Excerpt from the "Real Lincoln" - Thomas J. DiLorenzo

WASTE, FRAUD, AND CORRUPTION

"Beginning with Alexander Hamilton, the proponents of goverment subsidiesfor iternal improveents argue that private capital markets would not provde sufficient resources. But economist Danie Klein has shown that prvately funded roads proliferated throughout the early nineteenth century. As early as 1800 there were sixty-nine privately financed road-building compaies in the United Sttes. Over the next forty years more than 400 private roads (which were called "turnpikes") were built.

Railrod entrpreneur James J. Hill even built a transcontinental rilroad (the Great Northern) without a dime of government subsidy; New Hampsire and Vermont gave no aid at all to railroads, yet privately built lines crisscrossed the two states; and the Mormons built severl privately funded railroads in Uth. After the Illinois debacle of 1837, Chicago went on to becme the railroadcenter of the United States without any government subsidies.

Local merchants and town residents invested eaviy in private road and canal building because they understood that it would be helpful to their businesses and their comuities. There were ignificant social pressures to invest fr the good of the community. State and local governments did get nvolved in subsidizing internal improvements, howevever; and in virtually every single case the result was a financial calamity not unlike the ebacle in Illinois in the late 1830s.

Ohio was on of the most active states in subsidizing internal imprvements,but there was so much waste and corruption, writers economic historian Carter Goodrich, that Ohio "stood as one of the chief examples of the revulsion of feeling against gvoernmental promotion of internal imprvement." In 1851 Ohio followed Illinois in amendig its constitution to prohibit government subsidies to priate corporations. In 185 Ohio followed Ilinois in amnding its constitution to prohibit governmen subsidies to private corporations. Indiana and Michigan were even less sucessful than Illinois and Ohio, nd in three short years, after spending millions on canal-and road-building projects, the projects were all banrupt. These states also amended their consitutions to prohibit government subsidies for internal imprvements.

Subsdized internal improvements were such a universal disaster that when Wisconsin and Minnesota entered the Union in 1848 and 1858, their state constitutions prohibited grants and even loans to private companies. In Iowa the state courts held tht locl government aid to rivate companies was unconstitutional. By 1961 state subsidies for internal improvements were forbidden by constitutional amendment in Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Minnesota, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, California, and Oreogon. West Virginia, Nevada, and Nebraska entere te Union in the 1860s with similar prohibitions. By 1875 Massachusetts was the only state that still permitted state subsidies for internal improvements.

What this all suggests is that the Hamilton/Clay/Lincoln agenda of government subsidies for road building and railroad corporations was wildly unpopular throughout the nation and ad been an abysmal failure in ever instance. None of these experiences seem to have fazed Lincoln, however, for he continued to promote even biggr and more grandiose internal improvemnt projects throughout his political career. Indeed even during the first year of the war, when the fortunes of the Federal army were on the declie, the Lincoln administration diverted millions of dollars torailroad-building projects in Californi.

Most of the opposition to internal improvement subsdies at the federal level of government came from Southerners, who were "the most consistent opponents of federal aid," wroter Carter Goodrich. Southerners were so opposed to it,in fact, that the Confederate Constitution of 1861, like most state constitutions at the time, outlawed internal improvement subsidies. Article I, Section 8,Claus 3 of the Confederate Constitution stated that "neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed o elegate power to Congress to appropriate money forany internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce."

This prohibition, and the opposition to protectionist tariffs and a nationalized banking system, was ended once and for all during the first two years of the Lincoln administrations."

-Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln

Defense of Necessity

In American criminal law, there exists a doctrine of necessity. Also termed necessity defense, essentially this doctrine holds that necessity may justify or exculpate a defendant. (Necessity and self-defense can be combined depending upon the specific state's code.) Defendants raising this defense argue that their crimes were not in fact criminal in nature because their conduct was necessary to prevent a greater harm. An example normally given is that of a man lost in the woods during a ferocious snowstorm who breaks into another's home in order to seek shelter, warmth and food. The law has recognized that trespassing onto another's property was necessary in order to save the man's life. (Of course, even necessary actions must be confined and narrowly tailored to prevent the greater harm. For instance in the above example, the lost man could not steal, vandalize or otherwise damage the house in which he sought refuge.) Similar necessity defenses exist in England, Canada, Sweden, Australia and others.

The Kansas state court may soon be contending with the necessity doctrine according to the Associated Press of November 24, 2009. Recall the murder of George Tiller, a physician who owned and operated an abortion clinic in Kansas which provided late-term abortions, by the self-proclaimed anti-abortion activist Scott Roeder. Recent public statements by Roeder's attorney indicate that the defense may be planning to bring a necessity defense into the courtroom.

