Are Gays a Threat to Civilization?
(Originally posted on Freespace)
Gay Marriage might come to a town near where I grew up: “The gay-friendly borough of New Hope, Pa., a picturesque town on the Delaware River that has long attracted artists, antiquers, and tourists, wants Bucks County officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.”
Yes, New Hope is a very gay-friendly town. It’s also a beautiful town. It’s about 15 minutes north, up the Delaware River, from the town Yardley, PA, where I grew up. Everyday, especially on the weekends, you’ll see young college kids, families and their children, lots of educated and urbane yuppies, as well as punks, bikers and artists walking the streets, eating at the restaurants, hanging out and shopping. And the real estate prices are outrageously high. It probably is a bit like San Francisco or Berkeley.
Some social conservatives claim that gays represent a threat to civilization. I find this claim odd because the towns and cities where gays tend to congregate are some of the most civilized—or at least the most livable, (and expensive) places in the nation. I have seen anti-gay conservatives, as well as some gay friendly folks, trot out statistics demonstrating that gays have disproportionate levels of wealth, income, and education. Anti-gay conservatives usually disseminate these in order to demonstrate why gays aren’t an oppressed minority, why they don’t need civil rights status, etc. But isn’t there perhaps another way to interpret these figures? That gays, like Jews and Asians, are “model minorities” who are thriving in the free market. I don’t know whether these figures are accurate. There is much junk science about gays from both the left (the 10% of the population figure—it’s more like 3%) and the right (hyperpromiscuity, phony lifespan figures, made up diseases like “gay bowel syndrome”) that one hardly knows what to believe.
There are certain cities (or parts of them) in this country populated by various subcultures where it really does seem as if civilization has broken down, where poverty and crime are rampant, businesses are gone, people don’t work and depend on the government for support (and as an optimist, I see that things have gotten better since we reformed welfare, started locking up more criminals, and reduced the teen birth rate). But go to any geographic area where gays disproportionately congregate and you will see the antithesis of this. You will see towns where culture and business thrive—some of the most in demand and expensive real estate locations. Think about any town that you are aware of where gays congregate and see if you can find an exception: New Hope, PA, San Francisco, CA, Dupont Circle, DC, the Village in NY, Provincetown, MA, Key West and Miami South Beach, Fla.—Do we see a pattern here?
I'm a libertarian lawyer and college professor. I blog on religion, history, constitutional law, government policy, philosophy, sexuality, and the American Founding. Everything is fair game though. Over the years, I've been involved in numerous group blogs that come and go. This blog archives almost everything I write. Email your questions or comments to rowjonathan@aol.com
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Natural Rights and Religion:
(Originally Published on Freespace)
One claim that I often hear the religious right make against the concept of the separation of Church & State is that the Establishment Clause was passed simply to forbid the federal government from establishing one dominant national sect, while preserving and encouraging the ability of the states to establish their own (Christian) churches with differing denominations, and to promote religion in other ways. This claim is misleading at best, outright false at worse.
Let me reiterate some of my comments that I made regarding the Founders and state violations of natural rights, because they are relevant to this post as well: Just because the federal government didn’t have the recognized power to prevent the states from doing X, doesn’t mean that the Founders approved of—or thought it was a good thing—that the states did X. The Bill of Rights secures many vital natural rights of mankind (as well as some constitutionally created non-natural positive rights). Natural rights are rights that no government, federal, state, or local may properly infringe. Yet, the federal government originally did not give itself the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states. If a state therefore didn’t recognize one or more natural rights of its citizens, we can conclude that the Founders disapproved of such actions, that such actions were in fact anathema to the principles that this nation was founded on, even if the federal government couldn’t stop what was going on.
The father of the Bill of Rights, Madison (and Jefferson and others), thought liberty of conscience in particular to be one of the most important—if not the most important—natural right of mankind (which they learned from Locke). Madison felt so strongly about this that he fought for an additional amendment to the Bill of Rights forbidding the states to “violate the equal rights of conscience.” Yet, this measure failed to pass.
Madison believed that “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters” was required in order to fully secure the right of liberty of conscience. Without doing so, history had taught us that religious persecution was all but inevitable. Catholics had used the state to persecute Protestants in Catholic nations. And Protestants did the same to Catholics and to one another in Protestant nations. (This is to say nothing about how the non-Christian sects were treated!)
