Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on Constitutional Law

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force

3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats

5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers

6. Post-Script

Content

1. Introduction

      The following is an edited version comprised of excerpts from three e-mails which I sent to Professor David T. Canon, who teaches political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and taught me some time between 2005 and 2009.
     The e-mails were sent on January 21st, 2021.

     My conversation with Professor Canon began when I sent him the following infographic, which I published several weeks ago, on January 3rd, 2021.

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

     I suggested that the infographic could serve as a valuable teaching tool for his political science students, when it comes to learning different viewpoints regarding Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States. This is the section of the Constitution which outlines the powers of Congress.

     Professor Canon told me that if my interpretation of the Constitution were taken seriously, then the U.S. Air Force, laws allowing police to tap terrorists' phones or track them on the internet, and First Amendment protections for broadcast media and internet publications, would not be allowed to exist.
     Canon also said that the U.S. would be unable to compete and deal with the modern world, if the Constitution were not written in order to be interpreted broadly - and evolve with time - instead of narrowly.
     Canon also made reference to the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland - which established the constitutionality of the First National Bank - as a precedent recognizing the legitimacy of applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to create new departments which may not have been specifically authorized in Article I Section 8.

     I wrote the following responses, to explain my own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted with regard to the duly delegated powers of Congress. In these three e-mails to Professor Canon, I aimed to articulate a view of constitutional interpretation which combines left-wing and right-wing views.
     I believe that the best way forward, to achieve needed reforms to the body of federal law (the U.S. Code), is to pursue constitutional amendments that will achieve reforms by enshrining them in the Constitution permanently.
     This strategy would be used in place of: 1) temporary measures, 2) Band-Aid solutions, 3) executive orders, 4) presidential signing statements, 5) parliamentary procedures which eliminate the need for supermajorities unfairly, 6) overuse of presidential authority to reorganize the executive branch, 7) inappropriate congressional delegation of powers to the president or to independent or private agencies, and 8) other questionably constitutional ways to pass laws.
     I support adopting the structure and rhetoric of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and using it to advance the legal goals which are held by the progressives and the Left. That is, only those which do not conflict with a libertarian interpretation of the traditional originalist viewpoint; i.e., one which strongly values individual civil liberties, freedom of expression, and due process.

     The first segment of text below, consists of the text from the first two e-mails. Excerpts from the second e-mail have been attached to the first e-mail, and are seen in [brackets].

     The second segment of text consists of the third e-mail. That e-mail was written after reviewing the facts of McCulloch v. Maryland.

     The section headings were not included in the original e-mails.

2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force

     I do not believe that Congress's powers preclude an air force. Nor do I believe that changing technology necessitates new laws or new powers, or means that old powers need to be updated or expanded.

     It is easily justifiable to have an Air Force, or even a Space Force, because Article I Section 8 specifically calls for providing for the common defense.

     My view is that the Necessary and Proper Clause do not give Congress its current powers. The mainstream view today is that Congress can basically give itself whichever powers it deems necessary and proper for promoting the public welfare. My view is that Congress has only those powers which the people grant it, which are necessary and proper in regards to pursuing the ends specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8.

     The fact that an Air Force isn't mentioned there, doesn't mean that the common defense clause doesn't cover airborne military operations.

     The fact that terrorists use the internet or the phone, doesn't mean that the Constitution prevents police from getting a warrant from a judge which specifically allows them to get phone records or internet records. [Parts of the Patriot Act may have been appropriate, due to new technologies, but only if they did not violate due process protections. And the Department of Homeland Security could have been much more easily justifiable as Constitutional if its powers had been exercised by the Department of Defense, or the Department of Justice, which existed since the 1790s.]

     The fact that terrorism laws needed to be updated, justified a small percentage of what the Patriot Act accomplished. But by and large, the need to update those laws, was used to [justify] overturn[ing] Habeas Corpus [and ignoring the due process rights of people accused of terrorism].

     You're correct that the Constitution doesn't allow police to tap phones. But that's a good thing, and the limitations imposed by the Constitution should have prevented wiretapping. The fact that technology is changing, doesn't mean we should validate the Patriot Act, and give up struggling against the treasonous Alien and Sedition Act, which has more or less created a free speech chilling effect upon the expression of political speech, and upon activism and protect.

3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

     I understand the view that our society would be held back, in some sense, but I don't buy it. The voting booth is not a time machine. I do believe that several constitutional amendments are needed, but based on my reading of history, constitutional amendments have not been the major reason why the federal government has expanded.

