Tag Archives: State’s Rights

Living Constitution, Dying Liberty

14 Saturday Mar 2020

Posted by in Living Constitution, Originalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

What would a “living Constitution” mean if the right wing “gave it life”, as it were? Your answer ought to reveal a truth you’ve probably overlooked if you’re a “living constitutionalist”.

The U.S. Constitution protects the rights of individuals against the coercive power of the state. It offers a thorough bulwark against that power not only by enumerating certain rights, such as the rights to free speech and free association, but also by recognizing the existence and sanctity of a complementary set of unenumerated rights. The Ninth Amendment states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 

The nearly 250 years since the nation’s founding have seen a debate in judicial case law about whether the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original language, or whether modern social and technological realities should change the way it is interpreted. This pits constitutional “originalists” against advocates of a so-called “living Constitution”.

Antiquated? Or Inconvenient?

For example, there is disagreement about whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is broad, or limited to certain very small arms, or whether it should permit no private ownership of arms at all. Another example: do modern sensitivities men that constitutionally unprotected “fighting words” now encompass opinions that are merely controversial? Do expressions of support for such policies as flexible wages really fall under the rubric of racism, “hate speech”, or fighting words? Here’s one more: does the (unenumerated) right to life allow the state (and so the law) to claim a greater interest in protecting the contentment of a healthy, but reluctant, prospective mother than in the life of her unborn child?

Three years ago, Randy Barnett asked a question about the living constitution amid the debate over the confirmation of Justice Neal Gorsuch, an avowed originalist. Barnett asked:

“Why would you possibly want a nonoriginalist ‘living constitutionalist’ conservative judge or justice who can bend the meaning of the text to make it evolve to conform to conservative political principles and ends? However much you disagree with it, wouldn’t you rather a conservative justice consider himself constrained by the text of the Constitution like, say, the Emoluments Clause?”

That question was followed-up recently by Glenn Reynolds: his thought experiment asks how a right-wing majority might fashion a “living Constitution”, an exercise that should chasten “living constitutionalists” on the Left. He first notes that efforts to fight terrorism can become a real threat to civil liberties. As such, they represent a form of living constitutionalism. Will your on-line behavior and your phone calls be closely monitored, perhaps searching for various keywords? Will formerly unreasonable searches and seizures be sanctioned by an anti-terror, living Constitution? We haven’t gone very far in that direction, even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but it’s easy to imagine a wave of support for such a revision under certain circumstances.

We’ve certainly witnessed erosions of civil liberties under the so-called “War on Drugs”. The courts have not always stood in the way of extra-Constitutional actions by law enforcement. A right-wing living Constitution might sanction certain searches, seizures, and confiscation of private property, to say nothing of the intrusion into the choices of individuals to use drugs privately. The same is true of the “War on Prostitution”.

Imagine a right-wing judiciary interpreting various forms of audio, video, and virtual reality content as violations of standards of “decency”. Imagine a case involving a restrictive FCC ruling of this nature, and the Court finding the FCC’s censorship constitutional at the federal level, not merely at a community’s level.

Imagine state legislation that forces the Court to weigh-in on whether federalism and states’ rights outlined in the Tenth Amendment outweigh the federal regulatory powers conferred by Article I’s Interstate Commerce Clause. Crazy? Maybe, but a conservative Court could decide that such an interpretation could permit state taxes, pollutants, or other restrictions on residents or businesses domiciled in other states.

Originalism? Or “Stretch” Originalism?

Reynolds mentions a few other possibilities, but without more detail, some of these examples seem muddled because the hypothetical interpretations could, conceivably, represent sound originalism, as opposed to conservative distortions of original intent. But perhaps these are all matters of degree, rather than kind. This includes the possibility of a conservative Court rolling back New Deal Court decisions related to price supports, wage supports, labor practices, and Social Security.

The same ambiguity applies to Reynolds’ brief discussion “one-man, one-vote” decisions of the 1960s, which leaned upon the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to effectively prohibit states from apportioning either congressional districts or state legislative districts in any way other than proportional representation. This can result in discrimination against certain interests in states having diverse geographies with dissimilar economies or cultures. A conservative court might well chip away at the one-man, one-vote principle out of deference to original intent. This might not be an unreasonable interpretation of the unenumerated powers of states contemplated by the Tenth Amendment.

Then there are so-called reproductive rights. The pro-abortion Left would be aghast, but not surprised, to see a conservative court reverse key decisions that have been made in their favor. The rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are mentioned explicitly in the Declaration of Independence, but not the Constitution. Nevertheless, they are presumed to be among those unenumerated rights recognized by the Ninth Amendment. Thus, with respect to abortion, the dividing line between original intent and living-constitutional overreach by a conservative Court is somewhat muddy. But in the view of the Left, a conservative Court might well reach radical decisions regarding the right to life.

Conclusion

The Constitution exists as a set of governing principles, but the founders’ intent was to  shield rights from fickle waves of majoritarianism, or even would-be despots. You might despise conservatism or statism, but this recognition should serve as a warning to heed the original text and its intent, not to view it as a mere nuisance to the interests of one’s agenda and fellow travelers.

I’ll close with Reynolds’ admonition to “living constitutionalists” of the Left:

“All of these [decisions] would be catastrophic for the left, and I’m sure I could come up with many more examples given time and space. Fortunately for the left, Judge Gorsuch appears to be devoted to interpreting the Constitution as it was understood by the Framers (in terms of its ‘original public meaning,’ to use the law professor definition), and not to embracing a living Constitution. … But my advice to those on the left attacking originalist approaches is this: Be careful what you ask for, because you won’t like it if you get it.”

Now, What About Trump?

