Liberty Law Blog

Lowering the Bar

Print Friendly

Editor’s Note: Another installation in a series of posts evaluating the question: Has Indiana departed from the Common Core State Standards and its attempt to nationalize education in America?

Having been the first state to leave the Common Core, the final draft of Indiana’s new K-12 content standards has been published and it will be brought to the State Board of Education on April 28 – ten days from now – for the final vote. Some reviews of this draft have been already published (e.g., here, here and here) but they focused mostly on the English and Language Arts (ELA) piece. I will focus on its mathematics and I will start with some general observations.

The drafting was done under a serious time pressure. There were only 12 weeks allocated for the standards-writing process that typically takes many months or even years. The writing panels should be commended for significant improvement of its early drafts, yet – as we shall see shortly — the final result is far from satisfying for Indiana, whose prior (pre Common Core) standards were highly praised as the best in the nation. Continue Reading →

Breaking the Law by Moderately Speeding

Print Friendly

Ilya Somin has an interesting post arguing that the fact that illegal immigrants have broken the law should not lead one to conclude that they have engaged in an immoral act. His basic argument is to question the claim that people have a strong obligation to follow the law, based on the argument that most people appear to believe that breaking some laws is acceptable.

The question of whether someone has a moral obligation to follow the law is an important one. Under indirect consequentialist approach that I advocate, I believe that there is a strong argument for following the law under a reasonably desirable legal system.

The laws under such a legal system operate to the benefit – ex ante at least and in most cases ex post – of the great majority of people. If people follow the law, then the government can reduce enforcement costs and people can place trust in the system. These are significant goods that justify at least a relatively weighty argument for following the law.  However, exactly how weighty the consideration is, what would outweigh it, and how it applies to illegal immigration, I am not sure.  Continue Reading →

Making Big Talkers Who Can’t Read

Print Friendly

Indiana’s “new” English Standards indicate that it will remain under the thumb of Common Core.

kidsFor four years now, the nation has been told how rigorous the Common Core English Standards are and how they are going to lead to “college and career readiness”: this to be done chiefly by taking great literature out of English classes and replacing it with utterly forgettable “informational texts.” For the past month or so, we in Indiana, having pulled out of Common Core, have been told by the state educational establishment that Indiana’s “new” college-and-career-readiness standards will not be an echo of Common Core but instead will be much more rigorous than Common Core. They will be standards written by Hoosiers for Hoosiers. Well, the new draft standards released just Wednesday are in fact an echo of Common Core as anyone who is able to hold two documents side by side can clearly see. Continue Reading →

Protecting Political Expression in Campaigns as much as Political Dissidence

Print Friendly

The Supreme Court’s analysis in McCutcheon v. FEC, its recent campaign finance decision, is even more important than its result. The holding of the case was to strike down so-called aggregate limits on donations to federal candidates. Under the invalidated law there was a ceiling on total contributions of $48, 600 for candidates running for federal office and $74,000 for other political committees. After McCutcheon, candidates are still limited to donating $2, 600 to a candidate but can give to as many candidates as they choose.

But it is the reasoning, not only the result, that is crucial to protecting our liberty, because it portends further deregulation of p0litical expression in elections. From the very first sentence, Chief Justice Roberts makes clear that general First Amendment principles are at stake in the case. Throughout the opinion he refers to cases that have nothing to do with campaign finance regulation but famously protect individual expression against the majority will, like Cohen v. Virginia, the case that protected the ability of a protestor calling for an anatomical impossibility to be performed on the nation’s selective service system. For the Chief Justice, those who want to express themselves are the new dissidents who must be protected from the wrath of legislators egged on by majority passion (and their own interest in protecting their incumbency). People who want to participate in campaigns to support a message or a candidate are not different in kind from those who speak in a vulgar manner or a burn a flag. His is a frontal challenge left-liberals’ support for the regulation of political campaigns, showing that they exercise only high double standards in standing up for free speech rights only when it suits their long-term objectives.

Appealing to ordinary First Amendment principles is essential to winning the debate over campaign finance, because advocates  of regulation cannot succeed unless they forsake the neutral principles that are free expression’s best guarantees. Continue Reading →

Is the Federal Reserve a Philosopher King?

Print Friendly

FedA lively and informed discussion was held at the American Enterprise Institute on March 20, 2014 on the question: Is the Federal Reserve a philosopher king or servant of the treasury? Alex Pollock, a frequent contributor to Law and Liberty and participant in the AEI discussion, offers here in condensed form the arguments and the instructive history presented. Continue Reading →

“The god of this lower world”

Print Friendly
NPG 655; Edmund Burke studio of Sir Joshua ReynoldsEdmund Burke, mobilizer of theoretical resistance to the French Revolution in the face of all odds, pursuer of Warren Hastings in the face of certain defeat, lived a political life so seemingly incautious that by its end he had to ask to be buried in an anonymous grave lest the Jacobins, on their inevitable march across his beloved island, exhume and violate his bones. Yet he described prudence as “the first of all virtues.” Continue Reading →

Originalism and McCutcheon Part III: Does Congress Have Power to Regulate Campaign Contributions?

