Latest updates from bobbarr.org http://www.bobbarr.org Lead, first employed in weaponry by the Romans, has been the metal of choice for use in bullets and shotgun shells for more than seven centuries. However, since at least the mid-1980s, its use has been under attack by various environmental and animal rights groups, joined periodically by government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In recent months the campaign has heated up considerably, and gives no sign of cooling down; within the U.S. or abroad. The movement against lead in ammunition has progressed much farther in Europe than here. For one thing, the culture prevalent in Europe (Switzerland being a notable exception) considers firearms ownership a privilege rather than a right; subject to easy and frequent government control. The environmental and animal rights movement is also well-entrenched throughout Europe and within the European Union bureaucracy. These forces in Europe have resulted in at least three countries — Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands – banning lead shot for all hunted species. Other European countries, including France and England, ban lead shot for hunting waterfowl. Such actions are the result of claims — not supported by any consistent science or medicine — that hunting with lead-based ammunition, and fishing with equipment containing lead, kills millions of birds and other animals each year as a result of ingesting lead traces from these “toxic” hunting and fishing activities. Animal rights and environmental groups on this side of the Atlantic, however, are working hard to catch up to their European counterparts. The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) trumpets this issue as a “deadly epidemic” that threatens humans as well as animals. Such efforts have paid some dividends for the anti-lead ammunition advocates in recent months. Last year, for example, the National Parks Service implemented a plan to ban lead ammunition and lead fishing tackle in parks under its jurisdiction. The CDC has long been trying to solidify its jurisdiction over firearms and ammunition (defining a shooting as a “disease” is a stretch, but one that has not deterred the dauntless folks at CDC from relentlessly pushing the envelope of their jurisdiction). The agency even has a lead poisoning prevention office, which among other things, conducts studies of lead levels in blood of people in areas where wild game is consumed. No studies have yet shown dangerous levels of lead, but the studies — conducted, of course, at taxpayer expense — continue; perhaps until some imaginative researcher discovers the desired results. Across the Nation’s Capital, the EPA earlier this month was again drawn into the lead ammunition fray as a result of a petition filed by the CBD and other kindred groups. The petition asked that the EPA assume jurisdiction over lead in ammunition and move to ban it, pursuant to terms of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. The EPA last Friday dismissed the petition – correctly concluding that the law, which did in fact grant the feds extensive power to regulate lead, exempted firearms and ammunition from its reach. Had the EPA decided instead to accept these petitioners’ tortured arguments that somehow the language in the law did not really exempt lead in ammunition, because the offending substance could be separated from the other parts of the cartridges and shells, a battle royal would have ensued with firearms- and hunting-rights organizations. Still, further actions against ammunition are certain, and more petitions are likely in the months ahead. The bottom line is that this controversy has little to do with the health of either humans or wildlife, and much to do about gun control; whose advocates have taken a beating in recent Supreme Court decisions. Rather than licking their wounds, however, the gun control crowd remains busy looking up old friends at EPA, the CDC and elsewhere in Washington; and finding a more receptive audience. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=12608/30/2010As I prepared for my first constitutional law seminar of the fall semester at John Marshall Law School in Atlanta last week, I was reminded again of the majesty of the document which forms the basis for my teaching role. I have always considered the Constitution of the United States to be the most magnificent document ever writ by the hand of Man. It is profound in its clarity of purpose and its deep understanding of human nature. It outshines by orders of magnitude other, more “modern” government blueprints; such as the multi-hundred page, detail-burdened European Union version. It is the Constitution alone to which top government officials, including the President and members of Congress, take an oath upon assuming office. They swear to protect and defend the Constitution; not their opinions or their policies; not what their constituents might want from government; and certainly not what office holders themselves seek to have government do for themselves or their constituents. The constitutional framework our nation adopted after months of heated debate in 1788 was intended to protect the liberty of the citizenry, but equally to restrain and keep the government itself within bounds. In 21st-Century parlance, individual liberty was to be the Constitution’s “default mode.” No longer. Through a toxic combination of ignorance and deliberate indifference to the purposes and history of the Constitution, it has in many respects been so decimated as to provide currently only fitful protection for the liberty we as Americans were supposed to enjoy. This once-hallowed document now affords virtually no checks on the scope, power and cost of the federal government. Events of recent days and months have illustrated quite graphically this sad state of constitutional affairs. The debate over construction of a Muslim community center in lower Manhattan a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center, confirms for us that the First Amendment’s oft-quoted guarantee that in America government cannot use its power to limit religious expression or practice, is honored as much in the breach as in the practice. “Sensitivity” to the views of those who do not want a Muslim center to be built so close to “Ground Zero” now appears to trump the heretofore clear directive of the First Amendment — at least in the eyes of many who claim to understand and support the Constitution, including the former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, the former Republican vice presidential nominee, and many current members of Congress. “Fear” is another oft-played constitutional trump