Joseph de Maistre said “Every nation has the government it is fit for,” not, as widely misquoted, “Every nation has the government it deserves.”

Apparently the state of Illinois isn’t fit for much good government, given its elected officials’ disrespect for the Bill of Rights.

Exhibit A is U.S. Sen. Richard “Dick” Durbin (D–Illinois), who said, reports the Chicago Sun–Times:

Everyone, regardless of the mode of expression, has a constitutionally protected right to free speech. But when it comes to freedom of the press, I believe we must define a journalist and the constitutional and statutory protections those journalists should receive.

The media informs the public and holds government accountable. Journalists should have reasonable legal protections to do their important work. But not every blogger, tweeter or Facebook user is a “journalist.” While social media allows tens of millions of people to share information publicly, it does not entitle them to special legal protections to ignore requests for documents or information from grand juries, judges or other law enforcement personnel.

A journalist gathers information for a media outlet that disseminates the information through a broadly defined “medium” — including newspaper, nonfiction book, wire service, magazine, news website, television, radio or motion picture — for public use. This broad definition covers every form of legitimate journalism.

To those who feel politicians shouldn’t define who a journalist is, I’d remind them that they likely live in one of the 49 states, like Illinois, where elected officials have already made that decision.

To which, replies journalist/blogger James Taranto:

That goes against America’s entire constitutional tradition. In Lovell v. Griffin (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court: “The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets. These indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest. The press in its connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”

In Branzburg v. Hayes (1972), Justice Byron White reiterated the point. The court was asked to hold that the First Amendment precluded the government from requiring a reporter to testify before a grand jury about information he had gathered from confidential sources. By a 5-4 vote, the justices said no. If such a privilege were established, White wrote, “sooner or later, it would be necessary to define those categories of newsmen who qualified for the privilege, a questionable procedure in light of the traditional doctrine that liberty of the press is the right of the lonely pamphleteer who uses carbon paper or a mimeograph just as much as of the large metropolitan publisher who utilizes the latest photocomposition methods.”

Durbin now wants to establish such a privilege by statute, so his call for limiting freedom of the press is ostensibly designed to expand it. …

We guess Durbin would regard this column as “legitimate journalism,” although we’re not exactly sure why. Is it because we write for a “newspaper,” or by that term does Durbin mean the physical object composed of paper and ink? If it’s the latter, well, at least WSJ.com is a “news website.”

But we also have an active presence on Twitter (where you should follow us if you don’t already). Are our tweets legitimate? On this point Durbin is not entirely clear. He writes: “Not every blogger, tweeter or Facebook user is a ‘journalist.’ ”

Durbin’s definition of “journalist” is both too broad and too narrow. Any literate person, for example, could plausibly claim to be working on a “nonfiction book”–if nothing else, a memoir for a vanity publisher. On the other side, isn’t Twitter a “news website”? That certainly describes the way we use it. What about Facebook? It even calls its procession of status updates the “newsfeed.”

Justice White was right four decades ago, even if his references to pamphleteers, carbon paper, mimeographs and photocomposition now seem quaint. A law granting special privileges to the press effectively gives the government the power to license the press by deciding who qualifies.

Durbin acknowledges this problem but doesn’t really grapple with its implications. For instance, he doesn’t spell out whether the protection would belong to individual journalists or only to news organizations. If the latter, then he is in a funny position for a leftist Democrat: He is claiming that a constitutional right belongs only to corporations, not individuals.

Further, a government that grants privileges also has the power to take them away. A shield law would make those designated as “legitimate journalists” beholden to powerful politicians–especially when, as today, most journalists are ideologically sympathetic to the party in power. The Durbin shield proposal looks less like real protection than a protection racket.

Well, Illinois Democrats know all about rackets.

You would think that, as a member of the party that disdains the original intent of the Founding Fathers, Durbin would grasp that the media today goes far beyond printing presses. Perhaps Dick does realize that, and is clumsily trying to eliminate those inconvenient complainers who dare to criticize a member of the world’s greatest deliberative body.

This also makes one think that a federal shield law for reporters, which the Obama administration apparently favors to protect its amen chorus, is a bad idea. The First Amendment doesn’t apply only to journalists. The First Amendment is supposed to apply to everyone. (Original intent, Dick.)

Not to be outdone, Gov. Pat Quinn has decided to defy an order from a federal judge, reports Fox News:

Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn triggered a backlash from his own party as well as the NRA on Tuesday after he unilaterally changed legislation meant to allow the carrying of concealed weapons.

