gdp's Comments

Commentary Magazine : Gaza Illustrates Palestinian Statehood

Mon, 24 Jun 2013 21:46:34 +0000

It should be clear that neither a one-state nor a two-state solution can work for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Palestinians are divided, and lack the capacity to effectively govern their areas of responsibility. However, they do show some capacity to govern at the city level. Perhaps the best option is an eleven-state solution: Israel would be one. The others would be Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah, East Jerusalem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, and Bethlehem. Israel would formally declare war on each, and separately negotiate peace treaties with each, establishing their boundaries and governments. The Palestinians would get the the territories occupied by those cities together with a surrounding buffer area around each, suitable for building, to allow for expansion. Israel would get all the territory in between, which would include all their settlements, and a strip along the border with Jordan. The Palestinian city-states would be encouraged to unite in a federal union which could represent it in the United Nations, but it would initially not have much power at the local level. Over time that might change, and boundaries might be adjusted. This will not satisfy Palestinian aspirations, but it reflects the reality on the ground, which is the only thing that can be the basis for a lasting solution.

Commentary Magazine : Palestinians Welcome Obama with Demands and Ultimatums

Wed, 20 Mar 2013 23:25:40 +0000

The following letter was submitted to the Israeli newspaper, haaretz.com : It should be clear that neither a one-state nor a two-state solution can work for the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Palestinians are divided, and lack the capacity to effectively govern their areas of responsibility. However, they do show some capacity to govern at the city level. Perhaps the best option is an eleven-state solution: Israel would be one. The others would be Gaza, Nablus, Hebron, Jenin, Jericho, Ramallah, East Jerusalem, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, and Bethlehem. Israel would formally declare war on each, and separately negotiate peace treaties with each, establishing their boundaries and governments. The Palestinians would get the the territories occupied by those cities together with a surrounding buffer area around each, suitable for building, to allow for expansion. Israel would get all the territory in between, which would include all their settlements, and a strip along the border with Jordan. The Palestinian city-states would be encouraged to unite in a federal union which could represent it in the United Nations, but it would initially not have much power at the local level. Over time that might change, and boundaries might be adjusted. This will not satisfy Palestinian aspirations, but it reflects the reality on the ground, which is the only thing that can be the basis for a lasting solution.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Greatly Misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:51:38 +0000

Rob tends to interpret the language of the period as though it was written with more care and skill than if was. That doesn't work. A historian has little choice but to sometimes read between the lines and find structure and meanings that were not clear to the writers of that era. Exegesis is a subtle art, and it is not always easy to cross the line into eisegesis.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Greatly Misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:35:55 +0000

Correction. That link is http://amend-it.org

Tenth Amendment Center : The Greatly Misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:30:39 +0000

The failure, if it can be called that, was not so much of the Framers, who did the best they could under difficult circumstances, but of their immediate successors for failing to adopt clarifying amendments when court decisions started to drift away from original understanding, and that in part a failure of the founders to pass on that original understanding through legal commentaries. In particular, Jefferson was urged to write such expositions, but he felt it was sufficient to let John Taylor of Caroline do it. Taylor tried, but his analytic and expository ability fell short, as can be seen in his writings on http://constitution.org . Madison felt (inadvisedly in my opinion) that he was still bound by his oath of secrecy concerning the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention, so that he could not publish his Notes on it until after both he and all the other attendees were dead, which did not occur until 1840, after much of the deviation had become entrenched. About the only remedy for what might be called scary decisis is constitutional amendments. The Bill of Rights were clarifying amendments, as were the Reconstruction Amendments, except for the $20 rule of the 7th and the enforcement powers of the 13th, 14th, and 15th. The problem is to find ways to word amendments so they target and overturn the key bad decisions or opinions, and the departures based on them. Randy Barnett has tried to do that with a few broad amendments that I don't think have the needed focus. I have instead tried to formulate amendments that are more targeted. See http://amend-it.com . But it is not easy. The framers of the 14th tried to hammer out the wording that would overturn Barron v. Baltimore and Dred Scott v. Sanford, but with the benefit of hindsight we can see the shortcomings of their wording. I'd like to think my wording would work better, but it is difficult to anticipate every way one's words can be misconstrued. The only way to avoid that is to educate one's successors to know how to get the court decisions back on track if they drift away. I have tried to provide everything anyone might need on http://constitution.org , but I cannot afford to continue that effort without more financial support. The entire site could go down within a month if I don't receive at least $2000 in donations soon.

YesButHowever.com : Now Two Murdoch Whistleblowers Dead

Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:51:00 +0000

In the U.S. people at least have protections in writing they can invoke. In the UK the only protections are customs and traditions that are not enshrined in writing. Of course, in both countries those protections are routinely ignored in many cases, but having it in writing makes it easier to rally others to your support. As for these suspicious deaths, they should be investigated by independent forensic investigators. Unfortunately, technology now makes it all too easy to cause death in ways that seem natural. However, a motive for assassinating them also seems implausible, because there are undoubtedly too many others who can and likely will step forward and testify. See http://constitution.org for more on many issues.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Greatly Misunderstood Chief Justice John Marshall

Tue, 19 Jul 2011 21:59:20 +0000

Although I tend to agree with Rob Natelson on most points, I have to disagree on the impact of Marshall's opinions, resulting from the ways he wrote them. He is correct about Marbury v. Madison, but not about McCulloch v. Maryland or Gibbons v. Ogden. He is making the case that subsequent readers are misconstruing Marshall, but a jurist is responsible for what people take from his sloppy writing, even if it is not what he intended. He furnished generations of sophist lawyers language they could twist, in ways he could have anticipated. It was not that he did not receive counterarguments that could guide the ways he wrote the opinions. His lack of caution in that is clearly willful and damaging. For more see my commentary on those cases at constitution.org and at constitutionalism.blogspot.com

Tenth Amendment Center : Stop Worrying about Words on Paper

Wed, 1 Dec 2010 04:38:48 +0000

Repealing the 17th Amendment is not a good idea. It was adopted for a good reason. Study the history of it. http://constitutionalism.blogspot.com/2010/04/don...

