I can feel the sixteen eyes of my eight loyal readers glaze over already. But stay with me, this is actually an important question:

Does the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution) render the entire rest of the Constitution, including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, null and void?

If not, as Coyote Blog asks, what economic behavior--if any--does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause?

The question is important, because there are Constitutional lawyers who believe that a large chunk of the Democrats' plans to revamp the American health care system--including and especially the Federal mandate that individuals purchase health insurance--is unconstitutional.

Or, is that even important any more?

In the quadrennial game of Expose the Corruption, played by media big and small where the goal is to expose the shady dealings of those in power and their friends and allies, our early score in the 2009-2013 Game is:

Citizen Journalism 2, Old Media 0.

This is the result of two dramatic goals scored by Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site, scoring on plays featuring ACORN and the National Endowment for the Arts.

Admittedly, both scores were "own goals" by Old Media, who utterly failed to pick up on the obvious threads of the ACORN and the NEA stories in their focused concentration on defending their own. The forces of Citizen Journalism struck quickly, with Breitbart's Big Government blasting both scores through the goal into the national psyche.

Big Media is now forced to play catchup in the game of Expose the Corruption. There are many though who believe their hearts are not in the game. Some would even say they're trying to throw the game entirely.

But if Big Media loses this match, they risk relegation to the minor leagues of information society.

Will they rally to a dramatic come-from-behind win? Is the lead that Citizen Journalism building insurmountable? Or will Big Media pack it in and crawl deeper into the tank?

UPDATE: Yes, I know that the opponents don't actually score an own goal, you do it to yourself. That's the point. Work with me here.

UPDATE II: If you read all of the articles at Big Government and still don't understand what the problem is, then take a look at this general definition of "corruption" and this description of political corruption.

UPDATE III: No, really, go to Big Government and read. Here is a sample of what you'll find:

All of this – particularly the government-sponsored conference call itself – is in blatant violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act (19 U.S. Code §1913), which explicitly provides: “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”

Violation of this law, in turn, violates 31 U.S. Code §1352, which bans use of “funds appropriated by any Act [from being] expended by the recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement to pay any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any Federal action …”

Is violation of Federal Law "just playing politics?" Before you answer that, consider very, very, VERY carefully the ramifications of your answer.

THAT'S what the problem is.

Article bumped to the top for a while.

UPDATE IV: That should be 18 U.S. Code §1913, not 19 U.S. Code §1913 above. Sadly, only civil penalties apply to that particular offense.

My previous post discussed primarily political corruption, which is a special case of the general phenomenon of corruption. Corruption can of course happen within or outside governments.

The general definition is:

* Pronunciation: \kə-ˈrəp-shən\
* Function: noun
* Date: 14th century

1 a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity b : decay, decomposition c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery) d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct
2 archaic : an agency or influence that corrupts
3 chiefly dialect : pus

Are we, as an entire society, becoming more corrupt? Less virtuous and moral? More depraved? More willing to "bend the rules"--to do wrong by improper and unlawful means? Have we departed from the original purpose of the American Experiment?

It's pretty simple to understand, really. This definition of political corruption comes from the Wikipedia article:

"Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain."

My only quibble with that definition is the inclusion of the word "legislated" in the definition. I suppose that the author is saying that corruption only includes the use of "legitimate" government power for private gain. But then, if it's used for private gain, wouldn't that use of government power be by definition illegitimate?

More after the "read more."

Into my news feed this morning (it used to be the Sunday paper, back in the days Before Internet) comes an op-ed from the Washington Post via Reason Hit & Run. A Maryland mayor's home was invaded by a rogue police SWAT team. He tells the tale:

An errant Prince George's County SWAT team had just forced its way into our home, shot dead our two black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and started ransacking our belongings as part of what would become a four-hour ordeal.

The police found nothing, of course, to connect my family and me to a box of drugs that they had been tracking and had delivered to our front door. The community -- of which I am mayor -- rallied to our side. . . . Ultimately, we were cleared of any wrongdoing, but not before the incident drew international outrage.

This was 14 months ago. We have since filed suit, and I am confident that we will find justice more quickly than most.

. . .

In the words of Prince George's County Sheriff Michael Jackson, whose deputies carried out the assault, "the guys did what they were supposed to do" -- acknowledging, almost as an afterthought, that terrorizing innocent citizens in Prince George's is standard fare. The only difference this time seems to be that the victim was a clean-cut white mayor with community support, resources and a story to tell the media.

. . .

Let me give you three specific concerns underscored by our case.

First, the Prince George's Police Department's internal affairs function is broken. . . . Internal affairs division (IAD) investigations were required to take no longer than 90 days. More than a year after our ordeal, my family awaits the IAD report on what happened at our home. The statute of limitations for officer misconduct is 12 months, which means that any wrongdoers are off the hook.

Next, there is significant evidence that the county is broadly violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. After initially claiming that they had a "no-knock" warrant to forcibly enter our home, county police acknowledged that they did not have one. But they went on to contend that there is no such thing as a "no-knock" warrant in Maryland. But this isn't true. A statewide "no-knock" warrant statute was passed in 2005.

. . .

