That’s what George Mason University Professor Russ Roberts uses to explain the Keynesianism vs. Austrian macroeconomics debate, in modern terms.
I hope you guys find it amusing. I know I did. Perhaps it won’t make much sense to non-econ types, but it does characterize the arguments much more simply than you’ll find in the classroom. If nothing else, it’s hilarious and enjoyable!
Hat tip to Volokh as usual, GMU Law Professor Todd Zywicki’s post is here. On a side note, I’ve actually met Professor Zywicki when I worked at FIRE and it was a joy.
High court shows it might be willing to act boldly – Washington Post Robert Barnes characterizes the Citizens United decision as a right-left divide, opining that Bush’s nominees (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) were essential to the decision. Calling the 89 year-old Justice John Paul Stevens’ 90 page dissent “razor sharp,” he blasts the Roberts Court for diverging from stare decisis, a claim that Chief Justice Roberts himself refutes in the opinion.
The Anatole France First Amendment of Citizens United? – American Constitution Society Brenda Wright, disagreeing with the opinion, shares some perspective on how corporate spending in elections may change the democratic process, and discusses some public policy responses, including publicly funding congressional elections and/or constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
Supreme Injustice – The Big Money Zephr Teachout, a Fordham law professor opines that Justice Kennedy lacks understanding of real politics and thus the consequences of the decision. Professor Teachout’s article is cited in the dissent as well. Continuing, he calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, fearing the repercussions of corporate campaign spending.
Supreme Court Opens the Money Gates – Christian Science Monitor The Editorial Board of the CS Monitor expresses a generally unfavorable opinion towards the Court’s decision, and discusses how it will affect other aspects of campaign finance, such as publicly funded elections and individual donations.
The Court’s Blow to Democracy – New York Times Unauthored, the NYT editorial calls the decision “disastrous,” fearing that corporate donations will overwhelm the political process. They call for the ruling to be overturned, stating, “The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.” Obviously that would be a much bolder step than a constitutional amendment, and, as I see it, simply calls for further political polarization of the High Court.
The Supreme Court Scrambles Politics — Again – NPR In an attempt to explain the “intended and unforeseen” consequences of the decision, it discusses past decisions that have had serious political implications.
The Volokh Conspiracy has covered this issue so extensively in recent months that I dare not link to all of the posts. A search results in ten separate posts in just the last 24 hours, including several extensive posts by Professor Volokh himself. I really enjoyed GMU Law Professor Ilya Somin’s post as well, which is just one of several he has written in the last day or so on this topic.
Christmas in January for the First Amendment – NPO Online – David French. Former FIRE President and ADF attorney David French opines that he would favor reading the nearly 200 page opinion to his children! Quoting the opinion, he cites his favorite portion, “The ongoing chill upon speech that is beyond all doubt protected makes it necessary in this case to invoke the earlier precedents that a statute which chills speech can and must be invalidated where its facial invalidity has been demonstrated. (emphasis added).”
A First Amendment Remedy for a First Amendment Train Wreck: Citizens United and the Future of Libel Law – The Huffington Post – Howard Schweber – Although Huffington Post is often a progressive political blog, Schweber opines, “But in the long run, the reshaped terrain of American campaigning might not look all that different from its present state. It might even be an improvement. Who knows – maybe instead of trying to choke off destructive forms of advertising at their source, the better solution is to hold people and corporations accountable for what they say?” In other words, rather than restricting speech, suing corporations who engage in libelous speech may be the answer. I agree with him, although I do find it hard to believe that a case would accept a libel claim about a Presidential candidate. But, given the delicate nature of politicians’ public images, Schweber may definitely have a good point. What I really like about this piece is that it does not call for a return of the censorship, merely accountability for what one says. I think that is an excellent response, even for people who do not agree with the opinion. Schweber is a professor of political science at UW-Madison.
It even appears that President Barack Obama is unable to put aside politics when it comes to the First Amendment:
With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.
Obviously these threats are empty, as no matter how “forceful,” the Constitution’s commands override any legislative wishes, however legitimate. As many do, Obama pits this as a battle between the people and corporate power, failing to recognize that corporations, while not people, are collectives of people organized for a unified goal, just like a labor union. It is beyond my comprehension why someone who claims to love democracy so much is opposed to any form of debate on the issues, but my prediction is that his threats in this are empty.
