I write three syndicated columns a week, and the vast majority of them could easily run with the title “Stupid and Evil US Government Action of the Day.”

There’s almost always a specific “news hook” — whatever story happens to be dominating headlines and the public conversation — and my take often focuses on the unconstitutionality of this or that action of the federal government’s legislative, executive, or judicial branch (sometimes all three).

I also often close with my favorite quote from 19th century anarchist Lysander Spooner:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Now that I’ve thoroughly buried the lede, which isn’t even a “news hook” (I’m breaking ALL the rules today, aren’t I?), let’s get to the big question raised by Spooner’s “authorized … or has been powerless to prevent” observation:

Does the US government, as described in the US Constitution, even exist?

I say it doesn’t, and as evidence for my claim, I’m going to talk about recipes.

That, you see, is what a constitution is: A recipe for government. It’s made of ingredients, instructions, and warnings.

Ingredients for sugar cookies: 1 cup of butter, 2/3 cup of granulated sugar, and 2 cups of flour.

Instructions: Mix the ingredients, form into individual cookies, bake at 325 degrees for 15 minutes. Cool/rest for 15 minutes.

Warnings: Don’t over-bake! Don’t skip the cooling time!

If I use vinegar instead of butter, salt instead of sugar, and garlic powder instead of flour, bake it as a whole mass for an hour at 450 degrees, then immediately serve it, I made something. But I think you’ll agree that what I made was NOT a batch of sugar cookies.

The Constitution says Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” If the organization that claims to be Congress makes such a law, is that organization actually Congress? Is it butter, or vinegar?

The Constitution says that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” If the person claiming to be president spends money on things that Congress didn’t appropriate the money for, is that person really the president? Is he or she sugar, or salt?

The Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court. If the organization claiming to be the Supreme Court ignores the constraints and requirements of the Constitution itself in its rulings, is that organization really that court? Is it flour, or garlic powder?

The dish we’ve been served for decades — perhaps even from the very beginning — is not “constitutional government.”

A recipe is powerless to prevent incompetent or mischievous cooks from ruining the dish. Those who  want “constitutional government” and think it’s  possible need to fire the entire kitchen staff and start fresh.

But personally, I doubt that the recipe would produce the results it claims even if followed.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

On January 14, a “war powers resolution” went down to defeat in the US Senate on a 50-50 vote, with vice president JD Vance breaking the tie.

The resolution, which would have required US president Donald Trump to at least casually mention to Congress that he planned more military misadventures in Venezuela before, rather than after, launching such misadventures, was a half-hearted half-measure, but somehow only half of US Senators could bring themselves to go even that far.

Let’s go over the way things are supposed to work:

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress, not to the president.

If the president attacks another country without such a declaration, it’s not a war, it’s just a crime  — a “high crime” legally meriting and ethically requiring that president’s impeachment and removal from office.

Unfortunately,  presidents have been getting away with such crimes on a routine basis since the end of World War 2. The list is too long to fit in an op-ed, but a few high points include Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Those conflicts weren’t wars, at least so far as US law was concerned. They were criminal acts carried out by lawless presidents with the acquiescence — and often co-conspiracy — of Congress.

Toward the end of the Vietnam fiasco, Congress passed (and overrode Richard Nixon’s veto of) something called the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Nixon’s veto message claimed that the Resolution included “unconstitutional restrictions” on his power to kill as many people as he pleased, when and how it pleased him to kill those people.

What it actually included was an unconstitutional — absent ratification by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures —  repeal of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 assignment of the power to declare war solely and exclusively to Congress.

The Resolution supposedly gave the president wiggle room to engage in illegal military operations if he  got congressional “authorization” or made up a “national emergency,” and as long as he subsequently bothered to tell Congress about it.

Why would Congress (a notoriously power-hungry body) try so hard to give up its power to declare war? Because if there’s anything a politician hates more than he or she loves power, it’s being held responsible for the consequences of exercising that power. By trying to give up its power, Congress thought it could also rid itself of culpability.

The Senate had one job to do. It wasn’t an especially hard job, it wouldn’t have had any great effect (even if it passed the House, Trump would have vetoed it), and it didn’t even meet the bare minimum constitutional standard.

And yet 50 Senators, and the vice-president acting as president of the Senate, couldn’t bring themselves to get that one little tiny, insignificant job done.

One more confirmation of Lysander Spooner’s observation:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Photo by Ron Clausen, Creative Commons 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

A quick headline roundup from the last couple of weeks:

“US Electric Grid Heading Toward ‘Crisis’ Thanks to AI Data Centers” (Common Dreams, January 2)

“US electricity grid stretches thin as data centers rush to turn on onsite generators” (tom’s HARDWARE, January 5)

“America’s Biggest Power Grid Operator Has an AI Problem — Too Many Data Centers” (Wall Street Journal, January 12)

Panicky political proposals to address the looming specter of grid failure under the strain of powering massive computer facilities, which in turn power massive artificial intelligence operations, range from charging data centers higher rates per kilowatt-hour to just plain banning the installations.

The only instance of helpful innovation I’m seeing from the political establishment comes from US Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) who, Reason‘s Joe Lancaster reports, wants to exempt “in-house” utilities  from federal regulatory red tape through legislation called the DATA Act.

Simply put, if Meta or Microsoft wanted to build their own generators, run its own power lines, etc.,  they’d save a lot of time and money … as long as their profane power sources didn’t burden the “grids” used by other energy production entities to serve other consumers over long distances.

It’s a great idea — and it’s an idea that would benefit everyone, not just data center operators.

As my kids might say (if they bothered themselves with such issues rather than just plugging their bazillion game consoles into the wall and ignoring such things while raising my electric bill) “grids are SOOOOOO 20th century.”

The idea of running power lines all over God’s green acre made a certain amount of sense in the 1930s.  It makes no sense at all now.

When Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority to bring electricity and other benefits that largely rural area of 80,000 square miles, and the Hoover Dam likewise generated electricity to serve far-flung metros in the west, generating significant amounts of energy, at reasonable costs, required large, expensive installations.

Once those installations were up and running, actually getting the power to homes, factories, etc. was a matter of stringing lines on poles and building out additional infrastructure (sub-stations, pole transformers, etc.).

Benefit: Everyone can flip a switch or turn a knob or plug an appliance into the wall and voilà! Power!

Costs: Running those lines and maintaining that infrastructure is expensive. Those lines and that infrastructure are vulnerable to everything from wind to lightning to drunk drivers to intentional sabotage, and their increasing interconnectedness just increases that vulnerability. Everyone is always one blown transformer or downed line or computer malfunction away from living in the 19th century for a little while (or perhaps having their houses burned down by a wildfire).

Even as those costs continue to rise — without additional benefit — all the talk seems to be of how to maintain the grids, how to improve the grids, how to maintain the grids.

Why?

As Rita Mae Brown points out, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”

Along with the increase in grid-related problems, there’s been a corresponding increase in power generation solutions that don’t require large, expensive, centralized generation and sprawling grids to carry the energy.

Rooftop solar and backyard wind have advanced to the point where many, maybe even most, homes could function without  “grid” connections at all.

The increasing safety and decreasing size of nuclear reactors make it possible to generate and distribute power at neighborhood, rather than regional, scale.

The only real beneficiaries of continued reliance on centralized generation and large-scale “grids” are the utilities which operate those power plants and those grids. They’re holding us back from what could be an era of cheap, clean, reliable energy.

It’s time to give up our grid addiction and pull our lips off the centralized utility teat. If we wise up and do that — possibly starting with passage of the DATA ACT — energy production and distribution can finally advance into the  21st century.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY