The Next Chief Justice

In a new article for The Objectivist Center‘s The New Individualist, David Mayer—a Constitutional scholar and Professor of Law and History at Capital University—sets out the criteria by which the next chief justice should be judged. Written before Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s death, Mayer lays out the legacy of the Rehnquist Court:

Although the Rehnquist Court has fallen short of a consistent application of originalist principles to constitutional law—and indeed has fallen far short of following anything like a true contextualist approach to the Constitution—it has, in many respects, reacted against the left-liberal judicial activism of its predecessors, the Warren and Burger Courts. In doing so, the Rehnquist Court has challenged both sides of the post-1937 “revolution” in constitutional law, beginning the process of restoring an older jurisprudence more faithful to the Constitution.

Mayer also sets out the path that the next Court should take in order to restore “the Constitution to its proper place in the American system of government.” Mayer writes:

Ideally, however, Bush will nominate someone who is not an ordinary conservative, in the mold of Rehnquist: someone who adheres to constitutional principles such as federalism out of mere devotion to American constitutional tradition. Rather, Bush ought to nominate someone who grounds his or her jurisprudence in something more objective: in originalism, rightly understood, or better yet, in a contextual understanding of the Constitution. In other words, the next chief justice of the Supreme Court ought to be someone capable of leading the Court in a principled reaction against the “New Deal Revolution” of 1937 and the damage it wrought on the Constitution as an effective limit on the powers of government, particularly the federal government.

Read the full article…

'Muslim Opinion' Be Damned

In an astute new op-ed for the Ayn Rand Institute, Alex Epstein writes:

To listen to most of our foreign-policy commentators, the biggest problem facing America today–four years after Sept. 11th–is the fact that many Muslims are mad at us.
â??Whatever one’s views on the [Iraq] war,â? writes a New York Times columnist, â??thoughtful Americans need to consider . . . the bitter anger that it has provoked among Muslims around the world.â? In response to Abu Ghraib, Ted Kennedy lamented, â??We have become the most hated nation in the world, as a result of this disastrous policy in the prisons.â? Muslim anger over Americaâ??s support of Israel, we are told, is a major cause of anti-American terrorism.
We face, these commentators say, a crisis of â??Muslim opinion.â? We must, they say, win the â??hearts and mindsâ? of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more â??evenhandedâ? between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority–and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over â??Muslim opinion,â? we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.
All of this evades one blatant truth: the hatred being heaped on America is irrational and undeserved. Consider the issue of treatment of POWs. Many Muslims are up in arms about the treatment of prisoners of war in Iraq and at Guantanamo–many of whom were captured on battlefields trying to kill Americans. Yet these same Muslims are silent about the summary convictions and torture–real torture, with electric drills and vats of acid–that are official policy and daily practice throughout the Middle East.
Or consider â??Muslim opinionâ? over the U.S. handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which the United States is accused of not being â??hard enoughâ? on Israel–a free nation with laws that protect all citizens, Jew and Arab alike–for Israelâ??s supposed mistreatment of Palestinians. Yet â??Muslim opinionâ? reveres the Palestinian Authority, a brutal dictatorship that deprives Palestinians of every basic freedom, keeps them in unspeakable poverty, and routinely tortures and executes peaceful dissenters.

See the full article for more.

Robert Tracinski on the New Orleans Disaster

Robert Tracinski has written a terrific article for The Intellectual Activist about what is taking place in New Orleans. It begins:

It has taken four long days for state and federal officials to figure out how to deal with the disaster in New Orleans. I can’t blame them, because it has also taken me four long days to figure out what is going on there. The reason is that the events there make no sense if you think that we are confronting a natural disaster.
If this is just a natural disaster, the response for public officials is obvious: you bring in food, water, and doctors; you send transportation to evacuate refugees to temporary shelters; you send engineers to stop the flooding and rebuild the city’s infrastructure. For journalists, natural disasters also have a familiar pattern: the heroism of ordinary people pulling together to survive; the hard work and dedication of doctors, nurses, and rescue workers; the steps being taken to clean up and rebuild.
Public officials did not expect that the first thing they would have to do is to send thousands of armed troops in armored vehicle, as if they are suppressing an enemy insurgency. And journalists–myself included–did not expect that the story would not be about rain, wind, and flooding, but about rape, murder, and looting.
But this is not a natural disaster. It is a man-made disaster.

Read the full article to find out why.

Who Should Foot the Bill for Katrina?

