Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 21, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 592)

regulations

Regulations (Photo:ShutterStock)

If you look at the methodology behind the major measures of economic liberty, such as Economic Freedom of the World and Index of Economic Freedom, you’ll notice that each nation’s regulatory burden is just as important as the overall fiscal burden.

Yet there doesn’t seem to be adequate appreciation for the importance of restraining red tape. I’ve tried to highlight the problem with some very depressing bits of information.

Unfortunately, these bad numbers are getting worse.

We start with the fact that there’s a natural tendency for more intervention in Washington because of the Obama Administration’s statist orientation.

That’s the bad news. The worse news is that this tendency to over-regulate is becoming more pronounced as Obama’s time in office is winding down.

I’ve already opined on the record levels of red tape emanating from Washington, but it’s getting even worse in the President’s final year.

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal recently wrote about the regulatory wave.

…government-by-decree that is making Mr. Obama the most prolific American regulator of all time. Unofficially, Mr. Obama’s Administration has once again broken its own record by issuing a staggering 82,036 pages of new and proposed rules and instructions in the Federal Register in 2015. …That would not only eclipse Mr. Obama’s record of 81,405 set in 2010; it would also give him six of the seven most prolific years of regulating in the history of the American republic. He’s a champion when it comes to limiting economic freedom, and American workers have the slow growth in jobs and wages to prove it. …His Administration is also in a class by itself in issuing de facto rules as “notices” or “guidance” that are ignored by businesses at their peril. …And there’s much more to come.

Amen. The WSJ is correct to link the regulatory burden with anemic economic performance.

As I point out in this interview, red tape is akin to sand in the economy’s gears.

[brid video=”34575″ player=”2077″ title=”Dan Mitchell Analyzing Obama’ Regulatory Surge”]

By the way, I can’t resist emphasizing that the Nordic nations, much beloved by Bernie Sanders and other leftists, generally are more free market than the United States on non-fiscal issues.

In other words, they have a more laissez-faire approach on matters such as regulation.

Now let’s try to quantify the cost of all this red tape.

The Washington Examiner reports on some new research.

The price of the Obama administration’s regulatory burden hit just shy of $200 billion last year, or $784 million for every day his government was open for business, according to a new analysis by American Action Forum.

To make matters worse, as I noted in the interview, I very much suspect the bulk of that new regulation was not accompanied by cost-benefit analysis. So the supposed benefits will be small and the actual costs will be high.

Let’s move from the general to the specific. The Heritage Foundation has a list of the worst regulations from last year. Here are some of the highlights, though lowlights would be a better term.

  • …a ban by New Jersey on sales of tombstones by churches — adopted in March at the behest of commercial monument makers.
  • Certain New York restaurants now have to include warnings on their menus about the sodium content in many popular dishes.
  • The Occupational Safety and Health Administration…expanded its mandate in June by declaring that businesses should allow employees to use whichever restroom corresponds to their “gender identity.”
  • …the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers expanded their own jurisdiction to regulate virtually every wet spot in the nation.

And there are plenty more if you really want to get depressed.

But let’s not dwell on bad news. Instead, we’ll close by highlighting a potentially helpful bit of regulatory reform north of the border. Here are some blurbs from a story in the Washington Examiner.

…look to Canada for lessons from its experiment with regulatory budgeting. What is regulatory budgeting? It’s a process that seeks to use traditional budget concepts to better manage regulatory costs. The goal is to require government departments and agencies to prioritize and manage “regulatory expenditures,”… Regulatory budgeting imposes hard caps on departments and agencies and requires that new regulatory policies fit within their respective budgets. It may not be a silver bullet to the U.S. government’s regulatory profligacy, but with strong political leadership and a proper design, it can arrest the growth of new regulations and bring greater accountability, discipline and transparency to the process. …Departments and agencies are given a “baseline” calculation of regulatory requirements and the costs they impose on individuals and businesses, and then are expected to live within their respective budgets. This means — at least, in the case of the federal experiment — that any new regulatory requirements be offset by eliminating existing ones with equivalent “costs.” An independent, third-party panel verifies the government’s year-over-year compliance.

And it appears this new system is yielding dividends.

Over the past two years, the federal government estimates the system has saved Canadian businesses more than C$32 million in administrative burden, as well as 750,000 hours spent dealing with “red tape.” Most importantly, regulatory budgeting has gradually contributed to a more disciplined regulatory process by rewarding departments and agencies for finding lower-cost options and for making existing requirements smarter and less burdensome.

