However, there is plenty to do.  The President can appoint Cabinet secretaries, undersecretaries, ambassadors, judges and United States attorneys.  He or she MUST have solid constitutionalists in those positions.  Cong. Paul did not directly speak to the issue but I would suggest that upon election, turn the office-seeking on its head.  Use the transition team to find solid constitutionalists from the private sector, academia and a few from government, to fill those positions.  Go to them and ask them to consider a short time of service to their Republic.  Few will without a good reason turn down a fellow constitutionalist President. 

The good news is the Senate usually gives the new President a pass (absent moral or ethical lapses) on Cabinet officials.  This is true for judges sometimes, especially in the lower courts.  The bad news is that the constitutionalist administration will have less of a pass than a liberal one.   

The short-term answer may be recess appointments.  Fill all the vacancies in the Federal judiciary with recess appointments with solid constitutionalists and then when the time comes, ask the Senate to confirm them.  There will be one or two bad apples but the vast majority should be confirmable.  There will be plenty of politics and lovers of liberty will have to be vigiliant. 

Cong. Paul in his manifesto says that any time a vacancy or retirement occurs in the Federal bureaucracy, he would apply the “snow day rule”:  if the position is non-essential, simply not fill it.  Paul also would use executive orders in a different manner than any of his predecessors: 

Executive orders are a useful management tool for the president, who must exercise control over the enormous federal bureaucracy. However, in recent years executive orders have been used by presidents to create new federal laws without the consent of Congress. As President Clinton’s adviser Paul Begala infamously said, “stroke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool.” No, it is not “pretty cool,” and a conscientious president could go a long way toward getting us back to the Constitution’s division of powers by ordering his counsel or attorney general to comb through recent executive orders so the president can annul those that exceed the authority of his office. If the President believed a particular Executive Order made a valid change in the law, then he should work with Congress to pass legislation making that change.

I agree.  In fact, if a constitutionalist President (Paul or Johnson) is elected, I would be glad to serve as the assistant White House counsel in charge of reviewing all prior executive orders (I am an attorney and have some academic/scholarly credentials) for likely repeal!  I wouldn’t even have to move to DC.  I’d do my research from home and report to President Paul once a week or so with my results.  I’d only have to go back to FDR’s administration and I’d be done with humble service to the cause of liberty. 

I also agree that necessary executive orders can be recommended as legislation.  Treaties should also be reviewed (perhaps by the new special WH counsel Paul hired who works at home) for revision, reservation and repeal. 

Cabinet secretaries can use their power to grant state waivers to implement liberty and encourage diverse thinking on policy, eespecially in the field of health, education and welfare (wasn’t there an agency called that?  ) Paul calls for pilots to be armed:

Perhaps the most efficient step a president could take to enhance travel security is to remove the federal roadblocks  that have frustrated attempts to arm pilots.  Congress created provisions to do just that in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001.  However, the processes for getting a federal firearms license are extremely cumbersome, and as a result, very few pilots have gotten their licenses.  A constitutionalist in the Oval Office would want to revise those regulations to make it as easy as possible for pilots to get approval to carry firearms on their planes.

Agreed!  Most pilots I would suspect are veterans and have a clean record.  I trust them to handle arms in appropriate ways.  That is only one example of clearing regulatory underbrush without congressional approval.  Another is to issue directives to the US Attorneys not to prosecute medical marijuana cases, cases where states have laws in place to deal with it and are dealing with it, and cases based on unconstitutional statutes.  

For my final post, I’ll speak to monetary policy.

Eliminating federal involvement in K-12 education should be among a constitutionalist president’s top domestic priorities. The Constitution makes no provision for federal meddling in education. It is hard to think of a function less suited to a centralized, bureaucratic approach than education. The very idea that a group of legislators and bureaucrats in D.C. can design a curriculum capable of meeting the needs of every American schoolchild is ludicrous. The deteriorating performance of our schools as federal control over the classroom has grown shows the folly of giving Washington more power over American education. President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law claimed it would fix education by making public schools “accountable.” However, supporters of the law failed to realize that making schools more accountable to federal agencies, instead of to parents, was just perpetuating the problem.

This will bring about a fierce struggle over who controls education:  Parents and local leaders or educrats.  Usually when someone suggests some reasonable idea like vouchers or easier home schooling access or charter schools, this is painted as “anti-public schools”.   Paul again suggests how to frame the debate:

But who is really anti-education?  Those who wish to continue to waste taxpayer money on failed national schemes, or those who want to restore control over education to the local level?  When the debate is framed that way, I have no doubt the side of liberty will win.

I am not sure.  The educrats have plenty of ammunition to use to beat back constitutional educational reform.  Again, we must ask the question:  Is the educational system working now?  Let’s try something new.  Let’s try liberty.  But this will require every bit of our cunning and resources to prevail in the marketplace of ideas against the educrats and their mainstream media allies.

