If you think the U.S. government is meddlesome and intrusive, the EU will knock your socks off.

Lately, EU bureaucrats have set their sights on health and safety in hotel kitchens, and their resulting regulations, as ever, put a metaphorical stick in the eye of the principles reasonableness and common sense.

The issue? Dogs in homes. Specifically, homes that also rent out rooms to vacationers and feed their guests breakfast each morning during their stay.

Thanks to the EU, these bed and breakfast owners may soon have to choose between the family business and the family pet.

Owners of bed and breakfasts have been banned from keeping dogs in their kitchens under a European Union ruling that could see hundreds of family-run businesses close.

Officials claim that the animals pose a potential health and safety hazard to guests’ food. However, bed and breakfast owners vowed to close rather than turn out the family pet.

Oliver Letwin, the former shadow home secretary, called the legislation “barking mad”.

Someone far smarter than me once said that the problem with legislators is that they’re always legislating, and the problem with regulators is that they’re always regulating. That stands to reason, of course. If they aren’t, they literally are failing to do their job. The question of whether it’s a good idea to legislate or regulate never seems to enter their mind.

The result: Stupid, wasteful, insulting, freedom-sucking mandates like this one.

Outstanding food writer Michael Ruhlman tipped me off to the story. Apparently, the Chicago City Council voted yesterday 37-6 to repeal the ban, which Mayor Richard Daley had previously called “the silliest law the City Council has ever passed.”

The Chicago Tribune has the parliamentary details, and they are interesting.

But the bottom line is that the council did the right thing, and a city with some of the world’s best and most creative chefs (I’m looking at you Chef Achatz), finally came to its senses. I’m sure there will be foie gras celebrations across Chicago in the coming days.

I shall raise a glass of Sauternes tonight to celebrate.

Before I moved to London, when I had a car and actually drove it, red light cameras were a particular bugaboo of mine.

You see, our system of justice is predicated on the presumption of innocence, and red light camera laws institutionalize a presumption of guilt. They take a photo of your license plate. If you own the car, you get the ticket in the mail. But no one has ever had to prove that you were actually driving your car. Sure, your car was present when a crime (albeit a minor one) was committed. But there’s no evidence to suggest that you were there. Much less that you committed the crime.

And if this sounds like a high-minded line of thinking for a seemingly tiny issue, I concede the point. But we’re already seeing similar cameras — and presumptions of guilt — used to nab speeders.

Of course, red light cameras aren’t really about justice or safety. They’re about revenue. Don’t believe it? Ask the six cities that were just busted for shortening the “yellow” times on their lights so that they could catch more red light violators with all of those cameras.

My view is predictable. Liberty and big brother don’t work and play nicely together. The cameras should go.

Based on the discussion at Monday’s arguments, five or more Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe that the government must overcome its highest burden for justifying its attempt to restrict a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

I’ll leave further discussion of that issue to Cam’s expertise while I turn to another question: What are the implications of their views on other individual liberties that are specifically named in the Constitution? For example, the freedoms of speech, press and religion that are outlined in the First Amendment.

It seems to me that, if anything, the rights protected in the First Amendment are just as clear — if not more so — than the second. Consider the language:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

For more than two hundreds years, the debate about the Second Amendment has hung on the Framers’ collective decision to explain themselves with a bunch of language about necessity and security and their relationship to having a militia. Imagine if it read this way: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Not much grey area there, huh? And there would be no need to debate the definition of “militia,” because the term doesn’t appear. Constructed this way, the amendment is absolute, and absolutely clear.

Now, go back and read the First Amendment again. “Congress shall make no law…” The language is so simple, and utterly clear. There is no grey area. No explanation. No modifying language. Nothing.

Focus on the speech provision. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”

Laying aside the long-standing legal debate over the definitions of “abridging” and “speech,” consider the legal standards at play. In the McConnell case, the Supreme Court invented a messy legal standard that not even experts can decipher effectively. As applied in that case, the standard was low enough to allow the government to effectively regulate almost anything it wants. Applying the same “compelling interest” standard in McConnell that it is considering in the D.C. gun law case would, in my view, have rendered an entirely different result — one that would have found BCRA and other laws banning certain varieties of speech unconstitutional.

And that seems only logical. The language is so clear. So obvious to anyone who just, you know, reads it. So why must the court get wrapped around its axle? The answer, of course, is precedent.

