The debate on the effectiveness of gun control measures to reduce firearm violence distracts attention from the real motive behind gun control. Nobody wants more gun violence, so focusing on gun violence shifts the debate in favor of gun control. What the proponents of gun control really want is control, and the gun violence argument is merely a means to the end that they actually seek–a disarmed population. Arguments that look at the facts to see whether gun control achieves those ends are ineffective persuaders, because gun control advocates want regulation, regardless of its effectiveness.

It should be obvious that proposals such as those to tax ammunition sales will be ineffective controls on firearm violence. Can anyone really think that someone intent on illegally using a firearm would be deterred because ammunition is so expensive? For people who know little about firearms, limiting the number of rounds a magazine is capable of holding may sound promising, but magazines can be swapped out in seconds.

Focusing the debate on gun violence rather than on individual rights gives a debating advantage to gun control advocates, because nobody wants more gun violence. The argument shifts to whether regulations are effective rather than on preserving the rights of citizens. Arguing that proposed gun control measures would be ineffective cannot persuade gun control advocates, because that’s not their big concern. Their ultimate objective of gun control advocates is not safety. They want control.

The post The Name Says It All: Gun Control Isn’t About Reducing Firearm Violence; It’s About Control appeared first on The Beacon.

But this is how the American Founders designed their government to work. The president is not a dictator. Government was designed to have a system of checks and balances that limit the powers of any individual, and of any branch of government. The president is the head of one of three branches of government that were designed to have the power to check and balance the actions of the others.

President Biden is not unique in having his powers limited by the other branches of government. The CNN article linked above quotes Trump administration Attorney General William Barr lamenting that the courts have stood in the way of President Trump’s agenda, saying “These nationwide injunctions have frustrated presidential policy for most of the President’s term with no clear end in sight.”

Again, that’s how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. A judiciary that “can thwart Biden’s agenda,” which the CNN article laments, is desirable. The concern should be that the powers of the president continue to expand, as they have since the early twentieth century, so that they cannot be checked by the other branches of government. Should those checks and balances break down, we are headed toward tyranny.

The post Checks and Balances Are a Feature, Not a Bug, of American Government appeared first on The Beacon.

Some people consider themselves conservatives, others view themselves as progressives, some as socialists, others as libertarians. They support candidates and parties based on the ideologies behind those labels. Republicans (mostly) self-identify as conservatives, and political institutions give them the opportunity to join with others to further those views on the appropriate role of government.

There is an analogy with sports teams. University of Alabama fans love Nick Saban because he’s made the Alabama football team a consistent winner. At my own school, Florida State University, Bobby Bowden was revered for decades for that same reason, but fired before he wanted to go because the team’s performance was declining. It was sad to see him go (everybody loves Bobby Bowden!) but allegiance was to the team. Nick Saban won his first national championship at Louisiana State University. How many LSU fans shifted their allegiance to Alabama after Saban went there? Not many. The allegiance sticks with the team, not the coach.

This should be even more true in government, where outcomes have a direct effect on everyone’s lives. A nation slips into dangerous territory when citizen loyalty shifts from ideas to individuals. Trump lost the election. It is time for Republicans to move on and support politicians who can further their ideas on the appropriate role of government.

Some Republicans might agree with Trump’s claim that the election was stolen from him. Fine. But he still lost, and for Republicans who hold that view, the appropriate response is to work for election reform to prevent stolen elections, not to support Trump. Do you think that mail-in ballots and early voting contribute to voter fraud? Then put your energy into those issues rather than supporting a loser.

We enter dangerous territory when people give their political allegiance to people rather than to ideas. That moves us closer to the types of governments ruled by the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Castros, and Putins of the world. Trump has been very effective in shifting the loyalties of some Republicans from the conservative ideas of the party to his own persona. This is unambiguously bad for the Republican party.

One reason term limits are desirable is that they are a check on having people’s loyalties shift from ideas to individuals–they are an impediment to having the United States become like Russia, ruled by Putin, or China, ruled by Xi. Like it or not, Trump lost the election, and it is time for Republicans who are committed to the ideas of limited government that have defined the party to move on—to support their party’s ideas rather than the man who lost the election.

