Good Political Advice: The Tortise Strategy

Worth reading by the conservative/libertarian opponents of the current executive branch.

The American Spectator : Don't Let Alinsky Win:

"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength," wrote Alinsky in Rules for Radicals. "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step…."

Cloward and Piven, meanwhile, called for "a political crisis… that could lead to legislation for a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty." They propose actions that "would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions…. [B]y the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level." And: "Advocacy must be supplemented by organized demonstrations to create a climate of militancy."

A crisis is Obama's friend. An angry reaction is his ally. Disorder is his goal.

His mortal enemy (speaking tactically), on the other hand, is steady, sober, thoughtful, rational pressure by political adversaries who are willing to take the time to consolidate gains, explain themselves, reassure the public that it (the public) has nothing to fear from them (Obama's adversaries), and which constantly calibrates their words and actions to make it evident that they are keeping the moral high ground. A government shutdown does not fit this model. Forcing a debt crisis does not fit this model. Incendiary rhetoric doesn't fit the model, nor do all-or-nothing ultimatums.

In short, slow and steady. In fact, "relentless" may be a better term than steady.

You think it doesn't matter about keeping calm but steady pressure? Look at these two new White House efforts to . . . goad conservatives? Further expand the federal government?

1. Boeing may not be your favorite company, but what happens when a company's right to move to less unionized state is attacked by the federal executive branch? See Obama to Boeing: Drop Dead. Given that the argument is that the Boeing effort is purely a anti-union move and the NLRB has couched its complaint as responding to a Boeing "retaliation":

In its complaint, the labor board said that Boeing’s decision to transfer a second production line for its new 787 Dreamliner passenger plane to South Carolina was motivated by an unlawful desire to retaliate against union workers for their past strikes in Washington and to discourage future strikes. The agency’s acting general counsel, Lafe Solomon, said it was illegal for companies to take actions in retaliation against workers for exercising the right to strike.

Really? So it is thus okay to force Boeing to remain in higher labor cost Washington? What about all those companies that moved production offshore to take advantage of lower labor costs (much of it related to union activity)? Can we force them to bring it all back to the U.S.? Can we make the auto makers who located plants in "open shop" states to require union membership to make it fair, when one of the reasons they left Michigan and Ohio to begin with was to avoid union hassles? Can we make Ford move factories back from Mexico? Can we make U.S. airlines buy only U.S. made aircraft? Who will pay the price for the higher costs? Oh, the consumer? Big deal, I guess.

If Washington state doesn't like businesses moving out because of more "business friendly" labor laws, why doesn't Washington state modify its laws? You know the answer - the power of union votes and money.

What prevents the Washington workers from moving themselves to South Carolina?

By having the feds step in this manner, questions must be raised about all those other inter-state competitions (such as sweet tax deals and other incentives to induce a business to relocate from California or New York to North Carolina or Mississippi)?

What about things that might be attractive enough to induce residents of states that have high income taxes to move to states that have no or much lower income taxes (Florida, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming)? Isn't that "unfair" to the high tax states? UPDATE: For all you living in New Jersey and New York who are planning to retire to Florida - better do it soon, before it requires a federal permit that shows your expected tax contribution to NJ/NY is so negligible that you can be allowed to move. All you multi-millionaires - good luck getting such a license to move.

Was the goal of the founders to let each state exercise its own path in determining its laws and regulations or to allow the national government to force its views on individual states. If the latter, then why have states? Let's get rid of all the excess money spent on state legislatures, governors, state courts, and state laws and constitutions and give have one national legislature, executive and judiciary running the whole show.  Create your scenarios.

This battle needs to be fought in the courts, slowly and carefully. You know, unless like the idea that all states should become New York.

2. Okay, how about demanding that companies doing business with the federal government give up their free speech rights? See Obama administration considers moves to limit anonymous donations:

The White House last week began circulating a draft executive order that would require companies seeking government contracts to disclose contributions – including those that otherwise would have been secret – to groups that air political ads attacking or supporting candidates.

This a "push back" against the U.S. Supreme Court decsion that allows corporate donations to political campaigns. See here:

“No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporation,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Is this an intimidation tactic? "Get along to go along?" Will there be an impact on the flow of government business your way if it turns out that your corporation has donated money to the opponents of a current administration, even if the donations are totally legal? What do you think?

So, two examples of action/proposed action that could foment an outraged response. Time to take a deep breath and win the little battles that win the larger war. Slow and steady.