25 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Trump Administration

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

donald-trump-hair-force-1

This guy I voted for… Hoo boy! I’m tellin’ ya’, this guy’s a real beaut! But now, it’s time for me to make an accounting of the good and the bad I see in a Donald Trump presidency. I’ll cover a number of policy areas and how well I think, at this point, the Trump Administration will match my preferences, which are generally libertarian. In posting this list, I’m reminded of a wonderful quote of the late guitarist Jerry Garcia on his ideas for a new project: “I’m shopping around for something to do that no one will like.” I certainly don’t expect many to agree with the entirety of my “scorecard”, but here it is. But before getting to it, a few preliminaries:

First, I’ve had mixed feelings about Trump since he first announced that he’d seek the republican nomination. A basic concern was the difficulty of knowing his real philosophy about the role of government and fundamental constitutional rights. Trump has a history of contradictory positions on big issues like taxes, health care, and gun rights. It was a gamble to count on him to follow any particular idealogical course, and some of it remains unclear even now. My misgivings about Trump’s inclinations as a whirligig were discussed on Sacred Cow Chips in “Trump Flaunts Shape-Shifting Powers” in 2015. Uncertainty still colors my views, though his cabinet picks and other alliances have served to clarify the direction of policy. My discussion below reflects this uncertainty. Also, Trump shows every intention of moving fast on a number of fronts, so I hope the relevance of this post isn’t too perishable.

Second, it’s worth noting that Trump’s policy statements and predilection to “keep-’em-guessing” are probably a by-product of his instincts as a negotiator. His bellicosity may be something of a ploy to negotiate more favorable compromises in international affairs, trade and domestic issues. Still, I can’t know that. Should I evaluate all those statements at face value as policy positions? I have to make some allowance for the reasonability of a bargaining position, but I’ll try to be consistent in my approach.

Third, revelations during the campaign of Trump’s past remarks about women, and some in-campaign remarks like his attack on Megyn Kelly, were highly offensive. I’ve heard plenty of “locker-room talk” over my years, but some of Trump’s statements were made well outside the locker room and well beyond the age at which “youthful indiscretion” could be taken as a mitigating factor. Trump has plenty of female defenders, however, and he has a record of placing women in key roles within the Trump organization and for paying them well. While I do not condone the remarks, and I doubt that complete reform is possible, he cannot change his history and he is now the president. Evaluating his policy positions is now an entirely separate matter. I only hope the exposure has taught him to be more respectful.

Finally, I do not buy the narrative that Trump is a racist. This “Crying Wolf” essay on Scott Alexander’s Slate Star Codex blog demonstrates that Trump’s rhetoric and behavior during his campaign was not racist when viewed in the broader context of his record of denigrating anyone who opposes him. He seems to be an equal opportunity offender! In fact, Trump made strong attempts to appeal to minority voters and succeeded to some extent. His positions on border security and immigration were boisterous, but they were not truly about race or ethnicity. Instead, they were rooted in concerns about illegal immigration and public safety. Efforts by the left to characterize those points as de facto evidence of racism are simply not credible. Nor are claims that he practiced racial discrimination at his apartment buildings early in his career. Today, I would call those cases garden-variety disparate impact actions, as when a business is challenged on the use of screening criteria that might be correlated with race, such as credit rating. A legitimate business purpose is generally a valid defense, though Trump did agree to settle out of court.

So what about Trump from a policy perspective? Here is what I expect of his administration thus far:

I’m Pretty Sure of the Following, Which I Rate As Bad

Trump is a protectionist. He is extremely ignorant of trade principles and favors import duties to punish those who wish to purchase goods from abroad. This would raise both domestic and import prices and directly harm employment in import-dependent industries. It would also discourage innovation by domestic producers, who would face less competition. I cover these protectionist tendencies here as an unqualified negative, but I have a more mixed view on his opposition to certain government-negotiated trade agreements (e.g., the Trans-Pacific Partnership ), which are covered below.

Trump is likely to be a drug warrior. He could do much to restore order in inner cities by ending the drug war, but he will not. He will thereby encourage activity in the black market for drugs, which produces both violence and more dangerous varieties of drugs. He might well interfere with the rights of states to determine their own policies toward relatively benign substances like marijuana, including medical marijuana, by choosing to enforce destructive federal drug laws. The possible appointment of marijuana legalization advocate Jim O’Neil to head the FDA looks decreasingly likely. That might be a game changer, but I doubt it will happen.

Big public infrastructure outlays. This is distinct from private infrastructure, to be discussed below. The latter is motivated by private willingness-to-pay. Rushing into a large public construction program with questionable economic justification will bring waste, and it will probably be sold as an economic stimulus package, which is unnecessary and dangerous at a time when the economy is finally operating near capacity. The decrepitude of American infrastructure is greatly exaggerated by those with a private interest in such projects, and the media eats it up. The breathless promotion of massive but noneconomic projects like high-speed rail is also greeted with enthusiasm by the media. And politicians love to boast to constituents of their efforts to secure federal funds for big local projects. We also know that Trump wants to build a massive border wall, but I’m convinced that border security could be achieved at lower cost by leveraging surveillance technology and other, less costly barriers.

Deficits: Increased defense outlays, a big infrastructure package, a “great” wall, tax credits and lower tax rates will almost certainly add up to ballooning federal deficits in the years ahead. That fiscal combination will be unsustainable if accompanied by higher interest rates and could very well have inflationary consequences.