The post Is It Time for Republicans to Move Past Trump? appeared first on The Beacon.

This is not going to happen, but I would not be unhappy if it did, and my opinion has little to do with President Trump. It would set a precedent making it easier to invoke the 25th Amendment in the future, which would reduce the discretionary power of the president.

My view has little to do with President Trump, who has less than ten days in office, and everything to do with curbing the expanding powers embodied in the presidency. As originally designed in the Constitution, the president is the head of one of three branches of government that were designed to check and balance each other. Throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, the powers of the presidency have been expanded, lessening those checks and balances.

The Amendment says the president can be removed from office if the vice-president and “principal officers” determine that “the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” and this website says the authors of the Amendment deliberately left vague what would constitute being unable to discharge the powers of the office.

President Trump has provided an excellent opening for applying the 25th Amendment, in that he is not physically or mentally incapacitated, but has taken some questionable actions since the election, such as pressuring Vice President Pence to refuse to certify the electoral votes and inciting a mob to invade the Capitol. Invoking the 25th Amendment now would set the precedent that it can be used in cases where a majority of the president’s cabinet view the president’s actions as inappropriate.

If those actions were taken as evidence that the president was unable to discharge the powers of the office, a precedent would be set that inability, in this context, can mean more than just physical or mental incapacitation. Keep in mind that the people making that determination would be the president’s political allies: the vice president and cabinet officers handpicked by the president. This would be a valuable check on the powers of the presidency, because the check would come from the president’s own inner circle.

Along similar lines, some people have been critical of the impeachments of Presidents Clinton and Trump, claiming they were frivolous and politically motivated. But here again, the precedents set send a message that Congress may use its powers to check and balance the powers of the presidency.

The mechanisms embodied in the 25th Amendment, and the impeachment powers of Congress, are reminders that the president has limited powers that can be constitutionally revoked.

In today’s political environment, there is an additional element of intrigue surrounding the 25th Amendment. Democrats are more likely to support removing President Trump from office, while Republicans are less likely (despite Trump losing political allies at what appears to be a fairly rapid clip). Down the road, it has been suggested that applying the 25th Amendment now to President Trump would make it easier for Democrats to apply it later to President Biden, which would elevate Kamala Harris to the presidency–something the more left-leaning elements of the Democratic party would like to see.

The post Invoke the 25th Amendment? appeared first on The Beacon.

The 2020 presidential election was, in that sense, a triumph of democratic political institutions, in that the succession of presidential power is occurring as scripted by those institutions.

Despite President Trump’s claim that the election was fraudulently stolen from him, he was unable to hold on to the office. He brought political pressure on governors and state legislatures, and filed many lawsuits, but was unable to change the election outcome.

I fully support President Trump’s right to file lawsuits if he thinks there were improprieties in the election. Those lawsuits are a mechanism to check and balance the power of those who administer elections. Institutions provided a mechanism to evaluate President Trump’s claims rather than have them ignored by those claiming victory.

I’m not disagreeing (or agreeing) with Trump supporters who claim that if the votes had been fairly counted, Trump would have won. Whether that is true is irrelevant to the argument I am making here. There are established procedures in place to evaluate those claims, and going through those procedures, Biden was declared the winner. Democratic institutions successfully initiated a change in presidential power.

Americans are likely to take the triumph of democratic institutions in this election for granted, because that is how American government works. But look at Russia, where Vladimir Putin has changed their political institutions so he can remain in charge indefinitely, and China, where President Xi Jinping has done the same.

Putin and Xi have been able to claim political power because of who they are; something President Trump was unable to do. Trump claimed to be the rightful winner of the 2020 election and filed lots of lawsuits to try to hold on to the office, but unlike Putin and Xi was overruled by democratic institutions.

Would Trump have won if the votes had been fairly counted? Again, that is irrelevant for the issue I’m discussing. Putin and Xi changed the rules in their countries to allow them to hold on to political power. Trump wanted to do the same thing, most obviously when he incited his supporters to storm the Capitol as the electoral votes were being counted. Democratic institutions are strong enough in the United States that Trump had to play by the rules, and democratic institutions put him out of office.