Suing Arizona:Silly Move by a Joke of an Administration

You can read the pleading here:

The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders. The federal government, moreover, welcomes cooperative efforts by states and localities to aid in the enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. But the United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government’s immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy – a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance when enforcing and administering the immigration laws and disrupts the balance actually established by the federal government. Accordingly, S.B. 1070 is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution and must be struck down.

Apparently, the "interests" of the federal government include allowing "sanctuary cities" and more or less open borders and forcing legitimate immigrants to jump through hoops not required of those who sneak across borders. UPDATE: To clarify, I mean it seems unusual for an administration to argue that its interest in not enforcing the law of the land somehow rises to an act of supremacy that forbids states from enforcing the law of land. Heck, if you don't like the federal law on which the Arizona statute is based, Mr. President, why not ask your gang in the Congress to repeal it and replace it with something more to your liking?

I told you this would be fun, and here, here, here.

UPDATE: James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal sees signs of an "imperial presidency":

Brennan expressly cited "the predominance of federal interest" in immigration (as opposed to employment law), and the federal government's complaint against Arizona alleges, plausibly, that the state law will impose burdens on legal aliens.But he also makes clear that the power to pre-empt or sanction state laws in an area of federal interest rests with Congress, not the president. This would seem to suggest that if the Arizona law is consistent with federal law and Congress has not expressly barred action by states, the Arizona law should stand.

A large part of the administration's argument, by contrast, is that the Arizona law is inconsistent with federal immigration policy--i.e., with the executive branch's decisions about how to enforce laws passed by Congress. An important question for the court, then, will be whether Congress has delegated its authority to pre-empt state laws by granting discretion over law enforcement to the president.

In other words, this is a case about the balance of power within the federal government, with the Obama administration on the side of expanding the authority of the executive branch.

Wait, Obama as an emperor? Who'd a thunk it?

On the Arizona Immigration Law

Report on latest protests here.

See previous post on this topic here.

All weekend I heard the chattering classes saying this law makes it "a crime under state law to be in the country illegally..."

Which just puts state law into compliance with federal law, which says exactly the same thing.

You can see why the feds hate it when someone tries to get laws enforced when it is counter to a political party's interests...

More constitutional fun ahead.

The Power of One State: Arizona's New Immigration Bill

I guarantee this will be a really interesting legal battle over the right of a single member state of the United States of American to control undocumented aliens as Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill.

It is almost certain that the federal government, under its current leadership, will oppose one or more states bordering on Mexico from asserting their own rights in controlling access by illegal aliens who cross over that border.

The usual federal response to states asserting sovereign rights has been to threaten to cut off federal funding for various projects like highways, education and the like - buying the state into compliance using the argument that the Commerce Clause* covers such matters because the Supreme Court has given that clause very broad scope.


Here, however, the southern border states have legitimate concerns over border security and the federal government has not been able or willing to enforce federal laws against illegal access to this country across the borders with Mexico.


Naturally, "rights groups" are all upset, as reported here and here:  

"Dozens of people rallying Wednesday at the State Capitol urged Gov. Jan Brewer to veto a bill that would require local law enforcement to assist in enforcing federal immigration law"

Really? Dozens? Probably outnumbered by the Arizona legislature.

See a "fact sheet" on the bill here. And the bill itself here. You might note that the underlying law to be enforced is federal law.

Almost certainly the 10th Amendment will come into play:

Amendment X

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

UPDATE: Is immigration mentioned in the Constitution? Not directly, but Art I, Section 8 provides Congress has the power "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" which the Supreme Court has ruled covers immigration (here)...

UPDATE2: Here is an opinion piece.

UPDATE3: A roundup of views - all of which point out why this will be some Constitutional fun down the road:


My view is that Geraldo is simply incorrect (once again)in his Constitutional knee jerk reaction. There's no trampling on federal "supremacy" if you are simply enforcing existing federal law that the feds are not enforcing. In fact, I want to see that argument fleshed out. Take your best shot in the comments.

To me it looks like Arizona is actually complying with federal law and some assistant attorney general is going to have to get creative in arguing that is somehow unconstitutional.

I suppose you could argue that the law will have a disparate impact on people appear to be, well, Mexican in that undoubtedly fewer Nordic type blonds will be asked to show some sort of identity proof.

This all could have been avoided with tighter border controls. As it is, it seems unfair to be able to ask a foreign person who has legally entered the country for his/her passport as they travel and not be able to ask the same of a person who sneaked across the border. Especially if you find the latter on some rancher's land out in the middle of nowhere (but near the border)or involved in a crime or in an accident.

*Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states...