Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

You might want to blockquote so it's clear what Levy is saying as opposed to your comment. Threw me for a loop with that first paragraph quoted from Levy.

That "strict reading of the Commerce Clause" is another way of saying he wants the Federal Government out of the economy.
I have borrowed a notion of Constitutional interpretation (in my case from Gary Wills; I don't know enough about the subject to know where he got it) that holds that the events of the Thirties, including the Supreme Court decisions of that era, were in fact a Constitutional amendment. It was clear at the time that one or more written amendments would pass if the expansive interpretation was not adopted. In other words, whatever the Founders thought the Commerce Clause meant, it is no longer legitimate to say it means that now.

"...that holds that the events of the Thirties, including the Supreme Court decisions of that era, were in fact a Constitutional amendment."

Oy, vey! It truly is amazing, what supremely silly ideas human beings can come up with, in their desire for rationalization!

There is an absolutely crystal-clear Constitutional amendment procedure written into the Constitution. If that procedure is not followed, only someone engaged in completely irrational "thought" could come up with the idea that a Constitutional amendment has occurred!

FDR *massively* violated The Law. (In fact, he knew he was violating The Law.) The 30's Supreme Courts and Congresses helped him. That's a fact that no amount of "Constitutional interpretation" (what a laugh!) can change.

"It was clear at the time that one or more written amendments would pass..."

Criminals always have excuses for what they do. It most certainly was NOT "clear at the time that one or more written amendments would pass"...because if it was that clear, FDR and his cronies would have worked to PASS those amendments.

For example, it was clear that a Congressional declaration of war against Japan would pass after Pearl Harbor...that's why FDR asked for such a declaration.

FDR followed The Law when he knew that The Law permitted him to do exactly what he wanted. He broke The Law when he didn't think he had enough votes to do what he wanted, while still following The Law.

Brad DeLong writes, "I would urge Jacob to, in the future, look not for pro-tax cut candidates but for pro-spending cut candidates."

In other words, you're definitely urging him not to vote for John Kerry (in addition to urging him not to vote for George Bush)!

I agree with you, Brad. Jacob Levy, I assume you think of yourself as a libertarian. If you truly are a libertarian, the choice is clear: there is absolutely no doubt that Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party) is the best candidate in the Presidential field.

Michael Badnarik is a FAR stronger "pro-spending cut" candidate than any other in the field. He is far more of a pro-Social Security privatization candidate than any other in the field. He is even better than any "pro-voucher" candidate in that he would get the federal government out of its completely unconstitutional interference with education. That would free ~$40 billion (? too lazy to look up exact numbers) for spending by individuals, towns, and states, as they saw fit.

Regarding your desire for "democratization of the Middle East," Mr. Levy: just how do you think that John Kerry--OR G.W. Bush--will accomplish that? By invading Syria and/or Iran and/or Saudi Arabia and/or Yemen and/or Jordan, etc. etc. etc.?

The choice for any true libertarian is clear:

http://www.badnarik.org

BDL is being highly disingenuous when he titles this entry "Jacob Levy joins the ranks of The Shrill." When I read the Levy quote, it is sharply critical of Bush, but it is not gratuitous criticism, I can understand why he's criticizing Bush just by reading the quote itself.

Personally, I think someone joins The Shrill only when they begin to express the idea "I hate Bush" (it doesn't have to be in so many words) unaccompanied by any (worthwhile) explanation or rationale.

Alternatively, perhaps the ranks are joined at the moment the person starts believing that expressions of the idea "I hate Bush" actually have informational content....

So anyway, Jacob Levy, shrill? No.

(1) He was using "shrill" in the sense of anyone who criticizes Bush is called "shrill" even if they whisper, but that irony is lost on Faux News devotees, I suppose.

(2) The Commerce Clause. I love it when people on the right try to "out expert" people, on the one hand, in economics, and, on the other hand, in constitution interpretation.

The reason, folks, the commerce clause "doesn't mean" what it did in the eighteenth century is because *commerce* doesn't mean the same thing. We have a national, nay, global economy, where minute actions at a distance can affect the economy in large ways. This isn't about whether the farmers' market in the town square has wheat coming in from across state lines anymore.

So, if you're really so savvy about the economy, you can explain with precision how the commercial activities in one state can affect the prices and business decisions in another with ease. If you're such a whiz at Constitutional scholarship, you'd probably understand why, in this new economy, things roundly fit into that interpretation, which, btw, the Renhquist court endorsed when it distinguished the FDR era Wickard decision from Lopez and Morrison.

