of water for irrigation.  Imposed to protect various species of fish, the water restrictions have led to fallowed farmland, unsustainable reliance on groundwater, which can cause land subsidence and environmental damage, and rampant joblessness in California’s Central Valley.

A glimmer of hope emerged this week when the U.S. District Court released a ruling finding serious flaws in one of the federal biological opinions that restricted water deliveries. The ruling could lead to increased water supplies for struggling farmers and ranchers in the Central Valley.

This is an important victory, but we must not to lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that the root of the problem lies in federal interference with state resources.

While I’m glad that the court’s latest ruling could lead to more water for California’s struggling farmers, I cannot forget that it was this same court that two years ago forced the federal government to restrict pumping under the Endangered Species Act.

(more…)

You’ve undoubtedly heard someone, maybe even yourself, say that you have a Constitutional right to free speech, right?  While that seems to make sense, it’s not true, or at least wasn’t before the government got so big that it started intruding into areas of our lives in which it has no business; and it is part of a modern mentality that has the potential to harm our individual liberty.

To understand what I’m talking about, the first thing you have to understand it that the Constitution does NOT grant you rights, it protects the rights you inherently have from government intrusion.  The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  

Just look at the part that addresses speech, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…”  Nowhere does it say that you are granted the right of freedom of speech, it says you have it, were born with it, and the government cannot do anything about it.  But that’s not how it’s viewed or even talked about by politicians these days.

By saying that someone has a Constitutional right for free speech implies that it is granted to you and, therefore, can be taken away at some point by amending the Constitution.  While legally this is possibly true, trying to get that amendment passed would have about us much of a chance as getting a safe driver of the year award named after the late Teddy Kennedy.  But the mentality that uses and teaches that erodes, even a little, our basic liberties.

While our Founding Fathers agreed that our basic right to free speech was granted by God, you don’t have to be religious to embrace the idea that we were born with it. In fact, avowed leftist atheists are often the ones wrapping themselves falsely in the First Amendment with the claim that the government protects what they have to say. But it’s not exclusive to leftists, people on the right often cite this mythical right granted them.

(more…)