Various videos on YouTube of Wright preaching to an all-black church in Chicago saying such things as “God damn America as long as she acts like she is God and supreme” gave Americans a glimpse of the pastor that Obama took his family to every Sunday. And William Ayers, now professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is a former member of Weather Underground, an anti-US group that bombed the Pentagon, Capitol building, and other US government buildings. Although he was never convicted for his terrorist ties, he was quoted after 9/11 by a reporter, shamelessly saying that he “doesn’t regret setting bombs, [I] feel we didn’t set enough.” Obama’s ties to Ayers are evident with his holding campaign events at Ayers’ own home and his admission that he helped him with his memoir, Dreams from My Father. The fact that these relationships were completely overlooked by anyone except maybe Fox News shows how badly America wanted to believe that the election of a black president maybe meant the beginning of a post-racial society. This hope could no be farther from reality.
During the campaign and even after Obama made it to office, he and his supporters used every chance they got to claim Republicans were racists. The liberal news media played a significant role in this respect. For example, Texas Governor Rick Perry referred to “a big black cloud that hangs over America, that debt that is so monstrous.” No rational-minded person would automatically assume Perry really meant Obama as the black cloud, instead of the debt. However, the left is not rational, which is why MSNBC’s Ed Shultz claimed just that. Any time Republicans vote against one of Obama’s unemployment benefit measures, they are called racists. Practically any time a white person disagrees with Obama’s ideas, he/she is called a racist. Furthermore, one issue that has been beaten into the ground, but still not resolved is Obama’s birth certificate controversy. Everyone asked, “If he really is a US-born citizen, why can’t he just produce a hard copy, not a picture on the Internet?” Obama and his supporters played the race card on this issue, claiming those who wanted proof he wasn’t born in Africa were racist bigots. So, for the sake of our country, let’s hope this 2012 election is a fair and honest one…which may be a tall order in a place that is still blinded by the color of people’s skin.

In the Vicinity of Beijing's 4th Ring, or More Properly, What America Should be Shooting For

I think what was most disappointing was simply the quality of the questions students asked during the Q&A. The first one was “In your dealings with President Obama, what have you found to be his best quality?” And it was simply downhill from there. Now, if this man was addressing a group of third graders, that question might have been appropriate (maybe), but among a group of college students and academics it’s simply absurd. Consider the situation. Here you are, a college student (or professor, or whatever), with an opportunity to discuss anything, from the anemic job market, the depressed housing market, a rapidly nuclearizing Iran, a debt-to-GDP ratio north of 100%, or the impeding collapse of the post-World War II world order, and you essentially ask, “Why is the President soooooo awesome?” I think this little episode perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with American higher education today. Instead of thinking critically about events around it, the academy is so radically self-absorbed and out of touch and so obsessed with its own ideology, it’s simply laughable. Is this really all that the best and brightest of North Carolina is capable of? Maybe it was a fluke, or maybe some rogue from Duke snuck in, but it was kind of embarrassing.

Secretary Donovan, when he wasn’t answering inane questions from the audience, also did a fair amount of pontificating. Apparently, the administration is convinced that we can educate ourselves out of this recession. If only we spend (a lot) more on higher education and push as many people as we can through the system, we’ll all be happy again. Color me a skeptic, but the plan he described, where the federal government subsidizes education through new tax credits, etc., guarantees low-interest loans for all comers, and then requires those borrowers to make only bare minimum payments on those loans, seems awfully similar to American housing policy circa 2008 (which incidentally, HUD bears a lot of responsibility for). I suppose if the idea is to create a giant education bubble, such that when it pops, everyone forgets about the housing problem because the education bubble is so much bigger, then this is a great idea. But if the idea is to generate genuine economic growth, this is certainly not the way to go.