A "strict" interpretation of the commerce clause depending on who's speaking either means Congress should stay out of "traditional state" power areas: family law, intrastate crime etc., a la the Rehnquist court, or if you're in the real tin-foil hat wearing fed-caused-the-depression and fdr-is-a-criminal crowd, then you want to go back to the point where it meant what it meant based on the eighteenth century "commerce." (And of course, they didn't "strictly" interpret the due process clause then, either--see Lochner. They said Congress can't act, but not because they wanted the states to either. Laissez-faire ain't in the Constitution, but the Lochner court put it there!)

(3) Mr. Levy should visit http://johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com

America the Beautiful Pays Tribute

===========================

Princess Diane - Diaphonous and bulemic member of the
vampire class, your basic eye-candy for Prince Charles,
gay-wad tampon tiddlywink waiting to be King of Erehwon.

Her funeral press coverage and tributes lasted months,
even today Diane's image on TV draws an adoring crowd.

--

Mother Teresa - Angel of India, who cared for the lost
and disenfranchised, and the most utterly untouchables.

Her funeral press coverage lasted five minutes, and
her tribute sank like a stone before Diane's pomposity.

===========================

Ronald Reagan - Brought us Iran-Contra State terrorism,
Savings & Loan debacle, and Star Wars lab-coat welfare.
Kicked single mothers and children out onto the street,
emptied the insane asylums, while choking the prisons.
Filled the streets of Miami and New York with cocaine
and heroin, while his wife was chanting 'Just Say No'
and planning the 'Three Strikes You're Out' program.

His funeral press coverage and tributes lasted weeks,
he's become the god-father for our "American" nightmare.

--

Marlon Brando - Reclusive god-father of method acting,
who brought us memoriable screen characters alive even
today, and whose family tragedy played out in public,
though he was powerless to prevent it.

His funeral press coverage and tributes lasted hours.

===========================

John Kerry - Viet Nam War veteran, Skull and Bones preppy,
life-long member of both the beltway and vampire classes,
pro-choice, pro-Israeli, pro-Star Wars, pro-"Free" Trade,
a flip-flop mumble-mouth in sheep's clothing.

His quotidian election coverage continues unabated.

-and-

George Bush - Viet Nam War AWOL, Skull and Bones preppy,
life-long member of both the beltway and vampire classes,
anti-choice, pro-Israeli, pro-Star Wars, pro-"Free" Trade,
a cretinous tid in wolf's clothing.

His quotidian election coverage continues unabated.

--

Gary Kuccinich, Carol Mosely-Brown, Ralph Nader etc. -
Fighting for working people of America all of their lives,
they continue to address the dialogue instead of putsching the speil,
questioning the rule of the majority by an increasingly minority elite.

Couldn't get press coverage if their own lives depended on it.

===========================

Unless you've lived under a rock in a Palestinian internment camp for the last fifty-six years, then you know exactly what I'm talking about....

Working Americans are getting royally f&*ked.

"The people of Iraq now have their freedom!" George W. Bush

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose." Janis Joplin

Bremer in Iraq (and now that dolichocephalist Negroponti since Bremer bugged-out) was backed by $4 BILLION per month and an army of 250,000 highly trained soldiers and mercenaries, yet was unable to stabilize the Iraqi population, while those same injustices Bush used as a pretext for invasion, the torture and depravation of basic human rights and wholesale slaughter of 10,000's of innocent civilians, are being performed by the US government now as Saddam's proxy.

Of the 2,300 reconstruction projects Bush and Cheney promised to *finish* in Iraq, only 140 have been *started*. Iraqi's *still* don't have water, sewer or power in most areas. Imagine. $100BILLIONS tied up in Halliburton IDIQ's, now $BILLIONS in Iraqi oil royalties are missing.

What, do you need it spelled out in braille?
America is ruled by the Party of Kleptocrats.

Aaron Heffen: "Gary Kuccinich, Carol Mosely-Brown, Ralph Nader etc. - Fighting for working people of America all of their lives, they continue to address the dialogue instead of putsching the speil, questioning the rule of the majority by an increasingly minority elite."

"Couldn't get press coverage if their own lives depended on it."

More to the point, they couldn't get a vote from a working class person if their lives depended on it. (Some from upper middle class persons, yeah).

jonerik storm: "He was using 'shrill' in the sense of anyone who criticizes Bush is called "shrill" even if they whisper, but that irony is lost on Faux News devotees, I suppose."

Well, that's perhaps what The Shrill themselves would say is the criterion, I'm just offering an alternative criterion. I think someone joins the ranks of The Shrill not by simply criticizing Bush, but by criticism which does not tell us "here's why I think Bush sucks," but instead simply tells us "I think Bush sucks."

The phrase "but that irony is lost on Faux News devotees, I suppose," is a good example of what I'm talking about. As far as I can tell, this was not meant to refute a specific argument, but is just a gratuitous insult.

2045 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

8122 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

2640 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

7978 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

2661 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com