Trump favors public and private eminent domain and believes it should be treated as a hallowed institution. He truly thinks that a “higher-valued use” is a superior claim to existing ownership of property. This is perverse. I have trouble accepting eminent domain action even for a public purpose, let alone a private purpose; it should only be motivated by the most compelling public interest, as a last resort, and with handsome compensation to the existing property owner. We can only hope that Trump’s public and private infrastructure programs do not lead to many takings of this kind.

Industrial policy. This is the essence of government central planning, picking winners and losers by granting tax and loan subsidies, lenient reviews, and other advantages. The most obvious example of Trump’s amenability to industrial policy is his penchant for trade protectionism, but I fear it will go much deeper. For some reason, Trump believes that manufacturing activity creates private and public benefits far beyond its market value. Moreover, manufacturers require far fewer workers now than they did in his youth, so the sector is not the job engine it once was. His appointee for Commerce Secretary is Wilbur Ross, an investor with a history of trading on prospects for government assistance. This article provides disturbing background on Ross, along with this quote: “We ought, as a country, to decide which industries are we going to really promote — the so-called industries of the future.” Trump’s plan to meet regularly with leaders of giant corporations is a sure sign that corporatism will be alive and well for at least the next four years… as long as they tow The Donald’s line.

Restricting Legal Immigration. I’m all for securing the border, but legal immigration is a major driver of economic growth. Many industries rely on a flow of skilled and unskilled workers from abroad, a need that will be more intense given Trump’s plan to tax outsourcing. Moreover, the country will face a low ratio of workers to retirees over the next few decades; short of massive entitlement reform, immigration is perhaps the only real chance of meeting public obligations to retirees.

Endangered Privacy Rights: As a “law and order” guy, Donald Trump might not be a reliable defender of the privacy protections enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. He has expressed a willingness to repeal the USA Freedom Act, which restricts the bulk collection of metadata and provides other privacy protections. Trump also has expressed an interest in forcing technology companies to enable “back doors” into the devices and programs they sell to the public. I’m concerned that we’ll see the creation of security databases with an excessively broad scope. As a likely drug warrior, Trump will support the sort of privacy violations in law enforcement that have become all too common.

I’m Pretty Sure of the Following, Which I Rate As Good

He’s not Hillary Clinton, and he is not a statist in the mold of Clinton and Barack Obama, though he does embody some statist tendencies as described above.  I thought I would vote for Gary Johnson, but he made crucial mistakes, such as choosing Bill Weld as his running mate and fumbling at attempts to explain libertarian philosophy. At some point, my distaste for Clinton’s criminality and her advocacy of big government in so many aspects of life convinced me she had to be defeated, and that Trump was the only real possibility. But whether he can actually reduce the resources that the federal government absorbs is hard to say, as he has his own spending priorities.

Trump favors deregulation generally, as it places an enormous burden on society’s ability to improve well being. This covers aspects of the Affordable Care Act and reducing the role of the federal government in education. He opposes the costly Paris Climate Accord and other intrusive federal environmental measures, such as wetlands regulation.

Obamacare repeal and replacement with market-oriented delivery of health care, insurance with broad choices, and equalized tax treatment across the employer and individual market segments via refundable tax credits. There is a chance that Trump’s preferred alternative will assign excessive responsibility to the federal government rather than markets, but I’m optimistic on this point.

Entitlement reform is a possibility. Social Security and Medicare are insolvent. Ideas about how future retirees might take advantage of market opportunities should be explored. This includes private retirement accounts with choices of investment direction and greater emphasis on alternatives like Medicare Advantage.

Tax reform of some kind is on Trump’s agenda. This is likely to involve lower corporate and individual tax rates and some tax simplification. It is likely to stimulate economic growth from both the demand and the supply sides. In the short-run, traditional demand-side macroeconomic analysis would suggest that upward price pressures could arise. However, by encouraging saving and investment, the economy’s production capacity would increase, mitigating price pressure in the longer run.

Trump favors border security. No mystery here. My enthusiasm for this is not based on a physical wall at the border. That might come and it might be very costly. I favor a liberalized but controlled flow of immigration and vetting of all immigrants. The recent order of a temporary hold on refugees from a short list of countries will be of concern if it is not short-lived, and it remains to be seen what “extreme vetting” will entail. Nevertheless, I support enhanced integrity of our borders and our right as a nation to be cautious about who enters.

Education reform and school choice. Increased spending on public education, especially at the federal level, has made no contribution to educational productivity, and the country is burdened with too many failing schools.

Encouraging private infrastructure. This relies on private incentives to build and finance  infrastructure based on users’ willingness to pay, thereby avoiding stress on public funding capacity.

Deregulating energy: This includes encouraging zero-carbon nuclear power, deregulation of fossil fuels, and lower energy costs.

Deregulating financial institutions. Repeal of the burdensome Dodd-Frank Act, which has imposed costs on both banks and consumers with little promise of a benefit in terms of financial stability.

Unabashed support for Israel. I strongly favor repairing our damaged ties with Israel and the proposed move of our embassy to West Jerusalem, which has been a part of Israel proper since its founding. Israel is the only real democracy in the middle east and a strong ally in an extremely dangerous part of the globe.

Trump supports Second Amendment rights. This is fundamental. Private gun ownership is the single-best line of self-defense, especially for those with the misfortune to live in areas rife with black market drug activity.

States’ rights and federalism. On a range of issues, Trump seems amenable to transferring more responsibility to states, rather than asserting federal supremacy on issues that are unsettled from region-to-region.

Ending federal funding for abortion. Tax dollars should not be used for a purpose that is morally abhorrent to a large segment of the population. This is not the same as the “right” to abort a child, as settled by Roe vs. Wade.

Putting the screws to the UN. This organization is not aligned with U.S. interests, yet the U.S. foots a large part of the bill for its activities. Sharp reductions in funding would be a powerful message.

