After the Supreme Court blocked Hawaii’s race-based election pending appeal, its organizers—a government contractor named Na’i Aupuni—canceled it and decided instead to seat all the candidates as delegates to a special constitutional convention for the purported new nation of “native Hawaiians.” The plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to find the election/​convention organizers in contempt of its earlier order. Meanwhile, the appeal of the district court’s earlier denial of an injunction proceeds in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Cato has joined the American Civil Rights Union on a brief supporting the challengers. We point out that this is the second time that Hawaii has attempted to conduct a discriminatory voter-registration procedure to facilitate a racially exclusionary election. The first time this occurred, the Supreme Court held that such elections violate the Constitution. Rice v. Cayetano (2000). Things are no different this time. The voter qualification requirements here again make eligibility contingent on ancestry and bloodlines, which are nothing more than proxies for race. (There’s a further requirement that voters affirm a belief in the “unrelinquished sovereignty of the Native Hawaiian people,” which is an ahistorical assertion.) Such a discriminatory scheme is per se unconstitutional under the Fifteenth Amendment.

It’s alas old news when the government couples an imposition on liberty with an exercise in futility—security theater, anyone?—but it’s still finding inventive ways to do so in a nifty case that combines the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and 3D printing.

Defense Distributed, a nonprofit organization that promotes popular access to constitutionally protected firearms, generates and disseminates information over the Internet for a variety of scientific, artistic, and political reasons. The State Department has ordered the company to stop online publication of certain CAD (Computer-Aided Drafting) files—complex three-dimensional printing specifications with no intellectual-property protection—even domestically. These files can be used to 3D-print the Liberator, a single-shot handgun. The government believes that the files that could be used to print the Liberator are subject to the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations, because they could be downloaded by foreigners and thus are “exports” of arms information that could cause unlawful acts.

When Defense Distributed, ably represented by Alan Gura and Josh Blackman, challenged this restriction of its right to disseminate information to Americans—which the State Department’s own guidance says is protected by the First Amendment—the federal district court ruled for the government. Cato has now filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, urging it to defend the First Amendment right of Americans to share open-source technical information.

Defense Distributed is not in the business of distributing arms. What it distributes, as properly recognized by the district court, is computer code in the form of CAD and other files. Code and digital files are speech for purposes of the First Amendment, as several federal appellate courts have recognized. Most importantly, simply because speech may be used for unlawful purposes by third parties doesn’t mean it loses constitutional protection.

Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has consistently held that “the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it,” and that “[p]rotected speech does not become unprotected merely because it resembles the latter. The Constitution requires the reverse.” Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002). In the seminal case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court provided a baseline for judging statutes that ban protected speech because of the chance it could enable crime. Unless such encouragement is “inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” it’s protected by the First Amendment.

Moreover, the First Amendment requires “precision of regulation” in cases like this to survive even “rational basis” review—the lowest form of judicial scrutiny. But blanket restraints on methods of mass dissemination aren’t precise; the Supreme Court has said that such actions “burn the house to roast the pig.” Butler v. Michigan (1957).

To add practical insult to constitutional injury, attempting to shut down all Internet transfers of these files is an exercise in futility. The State Department would be better served by a more targeted approach that doesn’t infringe on the right to disseminate and receive information. The Fifth Circuit should reverse the lower court when it hears Defense Distributed v. U.S. Dep’t of State.

People have lots of ways to save for retirement. Most employers offer some sort of retirement plan, of course, and people whose employers don’t can set up their own retirement account and get the same tax benefits, albeit without any employer contribution. Low-income workers at a job without a benefit plan can now participate in Treasury’s new MyRA program, which creates a retirement account for the worker and provides a match for their contributions.

And Social Security, which totals to 15.3% of the first $118,500 of a worker’s income, constitutes a big chunk of most people’s retirement income.

Should we do more to help retirees? Given that the poverty rate of senior citizens is well below that of the rest of society it’s sort of hard to say yes to that question, but the states are having none of it.

Several of them are now creating savings programs of their own, bolstered by recent Department of Labor regulations that makes it easier for states to do such a thing.

Is this an example of the 50 laboratories of democracy experimenting to come up with a better way to do something? Of course not–it’s akin to each state setting up its own separate post office.

Payroll taxes already constitute 4.5% of GDP, and the government misses out on another $100 billion of tax revenue from the breaks given to encourage retirement saving. Given the enormous effort we already put forth to encourage (or force) people to save for retirement, arguing that we need yet more incentive plans on this front is a tough brief to prosecute, but even if the answer is yes it’s hard to see why the appropriate response would be for this to be done by the states.

The states already run their own college savings programs, and if we go by that record they’re not very good at this. My wife and I have one of these (two, actually, since the District of Columbia essentially forces each parent to open up their own separate account) and the first few years of parenthood we put a few grand each in these.

