David McElroy

Everyone who knows anything about the U.S. legal system knows that Congress has the exclusive power to appropriate money for the government to spend. Right? And we know that the Obama administration is locked in negotiations with congressional Republicans over spending — with the Republicans refusing to raise the government’s authorization to borrow more money unless the White House agrees to more spending cuts.

What you don’t know, though, is that some people — including a law professor at George Washington University — are advancing the notion that maybe Congress doesn’t have to approve the spending anyway.

Here’s the insane theory. After the War Between the States, the 14th Amendment had a clause to make sure that the Union’s war debts were paid. It simply says, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” Administration officials as prominent as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have raised the possibility of applying that clause to claim that Congress can’t stop the administration from borrowing more money. As insane as that sounds, serious and sober people are advancing the idea with a straight face.

Keep Reading

In Colorado, the state Department of Human Services is proposing new rules that would require day care centers to provide dolls of at least three different races for kids to play with. No, this isn’t a joke.

Among the other proposed rules are those prohibiting whole milk being served to kids older than 2 without a note from a doctor and strict requirements capping time on computers. The proposal was reported Friday by a Denver television station. You can read the actual 98-page document at the agency’s website.

Whatever happened to letting customers decide these issues? Does the state assume that parents are too stupid or uncaring to ask for these things if they believe they’re what their children really need?

Personally, I think a lot of parents do a lousy job. I think they let their kids eat the wrong things and watch too much television. But it’s not my place to make those decisions for them.

There’s a growing line today between two groups of people. It’s not Democrats vs. Republicans. It’s those who believe in individual freedom and choice vs. those who want experts to make decisions about every facet of life. The “one size fits all” mentality is getting worse. The problem isn’t this agency. The solution isn’t “fighting for smaller government.” The issue is bringing real choice to people about which system they’re going to live under by allowing competitive systems of governance. More and more, the “one size fits all” nannies of the state are taking control and choices away from individuals.

The state is the enemy, not just silly rules that “go too far.”

City officials in the Detroit suburb of Oak Park apparently have so little to do that they’re taking the time to prosecute a woman for the dastardly crime of growing vegetables in some well-tended areas of her front yard.

This is a perfect companion to what I wrote Thursday about the need for “legal fences” that keep other people from telling us what to do on our own property. I was thinking more of free cities — and of one group not being able to tell another what to do — but it comes down to the same issues: choice and property rights.

In the Detroit case, Julie Bass faces 93 days in jail for having a small vegetable garden in her yard, because the city says she’s in violation of the city regulation that says front yards must have “suitable” vegetation. Bizarrely, the city has taken the position that this word only means “common,” so Bass is only allowed to have grass, trees and flowers that are common in other yards. (For the record, none of the dictionaries I checked agreed with the city.)

Keep Reading