It will be interesting to see how cases involving the Second Amendment evolve the Court’s reasoning in light of its decision. Here’s hoping the Court’s language in the D.C. gun case clear enough to avoid misunderstanding. I’m not holding my breath.

I am dying for Cam’s perspective on this story and this related post from Cato@Liberty.

Amid the goods found in the stores, there is one thing that many owners and employees say they cannot do without: their cats. And it goes beyond cuddly companionship. These cats are workers, tireless and enthusiastic hunters of unwanted vermin, and they typically do a far better job than exterminators and poisons.

[snip]

But as efficient as the cats may be, their presence in stores can lead to legal trouble. The city’s health code and state law forbid animals in places where food or beverages are sold for human consumption. Fines range from $300 for a first offense to $2,000 or higher for subsequent offenses.

“Any animal around food presents a food contamination threat,” said Robert M. Corrigan, a rodentologist and research scientist for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. “And so that means anything from animal pieces and parts to hair and excrement could end up in food, and that alone, of course, is a violation of the health code.”

[snip]

“He wants me to get rid of the cat, but the rats will take over if I do,” Mr. Martinez [a bodega owner] said. “I need the cat, and the cat needs a home.”

[snip]

Many bodega owners reason that a cat is less of a health threat than an army of nibbling rats. “If cats live in homes and apartments where people have food, a cat shouldn’t be a threat in a store if it’s well maintained,” Mr. Fernández [another store owner] said.

So, the city doesn’t want the stores to have rats, but it also doesn’t want the stores to keep cats in order to keep the rats away.

Just one more example of the government getting in the way of common sense.

Cam: Back in the old days before I met my wife, she lived in public housing in Camden, New Jersey. She hates cats, but had to resort to having one as a mouser.

I hate cats too, but I’d much rather see a cat in a convenience store than a rat. Then again, when you have a rat as a mayor, what do you expect?

This is now officially one of my favorite political stories of the season.

“I’m telling you, I don’t think that it’s the primary responsibility of the federal government to tell you what to eat … Sometimes we don’t have a whole lot of will power, and I don’t know of any government program that’s going to instill that,” said Thompson.

Preach on, Brother Fred!

Jim’s post last week articulating 11 ideas that, he hoped, could attract support from 90 percent or more of conservatives and / or Republicans, was amazing. It was well considered and well presented. It’s taken me a week to respond only because I aspired — fruitlessly I suspect — to offer a response of equal thoughtfulness.

In this post, I try to respond to Jim’s offering as well as the thoughts of some of our commenters. (By the way, I would remiss if I didn’t thank the raft of folks who graced us with their thoughts on insights. I very much hope that you’ll continue to visit On Tap and contribute to our dialogue.)

Responding to Jim

First, broadly, I really think Jim is onto something. It’s impossible to build or rebuild a movement without ideas, and in particular, a set of ideas that bring us together. The Democrats have illustrated this rather well over the last fifteen years. It was only when they united behind their hatred for President Bush that they ultimately prevailed.

It seems to me that the ideas must accomplish two objectives. First, they must genuinely further the conservative philosophy. Second, they must be winners at the polls. In other words, we’re looking for ideas that bring us together while equipping us with a message that will attract voters’ support.

Finally, a history lesson. Jim’s work was based on the idea of the Contract with America. It’s worth recalling that the Contract included a handful of big, bold core principles with a wealth of detailed policy proposals. But it’s significance in the 1994 elections is almost always overstated. We should use it for a model only insofar as it accomplished the goals that I’ve set forth.

WIth that in mind, let me address Jim’s ideas in order:

» Continue Reading

I have long believed that Senator McCain is dishonest and two-faced, and even measured on an inside-the-beltway scale, a pretty slimy character.

Today’s New York Times includes a story that, once again, shows just what I mean.

It seems that the campaign finance reform senator himself conducted a call with donors from the Republican cloakroom off the Senate floor. He did so in the hours after the departure of much of his Presidential campaign’s senior leadership. The purpose of the call, no doubt, was to reassure the donors that all was well.

The only problem is that soliciting campaign contributions on federal property is a crime.

The Times quotes lawyers saying that the legality of the call is dependent on whether McCain actually asked his donors to give. His spokesman claims that the Senator did not do so.

Frankly, I don’t care.