Our money is invested in a stock index fund. Index funds are advantageous because they simply follow the aggregate stock market and don’t require any management team to make investment decisions. As a result, the management fee is very low–at places like Vanguard and TIAA-CREF it’s less than .09% of each dollar invested.

In my index fund the management fee is five times higher, at nearly .5%. Why the difference? Part of it is because the District expropriates .15% to cover their costs of administering the program. The company that has the contract to run the funds for the program has a management fee for my index fund of .31, which is precisely 15 basis points above the management fees on their regular index fund that I could buy with my money that’s not in the college savings fund. In other words, the city and the investment company are merely splitting surplus fees being charged to the participants.

And if a person who’s not a resident of the District of Columbia wants to open a college savings account with DC, he has a 5% fee up front taken out of his account. 5% is little more than the District fleecing people not paying attention, but the .3% adds up over time as well–over $6,000 for a family that sets aside $10,000 a year for a child’s 18 years before attending college.

The federal government thinks that excess fees are injurious–it recently issued new fiduciary rules governing investment advisers with the express goal of helping investors get into accounts with lower management fees. For it to turn around and sanction the states to get into this game is just nonsensical.

Believing in the precepts of federalism doesn’t mean we should countenance the states creating all sorts of new programs that replicate what the federal government is doing. Things that the government is inherently not good at doing–and I submit that administering savings accounts is one of them–shouldn’t be done by the states, let alone the feds. 

Sen. Jeff Flake (R‑Ariz.) follows retired Tom Coburn in reporting on the ludicrous waste of taxpayer dollars in Washington with “Wastebook 2015: The Farce Awakens.” Alas, the waste never sleeps, despite the supposed austerity that we hear so much about.

For instance, the National Institutes of Health spent about $10 million on studies of monkeys on treadmills. The results are to help “address physiological responses of exercise in a marmoset model.”

The Agency for International Development dropped $2.1 million on tourism promotion for Lebanon. Last May the State Department issued a travel advisory urging Americans to avoid this neighbor of Syria “because of ongoing safety and security concerns.”

The National Institutes of Health used $5 million to convince “hipsters” to stop smoking. Parties were organized for and payments were made to persuade Hipsters to quit tobacco.

The National Science Foundation provided $5 million to figure out how long a “koozie” would keep a beer cold. Researchers instructed drinkers not to wipe off condensation drops, which would warm the drink.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse spent almost $1 million to learn that pizza may be as addictive as crack cocaine. At least to college students. Perhaps the Obama administration plans a War on Pizza?

The Department of Agriculture (known as USDA) devoted $119 million in 2015 to underwrite the tobacco industry. Whose prime product the government is paying Hipsters not to use.

NSF provided $276,194 to figure out the impact of physical attraction on dating. Spoiler alert: physical attractiveness helps.

The Department of Defense, with nothing else in the world to do, is spending $2 million to develop music-playing robots. Both trumpet and jazz.

USDA provided $79,000 for a “Broadway and Brunch” party in Redlands, California to promote local farmers. Guests got to sing their favorite show tunes.

NSF shows up again with $2.6 million to promote the use of art for science. Like mimicking moisture vaporizers from the first Star Wars movie.

NSF dropped nearly a million dollars to study how online dating affects relationships. It does.

SBA provided $8500 to Circus Mojo, a Kentucky traveling circus, to travel. The players joined the governor on a trade mission to Canada.

USDA offered a $55,000 grant to study the potential of commercial reindeer herding in Alaska. Industry officials say the biggest problem in meeting existing demand has been department regulations governing what it labels “game meat.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency paid $180,000 to elevate a beachfront cottage five feet. After spending $40,000 a few years before to raise the building three feet.

NSF spent $2.6 million studying why tweets are retweeted. It helps to be a celebrity and write well.

NSF dropped nearly a million bucks to study fighting by mantis shrimp. Size didn’t always determine the winner.

The Department of State spent $35,000 on a grant to promote cartooning in India. Which, the Department admitted, already has “a rich history of cartooning.”

NSF gave $185,000 to help New York’s Ithaca College host a “Back to the Future Day.” It featured action figures on hoverboards.

USDA devoted nearly a million dollars to Vermont Law School’s “How to Use a Lawyer” guide. The law school called it “vital work.”

NASA provided $3 million for a mock trip to Mars filmed in Hawaii. Conclusion: personality conflicts arise in when people are stuck together for an extended time.

USDA spent $5 million on the “Ultimate Tailgating Package” for fans attending a University of Nebraska football game. No one ever accused Cornhusker fans of not knowing how to tailgate.

On the waste goes. Money for a robot lobby greeter, fat detector, sexist anti-drunk driving campaign, “ethanol blender pumps,” piñata appreciation, “Boat to Plate” app for fish eaters, reader recommendations for library patrons, and more.

