“Democrats in Congress, the New York Times reports, “are making a fresh push for the nearly century-old Equal Rights Amendment to be enshrined in the Constitution, rallying around a creative legal theory in a bid to revive” it.

Interesting, but what’s so “creative” about “a joint resolution …  stating that the measure has already been ratified and is enforceable as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution?”

On January 15, 2020, Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the ERA, crossing the threshold — “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States” —  for adding an amendment to the Constitution.

It’s over. It’s done. There’s a 28th Amendment, no joint resolution required.

That’s what the Constitution itself says, anyway.

But Congress — the same institution US Representatives Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Cori Bush (D-MO) want to pass the joint resolution — has already proven that it doesn’t care what the Constitution says.

When Congress sent the ERA to the states in 1971, it also  tried to arrogate to  itself the power to set a 1979 deadline for ratification; if the deadline wasn’t met, its proponents would have to start from scratch.

The Constitution delegates no such power to Congress. Which, per the Tenth Amendment, means no such power exists.

QED, no deadline. The amendment HAS been ratified and IS in effect.  It’s long past time for Colleen Shogan, the Archivist of the United States, to do her job (her predecessor,  David Ferriero, refused to do his) and incorporate the 28th Amendment into Constitution’s official text.

But if she did, would it matter?

Time to trot out the Lysander Spooner quote you’ve seen many times if you read my column regularly: “[W]hether 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.”

Constitutionalism might or might not “work” if actually practiced. I think otherwise, but opinions  vary.

The question isn’t that important, though, because constitutionalism ISN’T practiced. Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution whenever they find it inconvenient, making it “powerless to prevent” anything.

So why even bother with the ERA? It’s just more verbiage for them to ignore as they please, right?

And if they’re going to ignore its restrictions on their power, why shouldn’t we ignore the orders they shout at us?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) 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

“The White House,” Politico reports,  “offered measured support for the idea of studying how to block sunlight from hitting Earth’s surface as a way to limit global warming …”

Such geoengineering solutions to “global warming” might range from injecting sulfates into the upper atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space (as happens naturally with large volcanic eruptions) to placing gigantic  “sunshades” at key points in space.

Eyebrows, naturally, rose.

While suggesting that there are only two sides to the “climate change debate” is an over-simplification, there seem to be two MAJOR sides to that debate, both opposing “solar radiation modification” on principle.

Side A: The typical “environmentalist,” who believes that human activity is responsible for an undue warming trend that will ultimately lead to catastrophic results for both humanity and other species if something isn’t done.

Side B: The typical “climate skeptic,”  who believes that the warming isn’t happening, or that the warming is a natural cycle not caused by human activity, or even that the warming is a good thing that will, for example, increase the amount of arable land in areas currently too cold for farming.

It’s pretty obvious why Side B isn’t interested in engineering solutions for reducing the amount of sunlight hitting the planet’s surface and warming it. If it’s not happening or is a good thing, why try to fix what ain’t broken (and  possibly end up  causing real damage by interfering with natural cycles)?

As for Side A, its loudest voices tend to share convictions above and beyond concern for the environment as such.  They’d be against the activities they blame for environmental damage whether those activities actually caused said damage or not. They don’t like people flying around in airplanes and driving gas-guzzlers, mega-corporations producing cheap goods in smog-belching factories, large farms producing  “monoculture” food  (as opposed to the multi-crop/multi-stock small farms of days past). They gear their environmental prescriptions toward changing an economic system they oppose (and, to be fair, most on Side B support). They don’t want  “environmental problems” solved in any way that doesn’t involve drastic deindustrialization, depopulation, and a command economy.

Then, of course, there’s me, on neither of those sides.

I suspect “anthropogenic global warming” is a thing.

I suspect it’s damaging/dangerous to humanity and other life forms.

As, for that matter, “natural cycles” can be.

I’d like to see something done about it.

But it’s not like we’ve been living in an anarchist society until just now, and suddenly need that new-fangled government invention to ride in and save the day.

We are where we are either because centuries of government got us here, or because centuries of government failed to prevent us from getting here. So why should we expect government to be either able, or inclined, to fix things?

But if it’s going to be a government thing, I’d prefer the most easily reversible/changeable government thing possible. So I guess put me down in lukewarm support of a giant, remote-control “sunshade” at Earth/Sun LaGrange Point L1.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) 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

“A Washington, D.C.-based bar discipline committee,” Politico reports, recommends that former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani be disbarred for his efforts to steal the 2020 presidential election on Donald Trump’s behalf.  “By prosecuting that destructive case,”  the committee’s report states, “Mr. Giuliani, a sworn officer of the Court, forfeited his right to practice law.”

Meanwhile, another attorney associated with Trump’s attempts to overturn the election results, L. Lin Wood, surrendered his Georgia law license and went into retirement rather than face similar proceedings from that state’s bar association.

While Giuliani and Wood seem to have quite a bit to answer for, and might rightly face court-ordered sanctions for wasting judges’ time with vexatious, malicious, and frivolous litigation, the whole idea of a “license to practice law” is both evil and, historically, un-American.

There’s nothing wrong with “bar associations” as such. Practitioners of many arts, crafts, and occupations join professional organizations, which range in function from membership clubs to mutual aid societies to training and continuing education providers.

But occupational licensing, and especially government-conferred monopolies on such licensing to those professional organizations, deprive individuals of both the right to practice their chosen trades and the right to choose whichever practitioners of those trades meet their needs.

Is it unthinkable for someone who’s not a bar-association-licensed lawyer to represent someone else in court? Not at all.  In fact, New Hampshire’s circuit court rules explicitly provide for “Non-attorney Representatives.”

The US Constitution guarantees those accused of crimes the right to “the assistance of Counsel” for their defense. It says nothing to the effect that said “Counsel” must be a member of a particular club, or have sought, prior to the case, the government’s permission to “practice law.”

Based on their records, I wouldn’t likely choose Giuliani or Wood to represent me in court if my neck was on the line. But it’s my neck, and I should be free to hire the person I deem best qualified to save that neck, no matter what the bar association has to say on the matter.

Similarly, knowing my own limitations, I wouldn’t consider hanging out my shingle as a “lawyer” and offering my services to represent others before a court in matters civil or criminal. But if I was silly enough to do that, and if you were silly enough to take me up on it, the decision should be up to us, not to an association neither of us either belong or have agreed to accept the supervision of. Again, it would be your neck and my reputation — not theirs — on the line.

The theory of law as such is that we’re responsible for our actions. Why should we be robbed of our agency when it comes to defending those actions?

As you may have gathered, I am not an attorney and this column is not intended to constitute legal advice. I’m not sure I legally HAVE to say that, but given the legal profession’s stranglehold on such things, better safe than sorry, right?

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) 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