RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/when-the-supreme-court-threw-the-law-away/

The apex of the tendency to play fast and loose with the letter of the Constitution, and to treat the document as if it were a gnomic oracle into which one could read virtually any meaning, came on June 7, 1965, when the Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down a law prohibiting contraceptives. The focus of the case made it difficult for many to see the implications of what the Court had done. Even many of those who thought contraceptive use was immoral didn’t think that contraceptives should be illegal, and so they didn’t realize that the Griswold case had implications far beyond the matter at hand.

In his ruling on the case, Justice William O. Douglas, an appointee of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, discovered in the Constitution a “right of marital privacy,” explaining away the absence of this phrase in the Constitution by claiming that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

This essentially meant that enterprising and politically motivated justices could find anything they wanted in the Constitution, as long as they could argue that it was an “emanation” of a “penumbra.” By the nature of the case, an “emanation” of a “penumbra” could be found anywhere, and could be anything that an enterprising justice wanted it to be. Douglas had opened the door to the total disregard of the letter of the Constitution, in favor of whatever legal fantasies, however flimsy their reasoning was, could gain a majority on the court.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/displaying-not-establishing

In June, Louisiana passed a law mandating the display of the Ten Commandments in schools, as part of an educational framework about certain fundamental historical texts, including the Declaration of Independence and the Northwest Ordinance. A group of parents, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit to block the law’s implementation, contending that it violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause forbidding the government establishment of religion. A federal judge has since ruled that this law is “unconstitutional on its face.” The state is appealing the decision, with arguments scheduled before the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January; in the meantime, state officials have been ordered not to enforce the display requirement.

Such displays were not uncommon in schools until the Supreme Court invalidated them in 1980—the apex of the Court’s hostility to religion in public spaces. More recently, the Court has returned to a narrower approach to Establishment Clause issues, closer to the Founders’ intentions. The Ten Commandments case provides a welcome opportunity for the courts to clarify that children have no more right to a public square scrubbed of religious content than adults do—and that being upset by such a display is not sufficient to warrant courts’ protection against it.

In 2005, the Supreme Court held in Van Orden v. Perry that government buildings may display the Ten Commandments because “religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” The Ten Commandments, in fact, feature among other historic iconography in the premises of the Court itself. “Religious acknowledgment” does not amount to prohibited “Establishment,” the Court said. Put differently, the Constitution’s specific ban on providing government support to particular denominations should not be confused with France’s policy of laïcité, a compulsory public secularism that often bars religious symbols and messages from public spaces. One can understand the litigation campaigns against religious displays in the U.S. that began in the 1960s as an effort to project the radical French Revolutionary understanding of religion in the public square onto the more temperate American one.

https://www.city-journal.org/article/elon-musk-doge-brac-commission

Elon Musk is the greatest entrepreneur of our era. He delights in accomplishing what is said to be impossible: mass-producing electric cars, sending private rockets into space, and restoring free speech on the world’s most influential social media platform. He is also a ruthlessly efficient manager, having slashed production costs at his hardware companies, Telsa and SpaceX, and cut 80 percent of the workforce at Twitter, while simultaneously improving the product.

His next challenge may prove even more formidable. As part of the Trump administration’s plan to slash the bureaucracy, Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy hope to cut government spending by up to $2 trillion per year through the newly established DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency.

On the surface, this seems impossible. While conservatives have promised to reduce the size of government for more than a century, federal outlays have grown with each passing decade. Some congressional insiders, meantime, have already signaled skepticism of DOGE, arguing that Musk and Ramaswamy “know nothing about how the government works” and are destined to fail.

I would like to see Elon’s initiative succeed. America’s budget is unsustainable, and it too often directs resources to captured ideological bureaucracies rather than to the public good. But without proper design, DOGE could become another of Washington’s failed promises. To avoid that fate, the incoming Republican Congress must tailor DOGE’s structure to ensure its success.

One potential model is the BRAC Commission. In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan formalized a procedure that, with later amendments and support from a bipartisan group of presidents and lawmakers, closed inefficient military bases and redirected spending to more fruitful ends. The so-called Base Realignment and Closure process, or BRAC, had several rounds, and concluded in 2011. All told, it resulted in the closure of 121 major military bases and saved taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/magazine-features/3258958/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-spending-cuts/

It’s not often that champions of a smaller federal government cheer the creation of a new department. But the Department of Government Efficiency isn’t like the Department of Motor Vehicles. It will be run by two businessmen who have made billions of dollars in the private sector, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. It is not really a new federal agency but a task force that has been ordered to wring waste out of old ones. 

Put another way, Musk and Ramaswamy are not tasked with spending taxpayer money. They have been charged with saving it. Their goal is to recommend $2 trillion in spending cuts, or nearly 30% of the federal budget. That’s more ambitious than some of DOGE’s predecessors, such as the Grace Commission under Ronald Reagan or the Al Gore-led Reinventing Government initiative under Bill Clinton (though the Simpson-Bowles commission under Barack Obama dabbled in entitlement spending cuts).

“Together, these two wonderful Americans will pave the way for my Administration to dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies,” President-elect Donald Trump said in a statement. The announcement also quoted Musk as saying, “This will send shockwaves through the system, and anyone involved in Government waste, which is a lot of people!”

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/12/17/postal-service-biden-cant-deliver-on-evs/

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy’s bizarre and frankly childish behavior during testimony before Congress wasn’t the U.S. Postal Service’s worst moment last week. That came two days later.

DeJoy, appearing before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, was told by Republican Rep. Rich McCormick of Georgia that he is “responsible for the fall of the Postal Service and the lack of accountability.” DeJoy retorted that “this Congress is responsible for it falling apart” and insisted he was “trying to fix” the post office.

He then told McCormick that “you’re talking to yourself” and covered his ears with his hands like the “hear no evil” monkey. (See it for yourself here.)

Appalling as that was, DeJoy’s antics were overshadowed when the Washington Post reported that even after the Biden administration committed $3 billion to buy electric delivery trucks for the post office, the contractor it hired, Oshkosh, has delivered only 93 of what was supposed to be 3,000 EV trucks by now.

“Postal Service’s electric mail trucks are way behind schedule,” the Post says. “The delays put Biden’s climate goals at risk.” (Concern for the phantom danger of “climate change” outweighs the gross incompetence of the federal government in the eyes of the Post.)

The “historic” White House initiative that was ultimately to deliver 60,000 Next Generation Delivery Vehicles to the post office has been “plagued by manufacturing mishaps and supplier infighting,” says the Post. Rather than building 80 a day, as was the expectation, the company is cobbling together just one.