In Defense of Snooping

Everybody knows the ultra-secretive NSA was snooping.  The program was called Stellarwind.  The snooping of Stellarwind has always been falsely described as listening in.  In fact it was more like reading the addresses and return addresses on envelopes, something which was routinely done without a warrant back in the days of snail mail.  The NSA tracked what phone originated each call and what phone was dialed, and that's all.  No phone conversations were listened to without a warrant, at least under Stellarwind.  Based on who called who, Stellarwind constructed a pattern of groups of people who were in contact with each other.  Whether that was a big enough threat to privacy for it to be cancelled is a question for the reader.  My personal opinion is that it's a very close call.  I would feel better about allowing the NSA to do it if Lois Lerner had not deployed IRS powers against President Obama's political enemies.  I still think it's probably worth doing despite the risk of abuse. 

(subscription may be required)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/in-defense-of-snooping-1456184621#lf_comment=465743734

FCC Emails Show Need For Regulatory Reforms

Recently emails from the Federal Communications Commission discussionhave been released as a result of a freedom of informatio suit.  They show that the FCC changed direction completely after receiving White House instructions.  This incident,  and others like it during Obama's term in office, should force the reevaluation of the entire regulatory structure.  It's clear that as part of the executive branch regulatory agencies will follow presidential orders.  Regulatory agencies have executive, legislative and judicial functions all concentrated in one agency without any separation of powers. The courts are not much of a check on regulators because, by law, courts must defer to the regulators' expertise.  The situation is almost an attractive nuisance for executive branch abuse of power. Even presidents disinclined to misusing regulatory agencies will be tempted by how easy it is to do.

Congress has delegated too much of it's power to regulatory agencies.  It needs to take a lot of it back.  I think it should start by requiring all proposed regulations to get an up or down vote in Congress and be signed by the president.  Also, there should be an automatic expiration date on regulations and regulatory agency authorization laws.  We should not be regulating the internet like it was an 1887 railroad.

Article I reacted to (-may require subscription) http://www.wsj.com/articles/emails-expose-obamanet-1457307020#lf_comment=473067121

Republicans Lead With New Ethnic Group

While some think Republicans come only in white, I think this year Republicans are a rainbow with two Hispanics in the running for president along with a member of a totally new ethnic group, the Orange.  There were coments that Donald Trump's makeup for the most recent debate made him look less orange than usual.  The Donald was trying to pass, but as the comment indicates, Trump was not able to hide his Orange identity. Besides, anybody as up to date as liberals should know Orange is the new Black.

Consent of the Governed or a Political Supreme Court?

The conservative method of interpreting the Constitution rests on the foundation of consent of the governed. From that principle, we reason that the Constitution should be understood to mean what it meant when it was adopted, because that's what the governed consented to. In contrast, “living Constitution” liberals believe the Constitution changes based on what people believe is a reasonable interpretation today, without regard to what the people who wrote it understood it to mean. “Living Constitution” is how the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868 when homosexual acts were illegal in every state, is interpreted to require same sex marriage in every state under the Equal Protection clause. Whether you like the outcome or not, how “living Constitution” Justices got there is ridiculous. It was also totally unnecessary. The full faith and credit clause could have been interpreted to mean that a marriage performed in one state has to be recognized in all states. This would have left marriage a state matter, and the 14th Amendment applying to race, as the Republicans who wrote it intended. In 1868, the 14th Amendment was adopted to limit how badly state courts could treat freed black slaves.

Conservatives think Constitutional changes should be made by amendment. Conservatives think changes in the law should be made by legislatures and signed by governors or the President. That's how the governed give their consent. Liberals think that takes too long, so they expect the Supreme Court to find some way to make the law or the Constitution say what they want it to say. Conservatives believe, like Justice Scalia did, that a judge is supposed to rule on what the law is, rather than what the judge would like the law to be. The Supreme Court should not be a place where startling new interpretations are "discovered" in laws that are over a century old. This article is correct that the Supreme Court is supremely political. However, it would be far less political than it is if the Court respected the principle of consent of the governed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-supreme-court-is-a-political-court-republicans-actions-are-proof/2016/03/09/4c851860-e142-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html