1 thought on “Seth Barrett Tillman: <i>Souvenir from a recent summer vacation–Brexit Poster: Vote To Leave</i>”

  1. Trump is very much like BREXIT. All good people oppose him, including d=some Republicans who should know better. Trying to replace him as the candidate in some undemocratic fashion would be a disaster and probably the Whig moment for the Republican Party.

    I hope some senior people, including Pence and Gingrich can do some coaching and get him to tone down some of his off-the-cuff comments.

    Still, this is an odd year. Rush Limbaugh was musing this morning about whether the political parties are still the vehicle for voters to express opinions.

    The Democrats and Republicans are almost equally responsible for this state of affairs.

    Some of it began with Bork. Then continued with Thomas. Reagan’s Labor Secretary, Ray Donovan was an early example of criminalization of politics, which was mostly done by Democrats.

    The jury deliberated barely 10 hours over two days. One juror, Caesar Brown, said later that little discussion was needed and that just one ballot was required to find each defendant not guilty.

    When the last verdict was announced at 4:42 P.M. by the jury forewoman, Rosa Milligan, cheers and applause enveloped the courtroom. Most of the 12 jurors stood and applauded as they watched the defendants, their relatives and defense lawyers shouting with joy, embracing and slapping one another’s backs. Backing of Reagan

    In the same courtroom, when the trial began last September, the chief prosecutor, Stephen R. Bookin, had told the jury, ”This case is about greed, plain and simple.”

    Mr. Donovan, who was the first sitting Cabinet officer to be indicted, came under scrutiny soon after his nomination t as Labor Secretary in December 1980. The charges against him did not involve his Reagan Administration position, but he resigned from the Cabinet two years ago, after having been ordered to stand trial.

    Yesterday, in a statement from the White House, President Reagan said: ”I have always known Ray Donovan as a man of integrity, and I am happy to see this verdict. I have never lost confidence in him.”

    The trial was a disgrace. Senator Stevens was another example.

    The Republicans failed us by assenting to all the abuses of power by Obama and his administration. They could have resumed “Regular Order” once they had a majority in the Senate.

    In its simplest form, it means that both the House and the Senate abide by their standing rules.

    It means that members of the House are allowed the broadest leeway to offer amendments to legislation. It means that both the House and the Senate complete their budgets on time. It means that federal programs that are not authorized by an authorizing committee are not funded by appropriations bills. It means that the House and the Senate convene in formal conferences to reconcile legislation. It means that the Congress pays for emergency spending requests, or at least includes doesn’t put major spending items (like wars) off-budget.

    There is much to recommend in regular order. Giving every member of the House an opportunity to offer amendments seems like a no-brainer. Making sure that every single federal program goes through a regular check-up through oversight and with the Congress authorizing it with a formal vote makes sense. Taking the budget process seriously seems to most Americans to be essential.

    And not having big deals made behind closed doors, where the media and the people can’t get a good look, comes from page 1 of the Good Government Handbook.

    Instead, what we have is the “Administrative State” in which Congress has its staff write vague bills that are then completed by the federal bureaucracy, which is out of control.

    The Chenery case is now commonly cited in administrative law courses as an example of the vast discretion granted to bureaucratic agencies when Congress delegates to them its legislative power. The case also serves as a good illustration of the kind of injustice the American Founders sought to avoid by instituting a Constitution structured around the separation of powers and grounded in the rule of law. The contrast here helps us see the principled differences between Progressive and Founding-era notions of what constitutes good government.

    The Founders understood that there are two fundamental ways in which government can exercise its authority. The first is a system of arbitrary rule, where the government decides how to act on an ad hoc basis, leaving decisions up to the whim of whatever official or officials happen to be in charge; the second way is to implement a system grounded in the rule of law, where legal rules are made in advance and published, binding both government and citizens and allowing the latter to know exactly what they have to do or not to do in order to avoid the coercive authority of the former.

    There is even a book arguing it is unlawful, and Powerline has a lengthy series of posts on it.

    The public has become exhausted by the duration of the abusive law enforcement. Trump has now emerged. A very flawed vessel but he may be the only one brave or foolish enough to take on The Deep State.

    Sorry for the length of the comment. It got away from me. Jonathan, let me know if you would rather I make it a post.

Comments are closed.