The great impediment to a U. S. - Canada trade deal which most people in the U. S., including our dunce of a president, don't seem to understand is that it's not Mark Carney standing in the way, it's Canada's sovereign 10 provinces and 3 territories

 

Canada is today's poster child for America's bad old system of states' rights.

Canada does not have free trade with itself, let alone with the United States. Imagine not being able to drive an 18-wheeler cross country. 

 

 Is Canada now free of internal trade barriers? Not yet, says expert: Breaking down interprovincial trade barriers is still a work in progress, says expert

... When Carney made his campaign promise, he was talking about cutting red tape put up by the federal government — not the rules set by the provinces, which have the most authority in this area. ... 

There is no comprehensive list of existing internal trade barriers. Even some lobby groups have told parliamentarians they don't know how many barriers their own industries face.

There isn't even consensus on what all counts as a trade barrier. ...

Internal Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland, who has repeatedly stated that most of the barriers are at the provincial level, testified to the Senate that she will meet with her provincial counterparts on July 8 to discuss next steps.

One major obstacle is in Freeland's crosshairs: Canada's patchwork of interprovincial trucking regulations.

"One of three areas that I will be putting on the agenda at that meeting is trucking," she said on June 16. "It should be a lot easier than it is to drive a truck from Halifax to Vancouver. We need to get rid of conflicting requirements."

 

 

Rep. Amash Is A Fake Conservative

Rep. Amash is getting increasingly bold in his use of code words which show that he is a fake conservative. I think he's triangulating in this way in order to get ready for a Senate run.

He stresses "independence" to distance himself from the Republican brand discredited among the young and to find support among people who thus vote Democrat by default.

He stresses "moderation" to distance himself from conservative social issues which are increasingly viewed as extreme, rebranding them as "federal" issues to escape criticism from the Christian right.

The past has nothing to teach us, especially "positions that were popular in the 1990s". Will he soon repudiate the Two State Solution? I'm sure that will please voters in Dearborn.

"Individual liberty" is code for moral license, which includes same sex marriage and legalized drugs, flying under the banner of states' rights.

And perhaps most importantly, what better way to get some street cred with Democrats and liberals than to play the race card against Sen. John McCain? A wise man might have let the senator simply self-destruct. But an ambitious, grasping man, on the other hand, sees an opportunity in piling on. Who is the has-been Sen. McCain to the lowly Rep. Amash, anyway? Wouldn't Justin Amash be happier in the Democrat Party where race is at the center of politics? That's where libertarianism comes from, after all. Success to libertarians is defeating Republicans, and taking over the Republican Party and not the Democrat Party from which they came. When's the last time a libertarian defeated a Democrat, anyhow? But in 2012 libertarians gloried in defeating a number of Republicans.

If Republicans were smart they'd wise up and realize they have a little fifth column problem. But they won't. They're the stupid party, after all.

It's Democrats Who Overwhelmingly Hate The Electoral College

The reason Democrats hate the Electoral College is that the Electoral College gives too much power to small population states, which sometimes vote in such a way as to prevent winners of the national popular vote in presidential contests from being elected.

Nevermind that that's how the founders intended it, in order to keep minorities from being dictated to by majorities. It is suitably hypocritical of the Democrats to want to oppress minorities, seeing how they have taken minorities for granted for decades, always promising them the moon but never delivering them so much as a sandwich let alone a sub so fast they'll freak.

TheHill.com has a story here on the subject of the Electoral College, referencing the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign which proposes to make an end-run around the Electoral College provision of the constitution. You know, kind of like seceding from the Union was an end run, because that's what the NPV amounts to. The normal process of amending election procedures involves a constitutional amendment, but the Democrats have hatched a plan, the NPV, which amounts to an affront and challenge to the existing system, agreed to only amongst the states participating without benefit of legitimacy conferred by constitutional amendment. The legitimacy consists entirely in the agreement of the states. As such the NPV represents an insurrection against the rest of the states who do not participate. 

Mostly Democrats favor doing away with the Electoral College, which is in keeping with what animates the Democrats, namely democracy, especially direct democracy. Despite all its problems and blemishes, it is the Republican Party which stands for constitutional arrangements as they exist, notably Sen. Mitch McConnell of the US Senate, the Republican minority leader in the Senate. His support for the Electoral College covers a multitude of sins, and I do mean a multitude.

The Republicans would sound more convincing in their support for the Electoral College, however, if they were to support also repeal of Amendment 17, ratified in 1913.

The reason is that it would show that the Republicans are serious about constitutional principles of representation.

The original constitution envisaged bodies of electors who were different in identity in order to separate the powers of government to prevent tyranny, it is true, but also to spread representation effectively not just to the individuals who make up the nation but also to the governmental institutions which the constitution created as creatures of the people.

The electors originally were three.

The people who elected their US Representatives. These number 435 but should today number 10,267. The process of representation growing with population was halted in the 1920s. Arguably this concentration of power in fewer hands was a response to arrogation of democratic power by the Senate in 1913.