     You're correct that the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause – and also the General Welfare Clause – have been broadly interpreted, and that that's one of the causes. Another is Congress handing its constitutional powers over to the president without cause (as in the power to make war). Another is the reorganization authority of the president. This power to reorganize executive departments, has been interpreted to allow the president to “reorganize” entire sectors of the economy into-under his control, after Congress has assumed it has powers it doesn't have, and hands it over to the president. [The presidential power to reorganize cabinets is not supposed to extend to powers which he did not already have. But it has been used that way.] And as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stop them, this keeps going.

     As I explained in the infographic, the military powers justify occupying lands essential to defense. Occupying land justifies managing it, and farming on it. Farming on land justifies regulating food and agriculture, establishing an F.D.A., and regulating environment and energy at the federal level.

     So I'm actually saying that there is a constitutional rationale for federal departments not originally prescribed by the Constitution. I'm just saying that Democrats aren't currently using the best argument for growing the government. That's why the E.P.A. is toothless.

     That's why I'm suggesting that people study Article I Section 8, and the views I've expressed in this letter. I think we should be expanding the Unenumerated Rights protected by the 9^th Amendment, instead of the Unenumerated Powers of Congress (which arguably don't exist). I think this will lead to more successful, and more permanent, legislation, as opposed to the temporary fixes and Band-Aid half-solutions.

     Teaching people how to interpret the Constitution for themselves, would be a lot more effective than teaching people that the Constitution is an outdated document. It's true that the Constitution does leave slavery in place, because of the 13^th Amendment, but that amendment can itself be amended. There hasn't been a new amendment in 29 years. It's time we not only amend the Constitution, but also teach people how to amend it (a process which has historically taken as short as 6 months). If people had been less afraid of the Constitution, maybe the 13^th Amendment would have been fixed by now.

     Until Article I Section 8 is amended - in a way that specifically authorizes the Congress to exercise sole authority on the issues of environment, energy, health, retirement, welfare, and education; and in a way that the states cannot intervene with federal regulations – I predict that the E.P.A. and H.H.S. will remain largely powerless whenever there is a Republican president, and that Social Security will remain unstable.

4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats

     These programs and departments are financially unstable because they are founded on ground which is not constitutionally firm. It is not the Republicans which have prevented Democrats from having the federal government do what they want, but rather, it is the Constitution which has established these limitations.

     Until Democrats learn to be proficient in constitutional interpretation, I predict that the E.P.A. will remain toothless, environmental laws and health insurance programs will be easy to overturn, the Democrats will continue to waste years and trillions of dollars on programs that presidents can easily ignore, and governors and the Supreme Court will continue to veto and reject unconstitutional new uses of power by the Congress.

     The time for Democrats to scream like babies in the congressional chamber, demanding that a vote be taken which they are not allowed to take (i.e., regulating gun control, therein violating the limits set by the Second Amendment) is over.

     Democrats need to understand how Congress's powers are granted – and understand different views about where its authority comes from - and they need to use better justifications for empowering the Congress to take action. I assure you, there is a way to do that.

     Until that happens, the Democratic Party will be giving the impression, to young legislators and activists, that if they want the federal government to have a new power, all they need to do is beg really, really hard for the Congress to start doing it. Instead of citing, in the bill, specifically, where in Article I Section 8 the authority comes from, for Congress to do it.

     The Necessary and Proper Clause / Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause, are not sufficient to justify the current set of powers currently wielded by the federal government. They have all been interpreted in too broad a manner, while the definitions of the terms “regulate” and “welfare” have been widely debated.

     If Congress has these powers, then what are the powers of the state governments? Solely to hire police, in order to enforce the uniform federal law which Congress hands down? Are there no issues, or sectors of the economy, which the states have sole or exclusive authority to regulate?

     I was under the impression that all powers not expressly delegated to the Congress are reserved to the states or to the people (10^th Amendment), and that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage the rights retained by the people (9^th Amendment). The idea that the federal government can legislate upon any and all things that are mentioned - or even barely referenced in passing - in the Constitution, then we destroy what the 9th Amendment was supposed to protect.

      The fact that the federal government has the authority to "establish Post Roads" does not mean that it has the authority to build and maintain a National Highway System. Establishing post roads is different from building them. Just like the exclusive federal authority to establish a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization, does not mean that the federal government has to enforce those rules. Or establish I.C.E. for those purposes. And it doesn't mean that the federal government gets to regulate immigration however it pleases. The states still retain some authority. If liberals weren't afraid of the Constitution, one of them would have thought of this by now. By now, sanctuary states and sanctuary cities could have been obviously constitutional, and independent so that the federal government doesn't fund them. But we don't have that because we insist on preserving monarchical, tyrannical levels of executive power in the presidency, and corrupt misinterpretations of the Constitution by Congress.

