Attorney General Tim Fox’s office alerted a Missoula court Thursday that the state will intervene in a lawsuit against former Commissioner of Political Practices Dave Gallik.
Carl Graham and I were in the legislative galleries in Helena last Friday, when the state stepped back from the brink.
Democrats and some Republicans were pushing for the state to yoke itself to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion, enticed by “free federal money.” So they amended a bill designed to keep the state free from the expansion to one chaining the state to the expansion.
The rules of the state House of Representatives generally provide that when the purpose of a bill is changed, it should go back to committee for review. So in a courageous move guaranteed to irritate the state’s “opinion leaders,” Speaker of the House Mark Blasdel decided to just that.
Advocates of the expansion immediately moved to appeal the Speaker’s ruling. All of us in the House chamber held our breaths to see what the roll call vote would be. At the end, the motion to overrule lost—but by the closest margin possible: 50 for, 50 against. Then the bill was physically transmitted to the committee.
At least one, and possibly two, Democrats claimed to have pushed the wrong button while voting, but some Republicans may have made off-setting errors. Anyway, advocates of the extension pushed for a second vote, while hospital lobbyists—eager to pad their employers’ pockets by throwing more people into government dependency—vigorously worked on lawmakers, trying to flip some to their cause. They actually wound up losing people: The second vote to reverse Speaker Blasdell lost 48-52.
Some in the Montana political establishment can be ruthless in finding ways to overrule the state legislature when it makes a fiscally conservative decision. Montana lawmakers have to be careful they are not overruled this time.
For example, in the 1990s, the state House rejected federal funding for a controversial education program. Instead of respecting the legislative will, the governor and superintendent of public instruction decided to thwart it. They arranged for the money to bypass state government and go directly from the feds to local school bureaucrats.
A little later in the decade, Montana lawmakers rejected CHIP, one of those federal health care programs that are (1) promoted as improving access to care but instead (2) always make care more expensive and less accessible. So the Montana state auditor (insurance commissioner) decided to violate a central canon of our constitutional government: He decided, as an executive branch officer, to invade the sole right of the legislature to appropriate money.
First, he threatened insurance companies with prosecution for allegedly breaking regulations. Next, he dropped the cases when the insurance companies handed over large cash payments. Finally, he used the extorted funds to erect the CHIP program himself.
Voila! more dependency, less affordable care, and a new spending constituency.
Montana lawmakers must ensure they are not overridden this time. But if their decision holds, they will have made an important step toward more fiscal sanity and physical health.
HELENA — In an order filed Thursday, Missoula District Judge John Larson said a lawsuit against former Commissioner of Political Practices Dave Gallik can proceed.
Continue reading here…
Gov. Bullock waited until nearly 60 of the 2013 legislative session’s 90 days had passed before making a Medicaid expansion proposal that essentially said “do what the feds want.” That’s a wasted opportunity. Since Medicaid rules are made in Washington, D.C., we frittered away a chance to negotiate reforms that could better meet the needs of Montana’s most at-risk population while also being fair to taxpayers.
Continue reading here
Carting uninformed, transient voters to the polls to vote for the political boss-man is a time-dishonored practice of demagogues everywhere. It has no place in Montana.
House Bill 30, currently pending in the Montana legislature, would curb this abuse by ending the practice of voting-day registration. It would require voters to register at least four days before the election instead.
In my view (and this is not necessarily the view of MPI, which does not promote particular legislation), the bill does not go far enough, but it is a good start.
Some historical perspective: America has a long tradition of democratic governance. By the time our American Constitution was adopted, nearly all states had broadened their electorates greatly from colonial days. Property requirements were loosened. Several states allowed women to vote (formally in New Jersey, informally elsewhere). Free African-Americans cast ballots in at least five states.
This was all to the good. But the Founders also understood that democracy is not the same as ochlocracy (mob rule). They understood that, for democratic governance to work, the electorate must (1) be reasonably well informed, and (2) stand to lose personally as well as gain from the choices they make. One of the Founders’ solutions—an imperfect one, to be sure—was to retain some modest property requirements. Several states also provided exemptions for people meeting other qualifications, such as gainful employment.
