That is all.

Zombies are like a pack of lions: if they’ve just eaten, you are more likely to walk by without them going after you. On the other hand, a pack of hungry zombies will take after you.

Zombies will decay (like regular corpses) but at a much slower rate. It is still possible to differentiate between “young” and “old” zombies, though.

The ability to run is based on the amount of time the zombie has been undead, and how much rigor mortis or decay has set in.

Before I draw any criticism, yes, I know… May is the official “Zombie Awareness Month,” but I have always tried to spread the word during October. Part of it, obviously, is to capitalize on the spooky Halloween season; part of it is to steer people’s attention away from ridiculous fears (like Vampire and Werewolves), and focus them on the real threat (Zombies).

Oh yes… I said real.

Additionally, this year, I have additional incentive to go with October, as this year Z.A.M. will culminate in the premier of AMC’s new show The Walking Dead…

So there you have it… Me: 1 / Internet: 0. I win!

In my last missive, I called attention to the fact that some 38 States were considering taking legal action against the Federal Government over the passage of the Health Care Reform Act, and how 38 was a meaningful number, Constitutionally speaking.  It happens to be the number of States necessary to ratify an Amendment.

This post is the first in a series of articles discussing Amendments that, in my opinion, should be considered in the event that the States call for an Article V Constitutional Convention.

We know, from the speeches, debates, and writings of our nations’ founders that the Government created by the Constitution was imbued with limited, enumerated powers.  Beyond those words, we have, in the 10th Amendment, a clearly worded codification of that intent:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

It is unfortunate that in the time that has passed, all three branches of the Federal government have stretched the plain language of the document to expand, or wholly invent new powers. Today, as evidenced by their interference in the medical industry, there is literally no human endeavor which they would consider out of bounds as far as their ability to interfere, regulate, tax, or prohibit is concerned.

In an effort to remedy this, I would merely offer some clarification as to the meaning of the two most abused clauses in the Constitution:

• The Commerce Clause
• The General Welfare Clause

This post will deal with the first…

The Commerce Clause

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists all of the legitimate functions of the Legislative branch of our government.  Among these functions, we find the commerce clause listed:

“To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;”

The meaning of this clause, with respect to the regulation of commerce ‘among and between the several states,’ was meant to ensure free trade within the union.  Prior to this, it was not uncommon for States to erect tariffs, and/or collect duties, on foreign or domestic goods that passed through their territories in transit, en route to States which lay beyond.  Obviously, this was a tremendous economic advantage to coastal States with major harbors, like Massachusetts or South Carolina, and put other States, especially Vermont, which is land-locked, at a disadvantage.  The Article of Confederation did not give the Federal government the power to smooth out these economic imbalances.

To wit, Madison wrote, in Federalist 42:

“The defect of power in the existing Confederacy to regulate the commerce between its several members, is in the number of those which have been clearly pointed out by experience. To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity. To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade.”

Madison went on to discuss the behavior of the Swiss, how they forbade individual cantons (regions) from putting up internal barriers to trade; he also refers to similar restrictions in both Germany, and the Netherlands, and discusses the economic advantages associated with this simple, preventative measure.

Viewed in context, this simple clause appears so benign.  For a long time, it was, but then lawyers and politicians got involved.  I will now give you what is perhaps my favorite example of how this simple clause has been twisted into a blank check on Legislative power.  I give you Wickard v. Filburn.

In 1938, Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced.  The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat, which were deemed to be harmful to the U.S. agricultural economy.  (You may notice that this has absolutely nothing to do with the demolition of trade barriers erected between the States, but is instead an attempt to shore up prices in the general economy.)

Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who admitted producing wheat in excess of the amount permitted. When charged, Filburn argued that because the excess wheat was produced for his private consumption on his own farm, it never entered commerce at all, much less interstate commerce, and therefore was not a proper subject of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause.

Clearly, this is a case where Congress had overstepped it’s bounds.  Clearly the Supreme Court would overturn this egregious usurpation.  But they didn’t…

Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial.