And what’s a State of the Union talk without some mention of trains? Aren’t those things amazing? If only we had more of them, those pesky Chinese wouldn’t even be able to touch us. Actually, the best part of the Secretary’s little speech was when he was talking about China’s impressive infrastructure and how the Chinese are just light-years ahead of us in this regard. He clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. If he did know what he was talking about, he would know that, even in the (very crowded and polluted) major cities (i.e. places like Beijing), you can’t drink the tap water or flush toilet paper because the sewer systems are so old and so out of date. He would also know that electricity is also a problem, and that you actually have to buy surge protectors to insulate your electronic goods from regular power surges. Indeed, even China’s much lauded trains aren’t much to write home about. When they’re not falling off bridges, many of China’s trains are (very) overcrowded, smelly, and generally a very hellish experience. And their highway system isn’t anywhere nearly as well developed as ours. Now, don’t get me wrong, China’s quite a charming place, but the U.S. is definitely winning the infrastructure game.

Shiny!

There was also a fair amount of green energy hype. The Secretary informed us that while there might be a few Solyndras along the way (who doesn’t mind a little government corruption after all), we can’t expect the government to make the right choice every time when it comes to deciding which business to support. This, of course, is the whole point! The government can’t make these decisions, because they are infinitely complicated and not something that some bureaucrat hiding in the basement of a federal building can make. Such choices are properly left to the market, which is a better evaluator  of risk and profit than the government will ever be. When the government tries to make these decisions, you end up with Solyndra. Solyndra isn’t merely a side effect of government intervention in the market, it is its natural conclusion.

All in all, this event was pretty disappointing. The questions were childish, and we got the same old, same old from the administration. It’s simply too bad that what could have been a really interesting event on the future direction of the country devolved into a Why Barack Obama is the Greatest Thing Since Baked Bread event.

From my perspective, the criticism is accurate from a purely logical standpoint concerning whether this would actually help or hurt students and colleges. One main objection is that schools are so diverse across states that there’s no way Washington can effectively curb costs. For example, some schools focus mainly on liberal arts, while others focus on hard sciences such as engineering, physics, chemistry, or mathematics. Obviously, tuition costs for these different types of schools are going to vary, in many cases needing to rise to keep up with changing technology, research methods, or what have you.

Another major criticism is that states have different funding methods, with some states having large numbers of great colleges while others have fewer that are more tailored to specific needs. The President’s proposal, the critics argue, fails to take this into consideration, and may actually end up hurting colleges in states that have fewer schools and fewer students that have the opportunity to attend college. Again, this is a valid point, and sticking with the sole logic behind the proposal, the criticism sticks.

A further criticism came from the The Washington Post believe it or not, which pointed out that these kinds of across the board proposals to cap tuition hikes could disproportionately hurt public schools. This makes sense, in that private schools typically have far higher tuition rates to begin with, so a small percentage increase in a private institution’s tuition would still result in a large amount of money. A public institution, on the other hand, may only raise its tuition by a small amount of money, but this could result in a large percentage hike, thus qualifying the institution to receive sanctioning under President Obama’s proposal.

Now we could go on and on talking about why this type of proposal is a bad idea, but let’s actually deal with the root of the problem, shall we? Conservatives figured this out decades ago: Get the federal government out of education! We are now seeing those on the left coming out to criticize this policy from Washington that fails to take into account the diversity of states throughout the country. Really? This is what we have been saying for years. When the federal government begins to have power over education in this way, it only makes everything worse, because the bloated, incoherent, and inefficient bureaucracies simply cannot effectively run the education system from their centralized throne within the bowels of Washington.

For those of us old-timers who still look to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution for guidance, this is the same problem that has existed since the federal government started stepping outside its constitutional bounds. There is a reason the Founders did not list educating our children as a role for the federal government. The Founders feared such a centralized approach, because then the federal government could start bullying, bribing, and intimidating institutions throughout the country—essentially bribing the people with their own money. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized all the way back in the first half of the 19^th century that when this begins happening, the American republican experiment would cease to exist.

This is why the Founders set up the American republic so that the central government played a very limited role, mainly involved in areas dealing with general welfare. Ironically, this original clause that limited federal power has been grossly twisted and used by progressives to infiltrate the feds into education, healthcare, retirement planning, and the list goes on and on. To understand the problem with what the federal government is doing now, one must first understand what the Founders actually had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and specifically what they had in mind about general welfare.