     If we go on thinking that the federal government can do whatever it wants, then we should expect someone to be elected every 4 or 8 years who promises to either dismantle these unconstitutional programs, or else use them for evil. Perhaps it is best that they be dismantled peacefully, before they can be used for evil, or left powerless, by a future administration.

     If you disagree with me, then I will run into the congressional chamber - like a progressive legislator, or a right-wing gun nut - and scream to the federal government, until they grant themselves a new power to take away your coffee mug, and give it to me. With the rationale that it vaguely (generally) promotes my well-being, so it qualifies as general welfare. That was a joke, but this is what liberals think the General Welfare Clause actually means. They don't care that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and Due Process, would stop me from taking your coffee mug, for doing nothing but disagreeing with me. They only know that those limitations were imposed by slave owners, therefore government should be able to steal from anyone it pleases and give it to anyone else! And that is why we have both social welfare and corporate welfare.

     This shit has got to stop. If you don't want people running into Congress screaming with guns, then we will have idiot Democratic legislators screaming for new authorities to take the people's rights away. We need a more robust and comprehensive teaching and debate concerning Article I Section 8.

     I hope I have expressed at least one thought here, which is not typical of the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. I believe that natural rights, human rights, and civil liberties would be viewed as one and the same, if we fully understood and adopted the sentiment contained within the 9th Amendment.

5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers

     The Supreme Court was correct to establish that agencies which are necessary and proper to create, because of the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, are constitutional. I do not dispute that.

     But it could be argued that the First National Bank was not authorized by Article I Section 8 in the first place, because a central bank would not have been necessary to exercise all the banking powers listed therein.

     The banking powers delegated to Congress consist of:

     - the authority to coin and issue currency (done by mints)
     - the authority to regulate bankruptcies (done by Congress)
     - the authority to lay and collect taxes, (done by Congress & the I.R.S.)
     - the authority to borrow money "on the credit of the United States".

     A bank is arguably not "necessary and proper" to put into effect those four powers. Borrowing money on the credit of "the United States" might even refer to Congress itself.

     That might not make sense. But there are only a few entities which could be saddled with public debt: 1) Congress, 2) the Treasury Dep[artmen]t, or 3) the people. And it is popularly said and taught that the people do not directly own the public debt.

     But then again, Congress may not own the debt, because congressional oaths of office are not taken in writing, which calls into question whether congressmen have any financial obligation to support the Constitution or represent their constituents.

     Additionally, the fact that the Congress has the power to do something, does not necessarily mean that it should. We have a national bank, not to pay our bills, but to manage being in debt. The fact that Congress has authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, does not necessarily mean that the Congress should exercise that authority. Can does not equal should.

6. Post-Script

     Please see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I believe Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be interpreted:

     - "How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress" (February 2020)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html

     - "What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do (Without an Amendment)?" (January 2021)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

E-Mails Written on January 21st, 2021

Introduction Written on January 22nd, 2021

Published on January 22nd, 2021

List of Fourteen Environmental Disasters Affecting Lake County, Illinois Over the Last Ten Years

      The list below details the names, functions, and locations of fourteen companies which are polluting Lake County, or have polluted it over the last ten years.

     I hope to expand this list, and turn it into a map, in order to achieve the goals I outlined in the first of my eleven proposals to counteract the harmful effects of the toxic chemical EtO (ethylene oxide). 

     Those proposals are listed in the link below:

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/09/response-to-stop-eto-lake-county-about.html

1. NRG Waukegan Generating Station (coal burning power plant), 401 E. Greenwood Ave., Waukegan (Sunset / Greenwood & Sheridan)

http://www.google.com/maps/place/Waukegan+Generating+Station/@42.3832962,-87.8152132,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x4d7822957ab946b7?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiSreuO1e_rAhVSS6wKHV32BrMQ_BIwCnoECBoQCA

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-lns-waukegan-nrg-plant-ruling-st-0622-20190621-23efbvni3fgcdid4d5sxpbwct4-story.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-lns-coal-ash-bill-waukegan-st-0731-20190730-lvbab5m5lvcblg6v2cnb5oee5u-story.html

http://energynews.us/2019/06/26/midwest/illinois-pollution-control-board-finds-nrg-liable-for-coal-ash-at-power-plants/