Maybe the rules should be changed. Maybe elections need more oversight. Maybe mail-in voting is more subject to fraud. But rules and procedures were in place before the election, and the institutions were strong enough that Trump had to work within them.

It is easy for Americans to take the strength of democratic institutions for granted, because that’s how things work here. But when they are compared to how things work in other parts of the world, we should be thankful that they work so well.

The post Democratic Institutions and the Transition of Presidential Power appeared first on The Beacon.

When Justice Antonin Scalia passed away in the last year of President Obama’s administration, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill Scalia’s seat, but the Republican Senate refused to give his nomination a hearing, arguing (as the Democrats are now) that any Supreme Court appointment should be made after the election, by the winner of the election.

According to the Constitution, President Trump has the power to nominate Justice Ginsburg’s successor immediately, “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The election year argument against making the appointment is somewhat weakened because President Obama nominated Garland in an election year, although the Republican Senate did not confirm him. But arguments about whether President Trump “should” make a nomination are pretty much irrelevant, except for their rhetorical value, because he has the constitutional power to do so.

While Garland’s nomination stalled, a nomination by President Trump likely would not be, unless a sufficient number of Republican Senators declared their opposition.

The biggest difference between Obama’s nomination and Trump’s is that Obama was facing a Senate with his party in the minority, whereas Trump is facing a Senate with his party in the majority. He likely has the votes to get his nominee confirmed, whereas President Obama did not.

Even if Trump wins the election, waiting to make a nomination could make things more difficult for him, especially if the Democrats were to gain a majority in the Senate. If he wants to “win” on this issue, he should make the nomination now.

Another factor to consider is that if the election is contested, its ultimate outcome might be decided by the Supreme Court, as the presidential election of 2000 was. Trump might like to have another friendly Justice on the Court were that to occur.

I’m not passing judgment on whether nominating a candidate now would be the “right” thing to do, or whether waiting would be the “right” thing. In politics, that’s pretty much irrelevant. You take whatever opportunities you have to “win,” because in politics some win while others lose, and politicians naturally want to avoid being on the losing end.

There is a larger lesson that is playing out in this one specific issue, which is that politics is adversarial, and any political decision produces winners and losers. Thus, politicians have the incentive to take whatever opportunities are offered to put themselves on the winning side of issues.

This contrasts sharply with market activities, in which people transact voluntarily with each other for their mutual gain. Nobody has to engage in a market transaction, so individuals in markets naturally want to entice others into making mutually advantageous exchanges by offering them a chance to increase their well-being by participating in transaction.

Market activity is based on agreement and mutual benefit. Politics is based on conflict, and trying to win by preventing others from getting what they want. The more we rely on markets and the less we rely on politics in our interactions, the more peaceful and harmonious will be our society.

President Trump will make a Supreme Court nomination, not because it is the right (or wrong) thing to do, but because the Republican Senate gives him the opportunity for a win—an opportunity that might not exist after the election. That’s politics. Any other arguments for or against simply amount to empty rhetoric.

The post Replacing RBG: A Lesson in Politics appeared first on The Beacon.

The Constitution is vague enough on the impeachment process that it appears, simply from reading the words, that impeachment could be justified by the president’s conduct, but that impeachment is not required by his conduct.

Article 4, Section II of the Constitution reads, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

There’s been lots of discussion on the vagueness of “high crimes and misdemeanors” along with the suggestion that activity does not have to be illegal to be impeachable. I’m not an attorney, but my impression is that crimes and misdemeanors are illegal, as are treason and bribery.

Setting aside the crimes and misdemeanors, the big issue seems to be the president’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine, offering to release the aid if Ukraine investigated Hunter Biden. That could fit the definition of bribery and provide grounds for impeachment.

But the Constitution does not say the House must impeach, only that it can. The way I’m looking at it, if a majority of the House wants to impeach the president, they have wide latitude to do so. My view corresponds with the popular view that the impeachment proceedings are politically motivated.