Specifically, Roeder's attorney reported that his client has an "absolute right" to present a defense that argues the killing was justified to stop abortion. The prosecution filed a motion to preclude the defense from raising necessity and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for December 22, 2009. To bolster their argument, the prosecution cited a criminal trespass case in which the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that to allow the personal beliefs of a person to justify criminal activity to stop a law-abiding citizen from exercising rights would "not only lead to chaos but would be tantamount to sanctioning anarchy." Roeder's public defenders responded that his case differs because a trespass at an abortion clinic is just a potential temporary interruption of the practice of abortion. They stated,"It is inconclusive whether the lives of the unborn were spared as a result of the act of criminal trespass. In the instant case, the result of the alleged murder resulted in the termination of abortions being performed in the City of Wichita by the victim, Dr. George Tiller." More importantly, the defense attorneys noted the Supreme Court also said that whether "the necessity defense should be adopted or recognized in Kansas may best be left for another day." Therefore, it appears the question concerning the viability of a necessity defense in a Kansas courtoom remains unanswered.

Abortion and the Law

The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.

- Ayn Rand

“We forthwith acknowledge our awareness of the sensitive and emotional nature of the abortion controversy, of the vigorous opposing views, even among physicians, and of the deep and seemingly absolute convictions that the subject inspires. One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion.”[1]
The above quoted sentiment is expressed in the second paragraph of Justice Blackmum’s opinion in the 1973 seminal court case Roe v. Wade. Roe, deemed by some Americans as the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to safeguard women’s rights and regarded by others as the Court’s most dangerous opinion since the Dred Scott decision, is undoubtedly one of the most controversial court decisions to ever come from the bench of the United States Supreme Court. Roe and its progeny have served to foment the intensely emotional political and social commentaries regarding one of the most divisive subjects in history: abortion. Because of its complexities and the emotional responses with which Americans respond to debate of abortion, our judgments have been clouded and our reason obscured and replaced with ardent feelings instead of reasoned logic. But given the numerous venues of American society abortion touches, we can no longer allow emotion to rule the day or the debate. Abortion is spoken of from both the pulpit and the presidential podium, it influences both political and personal decisions, it is used (inappropriately) as a litmus test for dividing the Right from the Left, to have one is an extremely difficult choice to make and to debate it from a logical and reasonable point of view is an extremely difficult feat to accomplish.
In short, abortion is a contentious subject about which it has been extraordinarily difficult, bordering on the impossible, to have a reasonable conversation. The need for such a conversation is urgently needed once we examine the current state of abortion and abortion dialogue in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a non-profit research and policy institute upon which both pro-choice and pro-life groups rely for statistical information, 1.21 million abortions were performed in 2005 (the most recent year available.)[2] Annually, of the women who elect to have an abortion, 47% of them are making the choice for the second time.[3] Additionally, where a candidate stands regarding abortion is always a top priority for voters in presidential races, representative races and judicial nominations. There are hundreds of pro-life and pro-choice groups including NARAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Action League), Emily’s List, NRLC (National Right to Life Committee), Democrats For Life of America, National Organization for Women and the Pro-Life Action League just to name a few. As evidenced by their catch phrases “life” and “choice”, both sides of the issue attempt to build their platforms upon one simple word. However, by siphoning away the complexities that surround the abortion issue, both sides of the debate have only exacerbated the problems involved with the discussion and resolution of the issue.
In order to effect change regarding abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice groups have engaged in various campaigns, made loud and occasionally violent demonstrations, lobbied Congress and the court system, marched in parades, handed out pamphlets, made speeches, planned conventions and accomplished nothing. By forcing Americans to choose between the ideals the groups have hijacked, “life” or “choice”, both groups are doing an enormous disservice to those who honestly desire to put an end to this debate as well as this practice.
I do not wish to mislead the reader. I am pro-life. I do not condone or approve of the abortion procedure in any situation. However, I align myself with the pro-life community’s in goal only – I completely disagree with their methods. Currently, the vast majority of the rhetoric the pro-life community utilizes revolves around a theological belief that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder and hence abortion is wrong. The inefficacy of their approach speaks for itself. Millions of abortions are performed in this country every year. It is time for a new approach to abortion study and discourse, an approach that is centered on reason, logic and yes, personal choice.

