No Free Market: Government Intevention in American Medicine
Excellent historical overview of Government Intevention in American Medicine By Amesh Adalja MD, FACP, FACEP, FIDSA.
Bezos: Washington Post Will Change Course To Defend Free-Markets
From Jeff Bezos on X: “I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning:”
I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.
I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
Jeff
Justin Amash on Birthright Citizenship: Only an Article V Amendment Can Change It
Justin Amash points to the problems with President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order on X:
The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in relevant part:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Trump’s odd claim is that a child born in the United States without at least one parent who is a lawful permanent resident or citizen is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.
But this is simply false.
Set aside that Trump’s EO would affect children whose parents are lawfully but not permanently here. Let’s look at the “harder” case: the children of illegal immigrants.
It should be obvious that even individuals who are unlawfully present in the United States are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” “Jurisdiction” is just the applicability of legal authority to them and the potential exercise of state power against them.
People who are unlawfully present in the country can, of course, be charged with crimes, arrested, etc., just like almost anyone else in the United States.
There is not a person who doubts this, least of all someone in the Trump administration.
I include the word “almost” before “anyone else” two paragraphs above because the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does exclude certain children: mainly the children of foreign diplomats, who, in fact, are generally not subject to U.S. laws. They have immunity that may or may not be waived by their home country. [1]
Now, you may not like the fact that the Constitution broadly grants birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are simply, perhaps even temporarily, present in the United States, but that is the law absent a constitutional amendment.
We are a nation founded on the Rule of Law. The president cannot amend the Constitution (or laws) via executive order. Any unilateral effort by a president to change the Constitution is void. Only an Article V amendment can change it.
Notes:
[1] Senator Howard was making my point. He says: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.” He is describing one class of persons. This is evident from the phrasing. “Aliens” is being used as a further descriptor for “foreigners,” and he’s specifically referring to aliens who are foreign diplomats. That’s why the word “who” immediately follows the modifier “aliens.”
Second January 6, 2021 Report
WASHINGTON – [On December 17th, 2024], Committee on House Administration’s Subcommittee on Oversight Chairman Barry Loudermilk (GA-11) released an interim report on his findings on the events surrounding January 6, 2021, as well as his investigation into the politicization of the January 6th Select Committee.
This report outlines criminal recommendations against former Representative Liz Cheney. Download report.
TOP FINDINGS:
2. Former Representative Liz Cheney should be investigated for potential criminal witness tampering based on the new information about her communication.
3. Cassidy Hutchinson’s most outrageous claims lacked any evidence, and the Select Committee had knowledge that her claims were false when they publicly promoted her.
- President Trump did not attack his Secret Service Detail at any time on January 6.
- President Trump did not have intelligence indicating violence on the morning of January 6.
- Cassidy Hutchinson falsely claimed to have drafted a handwritten note for President Trump on January 6.
- Representative Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson baselessly attempted to disbar Hutchinson’s former attorney.
4. Former Representative Liz Cheney used the January 6 Select Committee as a tool to attack President Trump, at the cost of investigative integrity and Capitol security.
5. The January 6 Select Committee was improperly constituted and lacked authority.
6. The January 6 Select Committee neglected or withheld evidence from its Final Report and deleted voluminous records it should have preserved.
7. The Department of Defense scapegoated the Washington D.C. National Guard to distract blame from senior leadership.
- Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller dismissed President Trump’s order prior to January 6 to use “any and all” military assets to keep the demonstrations safe.
- Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy intentionally delayed the D.C. National Guard’s response to the Capitol on January 6, despite authorization.
- The Department of Defense Inspector General published a flawed report containing fabrications and ignored relevant information.
- The Department of Defense and the Department of Defense Inspector General knowingly and inaccurately placed blame on D.C. National Guard leadership for the delayed response on January 6.
- The Department of Defense Inspector General was not responsive to the Subcommittee’s requests and even obstructed the Subcommittee’s investigation.
- The Subcommittee detected an inappropriately close relationship between the Department of Defense and its watchdog Inspector General.
8. The FBI and Capitol Police both failed to investigate the individuals responsible for building fake gallows on Capitol grounds on January 6.
9. The Subcommittee published more than 44,000 hours of CCTV footage from the Capitol.
10. The Subcommittee conducted an extensive review of the investigation into the two pipe bombs on January 5 and 6, and that report is set to be released within the next few days.