Hmmm…, maybe I should consider escaping to Canada rather than Australia if (when?) America falls apart.

In addition to this sensible approach on regulatory reform, Canada is now one of the world’s most economically free nations thanks to relatively sensible policies involving spending restraint, corporate tax reform, bank bailouts, the tax treatment of saving, and privatization of air traffic control. Heck, Canada even has one of the lowest levels of welfare spending among developed nations.

Though things are now heading in the wrong direction, which is unfortunate for our northern neighbors.

P.S. While the regulatory burden in the United States is stifling and there are some really inane examples of silly rules (such as the ones listed above), I think Greece and Japan win the record if you want to identify the most absurd specific examples of red tape.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

 

Measures of economic liberty such as Economic

Prince Dead 57

FILE – In this Feb. 18, 1985 file photo, Prince performs at the Forum in Inglewood, Calif. Prince, widely acclaimed as one of the most inventive and influential musicians of his era with hits including “Little Red Corvette,” ”Let’s Go Crazy” and “When Doves Cry,” was found dead at his home on Thursday, April 21, 2016, in suburban Minneapolis, according to his publicist. He was 57. (AP Photo/Liu Heung Shing, File)

Pop legend Prince, known for his hits including “Little Red Corvette,” ”Let’s Go Crazy” and “When Doves Cry,” was found dead at 57 in his home on Thursday in suburban Minneapolis.

“It is with profound sadness that I am confirming that Prince has died at his home this morning at Paisley Park,” Yvette Noel-Schure, his publicist confirmed. “There are no further details.”

The singer had postponed a concert in Atlanta, Georgia on April 7, after allegedly coming down with the flu. After his plane made an emergency landing and he later apologized to fans for the cancellation during a makeup concert last week.

The singer, songwriter, arranger and instrumentalist took the music scene by storm in the late 1970s with the hits “Why You Wanna Treat Me So Bad?” and “I Wanna Be Your Lover.” His fame and notoriety continued to soar the following decade with albums including “1999” and “Purple Rain.”

The title song from “1999” has become one of the most widely quoted musical refrains in American popular culture: “Tonight I’m gonna party like it’s 1999.”

The Minneapolis native, born Prince Rogers Nelson, stood just 5 feet, 2 inches tall, but could switch his vocals from a nasal-sounding scream to an sexual falsetto. He could also crank out one album after another, which contained original, talented blockbuster material. Among his other notable releases: “Sign O’ the Times,” ”Graffiti Bridge” and “The Black Album.”

Others tapped his talent, which seemed endless. Sinead O’Connor’s “Nothing Compares 2 U,” Cyndi Lauper’s “When You Were Mine” and “Manic Monday” by the Bangles were all written by Prince. He also wrote the title soundtrack song for one of the Batman versions. The pop legend was also known for his hit “Kiss,” which was actually a James Brown guitar riff molded into classic Prince.

In 2004, Prince was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which hailed him as a musical and social trailblazer.

“He rewrote the rulebook, forging a synthesis of black funk and white rock that served as a blueprint for cutting-edge music in the Eighties,” reads the Hall’s dedication. “Prince made dance music that rocked and rock music that had a bristling, funky backbone. From the beginning, Prince and his music were androgynous, sly, sexy and provocative.”

Though he was married twice Prince had no children. His first wife had a miscarriage and his second gave birth to a baby boy. However, he died from a rare genetic disorder called Pfeiffer Disorder after a few weeks.

Nevertheless, a group of fans quickly gathered in the rain outside his music studio in Paisley Park Thursday following the news. Inside, Prince’s gold records are on the walls and on display is the purple motorcycle he rode in his 1984 breakout movie “Purple Rain.”

 

Pop legend Prince, known for his hits

Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Palm-Beach-March-15

Donald Trump, left, and Hillary Clinton, right, give thumbs up to the crowd after their victory speeches in Palm Beach, Florida, on March 15, 2016. (Photos: Win McNamee/Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A Quinnipiac University survey recently found 57 percent of Americans agreed the country “has lost its identity,” 57 percent felt they were “falling further and further behind economically,” and 76 percent believed “public officials don’t care much what people like me think.”

Gallup reported in March, meanwhile, that 71 percent of Americans were dissatisfied with the “way things in the United States were going at this time,” the same number who responded to the identical poll question a month earlier.

What’s up with all the angst?

