David S. D'Amato: The war on Americans

  That the consumption of certain drugs ought to be proscribed by law is probably taken for granted by most people. The presumption in favor of banning some drugs has become so strong, so embedded in the mainstream of popular discourse as to be practically beyond debate — notwithstanding either philosophical or empirical issues that stand in contradiction to the accepted view. But at this stage in the American experiment in drug prohibition, the case for legalizing drugs, for leaving them within the realm of permissible choices, is worth another look. As defenders of individual rights and responsibility, libertarians have been making that case since the Drug War’s incipiency.

Ann Garcia: Who would the SAFE Act endanger?

  With the end of the shutdown debate, attention in Washington has returned to immigration reform. This summer, the Senate passed a comprehensive bill that would redesign our nation’s outdated immigration laws by a bipartisan supermajority of 68–32. Up to this point, the House has taken a piecemeal approach, moving bills that purport to address different parts of the immigration system through the committee process. One bill in particular should be on the radar of most Americans because of its extreme reach and outrageously harsh penalties. It’s the Strengthen and Fortify Enforcement Act, or SAFE Act, which passed out of the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote in June.

Michael Josephson: Righteousness is revealed in conduct, not rhetoric

  It’s hard to look at the world and some of the people who seem to get ahead without occasionally asking ourselves why we should be ethical. However normal it is to think like this, the question should be off limits for people who profess strong religious beliefs. After all, what religion does not mandate morality?

  To authentically religious people, the motivation toward virtue is grounded in the acceptance of a nonnegotiable duty to be a good person in the eyes of God, not in anticipation of personal benefits. Dishonest, irresponsible, or unfair conduct is simply wrong.

Sally Steenland: Women Senators prove collaboration is better than conflict

  Women came to the rescue in Washington last week. A group of female senators crossed party lines and forged a plan to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling. These women spoke the word "compromise" not as an epithet, but as a means of governing. They rolled up their sleeves and found common-ground solutions in order to put Americans back to work and save the global economy.

  In so doing, the 16 Democratic and 4 Republican women in the Senate blasted a hole in the stereotype of women as decorative accessories who chat and men as action heroes who get things done. As Time magazine put it: "Women Are the Only Adults Left in Washington."

Jacob G. Hornberger: Income taxation protects the rich and hurts the poor

  Statists love to tell us how the income tax helps the poor by taxing the rich and equalizing wealth. That’s just sheer nonsense. For one thing, most of the money they take from people with income taxes is used to fund the welfare-warfare state, very little of which actually ends up in the hands of the poor. Moreover, to the extent that the money does end up in the hands of the poor, it accomplishes nothing more than making them dependent on government largess rather than making them independent, self-sufficient individuals.

Katherine Green Robertson: Turning a blind eye to fraud in benefits administration

  Amid the news of the debt ceiling debate and the government shutdown, a disturbing report was released in the U.S. Senate on October 7 revealing rampant abuse in the approval process of Social Security Disability benefits. The report, issued by the U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, offers a peek into just how loosely at least one government benefits program is administered and sheds light on the need for more oversight of the programs that swallow 10% of the nation’s GDP.

Robert Wilkerson: Avoiding war

  The U.S. did a wonderful thing a few weeks ago. We solved a problem without going to war. That has been rare in our recent history.

  The issue was Syria and its possession and use of chemical weapons on rebels fighting to overthrow their present government. The Hawks in Washington began to advocate several different military actions that we could take. Some even suggested that our President and our nation would be seen as weak, cowardly, and an undependable ally if we did not take some sort of military action.

Steve Flowers: Inside the Statehouse: Summer of SCOTUS

  During the summer the U.S. Supreme Court rendered two significant rulings. They were quite different philosophically.

  The high tribunal, in a far-reaching landmark decision, rendered same sex marriage legal in America. By granting all legal rights to same sex marriage they gave credence and official sanction to these unions. Their decisions are the law of the land. This is a significant verdict. The Supreme Court is omnipotent. Therefore, when it comes to federal benefits, such as Social Security, state laws like Alabama’s that prohibit same sex marriage are irrelevant. If a gay couple that was married in Connecticut moves to Alabama they are officially married.

Katie Miller: Four governors are denying military spouses the benefits they have earned

  The repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" in 2010 allowed gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members to serve openly for the first time in American history. And this past summer, the Supreme Court struck down key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, creating a pathway for the military to recognize same-sex couples for the purpose of spousal benefits. As a direct result of the ruling, the Department of Defense instructed military facilities to begin enrolling same-sex spouses of service members in military benefits programs starting September 3, 2013. But a handful of anti-gay, activist governors continue to discriminate against same-sex military spouses by refusing to enroll them in benefits programs at National Guard facilities.

Wendy McElroy: Challenging the 911 Landlord Law

  On September 19, a federal court in Philadelphia ruled on a challenge to the 911 Landlord Law in Norristown, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit had been brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a local law firm on behalf of Lakisha Briggs. The ruling? A full trial on the challenge to the law can proceed.

  Such "911 Landlord Laws" are also known as "nuisance" or "crime-free housing" ordinances. The ordinances vary from city to city, but certain elements are common: to keep their rental licenses, landlords are encouraged or required to perform criminal background checks on rental applicants; they are encouraged or required to use a "crime-free lease," by which any crime on the premises breaks the contract — even if the tenant was a victim and did nothing more than call the police; furthermore, the police can demand eviction of a "nuisance" tenant, and landlords who do not comply can be repeatedly fined or worse. In some cities, landlords can also be forced to pay the cost of police visits.