Note that the Founders did not consider suffrage a “right” in the sense that, say, freedom of speech or self-defense was a right.They classified it as a “privilege”—that is, a grant from society, although a very, very important one.
One result of the difference was that while any law-abiding citizen could exercise a right, getting a chance to vote was something to be earned.
I wouldn’t want to go back to property requirements for general elections. But it does seem like a pretty minimal “qualification” to ask someone to pay enough attention to be able to register a few weeks before a pending election. In my view, it would be fair to require voters to register for a general election by Labor Day, when the formal general election campaign traditionally begins. However, the Supreme Court has effectively limited the maximim to 30 days. That hardly seems enough time to become educated on local issues. And we certainly don’t need more “low information” voters.
I lived in Missoula for 24 years, a town that hosts many people who are really transients—that is, their true homes are elsewhere. I don’t just mean students, but people who come to Missoula just to hang out for a while. Unfortunately, transients are are encouraged to vote in Missoula. Again and again, I watched as they made decisions for our city that we long-term residents would have to live with, and pay for, decades after the transients were long gone. In 2008, I watched as one of the national campaigns took advantage of Election Day registration to herd into the Missoula County courthouse people so incompetent they couldn’t get it together enough to fill out a simple form without it being stuffed in their hands on Election Day.
This is not good government. And it is heartbreakingly unfair—especially to the retirees and others on fixed incomes who have to pay, year after year, for mistakes made by voters who have long left for greener pastures.
Adopting a 30-day requirement would only begin to solve the problem. But at least it would begin to do so.
Most state constitutions limit the financial powers of the state legislature. They have to: In the 19th century several states nearly went bankrupt from bad fiscal practices.
Now a federal lawsuit puts those protections in danger.
The Montana constitution requires the state to run a balanced budget. And it requires that before the state can go into debt, the proposed debt must be approved either by 2/3 of each house of the legislature or by a vote of the people.
In 2011, a group of government employees and apologists sued the State of Colorado in federal court, arguing that the Colorado constitution’s limit on the legislature’s taxing, borrowing, and spending powers violates the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that unless a state legislature has absolute power to tax, borrow, and spend as it wishes, that state does not comply with the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that it have a “republican form of government.”
The suit is ridiculous on a number of levels, as my co-author and I show in Independence Institute issue papers here and here. Nevertheless, last year an Obama-appointed federal judge refused to dismiss it, and ruled that it could proceed.
That judgment is now on appeal. On April 19 I’ll be in Helena on behalf of MPI to discuss the suit and how it threatens both the Montana Constitution and the fiscal health of Montana and the livelihood of her citizens. Keep tuned for more details.
Montana Sen. Jim Keane (D-Butte) has filed legislation to define hydropower as a renewable power source for meeting Montana’s renewable power mandates.
A high school senior who has just gone through the college admissions process humorously reflects on her experience in this Wall Street Journal op-ed. Her column is a good P.S. to my recent posting on what’s wrong at modern universities.
Beneath the humor, the analysis by Suzy Lee Weiss of the skewed criteria many admissions officers use is dead-on right—most notably some of the “political correctness” factors that assure that left-leaning students get a better chance of admission to prestige colleges than right-leaning and moderate students receive. Not mentioned, though: The ethnic groups favored in the “diversity” game are selected to be those at the core of the national Democratic Party’s base (African-Americans, Indians, Hispanics). You won’t find Mormons on the list, for example, even though they historically have been the victims of severe discrimination. You see, they mostly vote Republican.
Like the Montana Constitution, the Colorado Constitution guarantees citizen gun rights. Nevertheless, Colorado recently became the first Rocky Mountain state to impose sweeping limits on gun and gun-magazine ownership in violation of its own basic law and of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The action is concerning for Montana, because Rocky Mountain trends often start in Colorado.
Attracting considerable notice has been my speech to the Pro-Second Amendment Committee of Grand Junction, Colorado, where I explained the original meaning of the Second Amendment, including the significance of the words “the right” and “infringe.” Particularly noticed has been the part where I show that you can use the same arguments the gun controllers use to restrict other constitutional rights, including free speech and sexual choice.