2. Zion Nuclear Generating Station (nuclear power plant), 100 Shiloh Blvd., Zion [permanently closed, but nuclear material still being stored on site]

http://www.google.com/maps/place/Zion+Nuclear+Generating+Station/@42.4459579,-87.8042286,17z/data=!4m12!1m6!3m5!1s0x880ff38f2ed2218f:0x5ad9f4afa1970c12!2sZion+Nuclear+Generating+Station!8m2!3d42.445954!4d-87.8020399!3m4!1s0x880ff38f2ed2218f:0x5ad9f4afa1970c12!8m2!3d42.445954!4d-87.8020399

3. Medline (3 locations) (emitting EtO)

http://www.google.com/maps/search/medline+in+lake+county+illinois/@42.3206009,-88.0216294,12z/data=!3m1!4b1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-lake-county-cancer-risks-pollution-20181028-story.html

http://theintercept.com/2019/05/07/medline-wendy-abrams-air-pollution/




4. Abbott (4 locations + 3 clusters of locations)

http://www.google.com/maps/search/abbott+in+lake+county+illinois/@42.3079607,-87.9611359,12z/data=!3m1!4b1

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1990-01-07-9001020483-story.html




5. Abbvie (3 locations + 3 clusters of locations)

http://www.google.com/maps/search/abbvie+in+lake+county+illinois/@42.3078329,-87.9611363,12z/data=!3m1!4b1

6. Baxter (5 locations)

http://www.google.com/maps/search/baxter+labs+in+Lake+County,+Illinois,+IL/@42.3073001,-88.1712845,10z/data=!3m1!4b1

incl. Long Lake / Round Lake:
http://patch.com/illinois/grayslake/settlement-reached-long-lake-pollution-lawsuit
http://patch.com/illinois/deerfield/baxter-will-stop-dumping-water-long-lake-ceo-says
http://www.mddionline.com/business/illinois-sues-baxter-lake-pollution
http://www.dailyherald.com/business/20181126/baxter-to-pay-95000-for-polluting-long-lake



7. Anhydrous ammonia gas (fertilizer) explosion at Green Bay Road and Clarendon Street in Beach Park (April 25^th, 2019)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6904a4.htm
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-met-beach-park-hazmat-spill-20190425-story.html




8. Silicone plant explosion at AB Specialty Silicones, 3790 Sunset Avenue, Waukegan (May 3rd, 2019)

http://www.andisil.com/

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/ct-lns-waukegan-explosion-update-st-0810-20190809-vttkwlm7gvfnha6hbm3j5grp5i-story.html




9. Reliable Concrete Pumping LLC at 700 E. Park Avenue, Libertyville (near Libertyville's borders with Rondout, Green Oaks, and Lake Bluff) (rock crushing)

http://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.reliable_concrete_pumping_llc.5bfcc257e26532375859ad61764ed3ae.html

http://www.facebook.com/pages/category/Business-Service/Reliable-Concrete-Pumping-INC-724495167703480/
http://www.concretepumpers.com/content/reliable-concrete-pumping-inc-0
http://www.bbb.org/us/wa/snohomish/profile/concrete-pumping/reliable-concrete-pumping-inc-1296-22660041




10. Ozinga concrete company, 30285 Skokie Highway, east Waukegan (rock crushing)

http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&sxsrf=ALeKk03jqlo6Dv_yZos5JQ0vuMgG8Eqq8g:1600327753934&source=hp&ei=RhBjX8i4McHcswXEm7S4Cg&q=ozinga&oq=ozinga&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIQCC4QxwEQowIQFBCHAhCTAjIHCAAQFBCHAjIICC4QxwEQrwEyAggAMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADICCAAyCAguEMcBEK8BOgQIIxAnOgQILhAnOgsILhDHARCvARCRAjoLCC4QxwEQowIQkQI6CwguELEDEMcBEKMCOggILhDHARCjAjoICAAQsQMQgwE6DgguEMcBEKMCEJECEJMCOgQIABBDOgUILhCxAzoFCAAQsQM6BwguELEDEEM6BQgAEJIDULQBWOMSYM4TaAFwAHgAgAHtAogBwQqSAQcwLjUuMC4ymAEAoAEBqgEHZ3dzLXdpeg&sclient=psy-ab&ved=2ahUKEwiWkLC61e_rAhVF-6wKHT2aA20QvS4wB3oECBEQIA&uact=5&npsic=0&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=42219153,-87909538,9488&tbm=lcl&rldimm=13945019546349415580&lqi=CgZvemluZ2EiA4gBAVoQCgZvemluZ2EiBm96aW5nYQ&rldoc=1&tbs=lrf:!1m4!1u3!2m2!3m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e2!2m1!1e16!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4&rlst=f#rlfi=hd:;si:13945019546349415580,l,CgZvemluZ2EiA4gBAVoQCgZvemluZ2EiBm96aW5nYQ;mv:[[42.3179416,-87.67351939999999],[41.993770700000006,-88.3280861]];tbs:lrf:!1m4!1u3!2m2!3m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e2!2m1!1e16!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4