National defense is a real example that falls under general welfare, in that no one individual can have any more national defense than another. This clause does not mean, however, that the federal government can tax someone, then use the money to subsidize education for someone else, and just call that general welfare because education is a good thing, then expand federal power over this area infinitely. James Madison and others understood that this kind of interpretation would lead to the destruction of the Constitution and the idea of a true federalist republic. The only things the federal government can do that are not based on the actual idea of general welfare are laid out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or in amendments added to the Constitution (some of which have overstayed their welcome, the 16th anyone?). All other areas of policy are left to the states and the people, as stated in the tenth amendment.

As Americans, we must understand that the general welfare clause and the Constitution are actually limits on the powers of the federal government, not vehicles to be used to limitlessly expand power into every aspect of Americans’ lives. The Constitution is a beautiful document, and every single American should read it and understand what the role of the federal government is, and most importantly what its limitations are. Then, and only then, we can begin to truly transform our system of government to put things like education and healthcare in the hands of governments that are closest to the people.

Once this happens, we will no longer have to worry about Washington prescribing a one size fits all solution such as the one President Obama proposes, because we will be able to deal with these issues in our states and our communities. This example over education is just a further illustration of why our system is broken, mainly because so many Americans don’t even understand the system. Until we understand the root of the problem, we are going to continue debating its symptoms, and make no real progress.

Liberals are all for a policy forced on every American across the land as long as it is something they like and agree with, but what happens when they don’t like it anymore? In this case, they actually sound like constitutionalists, critical of the failure of Washington to take into account the diversity of America and roles of state and local governments in education. Well, I must say, we told you so!

The TSA invading the privacy of American citizens without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion does not, in my view, fall into any ambiguous or murky legal realms. The Fourth Amendment guarantees that all US citizens are secure in their persons unless a judge sees probable cause to issue a warrant. The idea that you somehow forfeit your right to privacy simply by entering an airport is a lunacy, made up by an overreaching judiciary, which for decades favored a more active role for government than was ever intended.
Recently, the TSA has been in the news for holding Senator Rand Paul after he set off the metal detector and refused to be pat down. What is more interesting, however, are two headlines that got significantly less coverage. First, in July 2011, it was reported that a woman got through two TSA checkpoints with a knife. Second, it was very recently reported that a discovery of two pipes by the TSA prompted a pipe-bomb scare in New York City, six hours after the discovery. So, whether it is their ineptitude in stopping weapons from getting on planes, or their ineptitude in recognizing a threat in real time, it is clear that the TSA provides only the illusion of safety. Therefore, the excuse that the government can violate your liberty in the name of keeping you safe is, at least in the case of the TSA, a complete falsehood.

According to an email I received from a member of the policy review committee, there are four actions that they may take:

1. Implement an “all-comers” policy where belief-based groups cannot take a prospective members beliefs’ into account when considering them for membership
2. Implement a modified “all-comers” policy where you can take their beliefs into account, but none related to “personal characteristics” (i.e., “a Christian organization couldn’t require that gay members believe homosexuality is a sin”)
3. Require student leaders to sign a non-discrimination statement or require student organizations to incorporate a non-discrimination statement into their bylaws.
4. Make no change.

The first two are highly problematic. Consider the current policy:

Student organizations that select their members on the basis of commitment to a set of beliefs (e.g., religious or political beliefs) may limit membership and participation in the organization to students who, upon individual inquiry, affirm that they support the organization’s goals and agree with its beliefs, so long as no student is excluded from membership or participation on the basis of his or her age, race, color, national origin, disability, religious status or historic religious affiliation, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or, unless exempt under Title IX, gender.

This policy is comprehensive and mediates between the need for free and open access while allowing belief-based organizations to ensure that their members adhere to the organization’s mission statement. Given the multiplicity of beliefs to which an organization may adhere, it also gives both members and the organization flexibility to determine the extent to which a member must support its beliefs before their membership is called into question (i.e., many College Republicans, myself included, disagreed with President Bush’s TARP program, yet were allowed to remain members).

So why is a change necessary?