I’ve reproduced part of the speech below. In it, I refer to the Colorado Constitution’s gun-rights provision. The Montana Constitution’s comparable section is Article II, Section 12: “The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
The speech also mentions that the Colorado Constitution defines the “militia” be include, essentially, all able-bodied men of military age. The comparable provision in the Montana Constitution is Article V, Section 13(2): “The militia forces shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the state except those exempted by law.”
Here are the excerpts:
My talk tonight will address three different, but related, topics.
First, I’ll speak about the right to keep and bear arms as that right is enshrined in both the United States and Colorado Constitutions. I will be speaking about what those rights actually mean as the constitution-writers understood them, not as the courts have distorted them. I’ll discuss why those rights are there, what their scope is, and what it means to infringe them.
Second, I’m going to speak about the politicians in the Colorado legislature who voted for bills designed to control and harass Colorado gun owners. I’ll say something about the convoluted thinking of those politicians, and what I think really motivates them.
Finally, I will suggest a way citizens can respond to what those politicians have done.
* * * *
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that:
“A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What does this amendment really mean?
In recent years, people offering answers to that question have often focused on the militia part of the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. . .”
But in my view, that’s the wrong place to begin. The militia phrase is what lawyers call a “preamble”—a non-binding explanation of intent. It is not the effective, or operative, part of the amendment. In other words, it is only a guide to interpretation, not the actual law. The actual law is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Notice two things about the phrase I just read. First, it refers to “THE right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Like “the freedom of speech” and “the freedom of the press” in the First Amendment. The Founders were referring to a right already existing before the Constitution was ever adopted. In the Founders’ view, it was a natural right, given by God and not to be impaired by government. On the contrary, it was a right that government must guarantee.
Another thing this phrase—THE right to keep and bear arms—implies is that the Founders knew the scope of the right. In other words, they understood what it did and didn’t include. We can understand what it did and didn’t include by examining the history of the Founding. It has always bothered me that so many judges and constitutional writers merely speculate about what First and Second Amendment rights mean, rather than going to the historical records and finding out.
I’ll say more in a moment about what is and isn’t encompassed by the Second Amendment.
So—this phrase refers to “THE right to keep and bear arms.” It also says that this right “shall not be infringed.” What does that mean? On this subject, also, there’s no need to speculate. Because 18th century dictionaries tell us exactly what “infringe” meant.
In this context, the word “infringe” meant to reduce or impair in any way. In other words, government shall not reduce or impair in any way “THE right to keep and bear arms.” Today, political demagogues talk about imposing “common-sense” or “reasonable” restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. But the Constitution, properly understood, is clear that there are NO permissible restrictions on the right, however much the politicians may think they are “common sense” or “reasonable.”
On the other hand, the Founding-Era record also tells us that not every use of every weapon is part of the right that cannot be infringed. So let’s look now at what the right does and doesn’t include.
History makes it clear that the Second Amendment is designed to serve four principal purposes.
First, it guarantees the states militia power of their own to balance the military power of the federal government;
Second, it promotes the God-given right of personal self defense;
Third, it enables the citizenry to repel foreign invasion; and
Fourth, it enables the citizenry to overthrow domestic tyrants and intimidate or discipline those who otherwise would be tyrants.
[The speech passed over the first purpose as more relevant to federal rather than state gun control, and then continued as follows:] . . . I’ll discuss here the other three principles. We begin with the right of self-defense.
In order to enable people to defend themselves, the right to keep and bear arms has to include weapons sufficient for that purpose. Which weapons are sufficient for the purpose of self-defense will vary according to changes in technology and in society.
Advocates of gun control tend to be the same sort of people who argue in favor of the idea of a “living Constitution.” Of course, usually when people argue for a “living Constitution,” what they really want is a dead Constitution. Specifically, they want to eliminate almost every constitutional limit on the power of federal politicians and allow those politicians to control almost everything except abortion, which they want the politicians to subsidize.
Yet some of the people who think the Constitution should be manipulated to meet allegedly new conditions take a very different tack when applying the Second Amendment. To them, the Second Amendment, if it protects individual rights at all, should be limited to militia duty with muskets and flintlocks.