BACKGROUND:
This interim report reveals that there was not just one single cause for what happened at the U.S. Capitol on January 6; but it was a series of intelligence, security, and leadership failures at several levels and numerous entities.
Over the course of the 118th Congress, this Subcommittee has interviewed hundreds of witnesses, scoured over millions of pages of documents, analyzed thousands of hours of surveillance videos, listened to hundreds of hours of radio communications, and conducted hearings.
Chairman Loudermilk released his first January 6, 2021 report, “Initial Findings Report” on March 11, 2024 which focused on identifying and reviewing the numerous security failures on and leading up to, January 6, 2021, and reviewed the creation, operation, and claims made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Select Committee to investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol. Click here to view the Initial Findings Report. | Local copy.
Leonard Peikoff: Anti-Trumpites for Trump
In response to what he calls “TDS” or “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Leonard Peikoff has written an excellent article on Trump’s view of Americanism in comparison to that of Kamala Harris and the Democrats.
The Rheins Act
Congressman Mike Lee has an important post on the Rhein’s act:
“How,” you might ask, “are federal bureaucrats allowed to make federal law when only Congress has that authority?”
Congress has long delegated “rulemaking” power to federal agencies. And although the Supreme Court has long recognized that Congress’s lawmaking power can’t be delegated, it’s long been unwilling to enforce that in the context of federal regulations—even though they’re laws.
These federal regulations come at a steep cost to hardworking Americans. By virtue of the way federal regulations operate, most Americans remain largely unaware of how costly they are. While it’s difficult to assess with precision the cost to the American economy of compliance with federal regulations, most estimates are measured in the trillions of dollars—with some people putting it as high as $4 trillion.
It’s easy for people to assume that those compliance costs are borne by big corporations and a few wealthy individuals. That simply isn’t true. But it can be easy to assume that because most people don’t see how much more they pay for everything due to federal regulations. That’s what makes lawmaking by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats so dangerous.
Most Americans don’t know how much more difficult, inconvenient, and (especially) expensive life is because of federal regulations. Even when Americans become aware of how much they’re being harmed by federal regulations, their ability to fix it is limited by the unholy alliance between Congress and federal bureaucrats.
It was with good reason that the Constitution entrusted the lawmaking power only to Congress. The lawmaking power is the most dangers of the powers wielded by each branch of the U.S. government. The Constitution assigned the lawmaking power to the legislative branch because it’s the branch that stands most accountable to voters, and at the most regular intervals. All U.S. representatives can be fired by their voters every two years. One-third of U.S. senators can be fired by their voters every two years. Essentially no one can fire a federal bureaucrat.
So why does Congress give up so much lawmaking power—handing it over to unelected, unaccountable “experts” who can’t be fired—knowing of the harm it causes to the American people? Short answer: it makes the job of Congress easier and gives members of Congress deniability.
This arrangement between Congress and federal bureaucrats—making life easier for members of Congress and making bureaucrats more powerful—can last only as long as the American people remain unaware of the arrangement’s existence and cost, economically and in terms of liberty.
From how much you pay for almost everything you buy to how much you’re paid to the number of federal crimes on the books (at least 300,000), federal regulations have a far deeper impact on Americans than most realize. Do you miss real light bulbs? Do you miss dishwashers, washing machines, and dryers that got the job done consistently—like they used to? Shower heads and toilets that weren’t so stingy with water? Those too have been lost to actions taken by federal bureaucrats.
Yes, this is a longstanding, expensive, difficult, and complicated problem. Fortunately, we have access to a simple solution.
There’s a bill called the REINS Act that would require all “major rule” federal regulations to be enacted into law *by Congress* before taking effect. This is a simple, elegant solution to a nasty problem.
In essence, the REINS Act requires Congress to comply with what the Constitution already requires. If you think Congress should pass the REINS Act, please find out where your members of (or candidates for) Congress stand on it.
If they say they support it, ask them what they are willing to do to help move it forward. With all that’s at stake, there should be no higher legislative priority for Congress than passing the REINS Act.
🧵 Under the Constitution, only Congress may make federal law.
1/— Mike Lee (@BasedMikeLee) July 31, 2024