You can read H.R.6201 below:

View this document on Scribd

 

 

The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them. Whether framed as injunctions of “nationwide,” “universal,” or “cosmic” scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case. Equitable remedies, like remedies in general, are meant to redress the injuries sustained by a particular plaintiff in a particular lawsuit. When a district court orders the government not to enforce a rule against the plaintiffs in the case before it, the court redresses the injury that gives rise to its jurisdiction in the first place. But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies. Injunctions like these thus raise serious questions about the scope of courts’ equitable powers under Article III.

 

Nonsequitur: Government Cobras

November 25, 2019

An instructive story of the power and effectiveness of government:

In colonial India, Delhi suffered a proliferation of cobras, which was a problem very clearly in need of a solution given the sorts of things that cobras bring, like death. To cut the number of cobras slithering through the city, the local government placed a bounty on them. This seemed like a perfectly reasonable solution. The bounty was generous enough that many people took up cobra hunting, which led exactly to the desired outcome: The cobra population decreased. And that’s where things get interesting.

As the cobra population fell and it became harder to find cobras in the wild, people became rather entrepreneurial. They started raising cobras in their homes, which they would then kill to collect the bounty as before. This led to a new problem: Local authorities realized that there were very few cobras evident in the city, but they nonetheless were still paying the bounty to the same degree as before.In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began.

 City officials did a reasonable thing: They canceled the bounty. In response, the people raising cobras in their homes also did a reasonable thing: They released all of their now-valueless cobras back into the streets. Who wants a house full of cobras? 

In the end, Delhi had a bigger cobra problem after the bounty ended than it had before it began. The unintended consequence of the cobra eradication plan was an increase in the number of cobras in the streets. This case has become the exemplar of when an attempt to solve a problem ends up exacerbating the very problem that rule-makers intended to fix.     Source:  The Cobra Effect: Lessons in Unintended Consequences

You can see contemporary results of the “Cobra Effect” in California and other places right now.  Progressive governing policies meant to alleviate the problems of homelessness, traffic congestion and climate change have not had the expected results, instead making things much, much worse.  This is mirrored in other progressive states and cities.  We need laws and governance.  But the sound approach is to use as little of each as necessary.  And prepare for unintended consequences.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.  –  Ronald Reagan

 

 

 

treaty99ukr

Basically,  the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is trying to impeach the President for doing something Congress approved by treaty.  (Congressman Schiff should really do his research better.)  You can read the treaty, available on the Congressional website, here: https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

 

(B)oth a majority of pro-choice Americans (53%) and a majority of pro-life Americans (54%) would support a comprehensive policy compromise that provides entitlements to pregnant women, improves the adoption process for parents, permits abortion in extreme circumstances, and restricts elective abortion after the first trimester. However, members of the media were mostly interested in my finding that 96% of the 5,577 biologists who responded to me affirmed the view that a human life begins at fertilization. – Steven Andrew Jacobs, University of Chicago

Steven Andrew Jacobs received his Ph.D. in Cognitive Human Development from University of Chicago.  You can read his study here:

You can also read his discussion of how this study has been received here.