Reduced federal funding for the arts. I’ve never been comfortable with allowing the federal government to disburse funds in support of the arts. Lower levels of government are less objectionable, where there is greater accountability to local voters. Dependence on federal purse strings creates a powerful line of influence that usurps authority and may conflict with the desires of local taxpayers. Individuals pay for art voluntarily if they find it of value, and people give privately to support the arts for the same reason. Federal taxpayers certainly have other valued uses for the funds. Art is not a “public good” in a strict sense, and its external benefits, to the extent they exist, do not justify a federal role.

Reversing the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Trump has appointed Ajit Pai as the new chairman of the FCC. Pai is no fan of net neutrality, a policy that rewards heavy users of network capacity and is likely to discourage the growth of network infrastructure.

I’m Not Sure How To Rate the Following

Foreign policy reset. I welcome several likely foreign policy initiatives from the Trump Administration, such as deemphasizing our role in the UN, restoring our relationship with Israel, and taking a harder line on nuclear development by Iran. I also favor greater scrutiny of outlays for foreign aid, much of which is subject to graft by recipient governments. However, I would not welcome a continuation of foreign policy designed around U.S. strategic interests that are, in fact, private investments.

Defense build-up. Our armed forces have suffered a decline in their ability to defend the country during the Obama years. I favor some restoration of the defense budget, but I am concerned that Trump will go on a defense binge. I’m also concerned about how aggressively he’ll wish to project American power overseas. Let’s not go to war!

Upending Trade Partnerships. I am a free-trader, and I abhor Trump’s belligerent talk about erecting trade barriers. So how could I be “unsure” about anything that promotes trade? Formal trade partnerships between nations are an aggravation to me because governments don’t trade… people do! And they do because they reap unambiguous benefits from trade. I’d much rather the U.S. simply eliminated all trade barriers unilaterally than get entangled in complicated trade agreements. These agreements are rats nests. They stipulate all sorts of conditions that are not trade related, such as environmental rules and labor policy. I therefore view them as a compromise to sovereignty and a potential impediment to economic growth. To the extent that trade agreements can be renegotiated in our favor, I should not complain. And to the extent that we’ll never see a government allow completely free and open trade, I should probably hope for agreements that at least reduce trade barriers.

The Keystone pipeline. I am happy with Trump’s decision to approve completion of the pipeline on its merits for energy delivery, and also because it is environmentally less risky than rail, barge and container ships. And yes, it is private infrastructure. But I am unhappy about the heavy application of eminent domain against landowners in the path of the pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe’s opposition is suspect because the path does not cross its tribal land, and the tribe originally gave its consent to the project. The tribe’s recent position could be an effort to extract rents from the process.

Executive authority. I am somewhat wary of Trump’s aggressiveness thus far. He seems eager to take actions that are questionable under existing law, such as seizing wire-transfer remittances by undocumented immigrants. Granted, he is busy “undoing” some of Obama’s actions, but let’s hope he doesn’t get carried away.

Summary

What we have here is a very mixed bag of policies. On the whole, I’m still pleased that Trump was elected. I believe he favors a smaller role for government in most affairs. But while the balance of considerations listed above seems to be in Trump’s favor, the negatives have the potential to be disastrous. He certainly wants to spend. My biggest fears, however, are that Trump will not respect the Constitution, that he will govern as a cronyist, and that he will succumb to the notion that he can actively manage the economy like a casino build.

Hamilton, Jefferson & Miranda’s Propaganda

12 Sunday Jun 2016

Posted by in Constitution, Slavery

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

image

I know too well to take any history I get from the theatre with a grain of salt! Nevertheless, I’d really like to see Hamilton on Broadway. It’s a hugely successful musical by Lin-Manuel Miranda about the life of Alexander Hamilton, one of our nation’s founding fathers, inspired by the book Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow. I’ve heard much of the show’s music, infused with R&B and rap/hip-hop; it’s more appealing to me than I’d ever have expected of rap. The show has been nominated for a record 16 Tony Awards (the ceremony is tonight), and of course it’s a very hot ticket. The last time I checked, the cheapest seats available were about $650 each for the last row in the house, and that was about 45 days out! With a party of four, that’s a cool $2,600 for an evening of theatre. I think we’ll wait for the touring production to roll through the midwest next year.

In Hamilton, all of the founding fathers are cast as people of color, a controversial decision that led to a recent uproar over a casting notice encouraging non-white performers to audition for leads. The casting of the founding fathers is an interesting artistic decision. One writer, Spencer Kornhaber in The Atlantic,  says that the “colorblind” casting:

“… is part of the play’s message that Alexander Hamilton’s journey from destitute immigrant to influential statesman is universal and replicable….“

That’s admirable, as far as it goes. I believe Kornhaber comes closer to Miranda’s  true motivation for the casting decision a paragraph later:

“… movements like Black Lives Matter, and renewed calls for the consideration of reparations, are built on the idea that ‘all’ remains an unfulfilled promise—and that fulfillment can only come by focusing on helping the specific populations that suffer greatest from America’s many inequalities rooted in oppression. … While Hamilton does not explicitly take a side, the simple fact of its casting suggests which way it probably leans.“

In broad strokes, the following is true about the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and arguments over its adoption: Alexander Hamilton favored provisions that tipped power in favor of the central government at the expense of the states, while Thomas Jefferson favored more stringent limits on central powers and strong states’ rights, or federalism as it is commonly known. It’s also true that over the years, Hamilton’s constitutional legacy tended to receive little emphasis in historical narratives relative to Jefferson’s. In the musical, Hamilton is portrayed as a hero to those who would benefit from a powerful and benevolent central government, particularly slaves, while Jefferson is portrayed in less flattering terms. Miranda’s casting implies that the relative emphasis on federal power versus states rights would surely have been reversed had the founding fathers been people of color.

