Global Warming

"Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)" was posted on May 12, 2014.  While I received no further comments or discussion directly relating thereto, one of my readers, Leonard Levenson, of Manhattan, NY, raised question regarding a related subject, namely, global warming.

He asked:

Although it is politically correct to oppose the increase in greenhouse gasses and indeed it is clear that considerable harm results, there are some questions that have never been answered to my satisfaction.  Perhaps you can help.

     

1. The earth is clearly warming causing sea levels to rise and possibly diverting the Gulf Stream all of which could have devastating consequences to Mankind.  However, doesn't this very warming also increase the growing season for crops in places such as Canada, Russia, Alaska, Patagonia and Greenland?  Does this not benefit large segments of mankind?

      

2.  Doesn't the melting of ice in the Arctic open up the long dreamed of Northwest passage of shipping from the US and Canada to Russia and Japan? 

      

3.  The Greenhouse effect results in inordinate amounts of rainfall, at least in the NE US.  Isn't this beneficial to agriculture, hydroelectric power and the environment?

I responded after doing research on the subject and I set forth below my response based on that research.

In setting forth my response, I must caution my readers that if they read only my text they will have missed a great many facts relating thereto, since I did not want to quote from my sources at length. Therefor, I urge my readers to take the time to access the links and to read, at least large portions, of the source material. My full response follows.

Politically correct or PC has nothing to do with the science of Global Warming, any more than the question of whether the earth is round (and yes there is a Flat Earth Society) or whether the earth is the center of the universe.

Global Warming is a scientific fact, and the fact that certain ignorant people, or shortsighted billionaires, and politicians who cater to them, prefer to pretend is doesn’t exist, doesn’t make it a political or controversial issue.

Nor is PC a way of censoring ideas that are not liberal, as our right wing blogosphere would have people believe, though there have been instances where misguided college students have used it that way.

Without doubt there may be some areas that benefit from Global Warming, such as the Northwest Passage, but they are few. You mention an increase in the growing season in a number of countries, assuming that cold climates would benefit from warmer weather. Alas that is very simplistic. See for example the following which has the sub-headline: 

"Insect infestations, forest fires, floods and drought reflect the devastating impact global warming is already having on the vast Canadian landscape, according to experts from all 10 provinces and two territories."

BY THE GAZETTE (MONTREAL) NOVEMBER 30, 2005

Please note that this was almost a decade ago. A more recent assessment for Canada can be found here. 

As for Russia, see here but you are right it would have some beneficial effects, See here.

As for more rainfall, Hurricane Katrina is an example: See here and don’t forget Hurricane Sandy which devastated the Northeast and we still have nowhere near recovered. But we know that the next one will be worse and we are being forced to spend billions on raising coastline infrastructure and getting ready for next time, which is inevitable.

But it isn’t just more rainfall. It is also less. See this New York Times article where the lede is:

"LOS ANGELES — The fire season here in the hot, dry West now lasts roughly 75 days longer than it did a decade ago, and nearly three dozen fires have been burning up and down California in the last two days, weeks before a normal season begins."

You think of it as more rainfall. But that isn’t it. It is the rise of the sea level that will wipe away huge swath of land. How will it effect the Mid-Atlantic region? See an EPA report here.

See how it is effecting our nations’ capital. Here is today’s (May 16, 2014) weather forecast.

As for Florida (Marco Rubio’s state) See here and allow me to quote from the assessment: 

"The map clearly shows that a sea level rise of only a few meters would inundate thousands of acres of highly developed land and beach communities along Florida's Atlantic Coast, the Florida Keys, and the Florida Gulf Coast. Significant flooding and environmental change would also be experienced in the Everglades. Zoom in on Tampa Bay, Charlotte Harbor or another area to see the impact of sea level rise in more detail. Florida is a low-elevation state and would feel the impact of sea level rise associated with global climate change much more strongly than other areas.”

In the Pacific whole islands will become uninhabitable: See this headline in Business Insider (not a “liberal source or a PC source) "Sea Level Rise Will Make Several Islands Uninhabitable Within A Decade."

See here and here.

And finally, here is a summary for the United States, which to be sure takes us quite far out. 

But maybe the worst part would be the endless migration of people from negatively effected area to less effected areas - a migration that would make the present immigration problems look puny. The result would likely be war and the killing of immigrants to protect the interest of the haves from the impinging hordes trying to find shelter where they are not wanted.

I pity my grandchild and even more the generation after that. My advise to my grandchild would be “Don’t have children. They will be born into Hell on Earth.”