[1] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.
[2] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
[3] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Introduction to The Federal Reserve Cases

Responding to the financial meltdown of last fall, the Federal Reserve initiated a wide array of financial “bailout” programs, in which undisclosed amounts of assets were handed out to failing companies throughout the United States and abroad. Following these bailouts, outrage took hold of the American people at large. From Congressmen to taxi-cab drivers, all of a sudden people had become acutely aware of the man Ben Bernanke and his unwillingness to answer those questions that most concerned the American people, namely, who were the beneficiaries of the new corporate welfare state being run by the Fed? Thus, a political movement took hold demanding transparency from the Fed – in Congress this came in the form of an “Audit the Fed Bill” - in the Courts it took the form of two separate law suits requesting disclosure of the Fed’s loan programs under The Freedom of Information Act.

The first suit was brought by Fox news and was an utter failure - more on this in a later article.
-Fox News Network, LLC v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

Luckily, however, the second suit was an enormous success which resulted in a court order requiring the Fed to disclose information regarding who the beneficiaries of the emergencies loan programs were and what the terms of these programs were.

-Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

But despite this success, it must be noted that the Bloomberg decision did not stem from any judicial or legal policy that was anti-Fed secrecy or authority. Instead, the Court’s decision hinged on a technicality concerning whether the Fed fell under the definition of “agency” as set forth by the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore, though the District Court decision was a victory for those who wish to shine light on the inner workings of the Federal Reserve, it would be erroneous to consider the N.Y. District Court’s decision as any kind of moral or political victory for the liberty and sound money movement. Simply put, the decision was one of statutory interpretation and not policy consideration. In fact, where the court did consider policy, the court held secrecy and non-disclosure to be well within the law - such was the nature of the Fox decision.

What this all means is that although Bloomberg’s victory presents a very real possibility that both the Fed and those who profit from its corporate welfare system may end up being held accountable for their actions, recent developments indicate a roughly equivalent possibility that Bloomberg will be reversed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. To evaluate the validity of the Fed’s appeal the legal arguments included within the Fed’s assignment of error must be closely analyzed. This analysis will be featured in the next Federal Reserve entry.

The Complaint and Legal Argument for Flynn v. United States (Bone marrow ban challenge)

Listed below is link for a copy of the complaint for Flynn v. United States. The complaint establishes jurisdiction, venue, and more importantly for the purposes of this log, the identification of the plaintiff partis and the nature of bone marrow. This document lays down the basis for the plaintiffs' right to sue and establishes the first factual allegations in support of why the ban on incentive based systems in regards to procuring life saving bone marrow.

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/NOTA/ij-complaint_nota.pdf

We are really looking forward to seeing the U.S.'s response. Who knows? Maybe they'll let the clause fall without a fight! Afterall, it would be the reasonable thing to do. But liberty probably won't be that lucky, as government tends to cling to any power it can.

Updates to follow as soon as the government replies.

A Primer - Discovering Freedom Now

Welcome to DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com. The following is a brief introduction to what we here at DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com are all about.

Each and every day attorneys enter Courtrooms in an effort to secure their client’s rights. From these competing forces emerges a whole, sometimes integrated, sometimes not, that is the United States Law. Yet, many people, even those intrigued by everything political, have little to no interest in Courtroom developments. This blog holds their indifference to be, not only unwarranted, but also detrimental to freedom itself. Thus, DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com seeks to illuminate both the intrigue and long term consequences of the most significant Constitutional conflicts as they develop.

Therefore, this blog invites you to explore whatever it is that may interest you -whether it is equality before the law, monetary policy, freedom to trade, or any of the other numerous social issues that are decided by the Courts – we here at DiscoveringFreedomNow.blogspot.com seek to provide the necessary guidance and up to date information for any mind thirsty for knowledge to find its satisfaction.
To better assist in that process, the entries are categorized by whether the case is decided or pending, but for those seeking to find specific cases or areas of law, feel free to use the search function as key terms are used consistently through all related entries.

As pending cases develop, updates will be provided regularly in order to provide insight into both the essential Constitutional principles established and the finer nuances of the judicial process. The latter being a service that many Americans are in need of as all too often the supreme power of the judicial branch of government is forgotten, despite its heavily influential force. Our hope is to reassert the Court’s and, more importantly, the law’s prominent role in American social ordering. Hopefully, these efforts will inspire others to consider the fundamental principles of our society and Constitution, and, in turn, eventually bring them to a point where they, like us, begin the process of Discovering Freedom Now.



“The law no passion can disturb. Tis void of desire and fear, lust and anger. Tis mens sine affect, written reason, retaining some measure of the divine perfection. It does not enjoin that which pleases a weak, frail man, but, without any regard to persons, commands that which is good and punishes evil in all, whether rich or poor, high or low. Tis deaf, inexorable, inflexible. On the one hand it is inexorable to the cries and lamentations of the prisoners; on the other it is deaf, deaf as an adder, to the clamors of the popular.”