11. Sterigenics (2 locations [Deerfield and Gurnee], 1 former location [Willowbrook], and another in Oak Brook that's far from Lake County but is still within the Des Plaines River watershed) (emitting EtO)

http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbm=lcl&sxsrf=ALeKk03-uOFHwS8dZnY8RBN4sLI_bdr6Ng%3A1600327759845&ei=TxBjX9WcM9CItQXbloOICw&q=sterigenics&oq=sterigenics&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i433k1j46i199i175k1j0l2j46i199i175k1j0l2j46i199i175k1j0j46i199i291k1.27152.28299.0.28424.11.8.0.0.0.0.275.859.0j4j1.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..6.5.856...35i39k1j0i67k1j0i433i131k1j46i433i199i291k1j46i433i199i291i273k1j0i273k1.0.vXYDTWQQxxI#rlfi=hd:;si:;mv:[[42.4060182,-87.8686274],[41.818592699999996,-88.0726724]];tbs:lrf:!1m4!1u3!2m2!3m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e1!1m4!1u16!2m2!16m1!1e2!2m1!1e16!2m1!1e3!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:4

12. Vantage Specialty Chemicals, 3938 Porett Drive, Gurnee (released 6,412 pounds of ethylene oxide in 2014)

http://www.google.com/search?safe=off&tbm=lcl&sxsrf=ALeKk029NGiPn0ftvw6qtrImeSxOhCMwqw%3A1600327789259&ei=bRBjX6W2D8zktQX9hISYAw&q=vantage+specialty+chemicals&oq=vantage+specialty+chemicals&gs_l=psy-ab.3..46i199i175k1l2j0l8.30943.33770.0.33911.27.17.0.0.0.0.291.2514.0j10j3.13.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..14.13.2509...35i39k1j46i199i175i273k1j0i273k1j46i199i291k1j46i433i199i291k1j0i433i131k1j0i433k1j46i433k1j0i433i10k1j0i10k1.0.u34Vki4pNVU#rlfi=hd:;si:18380499524379706855;mv:[[42.38310767731903,-87.89954604495163],[42.38274772268097,-87.90003335504838]]

http://www.wexlerwallace.com/lake-county-facilities-emit-same-cancer-causing-chemicals-sterigenics/#:~:text=Within%20the%20past%20two%20months,Willowbrook%20is%20not%20the%20only




13. Pollution at Grayslake Countryside Landfill (31725 IL-83, Grayslake) in 2011

http://patch.com/illinois/grayslake/public-hearing-tonight-on-air-quality-at-grayslake-landfill

http://www.wmsolutions.com/locations/details/id/24

14. Foxconn (3 locations in Wisconsin; 2 of which are in the Des Plaines River watershed, most of which is located within the State of Illinois)

Map showing the Des Plaines River watershed,

and the Des Plaines River Watershed Planning Area,

with Foxconn's three locations in the top left corner

Source for map:

http://www.lakecountyil.gov/2376/Des-Plaines-River-Watershed

Map showing details of Foxconn's locations

(the two southernmost of which are within

the Des Plaines River watershed)

Northern location (13315 Globe Drive, Mt. Pleasant, WI; outside of the Des Plaines River watershed)
http://www.google.com/maps/place/Foxconn+ETC/@42.727865,-87.9254122,11z/data=!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sfoxconn+wisconsin!3m4!1s0x0:0x43a62bdb5eda9a71!8m2!3d42.720313!4d-87.9501057

Central location (8418 Durand Avenue, Sturtevant, WI; inside the Des Plaines River watershed)
http://www.google.com/maps/place/FoxConn/@42.727865,-87.9254122,11z/data=!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sfoxconn+wisconsin!3m4!1s0x0:0x9f4211b63f924442!8m2!3d42.6900065!4d-87.9334116