If you want to take a look at exactly what Madison and Jefferson thought must be done in order secure the natural right of liberty of conscience, check out the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which Jefferson penned and Madison fought tooth and nail for its passage.
That statue disestablished the Anglican Church, forbade religious tests for public office and granted at least as great a degree of religious freedom as did the US Constitution’s religion clauses (I don’t want to say that the statute granted “greater” protection because the exact meaning of those very short religion clauses in the Constitution is up for debate. I personally believe that our religion clauses were modeled after this document, and that the specific provisions in this statute should be regarded as interpretive authority for the meaning of the First Amendment).
And in fact, the statute did much more than that. The entire statute is worth reading, but let me highlight some important passages. It states “that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;” and “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”
Notice how the word “opinion” is often used to describe any religious belief. I stress this because it evidences that—far from being founded of “Biblical Christianity” as Roy Moore claims—our country was founded on a Lockean system that solved the religious/political problem that long plagued Western nations by consigning religion, and thereby confining it, to the private sphere. In order to do this, “religious beliefs” were taken from the realm of “Truth” and consigned to the realm of “Opinion.” The net effect of this was to significantly (and rightly, in my opinion) restrict the power that “religion” had on society. As Allan Bloom describes the American Founding and religion, “there was a conscious, if covert, effort to weaken religious belief, partly by assigning—as a result of a great epistemological effort—religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge. But the right to freedom of religion belonged to the realm of knowledge.” The Closing of the American Mind, p.28. The right to religious freedom is “knowledge” because it is a natural right that belongs to all men at all times and places, regardless of whether governments recognize it or not. And this “knowledge” is ascertainable by Man’s Reason alone, unaided by Biblical Revelation.
And Jefferson’s Statute is clear that these rights belong to more than just the citizens of Virginia. It states “that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind….” The wording of the statute also illustrates my above point—that even though the federal government might not have had the jurisdictional power to secure the natural rights of mankind against the states, they certainly didn’t approve of the states violating their citizens’ natural rights. In fact the Virginia Statute recognizes that it had no power to restrain future Virginia Assemblies from repealing the Statute, but it sternly warned them not to do so. And here is why: “if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present [Virginia Statute] or to narrow its operations, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
So what about all of those other states that didn’t deal with religion in way that Virginia did? What about those states that had established churches, imposed religious tests for office, used funds to directly aid religion? We can we conclude that the Founders (or at least Jefferson and Madison) thought about these actions? The answer is clear: that they violated the natural rights of the citizens of those states, and were thus dissonant with the principles of the American Founding.
(Originally Published on Freespace)
One claim that I often hear the religious right make against the concept of the separation of Church & State is that the Establishment Clause was passed simply to forbid the federal government from establishing one dominant national sect, while preserving and encouraging the ability of the states to establish their own (Christian) churches with differing denominations, and to promote religion in other ways. This claim is misleading at best, outright false at worse.
Let me reiterate some of my comments that I made regarding the Founders and state violations of natural rights, because they are relevant to this post as well: Just because the federal government didn’t have the recognized power to prevent the states from doing X, doesn’t mean that the Founders approved of—or thought it was a good thing—that the states did X. The Bill of Rights secures many vital natural rights of mankind (as well as some constitutionally created non-natural positive rights). Natural rights are rights that no government, federal, state, or local may properly infringe. Yet, the federal government originally did not give itself the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states. If a state therefore didn’t recognize one or more natural rights of its citizens, we can conclude that the Founders disapproved of such actions, that such actions were in fact anathema to the principles that this nation was founded on, even if the federal government couldn’t stop what was going on.
The father of the Bill of Rights, Madison (and Jefferson and others), thought liberty of conscience in particular to be one of the most important—if not the most important—natural right of mankind (which they learned from Locke). Madison felt so strongly about this that he fought for an additional amendment to the Bill of Rights forbidding the states to “violate the equal rights of conscience.” Yet, this measure failed to pass.
Madison believed that “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters” was required in order to fully secure the right of liberty of conscience. Without doing so, history had taught us that religious persecution was all but inevitable. Catholics had used the state to persecute Protestants in Catholic nations. And Protestants did the same to Catholics and to one another in Protestant nations. (This is to say nothing about how the non-Christian sects were treated!)