“Many American voters, especially Republicans, are dissatisfied with their own status and the status of the country, but by far the most dissatisfied are Donald Trump’s supporters, who strongly feel that they themselves and the country are under attack,” said Quinnipiac University poll director Douglas Schwartz, in a statement.

Well, that is the theme of Trump’s campaign, to make America great again – and it’s one that’s resonating big time with voters across the country.

But thinking Mr. Trump, or Sen. Ted Cruz – or, God forbid, the self-declared socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders – can solve what ails America is flawed thinking. First off, Americans have been complaining about the country for years. In July 2015, Fortune blasted forth the headline: “12 Signs America is on the Decline.”

In April 2014, Salon warned: “Global rankings study: America in warp-speed decline.” In October 2013, the New Yorker offered: “Measuring America’s Decline, in Three Charts.” In March 2012, the Atlantic posed: “The Decline of the West: Why America Must Prepare for the End of Dominance.” In 2011, it was the American Spectator, with the title, “Is America in Decline?”

The demise of America, it seems, has been a long-running go-to topic for the press, the pundits and the pollsters. So long, in fact, it leads one to wonder: Do elections really bring change?

Not so much. Not in any long-lasting, meaningful way, at least. Which brings up this second point: It’s not about the “R” versus “D.”

Looking at politicians to provide for the needs and concerns of America seems a cycle of insanity – a red herring, even. But this story, from Raphael Cruz, a Christian pastor who spent his growing and formative years in Cuba, under the watchful eyes of an oppressive regime? This story is the elephant in the room.

“Rafael Cruz tells a story where the soldiers of Castro would teach the children to not believe in God, but instead to believe in Fidel,” Jerry Newcombe wrote for The Christian Post. “Soldiers would come into a kindergarten class and tell the children, ‘Okay now, close your eyes and pray to God for some candy.’ The children would comply, but there was no candy. Then they would say, ‘Close your eyes and pray for candy to Fidel Castro.’ The children would close their eyes and pray accordingly, as the soldiers quietly placed candy on the desks.”

What a horrific example of leading children astray, and simultaneously, a tremendous warning of what is really rotting America: the turn from God as leader and toward government as provider.

Inserting fresh faces into the government, whether Trump or Cruz or Clinton or Candidate X, is a temporary fix, at best. America’s government is only a microcosm of America at-large. And there will never be a single politician, or even grouping of politicians, that actually make America great. They can’t; the country’s greatness doesn’t flow that way.

America’s greatness comes from this: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

America’s greatness is from the bold idea that rights stem from God, not government – that it’s the individual with greatest worth, not the collective. And until we win back a country where that sentiment is intuitively felt and instinctively enacted upon, where “in God we trust” is the lesson being taught the coming generations, not “on government we depend,” then the changing faces of politicians will be just that – new look, new messaging, but bringing the same dissatisfying results.

[mybooktable book=”police-state-usa-how-orwells-nightmare-is-becoming-our-reality” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Election 2016 is not about Republican vs.

mid-atlantic-manufacturing-aluminium-raw-materials-reuters

A worker in the mid-Atlantic manufacturing sector works with raw aluminum materials. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, the Philadelphia Federal Reserve’s gauge of mid-Atlantic manufacturing, contracted to -1.6 in April, down from 12.4. The reading, which indicated a broad relapse in the sharp growth that was reported last month, came in far below the media forecast.

Wall Street analysts polled by Reuters had expected a reading of 8.9, an indication of growth. Readings above zero point to growth, while those below point to contraction.

While the diffusion index had turned positive last month following six consecutive negative readings, its poor performance was mirrored by the current new orders and shipments indexes, which also fell sharply this month. The percentage of firms (23%) reporting a rise in new orders was offset exactly by the percentage reporting a decline.

manufacturing business outlook survey - mid-atlantic manufacturing

Employment and the average work week both fell precipitously in the month of April. The employment index dropped 17 points, marking the fourth consecutive month it has been in negative territory.

While roughly 62% of the firms reported no change in employment this month, the percentage reporting a decrease jumped from 17% in March to 27%. Firms in the employment index reporting a decline in average work hours decreased 22 points and returned to negative territory after last month’s first positive reading in three months.

Special Questions for the Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey in April

Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey -- Mid-Atlantic Manufacturing

The Manufacturing Business Outlook Survey, the Philadelphia

jobs-report-getty

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 30: A job seeker holds a pamphlet during a job and career fair at City College of San Francisco southeast campus on May 30, 2013 in San Francisco, California. Hundreds of job seekers attended a career fair hosted by the San Francisco Southeast Community Facility Commission. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Weekly jobless claims, or the number of Americans filing for first-time state unemployment insurance benefits fell by 6,000 to 247,000 the week ending April 16. That came in lower than the estimate for 263,000.