Recognize that by this logic, Congress could theoretically pass legislation that determined what, and how much, you could grow in a small garden in your own back yard, for use on your own dinner table.  It’s not that what you produce in your garden, singularly, would make much of a difference, but that the cumulative effect of several Americans choosing to grow their own vegetables could be economically devastating!

Now, I’m not into gardening, myself, but I can recognize a case of ‘too much government’ even when it doesn’t directly affect me.  Also recognize that the entire purpose of the Department of Agriculture is to reduce the amount of food grown on American farms, in an effort to increase to ‘target levels’ the price of virtually all agricultural products.  Think about how the increased price of food cascades into increased prices for everything else in the economy.

But this article isn’t about the adverse economic impact of a single ill-conceived Federal Department.  It’s about Congress, and their inability to honor the charter from which they derive their just powers.  It’s about the Executive branch, which has been a willing accomplice, that is, when it wasn’t driving the bus.  It’s about a Court that is supposed to keep the other two honest.

(With the members of all three bodies having sworn an oath…)

Since Congress has decided that merely ensuring free trade within the United States isn’t enough, and since the President has either signed these Acts, if not sponsoring the legislation to begin with, and since the Supreme Court has thus far proven itself incapable of restraining Congress’ or the President’s ambitions when it comes to meddling with every facet of the economy, I think it’s time that the States took matters into their own hands.

I propose a Constitutional Amendment that leaves no ambiguity in the meaning of the Commerce Clause.  Further, after providing the necessary clarification, the amendment should call for a judicial review of all jurisprudence concerning the commerce clause, applying the new standard, conducted by a panel of judges appointed by the States.  We can argue about the specific language, and the makeup of the panel at the convention.

[I'll talk about the General Welfare clause in my next post.]

So a funny thing happened on the way to the socialized medical utopia…  Today, many in America were looking for a morning after pill (alternatively referred to as “Plan B” amongst the crazy college kids).  If you have been following the whole Health Care Reform debate, and all of the drama that led up to Sunday night’s historic vote, you’d probably heard that several of the States were planning on hatching a litany of legal challenges to many of the provisions in the final bill.

Virginia, Florida, and several others have been in the news.  Apparently Idaho got off to the fastest start, not just passing a bill through their legislature, but actually having their bill, requiring the State Attorney General to sue the Federal Government, signed into law by their Governor late last week.  The Associated Press carried the story here:

An interesting statement from the article:

“Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.”

More interesting, to me however, was the statement which preceded that one:

“Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states.”

Why is that a more interesting, and, dare I say, a more provocative statement?  I’m surprised that the “Constitutional Law Experts” didn’t see the significance.  37 other States, plus Idaho, equals 38 States.  Remember that number, while we dust off that crusty old document, the Constitution.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof

psp buried movie download

, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

download divx due date movie

While many would have you believe that it takes a “Constitutional Law Expert” to divine meaning from this mysterious document of antiquity, the truth is that the language is very straight forward.  The document was not written in legalese; it was written to be understood by the common man, in the normal parlance of the day.  It is, after all, the document that created a government of the people, for the people, and by the people.

From the highlighted text of Article V, you can see that in addition to the process that has always been used in our history, Mr. Madison left we, the people, a second method for altering the Constitution.  To date, every Constitutional amendment has been offered, bandied about by Congress using the first method described, prior to sending it out to be ratified by the States.

The second method has, to date, never been used.  A Constitutional Convention can be called by the States, if two-thirds choose to do so, where the States can propose amendments directly.  Two-thirds would be 34 States

.  A proposed amendment resulting from such a convention would need Three-fourths of the States to agree for ratification.

Three-fourths would be: 38 States.

As much as I applaud the individual legal challenges that each of the States are preparing, and as much as I expect that some of them might even be successful, the outcomes of these challenges will only result in the nullification of certain provisions of the Act.  They will not undo the entire package.  Partial victories, while nice, fall short.  Additionally, there are no assured victories.  When it comes to the Supreme Court, the fox is guarding the hen house.