In a challenge to gun-rights supporters, Quinn moved to cap the number of firearms and rounds that can be carried by Illinois residents and ban guns from any place that serves alcohol.

The move was a nod to the governor’s gun-control base as the state faces a court-ordered July 9 deadline to allow concealed-carry.

But, by using what is known as his “amendatory veto power,” Quinn could imperil the carefully crafted deal, which now heads back to the legislature.

Some lawmakers have already vowed to reject Quinn’s new provisions.

Sen. Bill Haine, a Democrat, says he hopes lawmakers will override the veto. Assistant Majority Leader John Sullivan said Quinn “ignored the will of the people.” …

Quinn, in announcing his decision to impose last-minute changes, claimed the bill had “serious flaws” that jeopardize public safety.

“Therefore I’ve used my power under the constitution of our state to make important changes, common sense changes, to protect the safety of our people,” he said.

Among those changes, he called for guns to be banned from any business where alcohol is served.

“Guns and alcohol don’t mix. And I think it’s very important that the legislature understand that message from the people of Illinois,” Quinn said.

He also added a restriction so that licensed gun owners would only be allowed to carry a single concealed gun and one ammunition clip holding up to 10 rounds.

This will be interesting to watch, given that Quinn’s “amendatory veto power” creates a law that appears to violate the Second Amendment, as duly adjudged by federal judges. Illinois was the last state that didn’t allow its citizens their Second Amendment-guaranteed rights to carry firearms in any way they like.

(Quinn, by the way, became governor upon the imprisonment of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor after Gov. George Ryan switched his home address to a federal penitentiary. Four of Quinn’s seven predecessors spent time in the Iron Bar Motel, and two others managed to convince juries that they weren’t as corrupt as the others. one of the non-imprisoned governors was a U.S. attorney and got a conviction against one of the Felonious Four before he became governor, and then after he retired became the defense attorney of another of the Felonious Four. Remember that the term “good Illinois government” is an oxymoron.)

The Chicago Tribune adds:

While the Democratic governor is within his powers to recommend changes for lawmakers to accept or reject, Quinn’s move also raises the possibility that the General Assembly could fail to agree on either option and leave Illinois with a wide-open gun law that even sponsors of the concealed carry law have sought to avoid.

The pressure now is on lawmakers to act before a July 9 deadline that a federal appellate court gave Illinois to put in place a law allowing people to carry concealed firearms. The ruled in December that Illinois must end its status as the only state in the nation with a ban on allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons in public.

Sponsoring Rep. Brandon Phelps, D-Harrisburg, already has filed a motion to override the governor’s changes.

“A deal is a deal, we had a compromise. It’s too short of a notice now to go back on this. As you know, a week away is the deadline. These are things that if the governor was really serious about it, he would have had a member of the General Assembly running a trailer bill to make changes.”

Phelps said Quinn went beyond the “scope of the constitution” in his rewrite, saying the limit on magazines is an issue separate from concealed carry.

“This is a whole rewrite,” Phelps said. “He is nothing more than politically pandering to Chicago. He won (four) counties last time round, and one of them was Cook County and he’s pandering to them.” …

Seeking re-election in 2014, Quinn’s move to tighten the proposal is in keeping with pro-gun control stance, but it also plays well to his core Democratic constituency in the Chicago area. Yet it cuts against the governor in the vast majority of counties that voted against him throughout the state when he was elected in 2010.

Quinn already is facing new political challenges as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a longtime gun control advocate, came out today in favor of Quinn’s potential Democratic challenger, Bill Daley,  the former White House chief of staff whose brother and father both served as mayors of Chicago.

The trainwreck that is Illinois state finances is not a constitutional issue, but that and Durbin’s middle finger at the First Amendment and Quinn’s ignorance of the Second Amendment all demonstrate that the misquoted version of de Maistre’s quote is actually correct — every state gets the government it deserves.

Mark Steyn:

Wednesday, June 26, 2013 — just another day in a constitutional republic of limited government by citizen representatives:

First thing in the morning, Gregory Roseman, Deputy Director of Acquisitions (whatever that means), became the second IRS official to take the Fifth Amendment, after he was questioned about awarding the largest contract in IRS history, totaling some half a billion dollars, to his close friend Braulio Castillo, who qualified under a federal “set aside” program favoring disadvantaged groups — in this case, disabled veterans. For the purposes of federal contracting, Mr. Castillo is a “disabled veteran” because he twisted his ankle during a football game at the U.S. Military Academy prep school 27 years ago. How he overcame this crippling disability to win a half-billion-dollar IRS contract is the heartwarming stuff of an inspiring Lifetime TV movie.