That said, I see two advantages to the impeachment proceedings: one small; one large. The small one is that while Congress is preoccupied with impeachment, it distracts them from doing other things, most of which tend to be harmful. The large one is that because of this politically motivated impeachment circus, the presidency—not President Trump; the presidency—is being put on notice that Congress will stand ready to check and balance the use of presidential power.

As I note in my book, Liberty in Peril: Democracy and Power in American History, the power of the presidency has grown in the twentieth century and into the twenty-first, in part because Congress has willingly turned over much of its power to the executive branch. A system of checks and balances does not work unless all parties jealously protect their power, which Congress has not done.

To see Congress openly confront the president’s exercise of power might be a step toward reining in the imperial presidency by putting the president on notice—not just this president, but also future presidents—that Congress is willing to act as a check on the presidency.

The accusations against President Trump seem more serious than those against President Clinton when he was impeached. Perhaps President Clinton’s sexual escapades were criminal and should have been tried in court, but they had nothing to do with his official actions as president, so Congress should not have been involved—with the caveat noted above that the wording of the Constitution gives wide latitude to the House to impeach.

Taken together, those two impeachments are more powerful than President Trump’s impending impeachment alone. The Clinton impeachment shows that the president does not have to abuse the office when undertaking official duties, but can even be impeached for transgressions in one’s personal life.

This comes back to the point that Congress has wide latitude to impeach, and has shown its willingness to do so for reasons that range from the serious to the frivolous. My hope is that this is an indicator of a rebalancing of political power at the federal level. I’m not sure that it is, but I hope that it is.

The post Impeachment and Presidential Power appeared first on The Beacon.

Most explanations point toward those who look upon socialism favorably as not understanding what socialism really is. There is much truth in that explanation. For example, Sanders points toward Sweden as an example of socialism, but Sweden has a capitalist market-oriented economy, but with a big welfare state. Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea are examples of socialist economies.

Another factor in the rising popularity of socialism is that those who support socialism do not understand what capitalism really is. In terms of the twentieth-century tension between socialism and capitalism, people may be inclined to favor socialism because they have a mistaken perception of capitalism.

President Trump, as the leader of the preeminent capitalist economy, bears some responsibility for this mistaken perception. The ideas that the president, as a promoter of the U.S. economy and an opponent of the socialist regimes in Venezuela and Cuba (and maybe North Korea, although he does seem to like Kim Jong-un), expresses can easily be regarded by the general public as ideas that support capitalism.

What are those ideas? The president champions protective tariffs, closed borders, and nationalism as opposed to globalism. While he hasn’t championed big budget deficits, deficit spending has increased during his term in office, and he’s supported that deficit spending. He’s demonstrated a willingness to go around Congress, and to go around the Constitution, to promote his xenophobic agenda. In fairness to the president, so have his predecessors, but that just makes his attempts to avoid accountability look more like a characteristic of government under capitalism.

So, while a popular misunderstanding of the nature of socialism surely explains some of its newfound popularity in the United States, so does a popular misunderstanding of capitalism, and it looks like the president is partly responsible for that misunderstanding. His policies, supposedly in support of our market economy, are mostly anti-free market and, more generally, are anti-freedom.

I make this argument somewhat reluctantly because one of the defenses that supporters of socialism make against the claim that the former Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea show the effects of socialism is that those countries are not real socialism. Real socialism has never actually been tried. Here I am, making a similar argument about capitalism: that the policies President Trump supports are not real capitalism.

My defense of this criticism goes back to the end of the Cold War era and the decade that followed. Look at the crumbling Soviet Union and Eastern bloc socialist economies in the 1980s compared to the Western bloc countries at that time. Setting aside what ideal socialism or capitalism might look like, the reality is that capitalist economies have higher standards of living and are better places to live.

President Trump wants to build a wall to keep foreigners out. Throughout history, socialist economies have built walls to keep their own citizens from leaving. But that wall the president wants to build is not consistent with capitalism, which is based on freedom of exchange, and free movements of both people and goods.

One rarely recognized reason that socialism is becoming more popular is that the president’s anti-capitalist policies are too easily perceived as a part of capitalism.

The post President Trump and the Popularity of Socialism appeared first on The Beacon.