A Labor Department analyst said there were no special factors impacting this week’s initial claims and no state was triggered “on” the Extended Benefits program during the week ending April 2. The the prior week was unchanged at 253,000.

The report marks 59 consecutive weeks of initial claims below 300,000, the longest streak since 1973. It is also the lowest level for initial claims since November 24, 1973
when it was 233,000.

However, the number of long-term unemployed American workers decreases the those eligible to apply for unemployment insurance significantly.

The four-week moving average–which is widely considered to be a more stable gauge, as it irons out volatility–was 260,500, down 4,500 from the previous week’s unrevised average of 265,000.

The highest insured unemployment rates in the week ending April 2 were in Alaska (4.1), New Jersey (2.9), Wyoming (2.9), West Virginia (2.7), Pennsylvania (2.6), Connecticut (2.5), Puerto Rico (2.5), California (2.4), Illinois (2.4), and Massachusetts (2.4).

The largest increases in initial claims for the week ending April 9 were in California (+12,563), Pennsylvania (+3,049), Texas (+2,676), Arizona (+2,496), and Florida (+1,494), while the largest decreases were in New Jersey (-2,609), New York (-2,217), Wisconsin (-1,469), Oregon (-1,022), and Ohio (-769)

Weekly jobless claims for first-time state unemployment

Hillary-Clinton-New-York-Speech

Hillary Clinton walks on stage with her husband, Bill Clinton, after winning the New York primary on April 19, 2016. (Photo: Spencer Platt, Getty Images)

A few days before Bernie Sanders lost badly in the New York primary, 27,000 souls filled Washington Square Park, many wildly cheering him on. The political media consensus interpreted the scene as evidence of surging support for the senator from Vermont. It did not occur to them that:

–The crowd almost certainly included many Hillary Clinton supporters just out to hear what Bernie had to say — not to mention some stray Republicans.
–It included tourists who, on a pleasant spring evening, happened on an exciting event and hung around.

–Some attendees were Bernie backers who had neglected to register as Democrats in time for the Democratic primary.

–The numbers at Washington Square were dwarfed by the battalions of working-class New Yorkers juggling two children and three jobs. These mostly Clinton voters were unable to attend any rally.

This last group is the subject here. It is the silent liberal majority.

Richard Nixon popularized the term “silent majority” in 1969. He was referring to the Middle Americans appalled by the Vietnam-era protests and associated social chaos. They didn’t demonstrate, and the so-called media elite ignored them.

Today’s liberal version of the silent majority is heavy with minorities and older people. Its members tend to be more socially conservative than those on the hard left and believe President Obama is a good leader.

Obamacare has brought medical coverage to 90 percent of the population, with the greatest gains among Latinos. Thus, a politician who repeatedly complains that this is “the only major country that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people as a right” sounds a bit off.

Many political reporters belong to the white gentry that has fueled the Sanders phenomenon. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they know where they’re coming from. But some don’t seem to know about the vast galaxies of Democratic voters beyond the university and hipster ZIP codes.

In so many races — including those of the other party — reporters confine themselves to carefully staged political events and a few interviews with conveniently placed participants. From the atmospherics, they deduce the level of support for a particular candidate.

It can’t be repeated often enough that a passionate vote counts no more than one cast with quiet consent or even resignation. Here are three examples of political analysts forgetting this:

Commenting on the lively debate in Brooklyn, columnist Frank Bruni concluded that the Sanders camp is “where the fiercest energy in the party resides right now.” How did he know? “It was audible on Thursday night, in the boos from the audience that sometimes rained down on Clinton.”

So, how many people were booing? Three? Four? Who were they? They possibly could have been Hillary people trying to summon sympathy for their candidate (which the booing undoubtedly did).

The day after the packed Sanders rally in Greenwich Village, CNN looped videos contrasting that massive turnout with the much smaller group listening to Clinton in the Bronx. That’s as deep as this story went.

Early this month, New York magazine posted a piece titled “In the South Bronx, Bernie Sanders Gives Clinton Cause for Concern.” The reporter’s evidence was a sizable and “raucous” Sanders rally headlined by a handful of black and Latino celebrities.

We await the magazine’s follow-up analysis on how Clinton won 70 percent of the Bronx vote. Someone must have voted for her.