Later in the day, Senator John Hoeven, Republican of North Dakota and alleged author of the Corker-Hoeven amendment to the immigration bill, went on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show and, in a remarkable interview, revealed to the world that he had absolutely no idea what was in the legislation he “wrote.” …

So Senator Hoeven and 67 other senators went ahead the following day and approved the usual bazillion-page we-have-to-pass-it-to-find-out-what’s-in-it omnibus bill, cooked up in the backrooms, released late on a Friday afternoon and passed in nothing flat after Harry Reid decreed there’s no need for further debate — not that anything recognizable to any genuine legislature as “debate” ever occurs in “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

Say what you like about George III, but the Tea Act was about tea. The so-called comprehensive immigration reform is so comprehensive it includes special deals for Nevada casinos and the recategorization of the Alaskan fish-processing industry as a “cultural exchange” program, because the more leaping salmon we have the harder it is for Mexicans to get across the Bering Strait. While we’re bringing millions of Undocumented-Americans “out of the shadows,” why don’t we try bringing Washington’s decadent and diseased law-making out of the shadows?

Just when you thought the day couldn’t get any more momentous, the Supreme Court weighed in on same-sex marriage. When less advanced societies wish to introduce gay marriage, the people’s elected representatives assemble in parliament and pass a law. That’s how they did it in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, etc. But one shudders to contemplate what would result were the legislative class to attempt “comprehensive marriage reform,” complete with tax breaks for Maine lobstermen’s au pairs and the hiring of 20,000 new IRS agents to verify business expenses for page boys from disparate-impact groups. So instead it fell to five out of nine judges, which means it fell to Anthony Kennedy, because he’s the guy who swings both ways. Thus, Supreme Intergalactic Emperor Anthony gets to decide the issue for 300 million people.

As Spider-Man’s Uncle Ben so famously says in every remake, with great power comes great responsibility. Having assumed the power to redefine a societal institution that predates the United States by thousands of years, Emperor Tony the All-Wise had the responsibility at least to work up the semblance of a legal argument. Instead, he struck down the Defense of Marriage Act on the grounds that those responsible for it were motivated by an “improper animus” against a “politically unpopular group” they wished to “disparage,” “demean,” and “humiliate” as “unworthy.” What stump-toothed knuckle-dragging inbred swamp-dwellers from which hellish Bible Belt redoubt would do such a thing? Well, fortunately, we have their names on the record: The DOMA legislators who were driven by their need to “harm” gay people include notorious homophobe Democrats Chuck Schumer, Pat Leahy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and the virulent anti-gay hater who signed it into law, Bill Clinton. …

In his dissent, Justice Scalia wrote that “to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.” Indeed. With this judgment, America’s constitutional court demeans and humiliates only its own. Of all the local variations through which same-sex marriage has been legalized in the last decade, mostly legislative (France, Iceland) but occasionally judicial (Canada, South Africa), the United States is unique in its inability to jump on the Western world’s bandwagon du jour without first declaring its current vice president, president pro tem of the Senate, majority leader, chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, and prospective first First Gentleman raging gay-bashers. As the Paula Deens of orientation, maybe they should all be canceled.

There is something deeply weird, not to say grubby and dishonest, about this. In its imputation of motive to those who disagree with it, this opinion is more disreputable than Roe v. Wade — and with potentially unbounded application. To return to the immigration bill, and all its assurances that those amnestied will “go to the end of the line” and have to wait longer for full-blown green cards and longer still for citizenship, do you seriously think any of that hooey will survive its first encounter with a federal judge? In much of the Southwest, you’d have jurisdictions with a majority of Hispanic residents living under an elderly, disproportionately white voting roll. You can cut-and-paste Kennedy’s guff about “improper animus” toward “a group of people” straight into the first immigration appeal, and a thousand more. And that’s supposing the administrative agencies pay any attention to the “safeguards” in the first place.

As I say, just another day in the life of the republic: a corrupt bureaucracy dispensing federal gravy to favored clients; a pseudo-legislature passing bills unread by the people’s representatives and uncomprehended by the men who claim to have written them; and a co-regency of jurists torturing an 18th-century document in order to justify what other countries are at least honest enough to recognize as an unprecedented novelty. Whether or not, per Scalia, we should “condemn” the United States Constitution, it might be time to put the poor wee thing out of its misery.

More general thoughts on Independence Day can be read here.