James Madison ensured that the States themselves had a mechanism to initiate and ratify a Constitutional amendment as a check on the power of the Federal government.  He even gave the States a choice about how to get it done, either through the State legislature, or, if it were hostile to the proposed change, they have the ability to convene a State ratifying convention.

(If anyone wonders why Conservatives worship ‘The Founding Fathers’ the way they do, it’s because those men were absolute geniuses, and even without the ability to forecast the future, they seemed to think of everything.)

I think we have reached a point in our history where “We the People” ought to kick the tires, and take this thing out for a spin.

38 States

[In my next post, I'll talk about a few of the amendments I'd like to see taken up at such a convention.]

I haven’t written anything lately, having been overcome by demands on my time from both personal and professional sources.  This post has been percolating in my mind for a couple of weeks, but in the long while that I’ve been thinking about it, I still haven’t really come to terms with exactly what it is that I feel needs to be said.

I will start with what has become exceedingly obvious to me, and hopefully, the necessary words will come of their own accord.

Senator John Edwards, former presidential candidate, gave a speech during the campaign describing “Two Americas.”  It became a recurring theme throughout the duration of his run.  He spoke of:

“the America of the privileged and the wealthy, and the America of those who lived from paycheck to paycheck. [He] spoke of the difference in the schools, the difference in the loan rates, the difference in opportunity.”

He rhetoric was typical of politicians hoping to ride the class warfare train all the way to electoral victory.  After all, if “divide and conquer” weren’t an effective strategy, then we’d have never heard of it referred to, and it certainly wouldn’t have come to dominate the American political landscape in the manner it has for the past 100 years.

Another common rendition of the Two Americas theme is spun not along economic disparity (directly), but rather along racial lines.  How many times have we heard about “White America” and “Black America?”  Race baiting has always been an effective means of driving a wedge between people, but it is just another approach for manipulating group dynamics for political gain.

At this point, I’d love to come back and counter these superficial divisive arguments and make the case for One America…  The sad truth, though, is that I can’t.

You see, there really are two Americas, but the dividing lines cannot be drawn between the rich and the poor, or the black or the white; nor can they be drawn in a manner that bi-sects us neatly into to warring factions based on anything that can be so easily observed by looking as our ethnic heritage, our religious preferences, our skin tones, our genders, or the monthly bank statements that show up in our mail boxes.

The two Americas that I observe transcend the differences of our births…  The wealthy show up on both sides of the divide, as do the poor.  There are black men that fall on either side.  Education doesn’t seem to play a role.  White people and Hispanics straddle the boundary.

So what are these two Americas, and how are we to discern between the members of each?

They are age old questions that were supposed to have been put to rest, at least, within the confines of our own borders.

What is the relationship between Man and the State?

One America believes that Man exists to serve the State; the other believes that the State exists to serve Man.

What is the purpose of Government?

One America believes that Government is meant to rule the people; the other believes that it exists only to protect the peoples’ rights.

From whence does Government’s power originate?

One America believes that Government is inherently imbued with power; the other believes that the power of Government emanates solely from the consent of the governed.

What is more important: the Individual, or Society?

One America believes that the individual must accede to the will of society;  the other believes that society is merely a collections of individuals, and that it is the individual that must be protected.

These questions are closely related, and I’m willing to bet that based upon a person’s answer to any one of them, I can accurately predict their answers to all of the others.

There is, unfortunately, no middle ground.

The first America, in each of those questions, is not terribly unique throughout the world.  This America finds itself in general agreement with the nations of Europe, Asia, and South America.  It subscribes to a worldview whereby the individual is subjugated to the will of society, and where the minority has no protection from the majority.  The State’s power over the individual is only limited by the current attitudes of the majority, and as those attitudes change, man’s rights are diminished.