Hat tip to SCOTUS blog’s Lyle Denniston for the pointer, who appears to agree with me that only a constitutional amendment can answer the sweeping First Amendment concerns expressed in this case.
I have had this quote, from McConnel v. FEC on my Facebook page for about three years. It reads:
The First Amendment provides that ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.’ Nevertheless, the Court today upholds what can only be described as the most significant abridgment of the freedoms of speech and association since the Civil War. With breathtaking scope, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), directly targets and constricts core political speech, the ‘primary object of First Amendment protection.
I have not been following this election. Why? Mostly because I don’t care, I’m not from Massachusetts, and I mostly think that our national government at this point is a complete farce with Obama at the helm. That said, I find it absolutely hilarious that CNN has declared Scott Brown the victor in the race for the late Ted Kennedy’s seat.
I am not a Republican, not conservative in the least bit, and am usually quite disenchanted as a voter. That said, I’m glad to see some power balance returning to Washington, and happy to see the Democrats lose at least a few seats. It seems that this will encourage the health reform debate to hit the back burner so that this government can focus on the serious issues we currently face, namely, suicidal spending, sluggish economic productivity growth and investment, and the two wars.
I’m not convinced that this will be the wake up call for the Democratic Party, but as a fan of neither of the major political parties, I celebrate some power balance returning to Washington.
This blog reported that a Tennessee judge is being sued because he ordered a spectator in his courtroom to undergo a drug test, which was facilitated by using county police officers to seize the man for the period necessary to obtain a “sample” of his urine.
While I was interning at FIRE, Azhar Majeed, then one of FIRE’s legal scholars, gave a presentation on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the standard analysis for the qualified immunity doctrine. Never in my life did I believe that such a ridiculous violation of a man’s constitutional rights would occur. The facts of this case are almost too extreme for my imagination, proving once again that the truth is even better than fiction.
If the allegations in this complaint are true, this judge ordered this man into custody without any suspicion what so ever, where deputies demanded a urine sample and released him. No alcohol or drugs were found in his system. Apparently this judge claims that treating spectators this way is/was “routine.” To top it all off, Judge Moore did this to someone over which he had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff had no business at all before the court and was merely providing transportation for someone else, who was a defendant in Judge Moore’s courtroom.
This is so horrendous as to not warrant analysis, but it should be obvious that seizing one’s person without warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, and doing so under the letter of the law violates even the most basic procedural due process laws.
Personally, I hope that if even a few of the allegations are true, that the plaintiff wins a large compensatory and punitive damaged award. This case is so shocking to me that I can hardly believe it true.
Government is at it again. Pretty soon it will be so unsafe to consider flying that you, and your shoes, will simply drive to your destination.
Personally, I refuse to fly. Other than for official purposes, I have flown only once since 2001, and I intend to keep it that way.
I’ll save the remainder of my comments for another day. Thanks to Professor Randy Barnett at Volokh for the pointer.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Transportation Security Administration
Aviation Security Directive
Subject: Security Directive
Number: SD 1544-09-06
Date: December 25, 2009
EXPIRATION: 0200Z on December 30, 2009
This Security Directive (SD) must be implemented immediately. The measures contained in this SD are in addition to all other SDs currently in effect for your operations.
INFORMATION: On December 25, 2009, a terrorist attack was attempted against a flight traveling to the United States. TSA has identified security measures to be implemented by airports, aircraft operators, and foreign air carriers to mitigate potential threats to flights.
APPLICABILITY: THIS SD APPLIES TO AIRCRAFT OPERATORS THAT CARRY OUT A SECURITY PROGRAM REGULATED UNDER 49 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS (CFR)1544.101(a).
ACTIONS REQUIRED: If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for each such flight.
1. BOARDING GATE
1. The aircraft operator or authorized air carrier representative must ensure all passengers are screened at the boarding gate during the boarding process using the following procedures. These procedures are in addition to the screening of all passengers at the screening checkpoint.
1. Perform thorough pat-down of all passengers at boarding gate prior to boarding, concentrating on upper legs and torso.
2. Physically inspect 100 percent of all passenger accessible property at the boarding gate prior to boarding, with focus on syringes being transported along with powders and/or liquids.