A friend of mine saw the show before it became quite so hot. His kids are “theatre kids”, as mine were up to a certain age. I have great respect for my friend’s intellect and I am sympathetic to his political orientation, which I’d describe as libertarian with strong Randian influences. Here is his brief review of Hamilton:

“I loved Hamilton — it was a great night of theater. I even like the music — which is rap/hip-hop style that I haven’t found enjoyable, at least until now. My biggest concern about the play is its portrayal of Jefferson and Madison, who don’t come off well. Jefferson is a party boy more interested in partying in Paris than in seriously running a new nation. Both are portrayed as instigators in digging up dirt on Hamilton to use against him politically. Yes, they would have benefited from Hamilton’s womanizing scandals, but did they actively seek out that kind of trash? The play says yes…

And of course the play takes the position, I’d argue, that nothing Jefferson writes or says can be taken seriously because he is a slaveholder….the Bank of the U.S. is regarded by the play as a wonderful creation, thanks to Hamilton.“

I’ve read a number of accounts confirming Miranda’s treatment of Jefferson in the show, and the influence it apparently has on viewers without much background in political thought, American history, and the U.S. Constitution. I’ve lost the link, but one writer quoted his teenage daughter as saying “That Jefferson, he’s the WORST!”

There are a number of historical inaccuracies in Miranda’s book of Hamilton. An important fact contradicting the show’s vilification of Jefferson is that he, Madison and Aaron Burr:

“…did not approach Hamilton about his affair [as represented in the show], it was actually James Monroe and Frederick Muhlenberg in 1792. Monroe was a close friend of Jefferson’s and shared the information of Hamilton’s affair with him. In 1796, journalist James Callendar broke the story of Hamilton’s infidelity. Hamilton blamed Monroe, and the altercation nearly ended in a duel. “

In no way did Chernow implicate Jefferson as a participant in blackmail against Hamilton over the affair with an “emotionally unstable” Maria Reynolds. That is entirely Miranda’s invention. His fictionalized Jefferson is a conniving devil, a disgraceful misrepresentation.

Let’s get one other thing out of the way: it is not reasonable to condemn individuals or their actions of 220 years ago outside the context of general attitudes and practices of that period. That’s not to condone those attitudes and practices, however. Last year, I quoted Warren Meyer on this point:

“Meyer mentions the recent incident involving Ben Affleck, who asked the host of a PBS documentary to omit any mention of a slave-owning Affleck ancestor:

‘So an ancestor held opinions about slavery we all would find horrifying today. But given the times, I can bet that pretty much every relative of Affleck’s of that era, slaveholder or no, held opinions (say about women) that we would likely find offensive today.’“

By all accounts, Chernow’s book about Hamilton is an excellent biography, but not without its faults. Charles Kessler states that Chernow relies on other biographies rather than original source material, and that Chernow misrepresents the attitudes of Jefferson and James Madison on commerce; like Hamilton, they viewed it as a “civilizing influence of the highest order“. I’m the first to vouch for the importance of well-functioning capital markets, but apparently Chernow is under the mistaken impression that capitalism itself is intricately tied to powerful banks, particularly central banks like the Federal Reserve! And Chernow exaggerates the difference in the views of Jefferson and Hamilton on the Constitution itself. Here is Kessler:

“A huge gulf remains between Hamilton’s loyalty to what he called a ‘limited Constitution’ and today’s ‘living Constitution,’ which seems capable of justifying virtually any activity that the federal government sees fit to undertake.“

Both Jefferson and Hamilton recognized that abolition would have represented a huge obstacle to forming a new nation. And there was the related problem, recognized by both men, of whether and how to compensate slave owners in the event of abolition. It should go without saying that a failure to reach an agreement between the colonies at the Constitutional Convention would not have led to abolition of slavery by other means. The contrary is implicit in any argument that the constitutional compromise was wholly unjust. It might have been hoped that forming a union would establish a framework within which dialogue on the issue could continue, though ultimately, a fractured union and a war was necessary to finally  emancipate the slaves.

Yes, Jefferson held slaves and had a strong economic interest in keeping them. In his circle of wealthy landowners, slavery was considered a normal part of life. However, Jefferson also publicly advocated various plans to free slaves, one as early as 1779. Here is a clause from Jefferson’s rough draft of the Declaration of Independence, before it was revised by other members of the Committee of Five and by Congress, in reference to “his present majesty”, King George:

“he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it’s most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of [the] Christian king of Great Britain, determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce ….“

While the clause was explicitly critical of trade in slaves, as distinct from ownership, it reveals the thinking of a man who was very progressive for his time. As for outright abolition, it is easy today to be critical of Jefferson’s proposals, which called for gradualism and, later, even deportation of freed slaves to Santo Domingo. Those proposals were based in part on fear shared by many authorities of an economic crisis and civil disorder if slaves were freed en masse. Jefferson certainly did not view slaves as equals to white men, but that was not unusual in those times; he did call for training them in certain skills as a condition of granting them freedom.

Hamilton’s record on slavery is not quite as heroic as Miranda’s musical would have you believe. He was highly ambitious and something of a social climber, so he was reluctant to air his views publicly regarding abolition. He married into a prominent New York slaveholding family, and there are records of his role in returning slaves captured by the British to their previous owners. From historian Michelle DuRoss (linked above):

“… when the issue of slavery came into conflict with his personal ambitions, his belief in property rights, or his belief of what would promote America’s interests, Hamilton chose those goals over opposing slavery. In the instances where Hamilton supported granting freedom to blacks, his primary motive was based more on practical concerns rather than an ideological view of slavery as immoral.“

Hamilton’s is known to have advocated manumission: freeing slaves who agreed to serve in the fight against the British. That position was a practical matter, as it would help in the war effort, and it might have played on the patriotic instincts of slaveowners who would otherwise insist on compensation. His mentor, George Washington, himself a reluctant slave owner, undoubtedly saw the practical value of manumission.

Hamilton’s real constitutional legacy came in two parts: first was his strong support for the Constitution during the ratification process and his (anonymous) contributions to The Federalist Papers. Later came his relatively broad interpretation of provisions granting certain powers to the federal government: the power to issue currency, the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper clause”. He also proposed a few ideas that were never adopted, such as lifetime terms in office for the president and members of the Senate. He did not propose any constitutional provision for the abolition of slavery or for granting full constitutional rights to slaves.

Hamilton was a major proponent of establishing a so-called national bank, known as the Bank of the United States when it was chartered in 1793. This allowed the new country to issue currency and was used as a way to eliminate war debts that were, by then, greatly diminished in value. Hamilton’s central bank meant great rewards to any investor who held the debt, especially those who had purchased the debt at a steep discount. Unfortunately, this was tantamount to monetizing government debt, or paying off debt by imposing an inflation tax (which reached 72% in the bank’s first five years of operation). The establishment of the bank also removed a major restraint on the growth of the federal government. Moreover, Hamilton was a protectionist, advocating tariffs on foreign goods and subsidies to domestic producers. It is little wonder that some have called him the “father of crony capitalism”.

Jefferson was quite possibly a bon vibrant in the best sense of the term, as opposed to the “party boy” depicted by Miranda. He was a man of great intellect, capable and actively conversant in philosophy, science and the practical arts. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, itself a forceful testimonial to natural rights. His constitutional legacy was powerful if indirect: he was a mentor to James Madison, who wrote the first draft of the Constitution. Jefferson was an advocate of majoritarian rule but also sought to protect individual rights against a tyranny of the majority. To that end, he advocated government limited in function to the protection of rights. In short, he was a classical liberal.

There were certainly contradictions between Jefferson’s philosophy and actions. Slaveholding was one, as already noted, but that was not unusual among southern aristocrats of the time, and Jefferson at least recognized the ethical dilemma and publicly offered policy solutions. But as a slaveholder, he made an odd spokesperson for the interests of the “yeoman farmer”, an agrarian individualist in the popular mind and a myth that persists to this day. Jefferson also advocated protectionist policies, such as an embargo on U.S. exports starting in 1807.

Yes, there were abolitionists at the time of our nation’s founding. Both Hamilton and Jefferson were quite sympathetic to the principle of abolition, but both recognized the practical difficulty of pushing it forward without endangering the founding of the nation, and both had personal and probably selfish reasons to avoid fighting that battle. The musical Hamilton glosses over this reality in the case of Hamilton himself, and at the same time condemns Jefferson. Miranda might just as well condemn Abraham Lincoln for his initial support of the original 13th (Corwin) Amendment in the early 1860s, which was never ratified. Ultimately, in 1865, a different 13th Amendment was ratified, accomplishing what would have been evident from the original text of the Constitution but for the so-called “three-fifths compromise”. That provision essentially counted a slave as 3/5s of a “free person” for purposes of apportioning representation and taxes, an idea originally proposed by Madison and revived by Alexander Hamilton himself!

I will still see the musical Hamilton when I get an opportunity. Lin-Manuel Miranda is a man of great talent, but he has misrepresented crucial facts about the Founders of the nation. Those interested in the truth, including those who teach our children, should not take it seriously as an account of history.

A Healthy Fetish For Federalism

18 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in Federalism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

outrage

When I say I’m a federalist, I mean that I support a system in which powers are divided between different levels of government. Federalism establishes co-sovereignty between a central government and regional governments. It does not mean that the federal government is always dominant as is sometimes suggested: the Supremacy Clause under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution covers conflicts of law between the federal government and lower levels of government. Elsewhere, however, the Constitution places strict limits on the powers of the central government by defining an enumerated set of federal powers. All other powers reside with the people or their state governments, ideally constitutional republics in their own right.

Federalism is thought to minimize conflict within a nation by allowing law to be formulated differently within sub-jurisdictions. In this way, it has a limited ability to accommodate different political and social preferences, and it creates a de facto laboratory within which experiments in governance can be assessed. Whether one approves of a particular experiment always depends upon the nature of the question, and experiments imposing limits on individual rights are unconstitutional. Individual rights established by the Constitution are thought to be inviolable and to supersede any federal or state legislation. We should all be absolutists about that. A federalist approach can also be a practical starting point in bringing about broader social recognition of new claims under the Constitution. There are many interesting cases, however, in which legitimate constitutional rights of different parties stand in conflict.

The federalist idea of a social laboratory across jurisdictions is very appealing. When a conflict over legal and social issues seems intractable, federalism makes it possible to see how well different approaches solve the problem. There may be a variety of interesting solutions or political compromises that can be brought to bear, and it can be easier to reach an accord at the state level. Diversity of circumstances and preferences may mean that a good solution in one state will be bad in another. So different states can try different arrangements under federalism. The results of these experiments can guide other states or even federal legislation, if it comes to that. Voters in each state have the power to reward or punish elected representatives, based on these experiments or their outcomes, or to “vote with their feet” by moving to a state that better matches their political preferences.

