Charles Kesler has an important article in the May 17 issue of National Review (republished online over at Claremont Conservative) on the importance of constitutionalism. The penultimate paragraph highlights the importance of restoring the Constitution to its rightful place:

In the current crisis, conservative efforts to restore the separation of powers may even be more important than a campaign to shore up federalism. TARP, for example, was an unprecedented delegation of legislative power to the Treasury secretary, of all people. It was a desperate, essentially lawless grant resembling the ancient Roman dictatorship, except that the Romans wisely confined their dictators to six-month terms. Obamacare is a 2,000-page monstrosity that will need thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of pages of additional regulations before it can operate. These will be issued by more than a hundred new bureaucracies, each a source of unaccountable power wielded over individual Americans. These multiplying centers of petty tyranny will accelerate our transformation from a republic of laws to a corrupt régime of muddled and ever more arbitrary power.

Tim Ferriss offers advice for dealing with online critics, much of it based on the axiom that you can’t please all the people all the time.

The Library of Congress’ online catalog includes several great old pictures of Dupont Circle, including this one of the circle before the fountain was installed:

Sean Fieler and Jeffrey bell ask whether we should revisit the gold standard as one way to rein in runaway government.

Last but not least, Reihan Salam explores whether legislation to limit ATM fees will be counterproductive. He cites a fun article on the topic by Thomas Hazlett, who sarcastically asks, “can anyone explain why at a price of $0, quantity supplied is nil?”

Saturday Night Live takes on public-sector unions in this hilarious sketch.

¶

Rep. Paul Ryan has an important article in the New York Times making the case not only for repealing Obamacare but for replacing it. “It is not sufficient,” he argues, “for those of us in the opposition to await a reversal of political fortune months or years from now before we advance action on health care reform.” To build a system that puts patients first, not bureaucrats, he favors “attaching tax benefits to the individual rather than the job” and enabling state-based reforms like risk pools to manage pre-existing conditions.

The government seems determined to enforce Matthew 26:11. A new poverty metric would count as poor not those living in real destitution but those living in relative destitution.

In the Washington Post, Brian Frosh and Jamie Raskin argue that if progressives want to undo the effects of Citizens United—a bad idea, to be sure—they ought to turn to the states, which retain broad regulatory powers.  (Full disclosure: Brian is a cousin.)

And last but not least, an amusing video of President George W. Bush wiping his hand on his predecessor.

Daniel Larison is skeptical that there’s a political constituency for repealing Obamacare. He argues that “discontent with the bill will come later as all of its measures take effect after the repeal strategy has been tried and found electorally lacking.” That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, though—not least because the Left views this monstrous bill as merely a first step towards still more federal involvement in health care. Sen. Jim DeMint’s short-and-sweet bill is a step in the right direction.

Steven Spruiell offers a three-step guide to socializing an industry: 1) the government subsidizes private firms; 2) the government creates a “public option” to “compete” with the private firms that have grown fat on subsidies; 3) the government federalizes the whole industry on the grounds that the “public option” is cheaper and doesn’t funnel money to private firms. Solution: don’t subsidize industries in the first place.

Apropos of nationalizing firms, Rep. Barney Frank worries that investments in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might not be terribly sound. Good thing the federal government “invested” so much money on behalf of taxpayers over the past year!

While we’re on the subject of bad ideas, FEMA’s director has proposed federal disaster insurance as an alternative to federal bailouts for those who suffer a catastrophe. Of course, like federal flood insurance, such a policy effectively rewards those who choose to live in high-risk areas. Furthermore, disaster relief isn’t necessarily a federal responsibility at all, as President Calvin Coolidge argued after the 1927 Mississippi floods.

And last but not least, Armor Games offers an addictive distraction from this week’s gloomy politics (via Jonah Goldberg), and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund is raising money for an education center.