If it isn’t already too late - it is certainly very close to that.

As usual, comments or questions are welcome!

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have (Discussion)

On May 5^th 2014 I posted my latest commentary on my blog under the heading "Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have." This can be accessed here.

Almost immediately comments started coming in.

Nicole Scheller of Lawrenceville, NJ reacted with this:

An issue close to my heart. I even keep a stash of bags at school, so if I take the kids shopping, we're not forced to use plastic. I'm still considered weird for this, but I'm ok with that. I do hear a lot of folks excusing their use of plastic bags because they are recyclable now, but as you know recycling takes energy and the end product will find itself in a landfill eventually.

Joel Wiener of Arlington, Virginia expressed the view:

Some stores charge for plastic bags, while others give the customer a small credit for using their own bags.  I prefer to use paper bags since they decompose quickly and I use the empty bags for recycling newspapers.

Plastic bags can be recycled if disposed of properly.  

The problem, like with most things, is with compliance and a sense of personal responsibility.

To which I replied:

You are making an assumption that is commonplace. Please read the article here where you will find that paper bags don’t really have much of an advantage over plastic. To quote from part of the article:

“Before you brown bag it, consider these environmental disadvantages of paper:

•                Causes pollution: Paper production emits air pollution, specifically 70 percent more pollution than the production of plastic bags [source:Thompson]. According to certain studies, manufacturing paper emits 80 percent more greenhouse gases [source: Lilienfield]. And, consider that making paper uses trees that, instead, could be absorbing carbon dioxide. The paper bag making process also results in 50 times more water pollutants than making plastic bags [source:Thompson].

•                Consumes energy: Even though petroleum goes into making plastic, it turns out that making a paper bag consumes four times as much energy as making a plastic bag, meaning making paper consumes a good deal of fuel [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Consumes water: The production of paper bags uses three times the amount of water it takes to make plastic bags [source: Lilienfield].

•                Inefficient recycling: The process of recycling paper can be inefficient -- often consuming more fuel than it would take to make a new bag [source: Milstein]. In addition, it takes about 91 percent more energy to recycle a pound of paper than a pound of plastic [source: reusablebags.com].

•                Produces waste: According to some measures, paper bags generate 80 percent more solid waste [source: Lilienfield].

•                Biodegrading difficulties: Surprisingly, the EPA has stated that in landfills, paper doesn't degrade all that much faster than plastics [source: Lilienfield].

But that doesn’t mean that plastic is better, as the article goes on to say:

However, plastic didn't get a bad reputation for nothing. Here are some environmental disadvantages of plastic: (and then lists many).

There simply is no substitute for making use of re-usable bags, which we should all do voluntarily as I, my wife and my daughter do. 

But this issue is far too important to allow for voluntarism.  As my original post has indicated many governments have instituted action to discourage the use of disposable bags of any kind and that we need to do the same.

I personally would favor a significant tax on every bag issued by a retailer. I would urge a minimum of 25¢ per bag and preferably a $1.00 assessment. That would be an effective inducement to the use of re-usable bags. It is essential that we, as a society take action against the blight of waste and its devastation on the environment."

Which prompted this response from Wiener:

I suppose that canvas bags would also have an environmental impact due to their manufacture and the printing found on them:

The common message throughout all of these facts is to re-use bags, and the more they are re-used, whether paper, plastic, canvas or mesh, the less impact on the environment.

I think that the addition of a per bag tax would not be much of a deterrent, since even at a buck a bag, most people will forget to bring their bags and will have no choice but to pay the tax and get the bag, as opposed to carrying an armful of loose groceries. 

Which prompted this further observation on my part:

Your point is well taken. The key is "to re-use bags”.

But I don’t agree that a "buck a bag" would not be a deterrent. Even 25¢ a bag would be. We can see this from the extent to which people clip coupons and use store member cards to get discounts. But the common 2¢ or even less a bag does nothing.

The idea that "forgetting has its costs" is a wonderful way to jolt the memory.

(Some good slogans there.)

Albert Nikemkin of Vienna, Virginia chimed in with:

Thanks for sharing this.

IKEA has the solution to this problem. I was at a local store yesterday: it doesn't provide any bags at all for purchases. However, it does SELL reusable bags at the checkout counter for those who want them and/or forgot to bring one. I think that would certainly get the message across and solve the problem. However, a single merchant can't make this work. A municipality or state needs to outlaw the free distribution of plastic bags. That would either mean a return to paper, or adoption of the IKEA approach.