Or so says Ken Van Doren:

As we celebrate the most important of our national holidays, perhaps we should take stock. No knock raids, warrant-less searches, indefinite detention, a dramatic increase police brutality occasionally resulting in death to innocent people, secret charges, secret courts, holding prisoners without charges, 30,000 drones flying and spying on us, or soon will be. Serious suggestions that these drones be armed for use against citizens. …

We have a president who has not only declared the right to kill American citizens without due process, but has exercised that “right” more than once. He is known to have a “hit list” of enemies that he would “take out” and has used the IRS, NSA, Secret Service and other agencies to harass and intimidate reporters and political enemies. Indeed, before the last election, Obama’s right hand, Valerie Jarrett is quoted as saying, ““After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time…. we don’t forget. …..There is going to be hell to pay.” It looks as if the Obama administration is being true to this threat.

Our president has exercised powers far in excess of those granted by the constitution, setting budgets, (de facto if not real) and talks openly of using executive orders to make new law in order to get around Congress. No where in the constitution is legislative power delegated to our chief executive. …

To be fair, a considerable amount of the erosion of our rights and our privacy has taken place under Republican administrations, but that does not excuse the excesses of either this or past presidents. I used to warn of the coming police state, but guess what folks, it is here. All that remains is full implementation. Could it be that the terrorists we ought to fear most come from Washington DC and Madison Wisconsin, and are agents of our own governments?

So Happy 4th of July, but today, freedom is little more than a fading memory or a bad joke. Today may be the last day that we are able to stand up to this thuggery and tyranny with any likelihood of successfully rolling it back. My question to you, Americans, is what are you going to do about the above, so that we may have something to celebrate on future Independence Days?

Well?

… as divined by Holman W. Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal:

Look, potentially no greater challenge faces us than mankind’s role in altering the composition of the atmosphere.

Science, to be useful to policy makers, though, has to make valid predictions. Why, despite a nearly 10% rise in atmospheric carbon over the past 15 years, is global average temperature unchanged?

I believe the increase in carbon is worrisome and the net effect is warming, but that doesn’t mean I subscribe to every unfounded, dire scenario.

“Do no harm” is a good prescription. So is “do some good.”

My environmentalist friends want a war on coal, but U.S. coal accounts for just 6% of global emissions—less than China adds in three years.

The effect would be nil. Keystone? Canada would just export the oil to world markets and nothing would change.

Now, I understand. “Keystone” is a symbol to our environmentalist groups so they spin our wheels on Keystone. They spin our wheels demanding a higher “social cost of carbon” to justify regulating microwave ovens and ceiling fans. The effect on climate would be nil. We could cut our emissions in half overnight and the impact would be just three-tenths of a degree a century from now.

I won’t kid you. These things appeal to some in my administration. They like the idea of an expanding bureaucracy (with its own giant carbon footprint) to regulate ceiling fans. But I said we could do some good.

When I call on congress today to implement a carbon tax and use the proceeds to cut payroll taxes and flatten the income tax, I know congress may not act right away. But tax reform is coming, and tax reform would be good—giving us faster growth.

Shifting some of the tax burden from work and capital to carbon would be good—aiding the emergence of non-carbon sources of energy that ultimately justify themselves because they are cheaper and more convenient, not just lower in carbon.

Let me take a little detour. There is no democratic appetite for giving up prosperity or our energy rich-lifestyles. Put that idea out of your heads.

Let us also appreciate how little we can know about how people will live a century from now, what energy sources they will use, and the strong likelihood that any sacrifices we make on their behalf today will be of zero value to them.

We’re beyond the edge of forecastability and that’s the point.

Fracking was well understood a decade ago and yet nobody foresaw that fracking would lead to a decade-long decline—yes, decline—in U.S. greenhouse emissions.

If we are serious about climate change, we must seriously factor in the accelerating rate of technological change already in our society. I’m personally impressed with what I read about the progress of nanobatteries, which may soon turn solar into a real contributor rather than a sinkhole for taxpayer charity. I’m impressed with the prospects for cheaper, inherently safe nuclear power, like in the new documentary, “Pandora’s Promise” (go see it!).

So here’s what we can really do to help future generations and ourselves. We can maintain the dynamism of our economy, from which new technology emerges. We can broadly favor low-carbon energy without prejudging (probably wrongly) which technologies will succeed. Carbon capture, for instance, may well be the sort of white elephant boondoggle we’ll be glad we avoided.

