Visions of Anarchy – James Scott, David Friedman, & Robert Ellickson
12 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, law and economics Tags: David Friedman, economics of anarchy
The Australian Senate since 1901
11 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, economic history Tags: Australia
Piers Morgan Interviews Supreme Court Justice Scalia – Part 2
06 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, law and economics Tags: abortion, Justice Scalia
Piers Morgan Interviews Supreme Court Justice Scalia – Part 1
04 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, law and economics Tags: Justice Scalia
Deirdre McCloskey on Equality and Greed and How To Be a Very Good Economist
02 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, Marxist economics Tags: Deirdre McCloskey, The Great Enrichment, The Great Fact
Eugene Fama’s advice for the next president
01 Dec 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, constitutional political economy, economics of regulation, entrepreneurship, financial economics Tags: 2016 presidential election, Eugene Fama
How Don Lavoie Changed the Debate about Socialism and Central Planning
30 Nov 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, development economics, economic history, entrepreneurship, history of economic thought, Marxist economics, Public Choice
Adam Smith: How His Great Idea Made Us Rich – Deirdre McCloskey
26 Nov 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, comparative institutional analysis, constitutional political economy, growth miracles, history of economic thought Tags: Deirdre McCloskey, The Great Enrichment, The Great Fact
Justice Antonin Scalia | The Cambridge Union
26 Nov 2016 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, law and economics
Why so many private members’ bills in the NZ Parliament?
13 Nov 2016 Leave a comment
in constitutional political economy, Public Choice
New Zealand has a private members’ day every week in Parliament. I cannot remember when in the last century the Australian Parliament last passed a private members bill, much less gave any time to hear private members’ bills.
Only 15 private members’ bills or private senators’ bills introduced into the Australian Parliament since 1901 have been passed into law. Several private members’ bills are passed every year in New Zealand.
Source: Proposed members’ bills – New Zealand Parliament.
One of the reasons that New Zealand has so many private members’ bills and allocate so much time for them is it is not a federal state. There are about 80 in the private members’ bills ballot; two are drawn per week.
Hot button social issues which are usually solved by letting one state take the initiative within a federation must instead in NZ must be dealt within one Parliament. The vent for this tension is a greater role for private members’ bills.
Federalism, for example, gave Congress the opportunity to deflect Marijuana decriminalisation to the states by defunding federal drug law enforcement in 2014 in states that have legalised marijuana. This allowed Congress to have it both ways by neither decriminalise marijuana at the federal level nor frustrate the movement in the states to decriminalise marijuana.
I believe there is litigation before the federal courts as to whether that defunding extends to existing marijuana prosecutions.
I am sure that will delight the legal pedants. They can work out how a US attorney can even stand up in court and discuss the prosecution when Congress has defunded marijuana drug law enforcement in that state. Presumably they pay their own taxi fare to court?
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments