There oughtta be a law!

Observing the fractured logic and simpleton appeals of politicians and lobbyists for and against a new agency to "protect" consumers in the financial markets, it occurs to me that Congress should pass the following law. Do you agree?

(The last paragraph is especially cuddlesome to a libertarian soul.)

(1)

Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which--

(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities, shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

(2)

As used in this subsection, the term "any person" includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

----

After we get this one passed, we just need a companion piece, almost identically worded, which criminalizes the acts mentioned.

McDonald versus Chicago

Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman covered the McDonald oral arguments this morning and came away with the impression that Heller will be extended across the nation. I don't mean to suggest he is anticipating the Scotus decision, only that in an apparently well-balanced report he interprets the questions and answers as favorable to the plaintiffs. They, as you know, are us, represented by Chicago and Oak Park Second Amendment defenders.

The key is:

"The court has held that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to state and local laws. But Feldman (lawyer for the Chicago gun banners) said the Second Amendment should be treated differently because guns are different. 'Firearms are designed to injure and kill,' he said."

You can almost hear the sighs at that chestnut, and they may have come from some of our Supreme Court foes as well as the five who gave us the Heller relief.

A decision for McDonald will severely limit application of (and perhaps nullify?) the 1873 Slaughter House Cases which permit states and localities to pick and choose among many federal Constitutional protections they must grant their citizens. The Left is no fan of the Slaughter House construction and thinks its abolition might smooth the way for some of its agenda.

A pro-McDonald resolution will still leave us a thousand battles to fight in the cities and states where the spirit of Heller is detested, where bureaucrats and elected officials despair at the notion that a person's right to defend himself is both individual and inalienable. But it will be an easier fight with High Court's basic interpretation of Amendment Two on our side, with the death of the notion that guns are only for those who at the command of the current government administration.

Decision expected in June.

EDIT, Mar. 3: A number of writers are suggesting that the Slaughter House Cases were not successfully attacked in the orals yesterday. Their interpretation is that the justices are unwilling to reopen "incorporation" arguments under the Constitution's privileges and immunities clause since the application of the Second Amendment, as defined by Heller, can be accomplished by application of the due process clause.

A little scatology to start your day?

Standing before the marble edifice, your humble servant unzipped and dug it out. A moment later, tucking in, he thought, "Gosh, maybe me and Teddy Roosevelt have peed in the same place, and I really gotta think about how to treat this in my memoirs."

That relief station in the Old Executive Office Building (nee State, War, Navy) remains in his memory as probably the most hideously expensive go place he ever patronized, but that may change thanks to the lust for votes of His Obamaness and the Spenders.

(Washington, D.C.)-- Planned improvements at a popular lakes area public access are getting a financial shot-in-the-arm from the federal government. U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley announced today the National Park Services (is awarding) $179,722 (for) a new shower and restroom facility at ... ."(KUOO)

The "at" is a small state park very near me, and I can't wait until its finished. Then I can hike on over when ever I want and pee and stuff with the warm glow of superiority that comes from eliminating all possibility that anyone else could possibly be using a more expensive pot than I.

I suppose someone will start mouthing off about how we're firing teachers and the roads are a mess, and we're about to raise taxes all to Hell and gone, and the objective of going camping is not really a luxury dump in HGTV-style tiled splendor anyway. Pay no attention. Your elected and appointed officials are the only ones who understand proper priorities.

Breaking my arm...

Smoking report: Clean 365 days.