The member of the committee gave a rationale for a potential change:

The current policy is the legacy of legal action taken against the university nearly a decade ago. It allows for political and religious groups — groups based around a set of beliefs — to limit their membership to students who profess agreement with those beliefs. This is technically different from discriminating on the basis of personal characteristics, which is what the rest of the policy addresses. However, recent history has shown us that this can become problematic for individuals who are required by organizations they are members  of to hold beliefs which could be considered antagonistic toward their personal characteristics. Furthermore, what beliefs are required for membership is open to interpretation with each successive leadership — what it means to be Christian or Conservative is hardly set in stone. In fact, that discussion is in part why many of these groups exist. This can potentially jeopardize members down the line who were formerly in good standing.

This is in keeping with the sentiments expressed by Thomason, Terri Phoenix, and other participants to the Daily Tar Heel which seems to indicate that some change will occur. Also, knowing the other members of the committee, I strongly suspect some change will be made especially given the outside pressure seen last semester for retribution against Psalm 100.

Whatever change is made will be the first step in regulating what precisely student groups may believe. The impetus behind the policy review is a perfect example. While I consider Will a friend and disagreed with Psalm 100′s decision to vote him out, ultimately, the decision was up to Psalm 100 as to whether or not Will was upholding their mission statement. And properly so. The moment the university decides whether or not certain beliefs are acceptable is the moment that we’ve effectively ended the idea that the university is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas.

Even on the face of it, the proposed changes are laughable. Why should Young Democrats be forced to accept my membership, even though I fundamentally disagree with their values and beliefs? They might want to accept my dues money, but should I be able to vote on which endorsements they make or be elected to their executive board? Should a contingent of College Republicans be allowed to try and dictate YD policy or be present and able to vote when sensitive decisions are being made?

For larger groups such machinations probably aren’t an issue, but for smaller organizations like Carolina Review the chance that a few liberals could dominate the group is very possible. Recent actions taken against the Review by fringe organizations indicate that this could be a real threat.

Or take the issue of representation. After the presumed new policy is in place, could someone who disagrees with the Campus Blueprint join and do anything in the name of the organization simply to embarrass Blueprint? Will magazines like The Siren be able to take editorial stances any more or refuse to publish articles they think don’t uphold their brand of feminism?

What about the Muslim Students Association? Their bylaws require that only members can serve in leadership positions, while, to be a member, one must “strictly accept doctrines prescribed in the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as practiced by Ahl-Al Sunnah Wa Al-Jama’a.” In what world does it make sense that MSA would have to accept a non-Muslim as a leader?

Even if the policy only bans belief discrimination based on personal characteristics, that leaves the door wide-open for interpretation. Homosexuality is fairly straightforward, but a “characteristic” is simply “a distinguishing trait, quality, or property.” What would fall under this category? Unpopular opinions (i.e., “homosexuality is a sin”) may be the first to go, but the administration would have set a strong precedent for far broader powers to determine which beliefs would pass muster, effectively wielding veto-power over those beliefs.

Vanderbilt University implemented a similar policy to the one UNC is now considering which put the Vanderbilt chapter of the Christian Legal Society in violation. Last September, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) sent Vanderbilt a letter which brought out a crucial point:

[W]hen it comes to religious groups on campus, Vanderbilt’s failure to recognize that religion is also a belief compromises those groups’ ability to effectively communicate their messages. Part of CLS’s expressive purpose is to communicate to other law students what it sees as the Christian message.

On that point, the Christian Legal Society is no different than any other belief-based organization. In the rationale that the committee member gave me (above), he said that our concepts of Christian and conservative are not “set in stone.” No one disputes that. Yet it is still the right of an organization to define what it believes to be Christian or conservative. In our own history, the Review was founded in 1993 after a disagreement over the direction the original Carolina Critic was headed. A later split occurred when some members wanted to go in a more “human interest” direction and founded the Blue & White. If Will Thomason felt as though Psalm 100 were not upholding true Christianity, he had every right to start his own Christian a capella group. No one- including Psalm 100- could stop him. But the fact remains that belief-based organizations are fundamentally evangelical in nature insofar as they have a set of beliefs and it is their intention to publicize those beliefs and recruit new adherents to its standard.

In a follow-up letter to Vanderbilt, FIRE outlined a set of hypotheticals that I hope the policy review committee considers before making a final decision:

• If one of the leaders of Vanderbilt’s Muslim Students Association were to convert to Christianity, is the group required to maintain that person in his or her leadership role despite the fact that he or she is no longer Muslim?
• Vanderbilt informed the Christian Legal Society that its requirement that student leaders “lead Bible studies, prayer, and worship” was against the policy because it implied that these leaders must hold certain religious beliefs. How do you suggest religious groups at Vanderbilt fulfill their purposes without leaders who can accomplish such core tasks of religious leadership?
• While this dispute was originally confined to religious organizations, your statement of January 20 states that all student organizations must accept any student as a member or a leader. If a group of straight students—the majority at Vanderbilt—were to join the Vanderbilt Lambda Association, vote themselves into office, and disband the group or alter the group’s mission, what recourse would LGBT members of the Lambda Association have?
• If a member of the College Republicans joins the College Democrats to discover their plans for political activism and report those plans back to the College Republicans in order to thwart them, do the College Democrats have any way to stop him or her?
• Under this policy, must an ideological student journal like Vanderbilt’s Orbis accept editors or publish columnists who disagree with, mock, or denigrate its progressive political views?
• Many groups in the Occupy movement choose to make decisions by consensus. How could a Vanderbilt-based Occupy group operate if a small group of students joined specifically to prevent the group from acting in any way by constantly preventing a consensus from forming?
• If a student were to join an environmentalist group like Vanderbilt SPEAR and then use his membership in that group to increase his or her credibility when publicly criticizing the group’s positions in the Nashville or Vanderbilt newspapers, what could the group do to prevent this?

The reality is, under an “all-comers” or similar policy, there would be no recourse for the groups in the above situation.

Student fee money became an issue last fall, but the fact remains that Psalm 100 members also pay into the pool that is disbursed to student organizations. Why should they not be eligible to receive money simply because the university thought Psalm 100 fell short of “inclusivity” benchmark? Of course, a voucher system for student fees would resolve this issue quite nicely, but the university administration seems to believe regulating beliefs is the best way to go.

If UNC decides to expand our nondiscrimination policy, they will have joined Vanderbilt- to quote FIRE- in “abandoning America’s pluralistic tradition by banning religious and political student groups from making leadership decisions based on their religious or political beliefs.” That pluralistic tradition has long been the underpinning of the liberal arts enterprise which UNC will jettison and, in doing so, make a mockery of our motto lux libertas. That’s definitely not the Carolina Way.

Apparently, the plans for including a foot washing basin/floor-level sink have been modified. The Union is currently planning on locating the basin in a special gender non-specific bathroom near the mediation room. The interior of the room will also be decorated along the lines of a “natural” theme (plants, sunlight, etc.). The room will also be non-reservable and simply open on a first-come, first-serve basis.

I think this seems a better way to go, compared to some of the Union’s earlier plans. The incorporation of religious items in the room would only complicate the purpose of the room. As I understand it, the room is designed to be a place where students can get away from the chaos of campus life. Particularly since some reports indicate that stress among incoming freshman is at an all-time high, the utility of such a mediation room is obvious. The inclusion of religious items in the room would lead to unnecessary conflict as different groups compete for the limited space and resources of the room.

This changes are generally a positive development. The current plan solves some of the safety and logistical issues involved with Muslim students’ devotional practices while avoiding the problem of having one group dominate (or appear to dominate) the room.

Only a few minutes into the debate, President Obama again fell back on his favorite one-liner, calling for more Americans to pay their “fair share.” He then goes on to blame the private sector for the housing crash in 2008, saying the real problem is that regulators didn’t regulate enough. Of course, the President fails to mention the government’s role in the crisis, while mentioning nothing about reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or any other agency of government. Yes, Mr. President, if only we’d had more government distortion of the marketplace and social engineering we would have been better off.

