Many on the right are peddling fear about immigration. To hear them tell it, we are in jeopardy of being overrun by benefit-stealing, swarthy criminals from south of the border. But this is a false narrative. The fact is that our population is dwindling and the American economy of the future needs new workers that only greater immigration can supply. Instead of a flood of immigrants, we should be worried about a drought. We need more immigration, not less.
Jim Justice reminds us of Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff, you will recall, made appearances in several of
Shakespeare’s plays. He was a comic character — fat, buffoonish and untrustworthy. West Virginia’s own Falstaff has announced he is running for the U.S. Senate. This presents season ticket-holders for the theater of West Virginia politics with a hard choice: is this comedy or tragedy?
When the curtain rose on the most recent legislative redistricting map in 2021, a new District 100 had been created for the House of Delegates here in the Eastern Panhandle. Many were surprised to find that reliably liberal Shepherdstown had been joined to reliably conservative Shannondale. I wouldn’t want to guess which neighborhood is less comfortable with this shotgun marriage.
As West Virginia Treasurer, Riley Moore has turned the office into a conservative weapon. He has advanced two policies prohibiting investing state funds so as to take into account environmental and social factors in assessing a company’s health. This is irresponsible and is all part of a political crusade against “woke” liberal elites, much like Ron DeSantis. But Moore’s political stunt has undermined the stability of West Virginia’s investments and will cost our citizens money.
West Virginia has had one long history of selling valuable natural resources and public lands to commercial interests. When the dust settles from these transactions and they can be viewed without the hyped rhetoric of the moment, we often deeply regret them. But it has happened again. The West Virginia Legislature recently passed bills that would permit the auction to the highest bidder of pore space underneath sensitive state-owned forests and wildlife areas for the purpose of sequestering carbon from industrial processes. It did so without committee review or opportunity for public comment.
The essence of the doctrine of originalism is that the only proper way to interpret the Constitution is to determine the original intent of the Framers. But what if the original intent of the Framers was actually that the Constitution should live and breathe in each period of our history and not be limited to what it meant in 1789? There is considerable evidence that this is exactly what the Framers intended. They knew that without a supple Constitution, that very document risks creating the conditions for its own replacement, and how that happens may not be pretty.
Our Supreme Court is in the grip of a doctrine that is having a profound, pernicious effect on the whole country and there is no end in sight. That doctrine is originalism. Originalism is a political tool to being used to achieve the political goals of the conservative right. It is merely dressed up as a serious doctrine of Constitutional interpretation.
Immediately upon assuming office, President Biden issued an executive order addressing his climate objectives. Prominent among these was the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps to tackle climate change resiliency and provide job training to underemployed youth. The new CCC would be modeled on a popular New Deal program that put thousands to work on conservation projects during the Depression. From every angle the new CCC seems like a good idea, but its uncertain future is bound up with the stalled Build Back Better legislation.
When President Biden left for the COP26 meeting in Glasgow recently, his primary plan for reaching the greenhouse gas reduction goals in the Paris Accords was in disarray. The cause of this disarray was mainly the opposition of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin. But Biden had Plan B, which involves a two-pronged approach to sharply reducing methane emissions.
Carbon capture is a term used to describe a group of technologies that either remove carbon directly from the air or scrub it from waste gas as fossil fuels are burned. In either case, the carbon “captured” is buried or used in the manufacture of other products. Congress is considering legislation to fund carbon capture pilot projects and the capture method it chooses to support will have major consequences for the environment and for West Virginia.