Liberty Law Blog
Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York has a lot of dubious policies. He is blocking some developers from building homes until they build the kind of homes he prefers. He wants to raise taxes to pay for programs that the state would otherwise fund. But by far the worst of de Blasio’s policies is his declared war on charter schools, which is actually a defense of an ancien regime of unearned privilege.
During the mayoral campaign, de Blasio promised to halt the growth of charter schools and require those that were already in place to pay rent to the city But why should one form of public schools be singled out for paying rent, when the city provides the buildings for all other kinds of public schools gratis, particularly when charter schools do not pay out the kind of defined benefit pensions that burden the taxpayer? De Blasio made his declaration in the form of personal attack on a leader of New York charter school movement, saying ““There is no way in hell that Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, O.K.?.” True to his word, de Blasio last week used his power to deny Success Academy Charter Schools which Moskowitz runs the right to city facilities that Mayor Bloomberg had granted. Even more alarmingly, de Blasio also cut $210 million from the city budget that over 5 years would have built facilities for many new charter schools.
Through competition, charter schools are likely to improve education for children in poor and minority families—the very groups that Mr. De Blasio says government should help. Continue Reading →
Now that the debate over Arizona’s SB 1062 bill is over, it is worthwhile to pause and think about some of the legal implications of carving out religious exemptions for generally applicable anti-discrimination law. Specifically, does the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was virtually identical to the provision proposed in Arizona) offer a defense for a private claim of discrimination.
No doubt marketing is an exact science but I doubt that it can fully account for the choices made by people in second hand bookshops. Purchases there depend much on chance and whim; for example, I was in a bookshop in Dublin recently and I found myself irresistibly drawn to a book with a photographic plate of some children, sitting on fences in a wilderness, looking very happy, with the caption ‘Under Socialism the barefooted children ran terrible risks from venemous snakes.’ Continue Reading →
“Combining the unbridled tongue with the unready hand.” Thus did Theodore Roosevelt define statesmanship at its worst. This is what America’s bipartisan ruling class is giving us.
The Obama Administration tried buffering last week’s announcement that it is reducing the US Army’s size to below its levels of 1940 (when the world’s population was less than one third what it is today) by suggesting that it would concentrate on mastery of the sea and of space. Continue Reading →
The race for Texas governor offers a chance for substantial debate on policy. The leading Republican, Greg Abbott, is for limited government on economic matters, supports greater restrictions on abortion and is more conservative on social issues. The leading Democrat, Wendy Davis, is for somewhat more expansive government than Texas now has, favors abortion rights, and is less conservative on social issues.
But campaign coverage has instead focused on the biography of Davis and the comments of a singer supporting Abbot. Davis is being attacked for discrepancies in the biography she put forward and for her behavior in a marriage that ended in divorce. Abbot is being assailed for the incendiary and reprehensible comments of Ted Nugent. These disputes do not tell us much, if anything, about how either candidate would perform as governor, or the efficacy of the policies they have proposed. The candidates’ previous experience in the offices of Attorney General (Abbott) and state senator (Davis) seems far more relevant. To be sure, both candidates seem to have invited these controversies; Davis by making her biography a central part of her campaign and Abbott by welcoming Nugent’s support, not for his understanding of policy, but because of his celebrity.
The focus of the campaign, however, reveals much about modern politics. It demonstrates that much of political debate is not about what policy objective is preferable or what results a candidate’s agenda will have. It is instead about making citizens feel comfortable about themselves and indeed morally superior to others. Continue Reading →
Jeffrey Toobin’s recent article in The New Yorker, “Clarence Thomas’s Disgraceful Silence,” is itself disgraceful. Toobin noted that, as of February 22, eight years have passed since Justice Thomas last asked a question during a Supreme Court oral argument. Toobin finds Thomas’s silence “bizarre” and “downright embarrassing, for himself and for the institution he represents.” Continue Reading →
(This post is written jointly by John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport).
We were surprised and puzzled by Randy Barnett’s post complaining that we had not fairly represented his views on originalism in our book Originalism and the Good Constitution. His focus was on a few brief paragraphs in the introduction that could not comprehensively discuss these issues, but in any event we do not believe our comments were inaccurate or disrespectful. We believe that Randy has misinterpreted our discussion.
1. Randy first objects that we refer to originalists who believe in construction as “constructionist originalists.” Randy criticizes this as an “argument by labeling.” Randy states: “I call myself an originalist (of the original public meaning variety). Period.” But there are many theories of originalism and not all of the original public meaning theories embrace construction. A term was needed to refer to these theories and we do not believe there is anything derogatory about the term constructionist originalism. Some people refer to these theories as the new originalism, but there are new theories of originalism, including ours, that do not embrace construction. Hence the need for a more specific term.
2. Randy also objects to our assertion that theorists who believe in contruction argue that interpreters are only bound by the original meaning when it is clear. Randy writes that he “propose[s] no such ‘clear statement’ approach to constitutional interpretation.” But we did not use the term “clear statement,” nor were we implying it. One of the main differences between our original methods view and the view of advocates of construction is that original methods believes that close cases – where the evidence just slightly favors one interpretation (what we call a 51%-49% situation) – should be resolved based on the stronger interpretation whereas advocates of construction seem to believe that construction should resolve that situation. Thus, in our view, advocates of construction apply construction rather than interpretation in cases where the evidence is close, thereby applying interpretation only when the evidence is clear. Even those who adhere to construction have used the term “clear” in this sense. Continue Reading →
In a detailed historical review of Timothy Sandefur’s new book entitled The Conscience of the Constitution, Adam Tate raises the practice of federalism as a principled method that representatives used in the early republic for handling difficult issues. Rather than face political paralysis or endure efforts at national coercion via constitutional provisions regarding slavery or religious freedom, for example, Tate notes that the Founders looked to the states and their separate interests as the best solution. So Tate argues that there was no natural rights code of law with exact specifications nationally applied.
If we were such a republic, then why were natural rights not relied upon in the tough cases and appealed to with precision? If there was consensus on natural rights as the baseline, then surely it would have governed these disputes, rendering them noncontroversial. More plausible is that the natural law and natural rights were seen as an ultimate source of law, but what this meant in concrete application was not firmly agreed upon by the Framers. As a result, particular resolution of constitutional questions via a detailed code of natural rights wasn’t ventured. Continue Reading →
In Poland, according to an animal protection law, animals must be stunned with a stun-gun prior to slaughtering. The European Convention for the Protection of Animals for Slaughter permits EU member countries to exempt religious slaughter from the stunning requirement. However, the Polish Parliament voted against granting the exemption. However, such a slaughter would not satisfy the rules of Kosher, which proscribe a very specific manner to kill an animal in accordance with Jewish Law. As a result, it is effectively illegal to make kosher meat in Poland. Unsurprisingly, several slaughterhouses are violating the law, and doing it anyway.