This is not to chide the Sanders campaign. Its job was to create an impression of mass support for its candidate — and job well-done. Rather, it’s to remind the media that there’s a huge electorate outside the focus of managed campaign events. And silent majorities, by their very nature, tend not to get noticed.

The liberal silent majority is heavy with

Obama Immigration Speech

U.S. President Barack Obama speaks about immigration reform during a visit to Del Sol High School in Las Vegas, Nevada November 21, 2014. (Photo: Reuters)

In 2014, President Barack Obama signed 12 executive orders directing various agencies in the departments of State, Justice and Homeland Security to refrain from deporting some 4 million adult immigrants illegally present in the United States if they are the parents of children born here or legally present here and if they hold a job, obtain a high-school diploma or its equivalent, pay taxes and stay out of prison.

Unfortunately for the president, the conditions he established for avoiding deportation had been rejected by Congress.

In response to the executive orders, 26 states and the House of Representatives sued the president and the recipients of the orders, seeking to prevent them from being enforced. The states and the House argued that the president effectively rewrote the immigration laws and changed the standards for the deportation of unlawfully present adult immigrants.

The states also argued that because federal law requires them to offer the same safety net of social services for those illegally present as they do for those lawfully present, the financial burden that the enforcement of those orders would put upon them would be far beyond their budgetary limits. Moreover, they argued, enforcement of the president’s orders would effectively constitute a presidential command to the states to spend their own tax dollars against their wishes, and the president lacks the power to do that.

In reply, the president argued that the literal enforcement of the law creates an impossible conundrum for him. He does not want to deport the parents of American children, as that destroys families and impairs the welfare of children; and he cannot deport children who were born here, as they are American citizens. Hence his novel resolution.

The case was filed in Texas, where a federal district court judge agreed with the states and signed an order that prohibited the feds from enforcing the president’s orders, pending a full trial. The feds appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans upheld the injunction against the president. In so doing, it agreed with the states that the financial burden on them that would come from the enforcement of these executive orders would be unconstitutional. It also agreed with the House of Representatives that the president exceeded his authority under the Constitution and effectively rewrote the laws.

This week, the Supreme Court heard the feds’ appeal. Because the seat formerly occupied by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for 30 years is still vacant, the court has just eight justices — for the most part, four conservatives and four liberals. A tie vote in the court, which appears likely in this case, will not set any precedent, but it will retain the injunction against the president. The most recent time this happened was 1952, when the court enjoined President Harry Truman from seizing steel mills during the Korean conflict.

Though the issue here is immigration, the constitutional values underlying the case are more far-reaching. Since the era of Woodrow Wilson — accelerated under Franklin D. Roosevelt, enhanced under Lyndon B. Johnson and brought over the top under George W. Bush — Congress has ceded some of its powers to the president. It has enabled him to borrow unlimited amounts of money and to spend as he sees fit. It has looked the other way when presidents have started wars, arrested Americans without charge or trial and even killed Americans.

Can Congress voluntarily give some of its powers to the president, either by legislation or by impotent acquiescence when the president takes them?
In a word, no.

The purpose of the division of powers — Congress writes the laws, the president enforces the laws and the courts interpret them and decide what they mean — is to preserve personal liberty by preventing the accumulation of too much power in one branch of government.

The 26 states and the House told the Supreme Court this week that the president is enforcing the laws not as Congress wrote them but as he wishes them to have been written, because he actually directed officials of the executive branch to enforce the versions of the laws that he rewrote instead of the laws on the books.

That arguably violates his oath of office, in which he agreed that he would “faithfully” enforce all federal laws. We know from his notes that James Madison, when he drafted the presidential oath, insisted that the word “faithfully” be inserted so as to impress upon presidents their obligation to enforce laws even if they disagree with them.

During oral argument in the court this week, there was a bizarre exchange over terminology that the president used in his orders. In a weird series of questions, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. asked whether the president’s executive orders could be salvaged constitutionally by excising or changing a few words. This was improper because it treated an executive order as if it were a statute. It is not the job of the court to find ways to salvage executive orders as it is to salvage statutes, because the Constitution has given “all legislative Powers” to Congress and none to the president.

Statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Executive orders that contradict statutes are presumed to be unconstitutional, and the court has no business trying to save them.

All presidents from time to time have exercised discretion upon individuals when it comes to enforcing laws that pose hardships. But none has done so for 4 million people, and none has written substitute laws of his own making. Until now.