The President then goes to layout his blueprint for restoring the economy. He says we must focus on bringing manufacturing back to America and reforming the tax code, both of which conservatives have been proposing. However, the President’s plans are much different. His solution to manufacturing lies in getting the government more involved in bailouts and control, as he points to the bailing out of the auto industry as an example of this great success. What happened in Detroit, he says, can happen in Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and even Raleigh. He may have a point, seeing how if things keep going like they are, there will be many more companies in need of a bailout.

When it comes to tax reform, he’s even further off the mark. Should we make it easier to invest in the United States? Well no, of course we have to make companies pay their “fair share” (he did it again), that’s the way to attract business to the US. He even goes further to say that MNC’s should pay a minimum tax? I can hear the new factories opening up as we speak.

The President is quick to take the populist stance toward China, saying his Administration has taken more trade cases against them than anyone else. He uses this as a springboard to call for a new trade commission with new regulations, because of course that’s exactly what we need. So we’re letting China slide on assisting Iran and blocking sanctions against them, but we’re supposed to believe the Administration is really sticking it to them over trade?

When it came to education, the President offered more of the same one size fits all solutions from Washington. He says he is working to model partnerships between the government, the private sector, and community colleges. This sounds promising. Going further, he says the federal government should require states to make every kid stay in school until they’re 18, rather than letting anyone slip out into the workforce. Wow, I couldn’t imagine any possible problems arising from the federal government inserting itself into education even further.

For immigration, we also heard the same tired talking points. Of course he pushes for comprehensive immigration reform, which would mean securing the border, expelling those who have committed crimes, and providing some pathway to citizenship for those who have built a life here, something most Republicans agree with. Immediately, however, the President pivots and recognizes this will probably not happen (in reality because of liberals standing in the way of any real border security), and says that we should go ahead and just pass the part that grants amnesty to those who are here illegally. Of course, this is the same failed position that has led us to where we are to begin with, when we grant amnesty while failing to secure our borders. Although it’s a great campaign line, it is no solution to the problem, because solutions aren’t what the President is interested in.

As if all this wasn’t enough, the President then moves on to make the case for more federal government subsidies for his failed energy policies. After going after big oil (once again, a great campaign slogan) he says that “some technologies don’t pan out, some companies fail,” when referring to government subsidized energy industries. To all of us who have watched our money go down the drain for his clean energy hoax, the word Solyndra was ringing in our heads. The problem is that when the companies the President is talking about fail, it’s our money that has been wasted. He says he won’t walk away from what his Administration has been doing with energy, which is why we need him to walk away from the White House.

The President goes on to call for more fees on financial institutions and more regulation from Washington. He says his new consumer watchdog is looking out for you, because we all know we feeble-minded folk can’t make responsible decisions on our own. Almost in the same sentence he says he wants to cut regulations, he says we must keep these regulations in place because they are protecting us. You know, keeping our water pure and our food safe, because if Republicans had it their way little Susie would be drinking swamp water and eating lead-based saw dust. The President is trying pretty hard, but the American people understand that this is smoke and mirrors, and what Washington is doing is standing in the way, not looking out for them.

After briefly discussing a new initiative to build another agency to look at the financial practices that led to the housing collapse (I wonder if Fannie and Freddie will be on that short list?), President Obama finally gets to the meat of his presentation: The deficit must be solved by raising taxes. With a straight face, he says that millionaires pay less than the middle class, while citing the Buffet rule for further tax increases. In the real world, this means raising capital gains taxes to over 30%. One would think with Obama’s vast private sector experience (does community organizing count?) he would know the difference between income and capital gains taxes, but I digress. So Obama has made his case, that the way to make America “built to last” is to raise taxes. If you don’t support this, you of course don’t support education, healthcare, or energy.

It is a sad fact that with $16 trillion dollars in debt, the unemployment still above 8% after the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars wasted, the failed ‘clean energy’ initiatives, and runaway entitlement spending, the President’s proposals are the same old failed policies. His philosophy has him grounded in the belief that the solution to every problem must come from straight from Washington. He says that those who tell you America is in decline do not know what they’re talking about. Well, Mr. President, according to the polls that’s the American people, and they are fully aware of what is going on. Thankfully, come November, they will get to let their voices be heard.