Prompting me to write:

Ikea is the correct solution. But as you point out an occasional responsible retailer or an occasional responsible consumer will not solve the problem. It is a societal issue and must be dealt with societally. Only a tax on disposable bags, both plastic and paper of at least 25¢ and preferably $1.- will begin to deal with this issue.

Elaine Krigsman of Montclair, NJ prompted this exchange by writing:

While I agree with you that a tax would be the best way to solve this problem, the chances of this actually happening are slim to none.  We can't even get a gas tax passed here in NJ that would begin to address our needs.  Stores should just stop providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe.  IKEA's system is not original but it is effective, even if it is just one customer at a time.  

Which caused me to reply:

Unfortunately, the likelihood of stores no longer "providing free plastic or paper bags, as they do in many countries in Europe” is also slim to none. First it is up to us to act individually to use re-usable bags, and second we need to keep working to achieve societal and political goals even if at the moment they seem out of reach. The stupidity of not raising the gas tax is beyond compare, as was the failure of Christie to allow new rail tunnels between NJ & NY even though the Federal government would pay for it, a project that was first proposed by Christie supporter, former mayor, Giuliani.

And then Christie won by a landslide. 

Simply throwing up ones hands accomplishes nothing.

Prompting this final concurrence:

I agree with you on all points!

And finally Joanna Cooke of Jackson, Wyoming expressed this view:

I haven't commented in years, largely because I feel way out of my league in terms of understanding the issues you've explored. But this one I have an opinion on. We regularly use cloth bags--some have been in use over eight years at this point. I also reuse the plastic bags for when we get things in bulk for new bulk purchases. Whatever bags we do use, plastic or paper, get reused in some fashion, for example, for garbage in the bathrooms (and I often simply empty out those bags and use them again for the same purpose).  I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic. Our local natural food store gives a credit that can be donated to local community foundations, and even the box grocery stores give some kind of credit, a few cents per bag or something. I support both plastic and paper bags having fees, but do wonder about the economic concerns and what the best forms of education are on this topic (emphasis added).

To which I replied:

Allow me to address some of the concerns you raise. You "wonder about the economic concerns." I don’t see that there are any realistic ones. Even a dollar tax on each bag would not cause people to shop less, but it would, in most cases, cause them to bring their own bags.

As for your question as to "what the best forms of education are on this topic” I really don’t know. The environmental community must spend resources on education. Unfortunately they have not invested very much on this issue. I do not have any influence in this community. Those who do should use that influence to get them to speak out more aggressively.

The main obstacle to imposing a significant tax on disposable bags is the general aversion of the public to all taxes and the antigovernment mood created by Reagan’s slogan, “Government is not the solution, Government is the problem” and the anarchic anti-societal attitudes that have arisen from it, particularly within the Tea party, but within the Republican party in general. They have a no lose strategy, because the more outrageous their behavior in the councils of government, the more they bring government into disrepute, which strengthens their anarchic and anti societal agenda. Since the public instinctively hates taxes, this too feeds into their opposition to all tax increases and supports their constant call for fewer taxes until in the words of, Grover Norquist, "I just want to shrink it (the government) down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”

Politics has its cycles, and in time the public may recognize that without government to regulate our food and drug supplies, to protect our environment and to guarantee competition, etc. capitalism cannot function.

I will be happy to entertain any further comments anyone else cares to make.

Our Planet - It Is The Only One We Have

I have stated before, and herby restate, that because of a lack of expressed interest in my postings on my blog I have ceased writing for that venue, until and unless I receive a reasonable number of responses indicating an interest in my continuing. 

However, since I continue to write for other venues from time to time, I will continue to post those on my blog.

On April 21, I wrote a Letter to the Editor of the Record (The Fort Lee Suburbanite no longer appears to be interested in publishing Letters to the Editor). It was published in the April 23, 2014 edition.

The letter appeared under the Headline “Stop Using Plastic Bags” and reads as follows:

I find it appalling to find that most people take their purchases in plastic bags, rather then using reusable canvas bags. It appears they mean well, because every merchant offers reusable canvas bags and many buy them. But it appears that most people seem content with having bought such bags, even though they then fail to use them.

Why using reusable canvas bags is so is hard is difficult to contemplate. Most people use their cars when doing their shopping and it is the easiest thing in the world to keep some canvas bags in the car and take them with them when they shop. That is what I do.