If you want to take a look at exactly what Madison and Jefferson thought must be done in order secure the natural right of liberty of conscience, check out the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which Jefferson penned and Madison fought tooth and nail for its passage.
That statue disestablished the Anglican Church, forbade religious tests for public office and granted at least as great a degree of religious freedom as did the US Constitution’s religion clauses (I don’t want to say that the statute granted “greater” protection because the exact meaning of those very short religion clauses in the Constitution is up for debate. I personally believe that our religion clauses were modeled after this document, and that the specific provisions in this statute should be regarded as interpretive authority for the meaning of the First Amendment).
And in fact, the statute did much more than that. The entire statute is worth reading, but let me highlight some important passages. It states “that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;” and “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.”
Notice how the word “opinion” is often used to describe any religious belief. I stress this because it evidences that—far from being founded of “Biblical Christianity” as Roy Moore claims—our country was founded on a Lockean system that solved the religious/political problem that long plagued Western nations by consigning religion, and thereby confining it, to the private sphere. In order to do this, “religious beliefs” were taken from the realm of “Truth” and consigned to the realm of “Opinion.” The net effect of this was to significantly (and rightly, in my opinion) restrict the power that “religion” had on society. As Allan Bloom describes the American Founding and religion, “there was a conscious, if covert, effort to weaken religious belief, partly by assigning—as a result of a great epistemological effort—religion to the realm of opinion as opposed to knowledge. But the right to freedom of religion belonged to the realm of knowledge.” The Closing of the American Mind, p.28. The right to religious freedom is “knowledge” because it is a natural right that belongs to all men at all times and places, regardless of whether governments recognize it or not. And this “knowledge” is ascertainable by Man’s Reason alone, unaided by Biblical Revelation.
And Jefferson’s Statute is clear that these rights belong to more than just the citizens of Virginia. It states “that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind….” The wording of the statute also illustrates my above point—that even though the federal government might not have had the jurisdictional power to secure the natural rights of mankind against the states, they certainly didn’t approve of the states violating their citizens’ natural rights. In fact the Virginia Statute recognizes that it had no power to restrain future Virginia Assemblies from repealing the Statute, but it sternly warned them not to do so. And here is why: “if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present [Virginia Statute] or to narrow its operations, such act will be an infringement of natural right.”
So what about all of those other states that didn’t deal with religion in way that Virginia did? What about those states that had established churches, imposed religious tests for office, used funds to directly aid religion? We can we conclude that the Founders (or at least Jefferson and Madison) thought about these actions? The answer is clear: that they violated the natural rights of the citizens of those states, and were thus dissonant with the principles of the American Founding.
Chapter Three in Barnett’s Book:
(Originally published on Freespace)
I have already read part of Restoring the Lost Constitution and Chapter 3—“Natural Rights as Liberty Rights,” is my favorite section so far. Let me point out of few things that Barnett has successfully argued in this chapter alone.
One, the Founders believed in natural rights—rights that no government, federal, state or local may properly infringe. This is important so bear with me if I get a little redundant. If the Founders concluded that a particular right qualified as a natural right—for instance, free speech, liberty of conscience, and many, many others—they didn’t believe that any government, including state or local ones, could legitimately infringe them. This helps to answer those conservatives who claim something like, “the Founders only wanted the Federal government to be restricted from touching these areas (the Bill of Rights, for instance), but they perfectly approved of state governments restricting these rights.” No they didn’t. While it is true that before the balance of power between the states and the federal government underwent a major shift with the Civil War and subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the federal government didn’t have the recognized power to enforce the natural rights of the people against states, the Founders in no way approved of the states infringing their citizens' natural rights. They just didn’t yet have the ability to prevent the states from doing this. Rather, it was hoped that the states, on their own, would voluntarily respect their citizens' natural rights, even if they didn’t always do so.
Two, that not only are many of these natural rights unenumerated, but they are literally unenumerable. Barnett quotes many Founders to prove this point, including James Wilson, a member of the Constitutional Convention, who puts it this way: “a complete enumeration of rights appertaining to the people as men and citizens….Enumerate all the rights of men! I am sure, sir, that no gentleman in the late Convention would have attempted such a thing.” p. 56. This sets the stage for Barnett’s later claim that the Constitution has what’s called a general presumption of liberty, that whenever the government infringes upon any liberty, it must justify its actions by demonstrating that it is acting pursuant to a recognized legitimate government function, and these are few in number.