In my next post, we will discuss how President Paul can use Cabinet and judicial appointments and executive orders to turn back bad legislation and restrict federal power.

Try out this story from the New York Times last year.  The EU seeks to ban incandescent bulbs by 2012. 

Try this:  In San Francisco, the city seeks to ban plastic bags and bottles as well as require composting of certain items.  Mayor Gavin Newsom said in this video said that those who pick up cans in streets can be fined.  “Composting and food scraps” are to be diverted.  Banning plastic bags and water bottles, too.  Definitely not a liberty-friendly path.  “Educate our kids to educate their parents,” Newsom says.  The mayor also works this tyranny into “universal health care”.  Another good reason to vote against Obamacare.  Thanks to current.com for this video. 

Law enforcement can search trash consistent with the Federal Constitution:  California v. Greenwood.  There also can be DWI checkpoints but not yet drug checkpoints.  See City of Indianapolis v. Edmond. 

There was a serious call for Nurnberg style trials for global warming skeptics.  (Grist magazine did retract it after being called on it by a Senate committee.)  Not just that one.  Paul Krugman called (thank you Sister Toldjah!) global warming skeptics traitors against the planet.  Here’s his closing paragraph:

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

This is chilling.  Of course, we now know that global warming/climate change is not completely on the level.  I suppose I might be indicted for writing this.  I’m a follower of Christ.  We’ll be tried all right.  Revelation promises it:  “He was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that it could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.”  Revelation 13:15(NIV)

That’s why I’m for liberty!  As Whitaker Chambers put it in Witness:  We have left the winning side for the losing one – or so it seems!  “For faith is… the evidence of things unseen…”  Hebrews 11:1 (KJV).

Have a good laugh and let’s hope Audi did not unknowingly do a short libertarian documentary disguised as a TV commercial.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (R). Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. (Of course this is no endorsement of this blogpost or blog by the International Bible Society or Zondervan)

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by International Bible Society.  Use of either trademark requires the permission of International Bible Society.

I also find Scott Brown to be clever, humorous, witty and engaging.  He either has a great speechmaker or has a natural talent.  He talks about his truck and used it as a moving symbol of ordinariness – much like the log cabin in the 1800s.  Try this out:   

“I’m Scott Brown, I’m from Wrentham, and I drive a truck.”

and this:

“Would you like me to drive the truck down to Washington so you can see it?”

Absolutely brilliant.  Brown was respectful and gracious to his opponents, the Kennedy family and others including President Obama.  Brown’s smart and may not be a classic conservative voice.  But he may be different.  He will be heard from again.  I wish Senator-elect Scott Brown all the best.  BUT…

BUT, there was a report on Morning Joe that by a 3 to 1 margin Americans reject rights for terrorism suspects.  This concerns me greatly.  Brown said in his acceptance speech:

“I believe and I know all of you believe that our Constitution and laws exist to protect THIS nation.  *  *  *  They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime.  *  *  *  Our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them.”

Let me make myself clear, will all due respect Senator elect Brown, this is a terrible issue to raise.  He is an attorney, he ought to know better.  Brown continues:

“Giving new rights to terrorists is the wrong agenda for our country.” 

They are not new rights; they are centuries old.  They protect all of us.  This issue will surely be used by other Republicans since it worked in one of the bluest states – Massachusetts – and they will probably do well.  But it’s wrong.  Let’s step back and ask what are we doing.  I am reminded of the quote Robert Bolt attributed to Sir Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons (thanks to that rare conservative who is not involved in this demagogy – Judge Andrew Napolitano):

“This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!  And if you cut them down-and you’re just the man to do it-do you think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?  Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s safe.”

If we can give the Devil due process, we can do it for terror suspects.  I reject the idea of a “war on terror” because there is no end to the conflict.  This then by the reasoning of most of my fellow conservatives means there must always be military tribunals in continuous session.  Suppose the next terrorist attack is accomplished by a conspiracy of both domestic radicals and foreign terrorists?  Or criminal gangs paid by Al-Qaeda?  Do we try both in military tribunals?  Then US citizens would then be deprived of their constitutional rights.  Do we want that?  American jails may one day be filled with conservatives or libertarians or evangelical Christians.  To paraphrase our newest Senator, we can do better!  We libertarians must find opportunities to explain that this rights issue is a necessary one to do.  Liberty and rights for all!

I prefer to believe what the Houston Chronicle suggests:  That Ron Paul and Liberty is popular.  History teaches that liberty resonates with a deep need people have.  Our Declaration asserts that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  The Bible agrees:  “Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof” (Leviticus 25:10)

Ron Paul did not get the most votes but his ideas are now available for people around the world to see.  He also has encouraged others to seek lesser office (Rand Paul and Peter Schiff are only two examples) to place liberty ideals into action.  Dr. Paul has cured the apathy of many Americans! 

To paraphrase Emile Zola:  Liberty is on the march!