Do they not realize what enormous damage they are doing to our environment? What happens to these hundreds, indeed thousands, and most likely millions of these bags? According to National Geographic there are “somewhere between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags … consumed worldwide each year”. We see them hanging from trees where they pollute our visual environment. But worse they end up in our landfills, where unlike other garbage they do not decompose and remain there unto eternity. And still worse they end up in our streams and in our oceans where dolphins, and other creatures of the sea get tangled in them, or imbibe them and die a horrible death.

National Geographic also informs us that “Plastic bag litter has become such an environmental nuisance and eyesore that Ireland, Taiwan, South Africa, Australia, and Bangladesh have heavily taxed the totes or banned their use outright. Several other regions, including England and some U.S. cities, are considering similar actions.”

It is time for our state and/or our nation to do the same.

Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will only be published at my discretion.

Government at its Worst and at its Best

I have said heretofore that I am no longer willing to take the time to write for my blog because my audience is at best unresponsive and at worst non-existent.

However, I have also decided that what I have written for other venues should also see the light of day on my blog. So here goes!

Christiegate

Living in the town that is the subject of this scandal it has been covered rather well by our local newspaper. One of the articles prompted me to write a Letter to the Editor, as follows:

The continuing “Bridgegate Scandal” (Suburbanite January 17, 2014) can only remind us of the original scandal after which all other scandals have been named. While the two are different in many ways, they have some important features in common.  

In both cases the scandal broke right after the incumbent won re-election by an overwhelming majority. In both cases the incumbent claimed ignorance, and was quick to fire underlings.  

Nixon declared, “I am not a crook!” Christie declared: “I am not a bully”.  

In both cases the facts kept developing. In the case of Christie they too are just developing, with the mayor off Jersey City coming forth with how his refusal to endorse Christie led to “purposeful stalling of a pension reform bill that would have benefited his city", and the mayor of Hoboken charging that Christie withheld federal storm relief funds from her city to punish her.  

Whether Christie knew the details of what his aids were doing is irrelevant. As anyone who has worked in either the private or the public sector knows, underlings know and act upon what they perceive the boss wants. Clearly this is what they understood the boss wanted.  

Punishing a political adversary is part of the political game, but punishing the citizens of a town for the perceived sins of its elected official is beyond the pale. It is time for Governor Christie to take responsibility and resign. Failing that, serious consideration to impeachment is in order.

This appeared directly under a cartoon on the subject, inexorably linking the two, which I reproduce here:

This represents government at its worst!

On the other hand the importance of government at its best is not to be overlooked, as the New York Times article entitled “Innovation,Optimism And Jobs” seemed to do, prompting me to write a Letter to the Editor, which was not published. The letter follows:

To the Editor:

 Joe Nocera’s column “Innovation, Optimism And Jobs" is misleading, not by commission, but by omission, or at least in emphasis. 

 In discussing technological change and whether it will help or hinder job creation, he barely touches upon the vital role that government plays. While, in talking about past technological innovation, he does mention, “governmental change:” and that “Factories used children as workers, until governments passed child labor laws” and that “free education became the law of the land” but he fails to point out what a vital role government played. 

 The fact is that innovation did wipe out an enormous number of jobs. Government kept such dwindling jobs from devastating huge swath of the population by forcing job sharing. People used to work eighty hours a week and more, but as fewer workers were needed government forced the fewer jobs to be widely shared, not only by eliminating child labor, but by passing laws limiting the number of hours to be worked to 40 hours and mandating extra compensation for hours above that, while at the same time making sure that lower paid workers would not have their income cut as their hours dwindled, by setting a floor to how much compensation could be reduced, i.e. the minimum wage. 

 If we are to meet the challenge from the new efficiencies, we must once again reduce the number of hours worked, follow through on free education by making college free, and in general improve our educational system by investing in our human capital. 

 Earlier innovation would not have benefited the broader population without government intervention, and neither will the present one.

Comments, Corrections and/or Questions are welcome.

The Right, The Left, The Radical and the Conservative

I have said time and again that the lack of response to my efforts at an analysis of events causes me to have less and less enthusiasm for this endeavor.

However, I have also indicated that where I have a private exchange that I think might interest my readers, the work already having been done, I will continue to post and distribute.

In this case I received a succinct e-mail from Janet Wood, an American citizen residing in Toronto, Canada.

She wrote:

This was sent to me by a very Conservative friend.  It's succinct and I thought you might find it interesting.

For the article, which she sent, see here. The reader must read the article to comprehend the rest of the exchange,

My response was:

That is rather curious. Why would a conservative friend send this to you? It represents what is generally associated with a liberal viewpoint. Though I have a problem with the terminology that is in vogue. Increasingly, the Right wing view seems rather radical (not conservative) and the Left (don’t touch Social Security or Medicare) rather conservative.