Three, one of the most powerful arguments against a Bill of Rights at the time of the American Founding was that the Founders were fearful that someone might interpret its inclusion exactly as Robert Bork does: that once a list is enumerated, those are the only rights that the people have against the state, all others are “surrendered to the government.” Another great quote by Wilson: “In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete.” p. 56. Barnett also quotes future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell: “Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights as he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.” p. 57.
Four, that—again contra Robert Bork—neither the 9th Amendment, nor the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment are either “dead letters” or “essentially incomprehensible, thus void”—that the Framers intended both of these provisions to be used to secure unenumerated “natural rights” or “liberty rights.” To guard against the very reasonable fear mentioned above, Madison proposed the 9th Amendment. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but I conceive, that it may be guarded against.” pp. 59-60. The 9th Amendment did this by attempting to secure the many other “rights retained by the people,” not included in the Bill of Rights, which were too numerous to list.
The 14th Amendment secures these natural rights through its "privileges or immunities" clause. The reason why the Framers of that Amendment didn’t use the term “natural rights” and instead used the term “privileges and immunities” is because the latter is a broader term. "Privileges or immunities" include not only all natural rights, but also positive rights as well.
Five, the 14th Amendment was indeed intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights against State Governments. Conservatives are wrong to claim that this Amendment was not intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights at all. And liberals are wrong to only recognize a “partial incorporation.” The proper way to interpret the Bill of Rights is as incorporating all of the first eight Amendments, 2nd Amendment included. Barnett quotes Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican and former attorney general of Michigan: “To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution.” p. 65.
(Originally published on Freespace)
I have already read part of Restoring the Lost Constitution and Chapter 3—“Natural Rights as Liberty Rights,” is my favorite section so far. Let me point out of few things that Barnett has successfully argued in this chapter alone.
One, the Founders believed in natural rights—rights that no government, federal, state or local may properly infringe. This is important so bear with me if I get a little redundant. If the Founders concluded that a particular right qualified as a natural right—for instance, free speech, liberty of conscience, and many, many others—they didn’t believe that any government, including state or local ones, could legitimately infringe them. This helps to answer those conservatives who claim something like, “the Founders only wanted the Federal government to be restricted from touching these areas (the Bill of Rights, for instance), but they perfectly approved of state governments restricting these rights.” No they didn’t. While it is true that before the balance of power between the states and the federal government underwent a major shift with the Civil War and subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments, the federal government didn’t have the recognized power to enforce the natural rights of the people against states, the Founders in no way approved of the states infringing their citizens' natural rights. They just didn’t yet have the ability to prevent the states from doing this. Rather, it was hoped that the states, on their own, would voluntarily respect their citizens' natural rights, even if they didn’t always do so.
Two, that not only are many of these natural rights unenumerated, but they are literally unenumerable. Barnett quotes many Founders to prove this point, including James Wilson, a member of the Constitutional Convention, who puts it this way: “a complete enumeration of rights appertaining to the people as men and citizens….Enumerate all the rights of men! I am sure, sir, that no gentleman in the late Convention would have attempted such a thing.” p. 56. This sets the stage for Barnett’s later claim that the Constitution has what’s called a general presumption of liberty, that whenever the government infringes upon any liberty, it must justify its actions by demonstrating that it is acting pursuant to a recognized legitimate government function, and these are few in number.
Three, one of the most powerful arguments against a Bill of Rights at the time of the American Founding was that the Founders were fearful that someone might interpret its inclusion exactly as Robert Bork does: that once a list is enumerated, those are the only rights that the people have against the state, all others are “surrendered to the government.” Another great quote by Wilson: “In all societies, there are many powers and rights, which cannot be particularly enumerated. A bill of rights annexed to a constitution is an enumeration of the powers reserved. If we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given. The consequence is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete.” p. 56. Barnett also quotes future Supreme Court Justice James Iredell: “Let any one make what collection or enumeration of rights as he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it.” p. 57.
