Government can be freedom’s best friend when it protects citizens’ constitutional rights. Here’s how the Goldwater Institute is ensuring your rights are protected.
Forty years ago, on the eve of a presidential election, millions of Americans gathered in front of their television sets to watch a fading Hollywood star deliver a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate, Sen. Barry Goldwater.
'Goldwater' label moves from right as GOP changes
In 1964, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater delivered the words that simultaneously defined a conservative political force and doomed his presidential campaign:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
The statement caused some fellow Republicans to label Goldwater a conservative radical on the outer fringes of the party of Lincoln.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." The image of our government careening through our rights like a drunken teenager is funny, but too true. We owe this colorful image to P.J. O'Rourke.
Engaged citizens make for good governments. That’s the central idea behind the ninth annual Goldwater Institute Legislative Report Card, which takes into account 375 votes during the first session of Arizona’s fiftieth legislature. The result is a citizen-friendly tool for evaluating legislators’ votes against a simple, important standard: their impact on liberty.
The Goldwater Institute is charging that legislation approved last year allowing school districts to spend unused bond money is unconstitutional because it benefits so few districts.
Under the law, districts that have unused capital-bond proceeds from elections more than nine years earlier can use that money on any capital improvements, such as renovating a school, and not just the originally intended project.
Judicial activism has become a universal pejorative, a rare point of agreement between red and blue America. Conservatives and liberals alike condemn courts for overturning policy decisions they support. Both sides would reduce the judiciary's constitutional scrutiny of the actions of other branches of government -- a role it exercises not too much, but far too little.
Prince Charles is publicly advocating a ban on Big Macs. While touring a diabetes center, he asked a local official, Have you got anywhere with McDonalds, have you tried getting it banned? That's the key.
Its no secret that Big Macs and fries aren't good for you (incidentally, neither are fish n chips, chap).
Arizonans decided 19 ballot propositions this election, the most of any state. That's a lot of direct democracy. Maybe its time to ask how well its working.
Our states founders wanted the people to have direct access to the ballot. They saw it as a fundamental protection against unresponsive government. But if this process provides an occasionally needed corrective, its not the best way to make law.
The Arizona Supreme Court recently handed Governor Napolitano a double defeat. In the first, the Court agreed to review the Governor's line-item veto. In the second, the ruling in the line-item case was unanimous.
This summer treated us to the films "Too Hot Not To Handle" and Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as news that the Supreme Court will decide whether carbon dioxide (CO2) should be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
Reinforcing the idea that CO2 is a pollutant, Gore and others often speak of "CO2 pollution." Before you train yourself to add the "p" word to your vocabulary, consider that CO2 comes from the Earth itself and its levels have fluctuated greatly throughout history.