But the article is right on the money as far as I am concerned. Here again I find the political debate often strained. The Right wants taxes “flatter." The liberal wing wants taxes on the wealthiest increased to generate more revenue. The Right says we generate more revenue by growing the economy. The liberal wing rarely responds to this. But of course growing the economy is the best way forward and we should all agree on this. The question is what is the best way to grow the economy? And the answer should be obvious. With 70% of the economy being generated by consumers, putting more money into the hands of consumers (i.e. those who will spend it, and those at the top who already have everything they want. will not) is the best way forward, provided the there is slack in the means of production, which there is.

The article points out that money in the producers is not being spent to increase production but rather to inflate the value of the assets. But increasing the productive capacity, without increasing demand can only bring deflation; just as demand outstripping production capacity will create inflation. Balance is all.

At this time consumers whether in the US or in Germany or for that matter in China are not spending enough and so these economies depend on export, but we can’t all be exporting economies and the US isn’t even successful in this area, since we have an unfavorable trade balance.

There is no economic justification for the tax system to favor capital over labor, particularly at a time where there is excess capital and not enough demand. We love to hold forth the Protestant work ethic, but then discourage work by this tilting of the tax code in favor of capital. But the tax code is even worse than most appreciate. Not only are Capital Gains taxes lower than earned income (labor) but we favor capital in myriad of ways that are not often even discussed, e.g. when assets with great gains are sold, a tax, albeit a relatively small one, is assessed, but if held and passed on by way of inheritance, the capital gains are forgiven and the beneficiary gets a new tax basis, so that if the beneficiary sells there is no tax (none) on the gains. This for some reason is never even discussed.

In the long run our economy will only thrive if we invest, and right now, as the article points out there is little investment in the private sector, and even less, in the public. If future generations are to thrive, and we keep hearing of generational theft, we must create the infrastructure that will give them prosperity. That means dealing with the greatest threat to their future in global warming, and building the equivalent of the railroads of the past. We need larger ports. We need better transportation. Our bridges are falling down and our highways are strangled with congestion. NJ Governor Christie in canceling the NY-NJ rail tunnel undermined a vital project for regional and national prosperity, and even though this was first proposed by the Giuliani Administration, got very little push-back.

Above all our future depends on the education of our children. We neglect that at our peril.

P.S. And Canada thinks only of the tar sands.

Which prompted this insightful reply:

Thanks for your response.  It is always a pleasure to get you going because you always have something "meaty" to say!

I am hoping they sent me this because they are experiencing a change of view, if not heart.  These two voted for our notorious Mayor Ford because he was going to control spending and reduce taxes!  The fact that he was unfit was visible then if one cared to see.

And it's not just the tar sands; it's fracking as well.  I am very worried about water and the cavalier way they contaminate it.  Water is a quiet worldwide issue--Ethiopia damming the Nile, the Kurd territory having the water and Tibet as well--no wonder China is going to keep it.

I have to say I find the world a much scarier place then I used to.

Prompting this extensive expression of my views:

I agree with you that water is the canary in the coalmine.

It is indeed a worldwide issue and future wars will not be fought over oil but over water. This along with climate change will bring about the greatest migration in the world’s history, with huge causalities from people drowning, and from bullets, as countries try to keep hordes off refugees from overrunning their borders. I dread to think about the future. I will not live to see the cataclysm, but I fear that my daughter and certainly my granddaughter will.

But I have to disagree with you about fracking. When considering whether something needs to be stopped, consideration of alternatives must always be evaluated. Let us be frank. The US, Canada, China, indeed the world, need an abundant energy supply. Nothing will change that. The only question is from what source. Ideally, it is renewable clean energy, from the sun, wind, and even tides. Maybe some day atomic fusion, (not fission) but not for a long time. 

But these are all still very inadequate and very expensive. What happens in the meantime?

Allow me to quote from NPR:

"Despite a slowdown in U.S. consumption, coal is poised to replace oil as the world's top energy source — possibly in the next five years, according to the International Energy Agency. The rise will be driven almost entirely by new energy demands in China and India, the IEA says. 

"'This report sees that trend continuing. In fact, the world will burn around 1.2 billion more tonnes of coal per year by 2017 compared to today – equivalent to the current coal consumption of Russia and the United States combined."   "Together, China and India will account for more than 90 percent of the rise in demand for coal over the next five years, according to the IEA. "The agency predicts that coal's growth trend will hold everywhere in the world except the United States, where it says the wide availability of cheap natural gas brought a decline in coal demand — a situation also summed up in a recent post by NPR's State Impact team."