Senator McCain has spent the last decade crusading to limit the speech rights of the American people. He’s demogogued the issue so thoroughly that we might as well call him Senator quid pro quo. Indeed, no scandal on Capitol Hill has contributed as much to the perception that Congress is bought and paid as has McCain’s crusade.

As a result, it’s only fair to hold Senator McCain to a much higher standard.

The hypocrisy that he demonstrated by joining a donor call from a room that literally opens onto the Senate floor is impossible to overstate.

Much of Senator McCain’s anti-speech campaign centered on combatting what he calls “the appearance of impropriety.” Well, it’s hard to imagine an act that would create that appearance much more effectively than what the senator did on Tuesday.

Next time, perhaps he’ll dial in from the Senate floor himself and wave to the cameras.

Jim: Marshall, I have a rare moment of disagreement with you here. The law that was put in place was done in response to Al Gore’s dialling for dollars from his White House office. A lawmaker using his public office to raise private funds rankles at me, and I think it’s appropriate to restrict it. McCain’s phone call might illustrate the inanity of the way the laws are enforced — it’s okay to call a donor to say “hi,” or “don’t panic about the mass departures from my campaign” but not “hey, can you write me a check” — but I don’t think McCain’s act was all that outrageous.

And while McCain-Feingold has been exposed as having very few beneficial effects on our government, and serious questions about restricting First Amendment rights, I can’t agree with your choice of adjectives like “dishonest”, “two-faced” and “slimy” to label McCain. I agree with the guy too much on other issues, and appreciate his forceful arguments when he’s on my side, to just write him off like that.

Anybody who can get a usually-lefty audience at Saturday Night Live to applaud the line, “I’ve been in politics for over 20 years. And for over 20 years, Barbara Streisand has been trying to do my job. So I decided to try my hand at her job” is a conservative worth appreciating.

According to this story from the Associated Press, “A “fat tax” on salty, sugary and fatty foods could save thousands of lives each year, according to a study published” by Oxford University researchers.

Know the difference between liberty and tyranny?

Liberty is having the freedom to make our own choices.

Tyranny is having the government make our choices for us.

And that’s exactly what these nanny-staters are proposing in yet another effort to have government save us from ourselves. Well, you know what? I don’t want to be saved. Indeed, I don’t think there’s a role for government to play in the obesity discussion. If I want to eat unhealthy food and die young, that’s my decision and, more importantly, it’s my responsibility.

Cam: Amen to that. When I got fat, it wasn’t the government’s fault. It was my own. And it wasn’t the government that’s making me lose weight, it’s me (and my wife, but whatever).

So upon moving back to the U.S., Mrs. Hillaryspot and I settled into a northern Virginia housing development, that for reasons of privacy, I’ll just call “Yuppie Acres.” The nearest metro station is Van Dorn Street, and not far from my home is a large industrial plant that makes asphalt. It’s not terribly attractive, with a lone smokestack.

This weekend was a local council nominating election, and a local candidate put flyers on the windshield of every car in Yuppie Acres, declaring that he was “the ONLY candidate committed to doing his best to force the Virginia Paving facility to move.” (Three guesses on the party affiliation of said candidate.) And no, I didn’t vote, as I’m not a member of the party you guessed.

Now, if I had a magic wand, and no other concerns than my own aesthetics, air quality, land value, etc., I’d like the paving company to go someplace else. I understand they pass all the EPA tests, although some residents have complained about dust or soot, and the neighborhood has a ton of small children, who may be a bit more sensitive to air quality. I also know they were here before Yuppie Acres was, but the company’s presence is an irritant to the Gentrification and Yuppification that I am part of.

So I’m caught between my pro-free-market principles (let the company be) and my instincts as a homeowner (make the surrounding area as pretty as possible! Take away those unsightly factories and anything more downscale than a Baby Gap!).

What I love is the Democratic candidate pledging to eliminate the jobs for the actual working-class people nearby, because it’s an eyesore to us Yuppies. At least I never pretend to be the guy standing up for working-class families.

I suspect this reveals that at the local level, party labels mean less than who your allies are.

Cam: Welcome to suburbia Jim. The NIMBY mentality comes out in full force the more local you get. In fact, I bet you’d have a damned difficult time finding anyone who would actually come out and support keeping that plant where it is, no matter the benefit it provides to people.