Print Friendly

For the first two posts in this series, see here and here.

My last post on originalism and McCutcheon will address whether Congress has the power to pass laws that restrict campaign contributions. This is a complicated area and one that I have not studied. So take what I say with some caution.

There are at least two issues: regulations of campaign contributions as to congressional elections and as to presidential elections. (One might, of course, draw further distinctions, such as those relating to contributions to political parties or for primaries.)

As to congressional elections, the Constitution allows Congress to regulate “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives.” This might allow regulations of campaign contributions, but it has also been argued that this only covers elections, not campaigns. Bradley Smith writes:

Legal statutes and texts in the 18th century frequently discussed the “time, place and manner of election.” Rob Natelson’s extensive historical research finds that these statutes encompassed the times, places and mechanics of voting, registration lists, districting, qualifications of electors and candidates, prohibitions on misconduct at the polls, and the rules of decision (i.e. plurality or majority vote). They did not encompass the conduct of the campaign preceding the election.

Smith derives further support for this conclusion from a comparison of the time, place and manner language with the more limited language allowing Congress to determine the “Time of chusing” the electoral college.”

Why [does this provision] not [include] “place” and “manner”? Because these are specifically provided for in detailed instructions on the electoral college. If, however, “manner” was intended to include events leading up to the election–that is to say, the campaign and other events not included in the detailed instructions on operation of the Electoral College-then we would have expected the “Manner” clause to appear in Article II as well as Article I.

Congress’s power to regulate campaign contributions as to presidential elections is considerably weaker. The Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” This suggests that the power lies with the states, not Congress. Congress is given power, but only limited authority as to the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes.

It is not clear how Congress can regulate campaign contributions as to presidential elections. Various judges have simply asserted that they can do so, such as Justice Black who wrote in Oregon v. Mitchell “it is the prerogative of Congress to oversee the conduct of presidential and vice-presidential elections and to set the qualifications for voters for electors for those offices. It cannot be seriously contended that Congress has less power over the conduct of presidential elections than it has over congressional elections.” 400 U.S. 112, 124 (1970). Similarly, Judge Posner wrote that “Article II, §1 . . . has been interpreted to grant Congress power over Presidential elections coextensive with that which Article I ,§4 grants it over congressional elections,” citing to Justice Sutherland’s opinion in Burroughs v. United States.

Of course, one might attempt to justify congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause or the regulation of commerce, but these bases seem quite weak.

In the end, I don’t have a firm position on these matters, not having studied them. But it does seem clear that there is at least a plausible basis that Congress lacks authority to regulate campaign contributions as to congressional elections and an even stronger one as to presidential elections.

Campaign Finance Regulation: Freedom for Me and Not for Thee

Print Friendly

In a recent column Dahlia Lithwick first mourns the likelihood that Steve Colbert’s new gig on the Late Show will lead him to give up his crusade for campaign finance reform.  She then bemoans the Supreme Court decisions that permit people to spend money to elect candidates of their choice and to donate to all the candidates that reflect their views.

But she never pauses to consider why Stephen Colbert should be privileged to use the influence that comes to him from his position as a televised satirist, while people who work for living cannot use some of their hard-earned cash to proselytize for their views or support their own political champions. Her blindness stems from two facts. First, she herself is part of the media class. Second, that class is largely of one political persuasion —her own left-liberal one. Indeed, when Colbert is not pressing for campaign finance reform he is relentlessly attempting to make those on right look like idiots by playing a buffoonish conservative talk show host.

Restricting independent campaign expenditures and donations increases the power of other forms of political influence. Campaign finance “reform” can thus be understood not as a struggle to protect the democratic interests of the 99 percent, but as an effort to entrench the oligarchy of the information class. Continue Reading →

ARTs and the Reconceived Family

Print Friendly

For some time now, three of the most powerful forces in society—technological science and the moral values of equality and freedom—have been applied to the redefinition and reworking of a fundamental human and social institution: marriage and the family. Same-sex marriage is the most recent wave in this transformative endeavor. Continue Reading →

Minding America’s Business

Print Friendly

We read in the Wall Street Journal (April 8, 2014) that the nation’s debate on how we Americans ought to deal with problems arising from China, Russia, and the Muslim world will be set by the contrast between such as Senator Rand Paul, who “is struggling to reconcile a libertarian’s skepticism of foreign entanglements with a party that still holds a good chunk of interventionist sentiment – and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, aligning himself more with the party’s hawks, has called him out on the gap.”

We do not know whether this language, defining as it does international affairs as a choice between “interventionism” and “isolationism,” between “leading the world” and “leading from behind,” between military power and diplomacy, reflects what is in the mind of Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Whether either of these contenders for the presidency have read or thought outside the framework set by this language, which reflects the mentality of our ruling class, is less important than it is for us to realize that this intellectual framework is false to reality and warps our capacity to understand the choices that face us in foreign affairs. Continue Reading →