But if the Second Amendment is based partly on a right to personal self-defense—and it is—then this narrow view is wrong. The Second Amendment cannot be limited to muskets and flintlocks any more than the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce can be limited to trade in sailing ships and horse-drawn wagons. Even an old-fashioned constitutionalist like myself believes that Congress can use the Commerce Power to regulate railroads and air travel, although those forms of travel did not exist when the Constitution was ratified. Otherwise, the Commerce Power would mean nothing. For the same reason, the right to keep and bear arms must include the free use of modern technology appropriate for self-defense.
It is true that when the Second Amendment was ratified, a standard capacity 30 round magazine would not be necessary for personal self-defense. But now, when when mass murderers and terrorists have modern weapons, citizens need standard capacity magazines for self defense. They also need handguns and a range of other weapons. That is one reason the Second Amendment protects their use today.
In addition to self-defense, the Second Amendment was adopted to enable citizens to defend against tyrants foreign and domestic. At this point it becomes helpful to turn to the Second Amendment’s preamble: The Amendment seeks a “well regulated militia.” In 18th century language, “a well regulated militia” meant a “well-trained militia.”
The “militia” that the Second Amendment says should be well trained consists of all able bodied men. Article XVII, Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution expresses this well: It says, “The militia of the state shall consist of all able-bodied male residents of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years; except, such persons as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of the state.” That was pretty much the American Founders’ view of the matter. Read Madison’s language in Number 46 of The Federalist Papers, and you’ll see what I mean. It is pretty much the understanding of our fathers and grandfathers when gun use and safety was commonly taught in public school.
So according to the Second Amendment, we want all men of military age well trained in the use of weapons. And why is this? Because, as the preamble tells us, this is “necessary for the security of a free state.” By “a free state,” the Constitution means “a free country.”
So all men of military age should be well-trained in weapons so that America survives as a free country.
Well, what weapons? Obviously, the muskets and single-shot rifles in use when the Second Amendment was adopted are no longer sufficient to do the job. Today the Second Amendment protects a range of weapons appropriate for citizen militias resisting foreign invaders and tyrannical politicians.
Now at this point someone favoring gun control always comes up with the line, “Well, does that mean that citizens have the right to hoard naval artillery and atomic bombs?” And the answer is “No, the Second Amendment doesn’t encompass naval artillery or atomic bombs any more than the First Amendment includes falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.” The language and purposes of the Second Amendment, as well as its history, tell us what it excludes as well as what it includes. Naval artillery and atomic bombs are not customary for personal self-defense and they never have been militia weapons used for repelling foreign invaders and domestic tyrants. In fact, the Second Amendment itself refers to the right to bear arms—that is, to carry arms—referring to weapons that normally are carried by a human being.
Let’s focus for a minute on another purpose of the Second Amendment: protecting against domestic tyrants. We tend not to discuss this purpose much, but it might possibly have some relevance to the authoritarian types who currently dominate the Colorado legislature.
Politicians in America right now tend to fall into either of two groups. There are those who generally favor freedom but also strongly support law enforcement. And there are those who are skeptical toward law enforcement but nevertheless seek to expand the power of government in many areas of life, and particularly in economic affairs. It’s not intuitively obvious which group should be for gun control. You might think that those who favor economic freedom might be for gun control as a way of backing law enforcement. Or you might think those who favor more economic regulation might be against gun control because they are skeptical about law enforcement and might not want to give the police a monopoly over weapons.
But we all know what the situation is in real life: In real life, the biggest advocates of gun control are precisely those who want to lord it over the rest of us in nearly every other aspect of life.
Why is this? Well, reflect on the fact that the modern era of gun control began with the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. This law—if an unconstitutional act can be called a “law”—was passed in the wake of some ghastly political assassinations. I don’t think this is a coincidence. It’s reasonable to assume that those who wish to fasten more and more fetters on the productive people of American society might consider that one day they might go too far, and face physical and armed opposition.
Indeed, just the fact that many citizens are armed may have a moderating influence on authoritarian politicians.
The author of the first draft of the Second Amendment was James Madison. Madison’s favorite book of political theory was Aristotle’s Politics. Several times in that work Aristotle makes the point that all citizens should be should have weapons, and that only those with weapons should be citizens. Otherwise, he wrote, those that are disarmed are the slaves of those who are armed.