Tenth Amendment Center : Stop Worrying about Words on Paper

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:33:17 +0000

The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, along with other documents, is at http://constitution.org/rf/vr.htm But note that Jefferson was calling generally for non-cooperation, without putting any resources behind it, or establishing any procedures for identifying what needs to be resisted and how. It is not acquiescence that is the issue but non-cooperation. The opposition needs some cooperation, even if it is only from a jury. Acquiescence is convicting the resisters. Non-cooperation is acquitting them. When they can't impanel a jury that will convict we have nullification.

Tenth Amendment Center : Stop Worrying about Words on Paper

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 21:17:45 +0000

The social contract is what initially creates society. It is a mutual defense of rights pact. It is not something that changes thereafter. Especially not to add some "right" to entitlements. They are called entitlements to distinguish them from rights.

Tenth Amendment Center : View of the Constitution of the United States

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:32:53 +0000

It should be understood that this material from Tucker is his notes on his edition of Blackstone's Commentaries. For the complete 5-volume work including the notes see http://constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 16:19:20 +0000

For more on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses see: Original Understanding of the Commerce Clause http://constitution.org/col/02729_fed-usurp.htm The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, Randy E. Barnett http://www.bu.edu/rbarnett/Original.htm

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:29:01 +0000

Its not just the last ten years, and the legislature doesn't nullify. Nullification is when the feds stop trying to commit unconstitutional acts, not when the legislature issues some declaration. In between is a lot of people acting in concert in response to leadership from the legislature, a process that can take years or decades. Ultimately, this is about organizing a change in civic culture, mobilizing public action on a sustained basis. A mere legislative resolution is just words on paper that will soon be forgotten unless enough people act on it.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:15:28 +0000

The feds will only back down if entire states are united and act in concert. Isolated resistance is futile. It makes things worse. Remember the words of Ben Franklin, "Either we hang together or we will all hang separately."

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:41:51 +0000

By original understand, yes, but federal court precedents have put us way beyond that, turning "federal agent" into a title of nobility, a class of persons above the law. Mere protests aren't nearly enough to overcome two centuries of precedents. The only thing that can work now are a number of constitutional amendments. See http://constitution.org/reform/us/con_amend.htm

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 23:38:14 +0000

I'm not asserting it. The federal courts are asserting it. There was a time when an agent had to be acting within his authority to have official immunity, but through a series of precedents the courts (including state courts for state agents) have established that the agent only has to be "on duty" or acting "during his duty hours". That is how Lon Horiuchi got away with murdering Vicki Weaver. Sure, it is still possible to prosecute an agent for something he does in his home while off duty, such as killing his wife, but if it has any connection at all with his work he will probably only be subject to a letter of reprimand by his supervisor.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:35:46 +0000

The reason the feds are backing down over medical marijuana in some states is the widespread public knowledge that something is legal under state law makes it more difficult to get a federal jury in that state to convict. It is not doing nearly as much to deter them from going after physicians civilly. Your argument would have more merit if all the cases were tried by juries, but there are large gaps in coverage for rights to a jury trial. Just look at what happens in income tax cases. Yes, one might occasionally win an acquittal for wilful failure to file and pay, which most juries don't understand, but it doesn't prevent civil action or holding persons for long periods, sometimes for years, for contempt of court, for which there is no right to a jury under current Rules of Judicial Procedure. (Yes, there is under the Constitution, but that argument won't work.)

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 22:27:25 +0000

18 USC 111: § 111. Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees (a) In General.— Whoever— (1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or (2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service, shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. (b) Enhanced Penalty.— Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:45:26 +0000

But the federal government would use force, not initially to make state agents comply with its orders, but just to remove any federal agents from state custody. This kind of thing has been done, and the feds are fully prepared to overwhelm state and local agents with superior forces. All the President has to do is call out the National Guard, which is part of the military and subject to his orders, and if that weren't enough he would use the rest of the military. This scenario has been wargamed many times and they are well-prepared. But you miss the point. Which federal agents would be in jail? The PPACA prevents just PPACA enforcement actions from being singled out, so the state would have to jail all IRS agents for all their actions. Sounds appealing, but if it were attempted the political blowback would kill the nullification movement for a generation or more. We have to proceed incrementally. Take on too much too soon and the result will be worse than if we had done nothing at all.

Tenth Amendment Center : The Lone Star State's Opportunity

Sun, 21 Nov 2010 03:28:43 +0000

It does nothing to nullify the Health Care Act. It is only a gesture or protest. It is absurd to try to make it a state crime for federal agents to try to collect the insurance premium. Leaving aside the fact that IRS agents could do everything from outside the territorial jurisdiction of the State, there is a reason why no state or local government attempts to prosecute federal agents for crimes. Any attempt will be immediately removed to federal court, where it will be immediately dismissed, on the grounds that an agent has immunity for anything he does while on duty. The state agent who tried to enforce it would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of interfering with a federal officer. We need more than gestures or protests on this and other federal usurpations. Legislation that pleases some constituents on first impression, but which has no chance to actually work, is not the way to spend scarce legislative or activist resources. An alternative approach that might actually work is presented at http://constitution.org/reform/us/tx/nullificatio... .