card. Ever since the World Trade Center was toppled by terrorist-piloted airliners on September 11, 2001, fear of another terrorist incident has time and again trumped the Fourth Amendment’s clear mandate against baseless government snooping. Thanks to the constitutional contortions launched by former President George W. Bush, and largely continued by the current administration, the government claims the right to listen at will to our phone and internet communications, and to monitor our driving patterns, our travel activities, and our spending habits. “Public Safety” regularly is used by governments to make a mockery of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the individual right to “keep and bear arms.” “National security” has become the Holy Grail of government action to justify all manner of intrusion into the lives of the citizenry. No less a constitutional scholar than the former Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzalez, opined preposterously in 2007 that the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus did not enjoy constitutional gravitas in the face of terrorist challenges to our security. The “health-care crisis” has become the justification for government to drive the final stake through the heart of the Constitution’s “commerce clause”; crafted oh, so long ago as a simple guarantee of freedom of interstate commerce. Were James Madison alive today, he would weep for America; and his tears would not be tears of joy. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=12598/23/2010It has been nearly 33 years since a president of the United States met face-to-face with the leader of the world’s 20th most populace country; a nation that enjoys the third largest known reserves of oil and the second greatest reserves of natural gas. Yet, if President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, retired General James Jones, is to be believed, the upcoming convening of the United Nations General Assembly may very well bring together the leaders of the United States and Iran for the first time since Jimmy Carter hosted the Shah of Iran in the White House in November 1977. This is not the first time the stars aligned in favor of a meeting of these two adversaries. In February 2009, less than one month after Obama was sworn in, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said publicly that his country was “ready for talks” with Washington. These overtures were not immediately embraced by the Obama administration, but a month later, on March 20, 2009, in a carefully-scripted speech clearly directed to Tehran, Obama praised the Iranian people and urged if not a thawing of relations, at least the start of a new beginning. In the 17 months since Obama’s Iranian New Year’s speech, the U.N. has imposed a fourth round of economic sanctions on Iran (in June of this year); the regime in Tehran has crushed a populist uprising; Russia reportedly is ready to begin loading uranium fuel into Iran’s first nuclear reactor; the U.S. has deployed Patriot defensive missile batteries to four Persian Gulf countries; and both Israel and the U.S. have stepped up talk of a potential military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Outside observers might be forgiven for concluding that this series of events would hardly portend an historic meeting between two leaders whose rhetoric often matches that of World Wrestling Entertainment fighters rather than participants in a diplomatic minuet. In point of fact, however, the environment in which General Jones made his veiled but pointed prediction that “the door is open” for direct talks between Tehran and Washington, is conducive to just such an occurrence precisely because of what has happened over the past year and a half. Despite Iran’s blustering responses to saber-rattling by the West, when a top Middle Eastern diplomat – such as the ambassador from the United Arab Emirates to the United States – makes a public statement just one month ago that military action against Iran is something his country “could live with,” Iran’s leaders have to perk up their ears. And on the economic front, even though Iran’s leaders absorb the economic hits caused by the U.N.’s tightening embargo as a point of pride in standing up its “enemies,” the country’s sluggish economy is sapping public support for the regime. President Obama seems also to recognize that a military strike against Tehran, which would occasion cheers from neo-cons in Washington, would set in motion a series of events that would make the Iraq quagmire look like a walk in the park. And, unlike his predecessor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the current occupant appears to understand that there remains a significant reservoir of pro-American sentiment throughout most segments of Iranian society — an advantage that would be unleashed with a thawing of relations, but not as a result of military action which would have just the opposite effect. General Jones packaged his entreaty to Tehran with a quid pro quo that could be easily met by Ahmadinejad – releasing the three American hikers who strayed into that nation’s territory a year ago and who have been jailed there ever since. Much good could come of direct Washington-Tehran meetings, with no real downside, save the inevitable carping by the far right which lusts for military action. Let us hopes leaders in both capitals have the vision and backbone to actually grasp this small olive branch. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=12578/16/2010The summer months of 1967 are recalled by many middle-aged hippies as the “Summer of Love.” The summer of 2010 may be remembered as the “Summer of Immigration Discontent.” From Arizona to Nebraska, and in political contests from California to Georgia, immigration debates raged white-hot across the land. • In Fremont, Neb., a local, immigration-based law was passed that would require any person, regardless of their immigration status, to register with the local police and obtain a permit before being able to reside in any dwelling within the city limits. • In Phoenix, a federal judge granted in large part an injunction sought by the Obama administration to halt implementation of the state law passed earlier this year that would have significantly enhanced the power of state and local law enforcement authorities to take action against known or suspected illegal aliens. • In Georgia’s gubernatorial primary, one Republican candidate endorsed establishing a “Guantanamo Bay of Georgia” to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. • In Washington, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has reignited the debate over whether in fact the 14th