"The National Park Service placed cones along highway viewing areas outside Mount Rushmore this week, barring visitors from pulling over and taking pictures..."

Cones! The dreaded cones!

After I read that, this song verse played in my head:

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

ADDED: Meade reads this post and asks: "Was it even a federal highway?" Yeah, was it the interstate? Why don't they close down the whole interstate highway system? Obviously, they're not doing everything they can, they're just choosing particular things, trying to be annoying in just the right way to sculpt public opinion. They're poking at us. With orange cones. And we are annoyed. But which way are we annoyed?

AND: If the giant head of the President has blocked your sight line to the giant heads of the Presidents, here's another sculpture for you:



ALSO: The government doesn't seem to know that a lot of those visitors to South Dakota ride motorcycles. A motorcycle can get right in there between the cones.

IN THE COMMENTS: TosaGuy said:

I lived in South Dakota for five years. Orange comes don't stop anyone from doing anything in the land where every sign on a rural road has a shotgun blast in it.

Mr Obama, tear down your Barrycades!

Hagar said:

This has to be State Highway 244 that goes by Mt. Rushmore. U.S. Route 16A is farther away, and, of course, neither has anything to do with the interstate system. However, South Dakota, like every other state, receives Federal money for their highway systems through the FHWA, and per Murphy's Golden Rule, whoever controls the gold gets to rule.

That's not true in Wisconsin! Scott Walker resisted the pressure to shut down state parks.

No Federal money comes without strings, but in this case I think the FHWA would have to side with the Park Service, and I think it is not like they have any actual jurisdiction; all they could do would be to threaten to be difficult and withhold future funding for this road (and other projects?), I think.

Yeah, that too happened in Wisconsin, after Scott Walker rejected the federal money for a "high speed" train. But let's remember that at some point, conditions on spending count as coercion and the federal government cannot force state government to do its work.

"Brains Of Dying Rats Yield Clues About Near-Death Experiences."

 "Just after the rats' hearts stopped, there was a burst of brain activity. Their brain suddenly seemed to go into overdrive, showing all the hallmarks not only of consciousness but a kind of hyperconsciousness."

"We found continued and heightened activity... Measurable conscious activity is much, much higher after the heart stops — within the first 30 seconds.... That really just, just really blew our mind. ... That really is consistent with what patients report"....

I thought this was already well known, but I guess euthanizing rats and getting this data is new. Still, were the scientists' minds actually blown? Isn't this what they expected? Wouldn't it have been more mind-blowing if there hadn't been a brain activity burst — because that's what would support the supernatural interpretation of the near-death experiences reported by human beings?

IN THE COMMENTS: Hagar asks: "Why is euthanizing used as a euphemism for killing?" Yeah, euthanasia is killing to spare the animal pain. These rats were killed just to watch them die, like Johnny Cash and that man in Reno, except Johnny Cash didn't have electrodes implanted in the man's brain, nor did he seriously collect and analyze data or shake our beliefs in the existence of heaven and hell.

As expected, I got some pushback for saying "I hope the Supreme Court blesses us with" a right to same-sex marriage.

That was a provocative way to say that it will be a blessing if the upcoming Supreme Court cases resolve this issue that is dogging and distorting the political discourse in our country.

Even to say "it will be a blessing" would have been provocative, since it seems to give God credit for whatever good happens. But that usage of "blessing" has constitutional text to support it:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

Liberty is a set of blessings, our Founders told us. The human task is to secure the blessings. If the Supreme Court says it has found a liberty — let's say a right to same-sex marriage — we may say that it is securing a liberty that is already there. When someone says "bless you," that doesn't mean that the blessing emanates from the speaker. It's short for "God bless you." It's asking God to deliver a blessing. In the Constitution, what we see is that the Framers believed that God had blessed us with liberty.

So to say "I hope the Supreme Court blesses us" is to identify the Court as the source of the blessing, to put the Court in the place of God, and to prompt and tease those who think the Court improperly makes up rights. That was deliberate and devilish temptation. Thanks for succumbing!

Below the fold are the comments that inspired this post:

1. Gahrie:

This is a perfect example of our country's problems right here. You, a Constitutional law professor, our hoping that the Supreme Court will create a "right" that you favor.

The Supreme Court doesn't "bless us" with rights, or create rights. It protects the ones given to us by our creator and enumerated by the people in the Constitution.

2. MayBee:

Yes, the "blessing us" idea is troubling from a constitutional law professor. Perhaps it is some of her famous humor.

3. alwaysfiredup:

"I hope the Supreme Court blesses us with the requisite constitutional right"

Oh dear lord...

Surely, SURELY, as a law prof you could phrase this to be less off-putting.

4. Chuck:

Prof. Althouse;

Huh?

You "hope the Supreme Court blesses us with the requisite constitutional right..."?

Say what? Since when was the Supreme Court in the business of 'blessing us with constitutional rights'? I thought they were in the business of constitutional interpretation, and working on judicial review of legislation. Not "blessings."

I hope that the Supreme Court "blesses me" with a new Cadillac and a Rolex watch.

Since you are a highly intelligent person, and an expert in constitutional interpretation, I am curious what you think is a plausible basis for the Court to extend such a blessing. Given that whatever the Court decides to bestow as a "blessing," it is taking away from individual states. If the test for reviewing DOMA and California's Prop 8 is not "rational basis," what is the proper test? And if the test is rational basis, how does DOMA or Prop 8 offend?

5. Hagar:

The Supreme Court cannot "bless us" with a non-existent Constitutional right.

It is the word "marriage" that causes the problem for people.

It is not that hard for the Federal Gov't and the States to get out of the "marriage" business. Just declare that for the future "marriage" is a religious ceremony outside their purview, but existing "marriages" will be accepted as Civil Unions for taxes and other secular purposes.

6. ed:

@ Gahrie "The Supreme Court doesn't "bless us" with rights, or create rights. It protects the ones given to us by our creator and enumerated by the people in the Constitution."

You're forgetting the penumbra of the umbrella of the awning of the cockleshell of the reflected shadow on a latrine wall of unenumerated rights as recognized only when someone on the Supreme Court has a wet fart.

Because evidently I do not have the right to not have a federal drone hovering over my yard or a DEA SWAT team breaking down my door, shooting my dogs and handcuffing me on the say-so of a drug abusing informant looking to buy his freedom but two gay men have the right to bugger each other in privacy.

But then again if you look at the various opinions set forth by the multitude of SCOTUS decisions you can find just about any kind of idiotic retarded nonsense because it appears to be more of justifying what the justices want rather than what the Constitution actually has written.

7. Unknown:

I thought Althouse's original post was a tounge on cheek [sic] reference to how we just moved on after the Supreme Court blessed us with Roe v Wade. Her follow comment leaves me scratching my head.

I think the "follow comment" of mine that he's referring to is: "The GOP will be better off if the Supreme Court trumps this political issue. Democrats will may [sic] rejoice publicly, but privately they should curse." I used the word "curse" in deliberate counterpoint to "bless." And this actually should make sense in connection with Roe v. Wade. Politically, the decision undercut the liberals who would have fought for the right and gave huge energy to those who opposed it.

But I don't think a right to same-sex marriage will play out politically the same way. The pro-life movement is propelled by the belief that what's going on in the zone of privacy is the murder of helpless, innocent human beings. Pro-lifers can never move on. There is no corresponding moral compulsion to continue to agonize over what's happening inside someone else's marriage. Even if you think it's terrible and sinful, you can move on. That's the political blessing I foresee.