The point was made another way by Jean Louis DeLolme, a Swiss jurist. DeLolme wrote a book on the English constitution that we know Madison read, and that was a source for other American Founders as well. In speaking of the need for an armed citizenry, DeLolme wrote:
The Power of the People is not when they strike, but when they keep in awe. It is when they can overthrow every thing, that they never need to move; and Manlius [a Roman consul] included all in four words, when he said to the People of Rome, Ostendite bellum, pacem habebis. [Look toward war, and you shall have peace].
The widespread ownership of firearms, therefore, helps to preserve freedom, usually without the need for armed violence. When politicians limit or harass gun ownership, the threat is far wider than the threat to guns alone. By reducing the number of citizens who are armed, gun control emboldens the authoritarian politicians to control everything else we do, thereby imperiling freedom generally.
And this brings us specifically to the majority that now controls the state legislature.
Certainly, their political views are pretty skewed. Consider one example.
The same politicians who voted for gun control were by and large the politicians who voted for civil unions. If you have read that bill, you know it goes far beyond civil unions: It is really a same-sex marriage bill that is labeled a civil union measure in an effort to evade the marriage rules of the Colorado Constitution.
Now, one basis for the civil unions bill is the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings that the right to engage in sex outside of marriage, both heterosexual and homosexual, is a federal constitutional right. The Founders would have been astonished at this for a number of reasons. But that is what the modern Supreme Court says.
Now, ask yourself: What would be the reaction of the Colorado legislature’s majority to a proposal requiring a background check before anyone could exercise the constitutional right of non-marital sex? What would be the reaction to a bill saying that the eager couple had to pay the fee for that background check? What would be the reaction of Speaker Ferrandino or Senate President Morse to a bill stating that the eager couple was limited to “15 rounds,” so to speak?
No doubt those legislative leaders would explode in outrage. How can you limit a constitutional right that way?” they’d sputter.
“Well,” we might respond. “You’re doing just that with an enumerated constitutional right—the Second Amendment.”
When they stopped sputtering, they might argue that, well, “Guns are different. Fifteen thousand Americans die from gun violence each year.”
“Are they?” We might say. “In fact, 17,000 Americans die from AIDS each year, primarily as a result of non-marital sex—and that figure doesn’t even count other sexually-transmitted diseases. So if you can impose background checks and the like on our right to keep and bear arms, then we can impose similar restrictions on your right to bare other parts of your body.”
The same sort of argument that applies to the unenumerated right of non-marital sex and the enumerated right to keep and bear arms also applies to the enumerated rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. As a child of the 1960s and 70s, I remember how free use of the First Amendment allowed protesters to pressure the federal government into some fatal mistakes in Southeast Asia—mistakes that, as widely predicted, led inevitably to a bloodbath in which 2 million people died. You see, free speech can be very dangerous.
But this is emphatically NOT an argument for government restrictions on free speech—nor is an argument for government restrictions on non-marital sex. As the courts properly hold, the state and federal constitutions protect even rights with potentially-dangerous consequences. For example, the courts hold that the government generally may NOT impose prior restraints on a person seeking to exercise First Amendment rights.
Yet the worthies who run the Colorado legislature think nothing of imposing burdensome prior restraints on the entirely innocent enjoyment of Second Amendment rights.
I think we can explain the difference partly because authoritarians understand, at some level, that disarmed citizens are easier to push around than armed citizens.
[The speech concluded by suggesting responses such as a lawsuit, recall efforts, and a citizen’s initiative to overturn the law.]
Proponents of Medicaid expansion argue that it would insure more people, that it takes advantage of “free” federal money and that it will create jobs and pump up local economies. But the fact that barely half the states are taking action to expand Medicaid indicates that this federal giveaway may come with unacceptable risks and costs, including:
- Expansion will dump more people into a system that provides poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes than private insurance.
- Federal matching funds are neither free nor guaranteed, potentially leaving the state with an unsustainable funding requirement.
- Expanding Medicaid without fundamentally reforming it perpetuates its shortcomings and will crowd out other public spending priorities.
There is no cost to delaying, but expansion is forever. This decision should wait until we can learn more.
There are alternatives to Medicaid expansion that will actually provide quality care at lower costs, and without creating an entirely new dependent class of young, able Montanan adults. Our policy note gives you all the information you need to see why and how we should take a pass on expansion and concentrate on true reforms.