Finally, and perhaps most disturbing of all, county police may be lying to cover up their civil rights violations. A county officer on the scene told Berwyn Heights police a fabricated tale to justify the warrantless entry into our home. The lie disappeared after police learned that I was the mayor.

A nation that calls itself "civilized" can not tolerate this level of lawlessness from those whom we charge to enforce our laws.

Who watches the watchers?

One more thought--which should shake you down to your core: If a city mayor is not immune from abuse at the hands of the police, what about you?

This is a result of the confluence of two really bad ideas--first, that the people should depend entirely on the police for protection from the truly criminal element among us. This idea breeds an arrogance on the part of the police which is antithetical to the American tradition of liberty and self-reliance. The second bad idea is the overwrought "war on drugs" which not only distorts our entire judicial system but also provides vast amounts of money to domestic and international organized crime, terror, and anti-democratic organizations around the world. That money fuels the bad-guy side of the urban arms race to which SWAT teams are the government response.

If we legalize and regulate 'recreational' drug use, we regain control over this segment of the economy that is now completely lawless--and is dragging the rest of society into lawlessness with it.

This isn't about "advocating the use of drugs." Drugs are bad, m'kay? But people will seek out drugs for reasons good and bad--it's part of our flawed human nature.

And when we attempt to ignore human nature, we get ourselves into trouble--like mistaken no-knock SWAT raids on city mayor's houses.

Frank J. Fleming (wrangler of the IMAO.US humor web site) ponders "Why are liberals still angry?" at Pajamas Media:

While conservatives can still openly call themselves conservatives and argue directly for things they like (such as gun rights and free markets), liberals still have to run from their label and never dare say out loud the things they want, such as socialism and single-payer health care. How could liberals not see this coming? Are they not as smart as they think?

Having to even contemplate such a horrible possibility is enough to drive a liberal mad.

So they lash out. Since they are obviously so smart (obviously!), the only reason anyone could oppose them is that the person is stupid and evil. Thus everyone protesting must be a stupid racist. It’s the only conclusion possible without having to reexamine the central tenet that liberals are super smart and should totally run everything. And if you were under the delusion that you were surrounded by stupid racists who won’t listen to your obviously smart ideas, wouldn’t you be pretty angry all the time?

My only quibble is the continuing, pernicious use of the word "liberal" to describe leftist "progressive" statists. True liberals (i.e. those who value liberty) need to reclaim that word. Other than that . . .

Science Daily: Zero tolerance, zero effect, says expert

(Sam Houston State University economist Darren) Grant also compared the blood alcohol distributions of involved drivers in the two years before zero tolerance laws were established in each state, and again in the two years after. The two distributions were also virtually identical.

"That's a sign that this law is essentially inert; if it's affecting the amount of drinking that people do, these distributions should look different," he said. Grant's colleague at Sam Houston State and fellow economist, Donald Freeman, completed a similar study in 2007 that yielded similar results regarding a related law that lowered the allowable blood alcohol limit for adult drivers. That paper was published in the journal Contemporary Economic Policy.

I'm always wary of laws and regulations which attempt to substitute draconian rules for common sense. Especially when they have absolutist names like "zero tolerance."

They're in that class of ideas that sound really good in the abstract, but don't do what their proponents claim they do when you try to actually put them into operation.

Sort of like "universal health care" or the "war on drugs," to name two examples.

Let's think out there, people.

Futurepundit: Too much radiation for humans in Mars trip:

Dreams of a human trip to Mars run up against limits to allowable human radiation exposure.

. . .

One way to get a ship to Mars that would have lots of chemical rocket mass to propel a return trip: Send two space ships. First send one slowly that would carry a lot of fuel. That fuel would enter Mars orbit before humans even left Earth. Then humans could leave Earth on a fast ship and arrive to find another fast ship with lots of fuel ready to take them back to Earth.

Part of the radiation exposure would come while humans are on Mars. How to reduce that exposure? Send robots ahead of time that would burrow down underground to create living quarters in several places that would be within driving distance of each other. The astronauts could move from underground shelter to underground shelter.

Of course, all this requires huge amounts of money and resources.

Well, nobody said it would be easy.

Who is moving from ABC News to Fox News. He explains why in this Reason Magazine article:

In my new job, I want to dig into the meaning of the words "liberty" and "limited government." For many years, through Republican and Democratic administrations, we have been losing something vital in America: the commitment to individual liberty and the understanding that as government grows, liberty shrinks.

Fox offers me more airtime and a new challenge. I'm still thinking about what I will do with my own show. Economic analyses of the latest screwball ideas in Washington—certainly. I also want to undertake exercises in understanding libertarianism, the philosophy of freedom, which used to be called "liberalism."

What do you think? You can help me shape the new program. I ask you for your ideas. Which interesting speakers should I book? What thought experiments should I try with a studio audience? Please let me know.

I'm there, brother. I'm SO there.

"Are you now, or have you ever been a RACIST?"

Who will be the Joseph Welch of this new McCarthyism? Who--at long last--will end this madness?

There were Communists actively operating for the U.S.S.R. in the U.S.A. in the 1950's. That didn't make the bullying tactics of McCarthy right then. There are real racists today. That doesn't make today's eerily similar melanin-McCarthys right, either.

It's not about racism. It's about suppression of dissent. It's despicable, regardless of who's doing it.