I have to wish him the best on undertaking such a herculean task in defending the indefensible. But, unfortunately, this is much more than a “completely novel constitutional question.” A lot is at stake if we conclude that the executive branch has the power to determine when a separate and equal branch is or is not in session and can ignore constitutional precedent in order to make preferred appointments (also, it’s gotta be awkward for a party that, until recently, was denouncing the “imperial presidency” of George W. Bush).

The text of the Constitution granting the president the power to make recess appointments reads:

The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session (Article II, Section iii).

As Richard Epstein, a renowned legal scholar at the University of Chicago and NYU, points out, the key words are “Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate [emphasis added].” He says:

What they mean is this: if the vacancy arises in the gap between terms, the President does not have to travel light just because the Senate is not in session.  In the founding period, Congress was not in perpetual session to say the least, so this provision meant that if there was no ability to go through the usual process of nomination and confirmation, the President could act on his own.

But that situation does not describe the situation with Cordray and the NLRB. Those vacancies existed prior to the “recess.” The NLRB appointments are particularly egregious because the Senate hadn’t even had time to set up hearings for the nominations.

Even if we accept the usual practice of recess appointments, Cordray and the NLRB appointments are unconstitutional. Wilson makes the point that the Senate was in pro forma sessions (which, ironically enough, were pioneered by Senator Harry Reid to prevent President Bush from making recess appointments) which aren’t actual sessions because- quoting from the Justice Department’s brief- the Senate cannot “receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.” He goes on to claim that, “the Constitution is unclear about what constitutes a recess”- this simply isn’t true. A “recess,” being a parliamentary procedure, is determined internally by each body. The Constitution did not intend to define the set of motions either house must adopt for its operations and left it up to the respective bodies. Thus, under current Senate rules, the Senate was not in recess. This forces the Obama Administration to re-define what constitutes a recess which, as John Yoo points out, is not in his purview:

It is up to the Senate to decide when it is in session or not, and whether it feels like conducting any real business or just having Senators sitting around on the floor reading the papers. The President cannot decide the legitimacy of the activities of the Senate any more than he could for the other branches, and vice versa.

Ultimately for Wilson, however, it’s not about the Constitution. It’s about implementing the Obama policy agenda. But it’s important to note that there is no clause in the Constitution that assures a president that every single post he creates will be filled. It’s up to the Senate. So, yes, Republicans can hold these appointments “hostage.” It’s their constitutional prerogative.

However, if Republicans keep doing what they’re doing, they’re going to be in trouble when they face the people and have to answer to the gridlock that Obama will undoubtedly point to in his re-election campaign unless they are able to articulate an adequate defense for their actions (which I believe can be made).

That’s the system that the Founders intended. In the Federalist, they argue that “the injury which may possibly be done by defeating a few good laws will be amply compensated by the advantage of preventing a number of bad ones.” For our current situation, this means that even if the Republicans prevent the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from functioning in the short-term, it’s better to follow the constitution than to set a terrible precedent like Obama has.

I’m always surprised when either side doesn’t see the long-term consequences of their actions. Budget reconciliation- which allows measures to circumvent the filibuster- was used by Republicans to pass the Bush tax cuts, only to be picked up by the Democrats to pass ObamaCare (sidenote: isn’t it interesting that neither policy is accepted by the other side?). Every time the Senate changes hands, the new majority complains about the filibuster, the very same procedure they were defending to the bitter end when they were in the minority.

But it’s important that we retain these restrictions on executive or majority power. I wish that the Democrats currently salivating over Director Cordray could imagine a four-year Ambassador Bolton or Attorney General John Yoo when the next Republican president doesn’t get his way over a certain appointment. Imagine if only 51 senators were required to abolish the Department of Education.

Yeah, it stinks when things don’t go your way in the interim. But, if you have the right ideas, you’ll win in the long run. The solution isn’t to circumvent the Constitution to get your way, but be patient and persuade the American people of the merits of your case. That’s the only way to win a sustainable victory.