Southern location (in Mt. Pleasant; inside the Des Plaines River watershed)
http://www.google.com/maps/place/FOXCONN+WISCONSIN/@42.727865,-87.9254122,11z/data=!4m8!1m2!2m1!1sfoxconn+wisconsin!3m4!1s0x0:0xfc6fb83bdc1d8f12!8m2!3d42.6765041!4d-87.9397631

dcreport.org/2018/08/14/foxconn-gets-a-pollution-pass-for-its-wisconsin-factory/?fbclid=IwAR0IOX0MPHJh1R-pOmP19w5X3HDSAElU7PKRywCu0mdg_i_LHEiO8L2l3yQ

http://madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/illinois-plans-to-challenge-epa-ruling-on-foxconn/article_1fbed7dc-1cc5-57cc-a40f-2c1b5c18b13f.html

http://journaltimes.com/news/local/illinois-to-challenge-foxconn-ruling-schimel-calls-potential-suit-meritless/article_7b22adf2-e853-59f9-be1e-e460629986b6.html

http://apnews.com/8ac3c33e68274190a84b6154097c53e7/Illinois-officials-concerned-over-Foxconn-plant-impact

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-met-foxconn-indiana-smog-trump-epa-20190516-story.html

http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/07/illinois-attorney-general-files-suit-against-epa-ozone-rules-cites-impact-foxconn/586479002/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-lawsuit/illinois-to-sue-epa-for-exempting-foxconn-plant-from-pollution-controls-idUSKBN1I52NB?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

Thanks to Ethan Windmillsky and Anton Kholod for helping to build this list

Created Between September 14th and 18th, 2020

Published on September 18th, 2020

Comparative Rates of Taxation in Chicago-Area Counties, 2019

Click on image to enlarge

High resolution version available at http://imgur.com/gallery/OwsHCAR

Data collected in December 2019

Image created and published on January 15th, 2020
Edited on February 22nd, 2020

Why I Didn't Vote in the 2012 Scott Walker Recall Election

Originally Written on May 4^th and 24^th, 2012

Edited and Expanded on December 11^th, 2015

            The following was written in response to a question about whether I would have a reaction to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel’s endorsement of Scott Walker in the 2012 Wisconsin gubernatorial recall election, in which Walker faced a rematch of the 2010 election. Walker became the Governor of Wisconsin that year, defeating Democratic challenger Tom Barrett, the mayor of Milwaukee.

            For the majority of the period during which Scott Walker said that he had no plans to turn Wisconsin into a Right-to-Work state, I took the opposite position, but not just out of disagreement with Walker. This put my overall labor policy to the fiscal right of Walker’s.

But later, after discovering, and coming to agree with, Friedrich Hayek’s position on the issue, I changed my position on Right-to-Work laws, because I felt that they impose conditions upon what kinds of contracts people and businesses are allowed to make, and inhibit the obligation of contracts. I felt that to impose these kinds of restrictions upon the people, businesses, and unions of an entire state, is too egregious an incursion into popular liberties.

However, in May 2012, Walker came out in support of Right-to-Work laws, so my reversal on the issue took place at about the same time as Walker’s reversal. My position opposing Right-to-Work makes my overall political positions slightly more palatable to the left.

As a social liberal and an opponent of corporate welfare and personal political corruption, I understand the unpopularity of defending or making excuses for Scott Walker on small government and fiscally conservative grounds.

In general, I see the need for fiscal austerity, and for cuts in the size and scope of government, as well as cuts in government payroll, public services, and taxes. While some solutions to fiscal irresponsibility such as cutting taxes or refraining from implementing federal block-grants of funds to the states, can be seen as putting the cart before the horse, I see this need because I feel that cuts in government services can lead to growth in the size, number, and variety of non-governmental organizations which provide similar services, and can help to avoid the risk of bureaucratic overhead which so often accompanies over-centralized and over-bureaucratized management.

 I feel that Wisconsin’s budget crisis is more the fault of the federal government – in particular, the Federal Reserve - than it is the fault of Governor Walker. I am more likely to support austerity when the people decide it’s the appropriate time, not when governors have allowed the federal government to bankrupt state and local governments. It is regrettable that it has taken a divisive governor to advocate for the financial mindset from which the state could have begun to benefit several years ago.

Moreover, it is a pity that Scott Walker has become one of the most prominent poster-boys of austerity in America, when those in Congress and at the Federal Reserve are much more responsible for the mess we are in, than Scott Walker or Chris Christie, being that those in the federal government have spearheaded the bankruptcy of state and local governments, for the benefit of a select group of European bankers and few others.

Walker bore the brunt of criticism that his union-rights-assaulting Budget Repair Bill can only justify itself upon the notion that it would have been inappropriate to accept federal funding for high-speed rail in Wisconsin and its neighboring states.