As the cost of the devastation wrecked by the hurricane in Louisiana and other Southern states keeps escalating, the question is raised: who should foot the bill for the damage? Jack Chambless, Economics Professor at Valencia Community College in Orlando, Florida, answered the question unequivocally: Not the federal government. Chambless stated that “not one taxpayer dollar should go toward rebuilding the city of New Orleans.” Invoking the U.S. Constitution, Chambless argued:

[W]e have every obligation to provide for New Orleans in terms of charity, private charity from one person to the other. But the founding fathers never intended, Article One, section Eight of the Constitution, never intended to provide one dollar of taxpayer dollars to pay for any disaster or anything that we might call charity.

(For reference, article One, section Eight of the Constituion states: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”)
Chambless concluded by making a case for the free market: “Between charity and between people making rational decisions about where they would like to live and buying insurance if they can afford it, you will still have people living in these areas.”
Read the entire transcript.
Chambless was a guest at the Fox News show “The World with Neil Cavuto” on Tuesday, Sept 30. The show’s host, Neil Cavuto, asked another question in his daily column. He wondered where was the international relief aid provided for disasters around the globe: “When this kind of stuff happens to other folks, we’re there. When this kind of stuff happens to us, who’s here?”
Update: House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) announced that: “It makes no sense to spend billions of dollars to rebuild a city that’s seven feet under sea level.”

On Cherishing Talent

Atlasphere member Greg Garamoni points us to this article (“Mozart redeems my mediocrity“) from the Guardian:
We should cherish those who possess great talent rather than envying them and begrudging their success
Dylan Evans
Thursday July 21, 2005
Guardian
In ancient Greece, people expected their heroes to be different. The first readers of the Iliad didn’t imagine they could ever be as great as Achilles. They accepted that he was in a completely different category, a different order of being. And they didn’t envy him his superior talent – they admired him for it.
Nowadays, if someone is vastly more talented than us, we don’t congratulate them – we envy them and resent their success. It seems we don’t want heroes we can admire, so much as heroes we can identify with.
We want to think we could be like them, and so we make sure to select heroes that are like us. We worship David Beckham because he’s fallible. If Achilles were around today, the headlines would all be about his heel.
Continue reading “On Cherishing Talent”

Lance Armstrong's Heroism Is a Moral Inspiration

From Andrew Bernstein, writing for the Ayn Rand Institute:
Athletic victories provide a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement.
When Lance Armstrong rode through Paris on Sunday, crowning his unprecedented seventh consecutive victory in the grueling Tour de France, he put an exclamation mark on what is more than merely an extraordinary athletic career.
By this time, the entire world knows Armstrong’s story–his remarkable recovery from what was feared to be terminal cancer, his exhausting training program, his legendary endurance, his dauntless determination, his unequalled dominance of cycling?s premier event. Millions around the world properly celebrate him and his lofty accomplishments.
But what explains the enormous interest in Armstrong’s success–or that of any other sports hero? Why do sports fans set such a strong personal stake in the victories of their heroes? After all, little of any practical significance depends on such victories; a seventh Armstrong win won’t get his fans a raise or help send their children to college. Why do sports have such an enormous, enduring appeal in human life?
The answer lies in a rarely recognized aspect of sports: their moral significance. What athletic victories provide is a rare and crucial moral value: the sight of human achievement.
Continue reading “Lance Armstrong's Heroism Is a Moral Inspiration”

Robert Garmong on Privatizing Space Exploration

The American Daily has published a new op-ed by Robert Garmong titled “Privatize Space Exploration.” It begins:

As NASA scrambles to make the July 31 window for the troubled launch of space shuttle Discovery, we should recall the first privately funded manned spacecraft, SpaceShipOne, which over a year ago shattered more than the boundary of outer space: it destroyed forever the myth that space exploration can only be done by the government.
Two years ago, a Bush Administration panel on space exploration recommended that NASA increase the role of private contractors in the push to permanently settle the moon and eventually explore Mars. Unfortunately, it appears unlikely that NASA will consider the true free-market solution for America’s expensive space program: complete privatization.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man’s technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their creative thinking and judgment. Yet, by funding the space program through taxation, we necessarily place it at the mercy of bureaucratic whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA’s history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent, and ill-defined goals.

See the full article for more information.
UPDATE: On a related note, Instapundit points us to this optimistic article in the Christian Science Monitor: “Beyond NASA: The Push to Privatize Space Flight.”

Why Won't Muslims Denounce Their 'Extremists'?