As can be seen from the above the problem is coal. Anything that replaces coal is a plus. Oil is better than coal; natural gas is better than oil.

Fracking has created a huge windfall for the US’s energy supply. It has the potential to free us from Mid-East oil and even for the US to become a net-energy exporter. That is good for our economy and for the world’s economies, as well on the amount of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere.

Yes, it has the potential to poison our water supplies and that makes it very dangerous.

But fortunately proper regulation can obviate most of that. I quote:

"On Monday, Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation to regulate fracking in the state of Illinois. Legislation overwhelmingly passed both the Illinois Senate (52-3) and the House (108-9) last month. The law is now seen as the nation’s strictest for oil and gas drilling.    

 "The Chicago Tribune writes that the legislation will force oil and gas companies to register with the Department of Natural Resources. In the permitting process they must detail:  

• how the well will be drilled 

• the amount of fluid used and at what pressure 

• how it will withdraw water, contain waste, and disclose the chemicals used 

  

"Additionally, a 30-day public comment period begins seven days after the Department of Natural Resources receives a permit application; and people who suspect fracking has polluted their water supply can request an investigation forcing the Department of Natural Resources to investigate within 30 days and reach a determination within 180 days.”

Other states are in the process of adopting regulations.

The answer in my view is proper regulation The alternatives to fracking are far worse than fracking, and if we look at fracking’ downside, without evaluating what happens without it, we follow a destructive path.

And then added:

Since writing the e-mail below I came across an interesting article in the New York Times.

This is an area of pollution and misery that cannot be overlooked.

I particularly call your attention to the following paragraph:

"The developed world needs a smarter approach toward cleaner fuels. The United States has been showing the way. Hydraulic fracturing has produced an abundance of inexpensive natural gas, leading to a shift away from coal in electricity production. Because burning natural gas emits half the carbon dioxide of coal, this technology has helped the United States reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the lowest level since the mid-1990s, even as emissions rise globally. We need to export this technology and help other nations exploit it.”

We do not live in a world where the ideal is the practical.

 Comments, questions, or corrections, are welcome and will be responded to, but will only be published at my discretion.

The Supreme Court vs. the Constitution (Addendum)

I keep wanting to devote my time to activities other than my blog, but questions keep nagging at me, and question beget the search for answers, and once the research is done it behooves one to publish.  And so here we go again!

In Gerald Walpin’s book "The Supreme Court vs. the Constitution" at page 21, Walpin asserts:

“We start that analysis by making clear that the Constitution did delegate to the Supreme Court the duty to decide whether actions taken by legislatures and governmental executives are constitutional.”

But did it?

That was a question that immediately raised itself in my mind upon reading it. To be sure that power is unquestioned today. But that doesn’t make the assertion quoted above true. As one who studies American history assiduously, I recalled how unimportant the Court was considered to be in much of our history.

I remembered for instance that the Court had not received its own home until 1936. That until then, while the President lived and worked in the White House, and Congress had its own great chambers in the Capitol, the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building. See here. It simply was not considered important.

I remembered that the generally accepted wisdom was that there was no recognition of this power until it was asserted by Chief Justice Marshall in MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) and then after asserting the power the court did not exercise it. In fact when the court handed down its infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) decision that was the first time the Court had actually exercised that power, or to put it another way, the court had not attempted to assert that power for some 70 years.

This history, plus various reading of American history, which suggested that George Washington considered it his duty to judge constitutionality and that this would be the basis for most vetoes and other indications led me to the conclusion that this power was not intended to be given by the Constitution to the Court.

But as always, I wanted to confirm my impression, and so I went to the Federalist Papers, that extensive collection of essays written primarily by Hamilton and Madison as part of their successful attempt to sell the States on the merits of the Constitution. I expected to find corroboration that Walpin was wrong on that point as well.

Well, as I have always said, facts first. The facts showed me to be wrong. At the very least it was the opinion expressed in the Federalist Papers that that power had been given and had been intended to be given to the Court. Walpin was right on this point.

However, the founders assumed that the court would be held in check by the threat of impeachment if they overstepped. Yet in the history of the Court only one Justice has ever been impeached and none have ever been removed. See here.

For those who like to go to the original sources and want to read the relevent portions of the Federalist Papers, I refer them to here.

The point, however,  is that on this issue, my initial impression was wrong, and Walpin was right.