Indeed, it was Arthur Louis Kohl-Riggs, the young man from Madison who ran against Scott Walker for the Republican nomination in the 2012 recall effort, who said something to the effect of “any reasonable governor would have accepted that federal high-speed rail money” (it was these funds which are said to have created the hole in the state’s budget).

I disagree, and I commend Walker for rejecting it, because I believe that high-speed transportation infrastructure that almost exclusively benefits Midwesterners, does not promote the general welfare of all Americans. I feel that unanimous “general welfare” should be the necessary condition for federal spending.

If Wisconsinites should not be expected to help pay for a bridge in Alaska, why should Alaskans be expected to help pay for high-speed transit infrastructure in Wisconsin? They shouldn’t. Federal funding for transportation infrastructure is fertile ground for mismanagement, over-bureaucratization, personal political corruption, market distortions, and civic discrimination in favor of regional special interests. For Wisconsin or any other state to use federal funds for such regional projects would only serve to excuse pork projects in other parts of the country; to do so would further threaten federal budget stability.

Being that the State of Wisconsin’s involvement in the financial crisis was brought about through over-dependency of the various regional banks on the Federal Reserve, continued dependence on federal funding is no way out of this mess.

Additionally, I believe that the private sector would do a more efficient and responsible job of constructing transportation infrastructure than the government would, and that, if handled by the private sector, there would be less of a chance that those funds would have been diverted to other spending projects, and of ending up in the pockets of politicians and lobbyists. Some might respond to this by saying that the money would end up in the hands of C.E.O.s and the like, and we all know how much Walker likes giving tax breaks to businesses and the wealthy.

Walker and I do not share the same economic nor political philosophy. Although Walker took some steps protecting Wisconsinites from the aforementioned dangers, he failed to take additional steps promoting the political and fiscal independence and sovereignty of the people, the communities, and the state. Walker is a corporatist technocrat who, to some extent, supports states’ rights. I, on the other hand, favor the rights of local communities, and individual liberties.

In contrast to Walker’s strategy of giving tax breaks to the wealthy, I have favored taxing the creation of income disparity. But I also support introducing reforms to foster competition in governance, in order to allow people to choose fair and neutral parties to arbitrate the disputes which they cannot resolve by themselves. This would curb the power of state governments to intervene in such disputes uninvited, and it would allow people to create contracts between themselves, rather than being burdened by legislation which limits their rights to do so.

In my opinion, Walker is not polarizing because he is farther to the right than many Wisconsinites are used to, or would care to tolerate; he is polarizing because - as with any politician, especially a governor or a president – it’s Walker’s way or the highway. But that is the same way things will be if Tom Barrett wins the governor’s seat.

Nobody will be satisfied – and my interpretation of the General Welfare Clause will never be fulfilled – as long as people are not free to vote “none of the above” in every election, with “none” being taken as the final result of that election, without a special election having to take place later. Nobody will be satisfied as long as people cannot choose to be governed by any agency other than the federal government, and the state and local governments, which function as little more than federal subsidiaries.

Nobody will be satisfied as long as governments are not permitted to compete across state borders, which – given that all government-administered distribution of goods and services is inherently commercial in nature – flies in the face of a rational revisitation of the strict-constructionist interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Additionally, the only politician who will not be a polarizing influence, is a candidate who lets people refrain from associating politically with people whose ideologies are nearly, or completely, irreconcilable with their own.

In these disastrous economic times, during which - the data I have encountered would seem to indicate – the federal government is approximately four decades’ worth of annual revenue in debt, it comes as no surprise that we are experiencing a very divisive atmosphere in regards to the intersection of finance and civics.

            But the staunch big-government supporters and the staunch small-government supporters have forgotten that it is their mutual opposition to the center’s corruption and its belligerence on foreign policy which typically unites them, when indeed they are united, however temporarily and tentatively. One can only wonder how the various extremist civic-financial factions would work out their differences once the expensive specter of the military-industrial complex were removed from the equation.

Polarizing, extremist politicians are in-style this political season. While figures like Scott Walker, Paul Ryan, and John Boehner are polarizing, they are not extremists. Many Americans have come to see the benefits of the unity of extremists of both sides, particularly in regards to foreign policy, civil liberties, and campaign reform (I’m speaking of the “libertarian-progressive alliance” between the likes of Ron Paul and Ralph Nader). It is these so-called extremists who escape the false dichotomy of bipartisanship, and which venture into the yet-untreaded realm of non-partisanship and “trans-partisanship”. The most prominent so-called extremists – people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson – are somehow not polarizing; Paul, who has said that there is too much partisanship in Washington, D.C., has been described as “trans-partisan”.

