by Bob Barr | Nov 21, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com In recent years, “Blue State/Red State” maps have become a ubiquitous, shorthand way to describe our political landscape. Unfortunately, and much like how a carnival hypnotist employs a soothing and repetitive motion to transfix his victims into behaving absurdly, many Republican pundits appear to have become so mesmerized by seeing “Red States” as “Republican,” that they have failed to recognize — much less understand — the significant demographic and political changes that have taken hold within those state; changes that have rendered traditional notions of political analysis largely ineffective. You do not have to be a high-paid political consultant to see this. As I traveled the country for business and pleasure in recent years — visiting “Red States” like Texas, Iowa and Montana (including, of course, my home state of Georgia) — I saw (and continue to see) example and after example of state and local “Republican” officials respond to voters’ desires to improve their “safety” and “quality of life,” by increasing spending and services. Even in traditionally Republican enclaves, voters are electing and re-electing officials who are eager to meet those desires, by raising taxes, “fees” and public debt, and by placing further controls on businesses. All this in an effort to satisfy largely suburban voters’ demands for everything from parks to aquatic centers and billion-dollar sports arenas. This game plan becomes a habit that increasingly acclimates voters to view intrusive government at all levels, as benign. In such an environment, it is only a small step for voters to choose candidates for office who are ever more willing to meet their desires for expanded and “improved” government services; in short,...
by Bob Barr | Nov 19, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com Largely lost in the massive attention focused on the electoral results of 2018’s congressional voting, were the many ballot initiatives and state constitutional amendments on which votes were cast. These ranged from victims’ rights to environmental issues and voting rights for ex-felons. One of the more important of these issues, at least from a national policy perspective, were the half dozen ballot questions liberalizing state laws on marijuana. The stars may now be aligning in such way that the federal government will either follow the states and relax marijuana possession laws, or at least formally back off and leave those states that have done so, alone. As a result of the November 6 elections, 10 states and the District of Columbia now permit adult recreational use of marijuana. This reality would have been virtually unimaginable less than two decades ago when I served in the House. The trend toward legalization of adult toking, coupled with the change in the House majority from Republican to Democrat that will take place formally in two short months, significantly improves the chances that the federal government’s position – which still classifies marijuana as among the most dangerous of “controlled substances” – will actually soften. The forced departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions – long a foe of relaxing any marijuana laws or policies, including its use for purely medicinal purposes — may provide the accelerant needed for such an event to ignite; especially since President Trump has spoken in favor of leaving the question of adult marijuana use up to the voters in the several states. It now is apparent, at least...
by Bob Barr | Nov 15, 2018 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller The latest gun control dust-up is not between the Bloomberg-funded “Everytown for Gun Safety” and the National Rifle Association; nor is it an argument between law enforcement groups on opposing sides of the issue. The most recent and ongoing dispute between Second Amendment supporters and gun control advocates pits the NRA against doctors. Shortly before the November 6 mid-term elections (from which candidates on both sides of the gun-control debate can claim victories), the NRA rebuked the American College of Physicians (ACP) for the organization’s continuing advocacy of gun-control legislation having nothing directly to do with the practice of medicine. In response, physicians associated with the ACP, along with some doctors not directly related to that group, engaged the gun-rights association in a Twitter war. The battle centered on the question of whether physicians should use their platform as medical professionals to press for political policy changes rather than to improve doctors’ ability to treat victims of gun violence. Physicians, just like members of any other profession, are certainly free to express their views on firearms-related issues or any other matter falling within the broad parameters of public policy. That some physicians have determined to do so as doctors — using the platforms available to them as doctors to advocate for gun control measures — is not a new phenomenon. Almost a quarter century ago, in 1995, the “Annuals of Internal Medicine” (the flagship publication of the ACP) declared that “firearm violence” was a “public health imperative” that had reached “epidemic proportions” and therefore measures to limit access to firearms through legislation was an appropriate responsibility of physicians qua physicians. The ACP...
by Bob Barr | Nov 7, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com This opinion piece went to press before the results of yesterday’s voting were known. But regardless of who will serve as the country’s next Speaker, one question will remain distressingly front and center: how we can return a degree of civility and professional discourse to an institution that has drifted far from such a mooring. We now find ourselves at a point where a veteran Member of the House can — without a word of admonishment from her Party’s leadership — call on people to “get in the faces” of those with whom they disagree, and who vows openly to use the power of a committee chairmanship to wreak vengeance on political enemies. Others call for “kicking” opponents when down. We have seen confirmation hearings for a nominee to the highest court in the Land descend into shouting matches that would be, in some other setting, utterly comical. It has become fashionably facile for Democrats and others to lay blame for this toxic environment at the feet of Donald Trump. The plain-speaking president frequently makes it easy for such a charge to be levied. However, the current condition has been far longer in the making than two years; and congressional leaders, especially those on the Democratic side, have done virtually nothing to stop or even slow the downward spiral. Rekindling civility in a body grown unaccustomed to it, will be neither easy nor quick. But there is one step which Party leaders on both sides can take that could at least start that process. It is a step surprisingly simple; a move actually taken two decades ago by...
by Bob Barr | Nov 3, 2018 | Uncategorized |
The Daily Caller The 14th Amendment to the Constitution has been part of our Constitution for 150 years, but the “birthright citizenship” language it contains has never been directly addressed by the United States Supreme Court; the only time it even partially dealt with the issue was in 1898 (in a case that involved foreign parents of a child born in the U.S. who were lawfully in the country). The Congress, which could legislatively define and limit the amendment’s problematic terms, has never developed the political backbone to do so. President Trump has stepped into this vacuum declaring that he will, by executive order, clarify and limit what it means for a person born in the United States, to also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as the amendment requires. This point bears repeating: in order for a person to be considered a U.S. citizen by virtue of being born within the borders of our country, they must also be subject to our sovereign power. The flash point here is clear: does a child born to a mother who is in the United States illegally, gain American citizenship by the sole fact of having been delivered on our side of the border? To understand and answer this question, it is necessary to consider the historical and legal parameters within which both our Constitution and the 14th Amendment were crafted, considered and interpreted. As a starting point, it is important to understand that there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment that supports the interpretation that it contemplated granting citizenship to children...
by Bob Barr | Oct 31, 2018 | Uncategorized |
Townhall.com As Beltway Theater goes, a slow-moving caravan of defiant Central American migrants heading towards the United States border could not have been scripted any better for the midterm elections. Though more than 1,000 miles away, with an anticipated arrival still weeks away, the narratives from each side of the aisle were quickly brought to the stage and performed with all the dramatic aplomb we have come to expect from the D.C. box-office trying to sell election votes as if they were the hottest ticket in town. Yet, from among the usual cries of “ISIS hiding among the migrants” and “Republicans are racists for demanding border security,” there are actual issues meriting a far more serious discussion than typically offered in the immigration debate; in particular, what powers does a president legallypossess to secure the border against such hordes? At first blush, it may seem obvious that the president could, and perhaps should, have broad latitude to secure America’s borders; including, as President Trump announced this week, sending the military to the border to serve as needed. However, the doctrine of posse comitatus, codified into the 140-year-old The Posse Comitatus Act, makes this option less clear than conventional wisdom might suggest. Though brief in length and relatively unknown by most Americans, the law is an important safeguard against domestic military occupation; making it unlawful for anyone — not just the president — to use the “Army” (meaning, in modern times, any branch of the military) to “execute the laws” unless “expressly” authorized by law or the Constitution. Since its enactment, Congress has allowed for few exceptions to the Act; for example,...
