| | Home
The Daily Dose/May 22, 2011
By Gaylon Kent
The Writer's Shack
Notes from around the Human Experience...
LIVE FREE OR DIE, DAMMIT. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE: We're not prepared to endorse Texas Congressman Ron Paul for president in 2012 yet, mainly because it's still 2011 and we don't want to consider the matter until 2012.
But, honestly, unless we decide to run ourselves, we're really just marking time until we do so.
From The Bylaws: Besides, the official Writer's Shack bylaws dictate that three (3) Bottom Ten campaigns must have passed since the most recent presidential election before an endorsement can be made.
FunFact: Paul is, officially and nominally, a Republican but don't let that fool you. He's a libertarian at heart, and was the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate in 1988, so it is not a complete surprise he recently asked the following question:
How much freedom do we have if we can't even drink unpasteurized milk?
A Good Question: Part of it's rhetorical, because the purchase of raw milk is legal in 28 states. Paul is referring to the federal law that prohibits the interstate shipment of raw milk and assorted products across state lines for human consumption. Last week Paul introduced a bill in the House that would legalize the interstate shipment of raw milk products across state lines for human consumption.
One More Thing: Since he is regarded as somewhat of a whack job even amongst some of his Republican ilk, few might have heard this question, and those that did might well have considered the source instead of considering the deeper meaning.
Dry, Technical Matter: Namely, that we live in a country where you can produce cigarettes - which, if you smoke enough of them for a long enough period of time will probably kill you - and ship them wherever the hell you want, but a dairy farmer is forbidden from shipping raw milk - which promotes healthy bones - across state lines to a willing consumer.
Disclaimer: Yeah, yeah, we know. Raw milk can be dangerous. For the purposes of this column, we're dealing with big picture theory of government here, not the nuts and bolts of providing safe, raw milk for consumers.
A Candid Admission: Now, we haven't given this issue too much thought, mainly because we don't drink a whole lot of milk anymore. Our theory, fairly uninformed, states that milk has done your body all the good it's going to do you by the time you've become an adult. Besides milk, like some other things now, gives us gas.
More Dry, Technical Matter: Paul's bill is HR 1830. It was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The official title is, cleverly, we think:
To authorize the interstate traffic of unpasteurized milk and milk products that are packaged for direct human consumption.
ON THIS DATE! ON THIS DATE! A grand jury indicts former Vice-President Aaron Burr on charges of treason on this date in 1807. Despite a lot of whining and behind-the-scenes maneuvering by Thomas Jefferson to get his former vice-president convicted, Burr would be acquitted in late summer.
FunFact: While Burr never actually made war against the United States, he did travel extensively in Texas, Kentucky and Louisiana raising men and supplies and you don't have to be General MacArthur to conclude they weren't for farming. He also was in league with the Spanish and British, and probably not for news on the latest farming techniques.
Burr also leased 40,000 acres of land in the central United States from Spain. Burr insisted this land was for farming, while other more cynical sorts insisted he planned to form his own country with it, by claiming it as a country should war with Spain break out.
OTOH: Article III, Section III of the United States Constitution is very clear on the matter, stating, in part, that:
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court…
Neither happened. Burr certainly didn't confess, and the prosecution could not drum up two witnesses to the same overt act.
What The Hell: Despite having little evidence, and nothing would satisfy Article III, Section III of the Constitution, Jefferson pursued Burr zealously. The previous January, the government had arrested Burr in Mississippi, though they were unable to get a grand jury to indict Burr.
Jefferson's conduct during this affair is interesting. While it was certain Burr was up to something, there was little evidence that activity was treasonous. Like a lot with Jefferson, his owning of slaves for example, his pursuit of Burr should be examined in the context of the times.
OTOH: It is useful to consider Jefferson's position in the matter. Here he was faced with a former vice-president meeting with representatives of the US's enemies and who was traveling extensively planning for a trip with men and weapons down the Mississippi River. You might very well have behaved similarly had you been president at that time.
Dry, Technical Matter: The trial was presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall, who was having none of Jefferson's shenanigans and whom Jefferson didn't like anyway because he had appointed by the rascal John Adams and for the 1803 Marbury vs. Madison decision, the first time the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress unconstitutional. This annoyed Jefferson because this meant the Court could well be sticking its nose into presidential business and Jeffeson thought that T. Jefferson himself should be the one who decided if his acts were constitutional or not.
The Post Game Show Is Brought To You By Phil's Slave Trade Emporium: Marshall continued to annoy Jefferson during the trial, showing an independence that provided a splendid example for the young country. One, he ruled that intent was not sufficient evidence to prove treason. Only an overt act against the United States was treason. Marshall also ruled in favor of Burr's lawyers who had asked the court to subpoena Jefferson and his papers, claiming they were needed to for Burr's defense. Jefferson initially, and this is not a bulletin, said he would be the one to decide what papers were needed for defense, though he later complied. He had also claimed executive privilege because the executive branch he headed was separate, and not subject to the orders of, the judicial branch Marshall headed.
Marshall was not particularly impressed by these arguments and ruled that Jefferson could be subpoenaed.
Thought For The Day: To listen well is as powerful a means of communication and influence as to talk well. - John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, 1801-1835.
Answer To The Last Trivia Question: There was not a trivia question last time, silly.
Today's Stumper: What act of Congress did Marbury vs. Madison declare unconstitutional. - Answer next time!
Comments? Recipes? Complaints? Email the Writer's Shack here!
Home |
| |