For most of us, as I point out in American Spectator, “the loss of a few thousand or million dollars matters. But obviously not in the nation’s capital. It’s time for voters to change that.”

The federal government owns more than one quarter of the land in the nation, about 640 million acres. The holdings are concentrated in the West, where it owns about half of the 11 westernmost states.

The policy issues surrounding federal land are complex, but there is a good argument that much of the land would be better managed, and would generate more value for Americans, if it was transferred to state governments and the private sector. There is a movement in the West to gain more local control over federal lands because the economic and environmental decisions made in faraway Washington often do no reflect local needs. Randy O’Toole and I wrote about some of these issues here.

The “action fund” of the Center for American Progress (CAP) recently issued a study on federal land issues. If you want an example of how D.C. policy debates can become harsh and mean-spirited, this is it. I don’t know how the two political parties will come together on reforming anything if leading liberal organizations like this one are spreading such vitriol.

Here are some of the words and phrases that CAP uses for those favoring devolving or privatizing federal lands: “radical,” “fringe,” “reckless,” “Koch brothers,” “anti-government extremists,” “land seizure movement,” “far right wing,” “white supremacists,” “militias,” “extreme antigovernment beliefs,” “extreme elements,” “dog-whistle language,” “fossil fuel interests,” “fringe militia groups,” “radical members of the Republican base.” I’m surprised they didn’t throw in cannibals, bloodsuckers, and Nazis. 

The purpose of the report seems to be to tie GOP presidential candidates to these phrases. It includes quotes from the candidates on land issues, presumably the most extreme ones they could find. Carly Fiorina is quoted, “The federal government does a lousy job of managing forests. The private sector does a much better job of managing forests. The federal government controls too much land in this country.” They quote Ted Cruz saying, “We should be reducing the amount of federal land that the BLM controls and the amount of land that the federal government owns.” And CAP says that Chris Christie even wanted to contract out management of New Jersey’s state golf courses and park concessions. Wow, extreme stuff!

The weird thing about the report is that the coauthors, Nicole Gentile and Matt Lee-Ashley, seem to have experience on federal land issues. They should know that there is some policy agreement on many land and resource issues between small-government conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and liberals and environmentalists on the other. The underpricing of federal resources—such as water, timber, and grazing land— is seen as bad policy by experts across the political spectrum. Libertarians and environmentalists also agree on the negative environmental effects of farm subsidies, and on the poor environmental record of federal agencies such as the Department of Energy and Army Corps of Engineers.

From a historical perspective, devolving or privatizing federal lands is not the least bit radical or extreme. For the nation’s first century and a half, the general policy of the government was to unload federal lands by giving them away or selling them to state governments, businesses, and individuals.

As CRS discusses in this report, the federal government privatized 792 million acres of land between 1781 and 1940. One of the “radical” and “extremist” privatizers during that era was Abraham Lincoln, who signed into law the Homestead Act of 1862. On top of those transfers, the federal government has handed over to state governments 470 million acres of land over the decades. 

In sum, the CAP report is embarrassing. The authors seem unable to believe that nonliberals could be concerned about the environment and sound land management. In reality, the authors’ end goals on such policies may overlap with the supposed extremists they decry more than they realize.

A group of prominent conservatives recently released an ObamaCare replacement plan that would replicate many of that law’s worst features. As I explain in a new post at Darwin’s Fool, conservatives need to examine this proposal closely against the alternative. An excerpt:

If you’re a conservative and you’re reading this, chances are good you have a gun to your head. Conservatives are so averse to health policy, National Review‘s Ramesh Ponnuru once quipped that “Republicans will do anything to repeal ObamaCare–except think about health care.” This is no small problem. Indeed, it is how we got ObamaCare in the first place: conservative neglect enabled a raft of very un-conservative health care ideas to germinate at the Heritage Foundation for a decade and a half. By the time Democrats picked up those ideas and ran with them in 2009, it was too late. Conservatives were powerless to stop them.

Conservatives may indeed be just one election away from repealing ObamaCare, which is all to the good. But some conservatives have proposed replacing ObamaCare with refundable tax credits for health-insurance. Tax credits are ObamaCare-lite. They would cement in place many of ObamaCare’s worst features, and replicate its awful results. If those features acquire a bipartisan imprimatur, we will never in our lifetimes be rid of them. Unless conservatives give tax credits the scrutiny they should have applied to the Heritage Foundation plan in the 1990s, they will make the same mistake all over again.

Conservatives don’t have to repeat history. A better set of reforms offers a clear path toward a market system, and away from ObamaCare, by building on the bedrock conservative idea of health savings accounts (HSAs). “Large” HSAs would deliver better, more affordable, and more secure health care, particularly for the most vulnerable. At the same time, Large HSAs would give workers a larger effective tax cut than all the Reagan and Bush tax cuts combined, and nine times larger than repealing ObamaCare.

Read the whole thing.