3. Ensure the liquids, aerosols, and gels restrictions are strictly adhered to in accordance with SD 1544–06-02E.
2. During the boarding process, the air carrier may exempt passengers who are Heads of State or Heads of Government from the measures outlined in Section I.A. of this SD, including the following who are traveling with the Head of State or Head of Government:
1. Spouse and children, or
2. One other individual (chosen by the Head of State or Head of Government)
3. For the purposes of Section I.B., the following definitions apply:
1. Head of State: An individual serving as the chief public representative of a monarchic or republican nation-state, federation, commonwealth, or any other political state (for example, King, Queen, and President).
2. Head of Government: The chief officer of the executive branch of a government presiding over a cabinet (for example, Prime Minister, Premier, President, and Monarch).
2. IN FLIGHT
1. During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:
1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT: The aircraft operator must immediately provide written confirmation to its assigned PSI indicating receipt of this SD.
AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004).
APPROVAL OF ALTERNATIVE MEASURES: With respect to the provisions of this SD, as stated in 49 CFR 1544.305(d), the aircraft operator may submit in writing to its PSI proposed alternative measures and the basis for submitting the alternative measures for approval by the Assistant Administrator for Transportation Sector Network Management. The aircraft operator must immediately notify its PSI whenever any procedure in this SD cannot be carried out by a government authority charged with performing security procedures.
FOR TSA ACTION ONLY: The TSA must issue this SD immediately to the corporate security element of all affected U.S. aircraft operators.
FOR STATE DEPARTMENT: Retransmittal to appropriate foreign posts is authorized. Post must refer to STATE 162917, 201826Z Sep 01, Subject: FAA Security Directives and Information Circulars: Definitions and Handling, for specific guidance and dissemination.
This may come as a surprise to my readers. I’m applying to the History Channel’s newest reality TV show, “Top Shot.” The ten episode show is designed to test marksmanship skill and declare one “Top Shot” who will win $100,000 in cash! From the press release:
In each episode, contenders will face team and elimination challenges inspired by real
events in history, from Wild West shootouts to modern-day sniper missions. Every
challenge will reveal the weapons, technologies and tactics of a different era, while hi-
speed HD cameras capture the skillful execution of each test with breathtaking precision
in extreme slow-motion.
Wish me luck! I’ve been on TV before, in Fourwheeler Magazine and I had a great time. This competition presents an entirely new challenge, however. Sixteen people will be chosen as finalist, and one top shot declared. Anyone who knows me well knows that I have what it takes. I’ll be working on my casting video in the coming weeks, and with any luck, I’ll have a chance to be the first ever Top Shot!
Over the years, I’ve taken many people to the range, learned a lot, improved my marksmanship and taught others what a joy firearm shooting can be. Now I will have the chance to show the world my marksmanship skills and test myself in tough shooting scenarios with a wide variety of firearms. While I am not yet sure of the details of the show, I can only imagine that whoever the top shot is, he or she will be expected to make amazing shots at extreme distances. Of course, I’d love to be that guy, and that’s why I’m doing this.
I blogged yesterday about the forthcoming Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which was granted certiorari yesterday and will be reviewed by the Supreme Court soon. Eugene Volokh, who is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at UCLA, founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, a libertarian legal blog that has over a dozen authors, most of whom are prominent law professors on various subjects, and long time supporter of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, responded to a comment that I left on his blog yesterday regarding expressive association. The original post, entitled, “Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Expressive Association / Government Benefits Case” contains the original comment thread. I left several comments throughout the day, as is common when commenters disagree, and often times, these comments add considerably to my understanding of the issue as a reader and/or allow me to express my opinion about a given issue. Because this case covers a controversial issue involving a clash between anti-discrimination statutes and expressive association rights, there was quite a bit of disagreement on the subject. His post from today appears here, entitled “Ideological Groups Being Taken Over by Those Hostile to the Underlying Ideology.”
The case involves the concept of freedom of association, and the right of the Christian Legal Society at the University of California-Hastings to deny voting membership to students who refuse to profess belief in the central ideas of the organization. Among them, of course, is the politically unpopular Christian doctrine against homosexuality.
Posted by Tim 