The states originally elected their US Senators, "chosen by the Legislature[s] thereof". Elected as they are now, popularly because of the 17th Amendment, they do nothing but make a redundancy of the US House of Representatives. And not just a redundancy but a trump. The Senate possesses much more power because they are not answerable to the people but every sixth year instead of every second. If anyone is responsible for gridlock in our times, it is this new imperious US Senate since 1913, not the political parties who duke it out in the House. The US Senate literally lords it over the US House as a kind of Super House. They only occasionally answer to the same people as the US House when they should be answering to, and representing, the states. The latter now possess next to no voice at the federal level except through the court system, where they must sue to be heard. A fine kettle of fish, that.

The Electoral College is now the last bastion of representation left to the states as states, and Democrats seem bent on taking it. The Electoral College is composed of persons appointed by the states in number equal to the number of Representatives and Senators, and they elect the president. The electors cast their votes now more or less everywhere based on which candidate wins the popular vote in the presidential election in each state. It is a winner take all system which blends popular sovereignty with states' rights. But the NPV would nullify this, casting the votes of the electors not for whomever wins the state, but for whomever wins the country.

As sketched above, the history of these developments is a history of lost representation. A US House member should represent 30,000 people max, but today supposedly speaks for over 700,000 on average in each district. State legislatures no longer have a voice in the halls of Congress because Senators are popularly elected just like the House. And if the Democrats get their way, smaller states will also lose their voice in electing the president because no matter what the citizens of Wyoming, New Hampshire and Montana want, the citizens of California, Florida and New York who are more numerous will dictate otherwise.

And Democrats are about nothing if not dictation. 

Pretty Boy Hannity Gets a Lesson in the Constitution

From the American Thinker, here:

Dear Sean:

Concerning the 17th amendment, the argument for its repeal absolutely centers around states' rights.  If Senators are elected by elected reps and senators, they are more likely to defend their state against federal encroachments (upholding the 10th amendment), than they are if elected by the general population.  Any federal program - ObamaCare, the financial reform bill, etc., -  which increases burdens on state budgets would not sit well with Senators answerable to congressional bodies in their state.

Greg Halvorson

More republicanism, Less democracy

David Harsanyi defends the filibuster, but falls short of calling for a return to the election of U.S. Senators by the state legislatures, which is what we really need if we want more checks on power (the article appeared here):

February 10, 2010

Say No to Democracy

By David Harsanyi

If you've been paying attention to the left-wing punditry these days, you may be under the impression that the nation's institutions are on the verge of collapse. Or that the rule of law is unraveling. Or maybe that this once-great nation is crippled and nearly beyond repair.

You know why? Because the 40 percent (or so) political minority has far too much influence in Washington. Don't you know? This minority, egged on by a howling mob of nitwits, is holding progress hostage using its revolting politics and parliamentary trickery.

Leading the charge to fix this dire problem is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who advocates abolishing the Senate filibuster to make way for direct democracy's magic.

It had better be quick. The populace is fickle. Jacob Weisberg of Slate believes that Americans are crybabies who don't know what's good for 'em, causing "political paralysis." Even President Barack Obama, after his agenda had come to a halt, claimed democracy is a "messy" process -- as if that were a bad thing.

Actually, "democracy" is not only messy but also immoral and unworkable. The Founding Fathers saw that coming, as well. So we don't live under a system of simple majority rule for a reason, as most readers already know.

The minority political party, luckily, has the ability to obstruct, nag and filibuster the majority's agenda. Otherwise, those in absolute power would run wild -- or, in other words, you all would be living that Super Bowl Audi commercial by now.

And if democracy is the mob -- the "worship of jackals by jackasses," as H.L. Mencken once cantankerously put it -- whom does it comprise in our scenario? Depends on how you look at it, I suppose.

Not long ago, even before the Tea Party existed, Obama whipped up crowds angry at Republicans with his rosy brand of left-wing populism. He was able to hypnotize adoring masses with his grand and nebulous promises, though he had few new ideas and little experience to back it up.

Obama's ensuing coronation -- more than 2 million people reportedly showed up for his inauguration -- must have reinforced the perception in Washington that nearly everyone was on board. And in its first year, this administration acted accordingly, attempting to transform energy and health care policy, among other things.

Turns out, if we believe polls, that Americans changed their minds quickly and in large numbers. And history shows us that generally, unhampered one-party rule doesn't work out for anyone.

Then again, today's argument that the ruling party doesn't have enough power is a reflection of a nearly spiritual belief in the wonders of government, not democracy.

Though many Democrats advocate for direct democracy -- whether it be fighting states' rights or supporting the removal of the Electoral College -- it is a curiously selective endeavor.

Take the Tea Partiers, who also have attached themselves to "democracy" rhetoric. What, one wonders, will Democrats have to say about the filibuster when Sarah Palin is jamming through her first-year agenda as president?

We must be more judicious. We must have more debate before moving forward. The Founding Fathers never envisioned radical policy being jammed through by the majority. Oh, my God, it's actually happening.

Those who contend that the ruling party isn't instilled with enough control are worried about politics, not process. And actually, regardless of which ephemeral majority happens to win the day, we should be looking for more checks on power, not less.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.