Judge Andrew Napolitano examines the case against

pending-home-sales-reuters

Existing and pending home sales reported by the National Association of Realtors. Photo: Reuters)

The National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday existing home sales rose 5.1% in March to an annualized rate of 5.33 million units. The expectation was for 5.30 million units.

“Closings came back in force last month as a greater number of buyers – mostly in the Northeast and Midwest – overcame depressed inventory levels and steady price growth to close on a home,” Lawrence Yun, NAR chief economist said. “Buyer demand remains sturdy in most areas this spring and the mid-priced market is doing quite well. However, sales are softer both at the very low and very high ends of the market because of supply limitations and affordability pressures.”

Single-family home sales increased 5.5% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.76 million in March from 4.51 million in February, and are up 2.6% higher than the 4.64 million pace a year ago. The median existing single-family home price was $224,300 in March, a 5.8% gain from March 2015.

“The choppiness in sales activity so far this year is directly related to the unevenness in the rate of new listings coming onto the market to replace what is, for the most part, being sold rather quickly,” adds Yun. “Additionally, a segment of would-be buyers at the upper end of the market appear to have been spooked by January’s stock market correction.”

Regional Breakdown

March existing-home sales in the Northeast ascended 11.1 percent to an annual rate of 700,000, and are now 7.7 percent above a year ago. The median price in the Northeast was $254,100, which is 5.8 percent above March 2015.

In the Midwest, existing-home sales jumped 9.8 percent to an annual rate of 1.23 million in March, and are now 0.8 percent above March 2015. The median price in the Midwest was $174,800, up 7.0 percent from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the South rose 2.7 percent to an annual rate of 2.25 million in March, and are 2.3 percent above March 2015. The median price in the South was $194,400, up 4.6 percent from a year ago.

Existing-home sales in the West climbed 1.8 percent to an annual rate of 1.15 million in March, but are 2.5 percent lower than a year ago. The median price in the West was $320,800, which is 5.9 percent above March 2015.

The National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday

US-Supreme-Court-Getty-Images

An American flag flies at half staff outside the U.S. Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. (Photo: Brenda Smialowski/AFP/Getty)

The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld a judgment permitting families of victims of the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut to collect nearly $2 billion from Iran. The assets, which are also available to the families of other terrorist attacks, are from frozen Iranian funds.

The high court on Wednesday ruled 6-2 in favor of some 1,300 plaintiffs related to 241 U.S. service members who died in the Beirut bombing and victims of other attacks that previous investigations and courts have linked to Shiite regime in Tehran.

Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion for the court, which wholesale rejected the challenge to the judgement made by advocates of Iran’s central bank. They were essentially trying to stave off previous court orders that would have allowed the relatives to be paid monies currently sitting in a federal court trust account.

Iran’s Bank Markazi argued that Congress was intruding into the business of federal courts when it passed a 2012 law that instructs the banks’ assets in the United States to be turned over to the victims’ families. President Barack Obama issued an executive order earlier in 2012 freezing the Iranian central bank’s assets in the United States.

In fact, over the past two decades, the U.S. Congress has repeatedly amended the law and passed new laws to allow victims to sue over state-sponsored terrorism. However, Iran, who was recently given billions in freed assets through the Iranian nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, has simply refused to comply with court rulings.

The law, Ginsburg wrote, “does not transgress restraints placed on Congress and the president by the Constitution.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not sign on to the opinion.

“The authority of the political branches is sufficient; they have no need to seize ours,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the dissent.

The Supreme Court case–Bank Markazi v. Peterson–involved $1.75 billion in bonds, plus accumulating interest, owned by the Iranian bank and held by Citibank in New York.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit included relatives of the victims of the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, the 1996 terrorist bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia which killed 19 service members, and other attacks that were carried out by groups with links to Iran. The lead plaintiff is Deborah Peterson, whose brother, Lance Cpl. James C. Knipple, was killed in Beirut.

“We are extremely pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision, which will bring long-overdue relief to more than 1,000 victims of Iranian terrorism and their families, many of whom have waited decades for redress,” said Theodore Olson, the former Bush administration Justice Department official who argued on behalf of the families at the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court upheld a judgment permitting

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing svoftware like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

The Internet is the most important development in the history of communication. The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply.

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.

Entertatment from people that stay out seen progres with diferente oppinion.

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like including versions.

Entertatment from people that stay out seen progres with diferente oppinion.

Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum. Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like including versions.

Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu,

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial