Retroactive Legislation

I've been reading reports about the ongoing deliberation about the warrantless wiretapping that took place after 9/11. Am I mistaken, or is it explicit in the United States Constitution that there can be no such thing as retroactive legislation? Another issue I have is with George W. Bush's validation of his violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He does not even deny that he has violated FISA, but rather argues that it was within his wartime powers. Did I miss something or has Mr. Bush declared marshall law? Wartime powers do not include warrantless violation of the rights of American citizens. Am I going crazy or is this country simply watching itself be pillaged by its own "government." The federal government's jurisdiction has become so ambiguous that it is able to pull almost abstract amounts of money out of the citizens of this country and use that money to intimidate, confuse, and alienate view that may raise any opposition to their own. Examples of this can be seen in the Bush Administration's active suppression of reports from its own departments when they are contradictory to the desires of Bush's camp. The environmental report that was to be released every four years was released for the first time under this administration this year (thats eight years rather than four), and only after it was forced to do so. What about the contracts being issued to oil companies in Iraq now? The Iraq war was not about oil? Then why is it that western companies are the only companies that received 'non-bid' contracts and the advantage of having the opportunity to meet any bids that may be placed in the future. I simply fear that we reap what we sow. We have become placid and to lazy to sow much, and wonder why the benefits being reaped have plummetted. Issues are still to come. People haven't discussed much about the troubles being seen on the horizon for our own trucking industry as in other countries. Bush is attempting to intimidate congress into allowing off-shore drilling... Great idea. We've been wreaking havoc on our environment already, now lets start wreaking havoc on a more fragile, and less understood environment in our deep oceans. What happened to his consideration of creating massive areas of national protection of many marine ecosystems? Now that I have pointed the finger so harshly at Bush, I must also point out that we are very simple-minded if we believe that Bush is so heavily to blame for all this. He is simply the figurehead, the fall guy, and a stooge-king. The real problem lies in the amorphous entities that lurk behind the scenes of our political systems and maintain lasting influences beyond those of the short-lived occupancies of the individuals we vote for.

HMDA: A Perfect Example of Regulation

The HMDA, or the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, is the act implemented for the regulation of the mortgage market. Enacted in 1975, it has been applauded for the increase of lending to low-income families and a decrease in the racial disparities. These are good reasons for applause, but as a cynical skeptic, I must raise concern of its presence in context to the current credit crisis that has gripped out country. Right now, there is a great deal of pressure on the insurance industries to adopt similar regulation at the federal level. I am a strong supporter of deregulation and free markets. Not only do I support deregulation, but I would like to use the same example pro-regulation supporters use to support their cause. HMDA is a perfect example of regulation at the federal level not being effective. There are far more factors involved in these markets than can be regulated, and regulation at the federal level interferes with the local and global market interactions. As we tweak different pieces of our economic world in the hopes of being able to control it, I can't help but feel like it is just an attempt to validate and secure another job for somebody as a middle-man. As middle-men get squeezed out of the marketplace, they seem to end up before the federal government, and then proceed to interfere in the functions of the economic world because they think something is wrong with it when they are not able to find the success they assume is their justifiable due. Regulation of markets produce complications. Then, when these complications arise, pro-regulation supporters cry for more regulation as an example of it. What an odd world we live in.