No election necessary

Carol Bond was convicted of attempting to poison her husband's mistress. Domestic squabble. So why would the Supreme Court be interested in the case?

Because Bond was charged under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act. That was passed in 1998 to implement an international treaty. That Act falls under the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution. Congress is given the power to pass any law it feels is necessary and proper to carry out the duties assigned to it by the Constitution. One of those duties is to ratify international treaties.

Advocates on Bond's side say that the federal gov't should not be involved in a case of poisoning. That's a state's job. That means this case is a serious assault on the "necessary and proper" clause. And that is a serious assault on the powers of Congress brought by those who want smaller gov't. Which means any federal regulation, especially those that implement treaties, could be disputed on the grounds Congress doesn't have the power to write such a law.

Keep in mind why they want smaller gov't -- so there is nobody with enough power to stop their ability to raise money even if it impoverishes or causes harm to thousands of people, destroys the environment, and in general makes the country and world a harsh place to live.

Of course, nobody in this dispute cares at all what happens to Carol Bond.

Essayist Terrence Heath reviews why conservatives want a smaller government. This is a quote from George Lakoff. I think the emphasis was added by Heath.

Competition is necessary for a moral world; without it, people would not have to develop discipline and so would not become moral beings. Worldly success is an indicator of sufficient moral strength; lack of success suggests lack of sufficient discipline. Dependency is immoral. The undisciplined will be weak and poor, and deservedly so.

Heath uses that to explain the gov't shutdown:

Any government which “impedes” economic activity by the “best people,” through regulations designed to protect the consumers, workers, communities, etc., penalizes morality and discipline. Any government activity which protects the “immoral undisciplined people” from the economic consequences of their poor character rewards immorality and discipline.

To conservatives, sequestration was a good start, but shutting down the government is even better. Sending government workers home without pay, and cutting off services to low-income Americans is the right thing to do. Plus, it means conservatives can force the country to conform to their worldview, without even having to win an election.

Yeah, in case you haven't figured it out by now, I profoundly disagree with this definition of morality.

As an example: A composer (perhaps me) could be the most disciplined (well, maybe not me) and productive creator of high quality music around. But because he writes in a style that doesn't draw massive popular support (like much of classical music) he doesn't earn millions from his efforts. If he doesn't also teach at a college or university (which sucks up time better spent composing) he might be just getting by.

Monetary success might also be due to Dad's money and Dad's network of friends, so even a slacker could appear moral. And some truly evil people (some despots come to mind) can be quite disciplined in their tyranny.

Therefore discipline (and even a huge dose of talent) does not equal monetary success and neither discipline or piles of cash have anything to do with morality. That has to do with how we treat each other. And the 1% is doing an abysmally rotten job at that.