Today, the country is experiencing an epidemic of grievances on which there is little consensus. These cover issues related to gender identity, gay rights, polyandry, sexual consent, voting rights, due process claims, race and law enforcement, food labeling, drug legalization, censorship, assisted suicide, “micro-aggressions”, and any number of other causes célèbres. These issues may involve novel private or social arrangements, or they may necessitate a weighing of the asserted rights of an aggrieved individual or group against established rights of others protected by the Constitution. It may well be that the asserted rights of the aggrieved have a proper place in the Constitution, and if so, there might be a compelling case for protection relative to other claims. Federalism is one way this can be hashed out: a state legislates, pro or con; the legislation may be challenged in court; the courts rule whether the law is constitutional at the state level or even at the federal level. And the process may start in any number of states.

I have appealed to federalism on several issues in the past. When the rights of different parties stand in conflict, attempting to weigh different sides of an issue based on libertarian and constitutional principles does not always lead to clear-cut answers. However, laws work best when there is consensus among the governed. Political consensus may be more readily achieved at sub-national levels. That doesn’t necessarily protect the people of any state against big government solutions, high taxes or cronyism. However, at least dissenters within a state can register their dissatisfaction at the ballot box, agitate, attempt to persuade others, challenge in court, or move away.

Both left and right take absolutist views on many issues. They often find it difficult to tolerate variances à la federalism. For example, should a legitimate transgender individual be allowed to use the restroom compatible with their gender identity? The left regards that as an inviolable right, regardless of genitalia and potential threats to privacy. If you disagree, they may call you a bigot! Some on the right, however, regard transgenderism as perverse and not worthy of constitutional protection. Both are absolutist positions. There are, in fact, legitimate reasons for taking either side in the restroom debate, as I attempted to outline here last week. Under such circumstances, federalism respects the political balance within any jurisdiction and allows a way forward, short of resorting to federal legislation, which might well be impossible to achieve.

Federalism is usually associated with strong “states rights”, which are sometimes criticized on historical grounds because slavery was often characterized as a “states rights” issue. The horrific treatment of blacks under slavery was obviously based on an arbitrary distinction that should never have been tolerated under our Constitution; ownership of human chattel should never have been defended as a “right”, but it took a civil war and the Thirteenth Amendment to end it officially. The discrimination mandated under Jim Crow laws was based on the same arbitrary distinction, but it took another 100 years after the Civil War to end those laws through enactment of the Civil Rights Act. I grant that federal action was necessary in both cases. However, few of the challenges we face today are based on such arbitrary distinctions. Rather, they often involve constitutional ambiguity and legitimate concerns over protected rights. So let the experiments, the evolution of opinion and the court challenges play out. That is the essence of federalism. It helps us to muddle on through.

Bernie, Donald and Ignatius?

29 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in Immigration, Socialism, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

BernieTrump

We have candidates vying for the nominations of both major U.S. political parties with tendencies toward nationalism: Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They both oppose liberalized immigration and they are both anti-trade, playing on economic fears in articulating their views. Sanders has attempted to soften his rhetoric on immigration since last summer, when he alleged that it harms U.S. workers.

There are differences between Sanders and Trump on the treatment of existing illegal immigrants. Despite Trump’s protests to the contrary, his nationalism has had ethnic overtones.

Trump’s positions on immigration and trade protectionism are not necessarily at odds with Republican tradition, which is a mixed bag, but they are consistent with a faith in big government and central planning. An anti-immigration and anti-trade platform is certainly no contradiction for Sanders, because central planning is integral to his avowed socialism.

Sanders has been called a “socialist with nationalistic tendencies”. He favors government provision of free health care and higher education, heavy redistribution, and severe restrictions on property rights via high taxation. Trump, on the other hand, has been called a “nationalist with socialist tendencies.” He too has called for nationalized health care, increasing certain transfer payments, as well as compromises to state rights. It would probably be more accurate to describe Trump as a corporatist, a system under which large business entities both serve and control government for their own benefit. For example, Trump has used and favors eminent domain to secure land for private projects, generous bankruptcy laws to eliminate business risks, and “deal-making” between government and private enterprise in order to “get things done.” Corporatism is a flavor of fascism, and it is perfectly consistent with a statist agenda.

Thus, each party has candidates who are by degrees both nationalist and socialist. In using these labels, however, I plead innocent to a violation of Godwin’s Law. Of course they are not Nazis, but they are nationalistic socialists. The distinction is explained nicely by B.K Marcus in The Freeman. Both candidates take positions that are consistent with the platform of the National Socialist German Workers Party, circa 1920.

As an aside, Marcus provides some fascinating etymology of the word “Nazi”, quoting Steve Horwitz:

“The standard butt of German jokes at the beginning of the twentieth century were stupid Bavarian peasants. And just as Irish jokes always involve a man called Paddy, so Bavarian jokes always involved a peasant called Nazi. That’s because Nazi was a shortening of the very common Bavarian name Ignatius. This meant that Hitler’s opponents had an open goal. He had a party filled with Bavarian hicks and the name of that party could be shortened to the standard joke name for hicks.“

Marcus also quotes Mark Forsyth on this topic:

“To this day, most of us happily go about believing that the Nazis called themselves Nazis, when, in fact, they would probably have beaten you up for saying the word.“

Back on point, I’ve written about both of these candidates before: Trump here and here; Sanders here. To keep things even, here is one more interesting take on Bernie.

“His family managed to send him to the University of Chicago. Despite a prestigious degree, however, Sanders failed to earn a living, even as an adult. It took him 40 years to collect his first steady paycheck — and it was a government check.”

Read the whole thing!

It’s difficult for me to take these two candidates seriously because they do not take individual liberty seriously, nor do they understand the power of private markets to promote human welfare. I also have strong reservations about their understanding of constitutional principles, and I suspect that either would have few qualms about taking Mr. Obama’s cue in stretching executive authority.