Now I believe these new technologies will emerge or not emerge largely irrespective of what government does, though a little help can’t hurt. I also believe, no matter what we do, the rest of the world will choose economic growth over reducing atmospheric carbon. So technology is our only hope.

The tax reform I envision other countries could adopt out of self-interest, not self-punishment. But it also doesn’t matter what they do. If the technologies that emerge are truly superior and competitive, other countries will adopt them anyway.

Either way, we will not have impoverished ourselves with futile gestures. We will have done absolutely the best thing government can do to address the risk that human greenhouse emissions will lead to dangerous climate change. We will have resisted the temptation—all too typical of Washington—to do foolish or cynical things in the guise of acting against global warming.

Daniel Mitchell presents a scenario that should get social and economic libertarians on the same side, and could get economic lefties and social conservatives on the opposite side:

I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. As I wrote last year, this is “because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat to a virtuous and productive citizenry.” …

But that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of where the two camps might diverge.

But notice I wrote “might” rather than “will.” I’ll be very curious to see how various readers react to this story about a gay couple that is taking an unusual step to minimize an unfair and punitive tax imposed by the government of Pennsylvania.

The story is from ABC News:

John met Gregory at a gay bar in Pittsburgh nearly 45 years ago and immediately fell in love. Today, the couple has weathered the early days of the gay rights movement, the death of friends in the AIDS crisis and constitutional laws in their home state of Pennsylvania that have prevented them from marrying.

Now, as lifelong partners facing the financial and emotional insecurities of old age, they have legally changed their relationship and are father and son — John, 65, has adopted Gregory, 73.

The couple was worried about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax.

“If we just live together and Gregory willed me his assets and property and anything else, I would be liable for a 15 percent tax on the value of the estate,” said John. “By adoption, that decreases to 4 percent. It’s a huge difference.”

Because John’s dad is still alive at 95, he could not legally have two fathers. So Gregory, though older, became the adopted son. The Daughin County Court judge who signed their papers was adamant in telling them that the adoption was “forever” and they would never be able to legally marry. …

The judge did turn to John and said, “I am really curious, why are you adopting [Gregory]?”

“I said, ‘Because it’s our only legal option to protect ourselves from Pennsylvania’s inheritance taxes,’” said John. “He got it immediately.”

Mitchell predicts a few viewpoints:

1. If you have the statist mindset of England’s political elite or if you work at a bureaucracy such as the OECD, you’ll think this is morally wrong. Not because you object to homosexuality, but because you think tax avoidance is very bad and you believe the state should have more money.

2. If you’re a libertarian, you’re cheering for John and Gregory. Even if you don’t personally approve of homosexuality, you don’t think the state should interfere with the private actions of consenting adults and you like the idea of people keeping more of the money they earn.

3. If you’re a public finance economist, you think any form of death tax is a very perverse form of double taxation and you like just about anything that reduces this onerous penalty on saving and investment.

But there are some groups that will be conflicted.

1. Social conservatives don’t like big government and bad tax policy, but they also don’t approve of homosexuality. And, in this case, it’s now technically incestuous homosexuality! If I had to guess, most social conservatives will argue that the court should not have granted the adoption. …

2. Leftists also will be conflicted. They like the death tax and they want the government to have more money, but they also believe in identity politics and wouldn’t want to offend one of their constituent groups.  I’m guessing identity politics would trump greed, but I suspect their ideal approach would be to tax all inheritances at 15 percent.

In my fantasy world, needless to say, there’s no death tax and the entire issue disappears.

If you think the Pennsylvania pair had a creative answer to their death-tax problem, a commenter has an even more out-there solution, reportedly in Britain:

The son of a large landowner became engaged to be married. Then the engagement was ended and the landowner, who was in poor health, married the son’s former fiancée.

The landowner, his new bride, son and former wife all went on the honeymoon together. The landowner transferred the estate to his new wife thus completely avoiding capital transfer tax. All four continued to live in the big house.

After a year, the landowner divorced his new wife and remarried his first wife. The son married his former fiancée. The estate had passed from one generation to another without incurring tax.

One self-described social conservative commenter claims to be not be conflicted:

As a social conservative, here’s my take on it. They’re going to be a gay couple regardless of whether or not the court granted their adoption. They aren’t trying to redefine marriage or the family. They are ONLY trying to avoid paying more taxes. I don’t see it as a social issue at all and have no problem with it. In fact, I congratulate their intuitiveness!

Another comment:

Since when is it the government’s business to actively make you feel like an accepted member of society? Schools and parents have failed to inculcate a good sense of self-esteem in the victimhood crowd.