The second America, I’m sad to say, is quite unique…  This America identifies with age of Enlightenment, and with the founding ideals of this nation.  It has existed only once in human history, and has been described as “the noble experiment.”  It subscribes to a worldview whereby the individual is held sacrosanct, and where the minority is protected from the majority.  The State’s power is limited by the law, and regardless of the prevailing attitudes of society, there are limits to government power, and man’s rights are upheld.

I don’t know precisely when it changed, but it cannot be denied.  This nation is now inhabited by two distinct peoples, separated by core beliefs that are impossible to reconcile.  Politicians and the pundit class bemoan the lack of bi-partisanship,  and viewed through this lens, is it any wonder why there can be no middle ground in the national dialog?

Think about this as you drive down the street…  Half of the people you see on any given day are just as angry as you are, are sympathetic to your reasons, and view you as a patriotic fellow traveler.  The other half are just as angry as you are, but for a completely different set of reasons, and hold you in treasonous contempt.

How long can this country continue while there exists such a divide?

“The characteristic mark of economic history under capitalism is unceasing economic progress, a steady increase in the quantity of capital goods available, and a continuous trend toward an improvement in the general standard of living.”

- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action , 1949

Thanksgiving is recognized as a distinctly American holiday, with the common story being a community event with the Pilgrims, and the local Wampanoag tribe.  While the first “Thanksgiving” occurred in 1621, the real first Thanksgiving, such as the Pilgrims would have understood it, did not occur until 1623.  Known then as a harvest festival, Thanksgiving was meant as a means of celebrating the bounty and abundance of the harvest, and recognizing God’s benevolence in having provided it.  Prior to 1623, the Pilgrims had been faced with weak harvests, and dwindling food supplies.  In the face of scarcity and starvation, there was relatively little to be thankful for.

In 1623, however, things changed.  Few people are aware of how the Plymouth colony turned the corner…  What many don’t know is that the settlement at Plymouth was America’s first foray in Communism.  For its first two-and-a-half years, the economy of Plymouth Plantation took the form of a communal system. There was neither private property nor division of labor. Food was grown for the town and distributed equally. According to William Bradford, Governor of the colony from 1621 – 1632, in Of Plymouth Plantation:

“

wake the movie

buy the film

The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter than the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours, victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it.”

By 1623, facing starvation Plymouth Plantation’s leaders took another course. Upon allotting private land plots it is evident that productivity increased. Again, according to William Bradford in his account:

“So they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop than they had done, that they might not still thus languish in misery. At length, after much debate of things, the Governor (with the advise of the chiefest among them) gave way that they should set corn every man for his own particular, and in that regard trust to themselves; in all other things to go in the general way as before. And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of the number, for that end, only for present use (but made no division for inheritance) and ranged all boys and youth under some family. This had very good success, for it made all hands industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

So despite predating Marx and Engels by some 200 years, we had the implementation of a near perfect agrarian communism, with no private property, and a people whose product and labor were perfectly divided to create “a fair share” for all.  It failed miserably.

The problem with communism isn’t that it isn’t a swell idea…  The problem is that it’s fundamentally incompatible with human nature.

Human beings are not selfless.  We do not value family members, and perfect strangers equally.  We put the well being of our families, and our friends, above those of people whom we do not know, and have not established any personal relationship.  We are simply wired this way, and regardless of how noble an idea it may be that we should be wired otherwise, wishing will not make it so.

A system that recognizes private property, predicated on the notion the man is entitled to the fruit of his own labor, is compatible with human nature.  When the betterment of his own conditions is within his grasp, he strives for improvement.  When he may dispose of his own property, he has incentive to produce in excess, allowing him to sell or trade to procure other items of benefit.

A economic system based on private property encourages abundance, raising the general level of existence for all.  A system absent this quality produces scarcity, and a correspondingly dismal existence for all.

Since the time of the pilgrims, we have seen the scenario played out time after time, in places like the former Soviet Union, South America, Cambodia, North Korea, and China.  Every occurrence results in human tragedy, and yet, there are those among us that refuse to learn the lesson, deny human nature, and advocate this same failed “ideal” as though the outcome the next time could result in something other than the outcomes of the past.