I feel that all this demonstrates that what we need is not “compromise, not capitulation” (as Democratic congressman Mark Pocan put it), but “consensus, not compromise”. This premise, and the premise of “principles over pragmatism”, would help satisfy the constitutional requirement that federal spending and legislation benefit the general welfare, ensuring that people need not compromise-away their principles and property to get the government services they need.

Fiscal sanity – although not the Scott Walker style soft money and tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy – helps the pocketbooks of all Americans. A humble foreign policy with a strong national defense – not George W. Bush style interventionist military belligerence – makes all Americans safer.

It benefits all Americans to demonstrate that laissez-faire capitalism is not irreconcilable with the destruction of artificial hierarchies, and that it is irreconcilable with evils like coercive expropriation (i.e., legitimized theft by government), and an expensive warfare state which is financed and perpetuated through its own power to compel persons to come to it exclusively for protection and justice.

The dual-federalist solution - and the validity of the idea behind Reagan’s “vote with your feet” catch-all solution - notwithstanding, the minuscule degrees of sovereignty possessed by the state and local governments are no viable competition against this Leviathan monopoly government, as they have largely surrendered their authorities and responsibilities in exchange for monetary favors (such as would have been the case with Wisconsin and the federal high-speed rail money), becoming all but vertically-integrated subsidiaries of the oligopolistic corporate United States federal Government.

The only way to undermine this artificial near-oligopoly government is to fulfill the meaning of our nation’s creed; that “all men are created equal, and endowed… with certain inalienable rights”; that the only legitimate government gets its authority through consensual delegation by the governed, who originally possess those authorities. Additionally, that all government spending should serve the welfare of all partners and parties to political associations, unless such parties agree that democratic reform is worth its risks, and agree to bind themselves to its decision-making processes, but revocably, and of their own volition.

While I am a market-anarchist, I am also a republican, but only in that republicanism is a means to an end. I respect so-called extremists from both ends of the economic spectrum, because they have goals, and are true to their ideologies. The only things that the often polarizing, non- “extremist”, “pragmatic” Democrats and Republicans, have to offer us, are an all-or-nothing, “my way or the highway” mindset, and a political culture in which about 49% of the people are dissatisfied and envious of those whom are better represented.

            In 1980, Scott Walker benefactor David Koch (of the infamous Koch brothers) was the Libertarian Party’s candidate for vice president. Then, libertarians knew he wasn’t one of them – denouncing the growing influence of the “Kochtopus” on the party and its platform - and they know today that he isn’t one of them.

            Those on the extreme left – for the sake of a chance at a humble foreign policy – owe it to libertarians to permit an attempt to prove that libertarianism is not about corruption, nor corporate tyranny, nor slavery, but about discovering to what extent any existing corporate tyranny is the fault of the government; of centralized state power.

The results of a political quiz I recently took, shows that libertarianism is nowhere near as “all-or-nothing” as the framed, false dichotomy of the “left-vs.-right”, Democrat vs. Republican debate; the quiz described me as, first, a Libertarian Party sympathizer, a Green Party sympathizer second, a Republican third, and a Democrat fourth.

            As German military officer turned nonuagenarian acid freak Ernst Junger, once said (to paraphrase), there is no left-vs.-right; there is only centralization of power vs. diffusion of power. And who would know better than a German military officer turned acid freak?

            In conclusion, I am not going to vote in the recall election. I will vote in a Wisconsin gubernatorial election, when, and only when, a candidate makes credible promises to start issuing passports on behalf of the state (treating the state as a country foreign to the federal government); to advocate for the construction of consular offices with the purposes of establishing diplomacy with the foreign, alien federal government; to re-assert the state’s status as free, independent, and sovereign (a status which has been referenced in official federal government documents spanning from 1778 to 2009); and to push for full-reserve banking at the federal level, or, failing that, to push for permits for the states and private persons to introduce competition into the market for currency.

            Until that day comes, I urge my fellow Wisconsinites to vote “none of the above” if that is an option. I also urge them, when making excuses for their representatives at any and all levels of government, to remember that we are only presumed to have consented to delegate powers to them, and that we only become citizens of the many legal jurisdictions by accident of birth or our parents’ travel.

            Additionally, I will decline to support Tom Barrett because of his association with Rahm Emanuel, his pro- big business attitudes, his support for gun control, and the prospect that his support of Big Labor will only serve to augment the power of government to set conditions for union strikes, and serve as an impediment to the creation of new unions.