Key highlights:

1. The FHA is leveraged 840 to 1 (which would mean it would have been already shut down by regulators if it were a private lender)
2. The FHA uses accounting techniques similar to Enron to obscure the reality of their financial situation
3. The FHA is no longer focused on low-income homeowners- “In FY 2011, 54 percent of the FHA’s dollar volume went to finance homes that were greater than 125 percent of an area’s median home price, up from 36 percent in 2010.”
4. “[M]ore than 90 percent of all mortgages are acquired and securitized with a GSE guarantee or insured by the FHA or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and securitized by Ginnie Mae with a government guarantee.”
5. “The off-budget debt of various government agencies—the majority of which is GSE debt—is $7.5 trillion, all of which is ultimately the responsibility of the federal government.”

But the GSE model works, so they tell us…

In practice, though, both sides fall short of their ideals. Liberty University gave us an example of where the right is dictatorial in academia, but the vast majority of academic institutions aren’t run by right-wingers like Falwell (though Chancellor George F. Will has a really nice ring to it). It’s accepted that the majority of the faculty and students at your average institution of higher education are generally very left-wing.

UNC is no exception based on my own undergraduate career. I’ve written before about my personal experiences as a conservative at UNC, but one thing that continues to surprise me is the apparent lack of self-awareness among students who invite speakers, host events, or sponsor panels. As I’ve written before, if you’re supposed to be a nonpartisan organization whose goal it is to “challenge” the student body, a sixth consecutive liberal speaker may not do the job. Why not throw some conservative names into the mix, just for funsies?

But that thought never seems to cross people’s minds. This week, there will be a panel entitled “Popular Movements: A Panel Discussion.” Here’s the first line in the introduction: “This panel…will explore four contemporary popular movements.” Let’s think of some major contemporary popular movements: the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-war movement, the Tea Party, the environmental movement, the immigration rights movement, maybe the Jasmine Revolution in China, or the recent unrest in Russia.

The four that were selected: Arab Spring, OWS, the environmental movement, and the immigration rights movement. Hm, no Tea Party, even though they are credited with giving the Republican Party one of the largest majorities in the U.S. House in history, completely re-focused the budget debate, and have had a marked (if negative) influence on the 2012 election? A movement so influential that liberal commentators were yearning for a similar movement on the left?

The panel is sponsored by UNC’s Annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Birthday Celebration, you say, so the Tea Party has no place? Alveda King, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece and daughter of his brother who was a noted civil rights activist, spoke at one of the largest Tea Party rallies in the country. And a member of the Frederick Douglass Foundation would be very willing to debate whether the Tea Party aligns with Dr. King’s vision for America.

When I expressed that sentiment on the Facebook event, one of the leaders of the event said that I had a good point, but it was too late for this year’s panel. The fact is, this shouldn’t be an issue in the first place. Whenever I question whether a group that invites speakers or sponsors panels lives up to the goals of actual diversity or inclusiveness, the response is invariably something along the lines of “Oh shoot, you’re right. Just come to our meetings to contribute!”

That shouldn’t be necessary. How can a room full of reasonably intelligent liberals not realize that they’re being unbalanced or are somehow unable to come up with a list of conservatives that they could invite? You shouldn’t pretend to be au courante if you can’t name, at minimum, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, David Brooks, or Ross Douthat which, in my experience, is a difficult project for very intelligent folks who can articulately discuss the nuances of single-payer health care systems around the world. You don’t even have to subscribe to National Review (though you should) to find more names. The internet is a lovely thing.

I don’t want a bunch of Anthony Dent clones running around (a weird accusation once leveled against me)- I want a vigorous, healthy, and free marketplace of ideas. UNC purports to be a liberal arts university whose purpose is to cast away all preconceived notions of the world in the search for truth. Offering only one viewpoint for lectures, speeches, and panels simply doesn’t do that.

Even if we ignore the liberal arts mission for the university, we can’t ignore the fact that hearing other viewpoints makes you a deeper thinker whether you agree with the speaker or not. You can sit down and read The Fatal Conceit (which everyone should do) and toss it away in disgust, but confronting opposing ideas forces you to evaluate your own and formulate reasons why you simply cannot accept this viewpoint. Or maybe reasons why you do. Either way, you come away better for it. In this age of polarization, we all could use a healthy dose of true diversity.