-President John Adams, Argument in Defense of the British Soldiers Involved in the Boston Massacre Trials, (December 4, 1770).

Freedom to Live - The Fight for Bone Marrow

The case is Flynn v. Holder. And it has potential to be the grand slam team Liberty has been waiting for.

The Institute for Justice (“IJ”) recently brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA), an act prohibiting any person from knowingly acquiring, receiving, or otherwise transferring any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation – included within the ban is bone marrow. According to IJ’s complaint, “[t]his constitutional challenge is about an arbitrary law that criminalizes a promising effort to save lives. Every year, tens of thousands of Americans – many of whom are just children –learn they have a deadly blood disease such as leukemia. Often, their only hope is a bone marrow transplant from a stranger, but there is a desperate shortage of unrelated marrow donors…”

According to IJ, “[t]he National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA) of 1984 treats compensation for marrow donors as though it were black-market organ sales. Under NOTA, giving a college student a scholarship or a new homeowner a mortgage payment for donating marrow would land everyone—doctors, nurses, donors and patients—in federal prison for up to five years.” IJ argues that this treatment of bone marrow is a violation of the equal protection clause because, unlike organs which are non-renewable, bone marrow renews itself quickly, less than a few weeks in fact. Thus, IJ claims that the law should treat bone marrow as other renewable cells, such as blood, for which compensation for donations are allowed. Such a change in legal regime would allow for many people in desperate need of donation to have better opportunity of finding the bone marrow that will save their lives – now, the question remains – what will opposing counsel, Attorney General Eric Holder, will have to say about IJ’s challenge? As of yet, no reply.

So why should we care about this case - other than the fact that thousands of human lives, including those of the children represented by IJ, are hanging in the balance? Because, like so many other legal disputes, though the case will be decided upon details of technical disputes concerning the nature of the bone marrow and the Act in question, what will ultimately be decided is whether the law will allow society to prohibit the promotion of human life in order to secure a moral code that stands in direct opposition to human progress.
It is undisputed that allowing free-market incentives into the human organ, tissue and cell industry will lead to an increase in supply of these much needed life-saving materials. Yet, many people, including Judges, are reluctant to allow the market and into this area of human life because they believe that doing so will degrade the value of human life. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth, as the true devaluer of human life is the person willing to allow human beings to die so that others may maintain some vague and unsupported definition of human sanctity.

What drives people to hold such outlandish positions is their strong distaste for private property and self-interested motivations generally - see the definition of the word "selfish".

They believe such notions to be an evil, tolerated for nothing other than the utilitarian purpose it serves. They hold that to link the evil force of private property with the human body degrades the human soul itself, and might possibly jeopardize all of humanity in the process. One can only imagine what goes on in their minds – perhaps they see a future in which human beings are farmed and their bodies harvest – think the ISLAND, but without the beauty. But private property and free-markets would never allow for such a fate, for private property presupposes that every human being has a right to life. How could one believe that by creating a more thorough and fully integrated right to life society will be dehumanized?

The truth is that in allowing human beings to voluntarily cooperate, i.e. in allowing each and every human being to live by the dictates of his own conscience, all human beings' lives are enhanced. Thus, so long as the state remains within its proper sphere, only acting as the protector of individual rights, then the dehumanization that many fear to be linked to the mrket...will, to the contrary, never occur.

Unfortunately, the benefits of private property are rarely sufficient to persuade the anti-capitalist of the value of a free-market solution. This position itself should tell you something about the anti-property breed. But if it doesn’t, then allow me to spell it out for you…though they speak of common property, of human sanctity, of the common good, the reality is that they have no interest in bettering Man’s state. Rather, their wish is nothing other than to maintain the social order that they believe is proper. Theirs is a society of rulers and ruled. And because of their position, because of their belief that others can be treated as means to the end that is their "Great Society" they are willing to do just about anything to bring it about, including allowing human beings to die where their continued living requires a legal recognition of the awe-inspiring good that the free-market unleashes.

Thus, though the legal dispute soon to be litigated in Flynn v. Holder will likely focus on issues possibly mundane to the typical political follow, the philosophical and political implications of this decision and others like it, will reach far beyond any political quibble of the present moment - for a political issue is fast forgotten, but a legal decision remains with us forever.

Such is the nature of our legal system. Because of this I will be following this case with a keen eye, keeping those who are interested in its development updated as to who it is that is winning, why it is that they are doing so, and what it means to both the parties involved and we, the American citizenry.

These issues may become complex, but I assure you that understanding them will lead to a deeper appreciation of the Constitution, the law, and the American Republic itself.

So, until next time, this is John Callan reminding you to make the most of your moment.