In the wake of the recent London bombings, a number of writers around the web are re-asking the very good question “Why don’t Islamics denounce and suppress their own so-called ‘extremists’ more effectively?”
In his aptly titled blog entry “Is it Islamic “extremism” — or is it Islam itself?” Objectivist writer Robert Bidinotto begins:

In the wake of the London bombings, we are forced again to confront this most uncomfortable question:
Do the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists truly represent a marginal minority among Muslims worldwide?
Or is the term “Islamic fundamentalist” really just a redundancy?
I am by no means an expert on Islam. But since 9/11, and countless terrorist incidents since, I have been patiently awaiting evidence that the majority of Muslims worldwide repudiate the premises and tactics of Islamic terrorists.
Well, I’m still waiting. And there comes a time when one must finally draw conclusions, however painful, from the facts presented.
If there really is some sort of ongoing war between “extremists” and “moderates” for the soul of Islam, it appears to be one of the quietest contests in the history of ideological warfare.

Instapundit addressed this topic yesterday as well, and provides this quote from an article by Tom Friedman in the NYTimes:

Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists – if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings – or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way – by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village. . . .
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day – to this day – no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.

See Instapundit’s full discussion for more analysis and a link to information about one Muslim group that has, in fact, issued a Fatwah against Osama bin Laden.

Africa Needs Mercenaries, Not Musicians

Yesterday’s LATimes.com included an excellent article by Max Boot (“Mercenaries, Not Musicians, for Africa“) exposing the real problem in Africa, and why all the various charity concerts absolutely will not help:
In the last 50 years, $2.3 trillion has been spent to help poor countries. Yet Africans’ income and life expectancy have gone down, not up, during that period, while South Korea, Singapore and other Asian nations that received little if any assistance have moved from African-level poverty to European-level prosperity thanks to their superior economic policies.
Economists who have studied aid projects have found numerous reasons for the failures. In many instances, money was siphoned off by corrupt officials. Even when funds did reach the intended beneficiaries, the money often distorted local markets for goods and labor, creating inflation that drove local businesses out of business. . . .
Oddly enough, Sachs ignores the most obvious obstacle to Africa’s escape from the “poverty trap,” what his pal Bob Geldof has accurately described as “corruption and thuggery.” (This was also Sachs’ blind spot when he tried to reform the Russian economy in the 1990s.) Yet not even Sir Bob has offered any plausible ideas for addressing these deep-rooted woes.
Africans continue to be tormented not by the G-8, as anti-poverty campaigners imply, but by their own politicos, including Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who is abetting genocide in Darfur, and Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who is turning his once-prosperous country into a famine-plagued basket case. Unless it’s linked to specific “good governance” benchmarks (as with the new U.S. Millennium Challenge Account), more aid risks subsidizing dysfunctional regimes.
Any real solution to Africa’s problems must focus on the root causes of poverty ? mainly misgovernment. Instead of pouring billions more down the same old rat holes, maybe the Live 8 crew should promote a more innovative approach: Use the G-8’s jillions 2 hire mercenaries 4 the overthrow of the 6 most thuggish regimes in Africa. That would do more to help ordinary Africans than any number of musical extravaganzas.
See the full article for more great information. (Found via Instapundit.)

Ed Hudgins on the London Massacre

Writing for the Objectivist Center, Ed Hudgins provides the following analysis of the four coordinated terrorist bombings that hit London this morning:
On July 7 hundreds of Londoners were killed or injured in vicious terrorist attacks and Islamists, the same death-worshiping religious fanatics who have also killed Americans, Spaniards, Australians, Turks, Israelis, Egyptians and citizens of most countries of the world, have lined up to take credit.
Flashback nearly four years: in London on the first anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks against the United States, a major conference called “A Towering Day in History” was held at the Finsburg Mosque, a hotbed of al-Qaeda sympathizers, to celebrate rather than condemn those crimes. But it was what did not happen that was most telling. The mosque was not surrounded by tens of thousands of outraged Muslims — as well as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, atheists and all others — well outnumbering the thousands of terrorist-supporting conferees, to denounce with no “ifs,” “ands,” or “buts” both the attacks on America and the moral degenerates in that mosque.
In the United States whenever a dozen neo-Nazis or Klansmen seek permits to demonstrate in any town or city, their numbers are swamped by counter-demonstrators letting them know in no uncertain terms that they are not welcome. It is unimaginable that a Finsburg Mosque-type event could be staged in Washington, New York or any major American city without loud, massive and probably nationwide rallies against the death-worshipers. The identity of each Islamist would be noted by private citizens and they would be ostracized as the moral monsters they are, though whether most American Muslims would do so as well is an open question.
Continue reading “Ed Hudgins on the London Massacre”