Amendment to our Constitution automatically grants American citizenship to any baby born within our borders, regardless of whether the parents are in the country legally. The Fremont ordinance has been placed on temporary hold, and the Arizona law is now firmly enmeshed within the federal judiciary (which rarely is applauded for acting swiftly). Still, the visceral reaction by many in this country to the topic of illegal immigration is not likely to die down anytime soon, and certainly not before the vote in November. Politics aside, the fact that at least some aspects of immigration policy are now being teed up for what is hoped will be definitive judicial rulings is welcome news. If the Arizona case moves through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, all 50 states hopefully will have at least some guidance regarding whether and to what extent they can — consistent with principles of federalism — interfere with and enforce federal responsibilities. And, if the courts take notice of the Fremont ordinance, perhaps municipalities across the country will better understand that infringing civil liberties of all in order to enforce immigration policies against a few is not a permissible exercise of local government power. Of special interest, however, as we enter the final month of this summer’s immigration discontent, is the issue of whether the 14th Amendment really does require states and the federal government to recognize as full-fledged citizens of the United States babies whose only connection with this country is the fact that their mother was in the country unlawfully at the moment of their birth. Just as the Supreme Court had never, until its Heller decision in 2008, ruled definitively that the Second Amendment in fact recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, the high court has never decided the scope or intent of the 14th Amendment’s so-called “anchor baby” language. Perhaps now one or more states will take action directly (through a legal challenge to the 14th Amendment) or indirectly (through passage of a state law to be challenged by the administration) to determine whether this 1868 amendment, designed to ensure citizenship for former slaves, should continue to be interpreted to force states to recognize as recipients of taxpayer-funded services in their states, children born to foreign mothers not even lawfully in the country. If this is the legacy of the summer of 2010, it will not have been such a bad one after all. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=12568/9/2010The largest fighter plane contract in U.S. history is set to enter the production phase, with aerospace giant Lockheed-Martin front and center as the prime contractor. Lockheed plants all over the country, including the massive one in Marietta, Georgia which will assemble the center wing section, are preparing to produce the multi-role tactical fighter. Yet, even as Lockheed and dozens of other facilities across the country and overseas are gearing up, a major funding battle regarding the engine for the single-engine fighter continues to boil in the halls of Congress. Production of the F-35 comes as assembly of its bigger brother — the twin-engine, air superiority fighter, the F-22 “Raptor” — nears the end of its truncated, 187-plane production run. While both aircraft share much in common in terms of their design and stealth capabilities, the differences are significant. The F-22 was designed in the Cold-War era, when the country’s major adversary was the Soviet Union; and critics have long claimed it is ill-suited to the current and anticipated threats facing U.S. forces around the world. The F-35 “Lightning II” on the other hand, was designed specifically to provide support for ground forces in a wide variety of environments, such as those facing American troops operating in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is capable of being launched from land-based sites as well as carrier-based platforms. While smaller than the F-22 and with only a single engine as opposed to the Raptor’s massive twin thrusters, its lower cost and greater flexibility of the missions the F-35 will be able to undertake, make its eventual production many times larger than the F-22. Current plans call for more than 3,000 F-35s to be produced for use by the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marines, and several hundred already contemplated to be sold to allied nations. With production of the fighter imminent, why is a battle still being waged in Washington, D.C. over whether to use a single manufacturer for the plane’s engine or to have two different manufacturers produce competing, but interchangeable power plants? The answer lies in the nature of the multi-role fighter and the sheer size of the contract. And even though it may appear counter-intuitive to claim that spending money to produce two different engines for a single fighter will actually save money, in this case it is a valid argument. There also is sound precedent for the competing-engine concept now being advocated by many in the Congress. During the 1980s, when the F-16 “Fighting Falcon” (the current single-engine tactical fighter that eventually will be replaced by the F-35) was first produced, serious problems with its then-sole sourced engine (manufactured by Pratt & Whitney) manifested themselves. The Congress then funded production of a competing, General Electric-produced engine – a move that dramatically improved reliability, safety and contractor responsiveness. With so many of the next generation tactical fighter (the F-35) to be produced, and with so much riding on the success of the program to meet such varied needs as those presented in fighting adversaries ranging from potential superpowers to terrorist insurgents in hostile terrain, neither the United States nor our allies can afford production delays or reliability problems such as initially infected its predecessor. Thus, the current debate whether to stick with a single, Pratt & Whitney engine, or to fund a competing engine to be produced jointly by GE and Rolls Royce. The House appears poised to go with the dual-engine program (which the bipartisan Government Accountability Office has reported will result in considerable long-term savings) — as reflected in a key subcommittee vote last week. The Senate is less inclined in this direction, at least at this stage; as is the Obama Administration. Yet, in the long run, everyone, including Lockheed and the many businesses and communities participating in this massive defense program, will benefit from the two-engine approach; as will all taxpayers. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=12558/2/2010