Instead of the headline above, it would have been more accurate to say “Bernie, Donald and Ignoramus!” Unfortunately, one of these guys could be our next president. Well, it won’t be Sanders.

Nullifying The Federal Blob

17 Tuesday Feb 2015

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

nullify-obamacare_big

When must a state acquiesce to the demands of the federal government? The question is not as straightforward as many believe. The U.S. Constitution is fairly explicit in “enumerating” the federal government’s powers, which at least tells us that the answer must be “sometimes,” not simply always or never. Powers not specifically granted to the federal  government are generally reserved by the states. This is the principle of federalism, but in practice it leaves plenty of room for disagreement. The federal government has grown enormously in size and in the scope of its activities. It seems inevitable that tensions will arise over specific questions about the limits of federal authority. And over time, in response to challenges, the courts have interpreted some of the enumerated powers more expansively. There is an ongoing debate over what avenues, in addition to the courts, states may follow in challenging federal power. Some have framed it as a debate over state “nullification” of specific federal laws versus a constitutional convention to establish clearer limits on the reach of federal power.

Recently, nullification has been all the rage, as this article in The Hill makes clear. So-called “mandates” often require states to enforce federal laws, which is likely to provoke some objections. And major pieces of federal legislation have become so complex that details must be sorted out by the administrative agencies in charge of implementation. This involves lots of rule-making and delegation of authority that has frequently imposed burdens on state governments. States are increasingly refusing to cooperate. From The Hill:

“The legislative onslaught, which includes bills targeting federal restrictions on firearms, experimental treatments and hemp, reflects growing discord between the states and Washington, state officials say. …

Friction between the states and the federal government dates back to the nation’s earliest days. But there has been an explosion of bills in the last year, according to the Los Angeles-based Tenth Amendment Center, which advocates for the state use of nullification to tamp down on overzealous regulation.”

Later in the same article, the author discusses an effort to organize a constitutional convention:

“… conservatives are pushing for states to invoke Article 5 of the Constitution and hold a ‘convention of states’ to restrict the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. The group Citizens for Self-Government is leading the charge, and three states — Alaska, Georgia and Florida — have already passed resolutions calling for the convention. Another 26 states are considering legislation this year, according to the group’s president, Mark Meckler. It would take 34 states to call a convention. At the convention, Meckler said the states would work to pass amendments that impose fiscal restraints, regulatory restrictions and term limits on federal officials, including members of the Supreme Court. ‘We’ll have [Article 5] applications pending in 41 states within the next few weeks,’ he said. ‘The goal is to hold a convention in 2016.’”

Libertarians are split on the issues of nullification and a constitutional convention. The latter  is addressed by A. Barton Hinkle in Reason, who questions the necessity of a convention and sees certain risks in the effort, such as new provisions that could “backfire”, the possibility of a “runaway convention”, and efforts to riddle the Constitution with “primary laws,” rather than merely improving it as a framework for governing how we are governed.

As for nullification, Robert Levy, board chairman of The CATO Institute, distinguishes between situations in which a state is asked to enforce a federal law and those involving federal enforcement of a law deemed to be unconstitutional by a state. He asserts that states cannot resolve the latter type of dispute via nullification:

“Fans of nullification count on the states to check federal tyranny. But sometimes it cuts the other way; states are also tyrannical. Indeed, if state and local governments could invalidate federal law, Virginia would have continued its ban on inter-racial marriages; Texas might still be jailing gay people for consensual sex; and constructive gun bans would remain in effect in Chicago and elsewhere.

… If a state deems a federal law to be unconstitutional, what’s the proper remedy? The answer is straightforward. Because the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, the remedy is a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the suspect federal regulation or statute.”

Not surprisingly, the Tenth Amendment Center strongly disagrees with the limits on nullification described by Levy:

“Levy’s entire argument rests on the idea that the federal courts possess the sole and final authority to determine the constitutionality of an act. … Levy never addresses the fundamental question facing those who oppose nullification: how does one reconcile the undeniable fact that the state ratifying conventions adopted the Constitution with the understanding that it was creating a general government with specific, limited powers and the idea that a branch of that very same federal government has the final say on the extent of its own powers? Quite simply, you can’t.”

These recent efforts to reign in the federal government are exciting. I am watching the progress of the Article 5 convention effort with great interest. I am not sure I buy into Levy’s arguments against nullification because checks on power should cut both ways: the Constitution allows states to retain powers not specifically granted to the federal government, so the states should guard those powers jealously. It matters not whether the question involves state enforcement of a federal law or a federal law that violates states rights. Likewise, powers specifically granted to the federal government should serve as a check on “state-level tyranny”. Again, that leaves plenty of room for disagreement before the courts.

Let’s Confine Statists to the State Level

17 Sunday Aug 2014

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

federalism

That Washington is divided is well agreed. Philip Klein asserts that abandoning federalism is a root cause of the division. There is no doubt that expansion of federal power comes largely at the expense of states’ autonomy over their affairs. Federalism allows most issues to be settled at the state level, allowing for the adoption of substantially different policies across individual states. This means that government can be more responsive to differing regional preferences, that individuals with strong preferences can benefit by migrating across state lines, and that states can serve as laboratories for policy experiments. Given that preferences differ regionally and certain protections of states’ rights established by the constitution, there is no question that a consolidation of government functions at the federal level will mean greater difficulty in achieving any legislative agenda. That is a good thing, and it is a good reason to return to the federalist principles of state autonomy and a weak central government. Too often, federalism is supported only when it suits one’s politics.