Four, that—again contra Robert Bork—neither the 9th Amendment, nor the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment are either “dead letters” or “essentially incomprehensible, thus void”—that the Framers intended both of these provisions to be used to secure unenumerated “natural rights” or “liberty rights.” To guard against the very reasonable fear mentioned above, Madison proposed the 9th Amendment. “It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but I conceive, that it may be guarded against.” pp. 59-60. The 9th Amendment did this by attempting to secure the many other “rights retained by the people,” not included in the Bill of Rights, which were too numerous to list.
The 14th Amendment secures these natural rights through its "privileges or immunities" clause. The reason why the Framers of that Amendment didn’t use the term “natural rights” and instead used the term “privileges and immunities” is because the latter is a broader term. "Privileges or immunities" include not only all natural rights, but also positive rights as well.
Five, the 14th Amendment was indeed intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights against State Governments. Conservatives are wrong to claim that this Amendment was not intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights at all. And liberals are wrong to only recognize a “partial incorporation.” The proper way to interpret the Bill of Rights is as incorporating all of the first eight Amendments, 2nd Amendment included. Barnett quotes Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican and former attorney general of Michigan: “To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution.” p. 65.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Libertarian Rock:
(Originally posted at Freespace)
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Juan Non-Volokh discusses libertarianism in rock lyrics:
“Of course, no discussion of libertarian-leaning bands could be complete without mention of Rush. The Canadian power trio, about to embark on its 30thanniversary tour, is arguably the most prominent libertarian band of all time. Rush dedicated an album, 2112, to 'the genius of Ayn Rand.' and penned such liberty-themed anthems as 'Freewill,' and this week’s Sunday Song Lyric, 'The Trees.' When I was younger, and into such music, I was struck by the song’s explicitly anti-egalitarian message.
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the oaks just shake their heads.
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
'The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.'
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw."
I am a big fan of the Progressive Rock genre. This includes not only Rush, but also bands like Yes, Genesis, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and King Crimson. I am glad to see that Rush is back on tour and plan on seeing them. I just saw my favorite progressive rock band Kansas at the Patriots Theater at the War Memorial in Trenton, New Jersey. I hope to see both Yes, and Rush this year.
Here is Neal Peart’s (Rush’s drummer, and Rand-inspired lyricist) classic line on love from the song Ghost of a Chance:
I don't believe in destiny
Or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever
Or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above
But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
And make it last...
(Originally posted at Freespace)
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Juan Non-Volokh discusses libertarianism in rock lyrics:
“Of course, no discussion of libertarian-leaning bands could be complete without mention of Rush. The Canadian power trio, about to embark on its 30thanniversary tour, is arguably the most prominent libertarian band of all time. Rush dedicated an album, 2112, to 'the genius of Ayn Rand.' and penned such liberty-themed anthems as 'Freewill,' and this week’s Sunday Song Lyric, 'The Trees.' When I was younger, and into such music, I was struck by the song’s explicitly anti-egalitarian message.
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream ‘Oppression!’
And the oaks just shake their heads.
So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
'The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.'
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw."
I am a big fan of the Progressive Rock genre. This includes not only Rush, but also bands like Yes, Genesis, Emerson, Lake, and Palmer, and King Crimson. I am glad to see that Rush is back on tour and plan on seeing them. I just saw my favorite progressive rock band Kansas at the Patriots Theater at the War Memorial in Trenton, New Jersey. I hope to see both Yes, and Rush this year.
Here is Neal Peart’s (Rush’s drummer, and Rand-inspired lyricist) classic line on love from the song Ghost of a Chance:
I don't believe in destiny
Or the guiding hand of fate
I don't believe in forever
Or love as a mystical state
I don't believe in the stars or the planets
Or angels watching from above
But I believe there's a ghost of a chance we can find someone to love
And make it last...
Bork, the Straussians, and our Enlightenment Founding:
(Originally posted on Freespace)
Bork’s constitutionalism is strikingly similar to that of many of the followers of Leo Strauss. (This includes just about all prominent thinkers who studied under Strauss, save Harry Jaffa. The non-Jaffaite Straussians are collectively known as the East Coast Straussians. Jaffa and his followers are sometimes referred to as the West Coast Straussians). Bork, in many of his works, has often cited men like Irving Kristol, Allan Bloom, and Walter Berns. (He has heavily relied on Kristol’s arguments.) These men, like Bork, reject the Declaration. I think it’s fair to say that Bork has been significantly influenced by this crowd of thinkers.
(If you want an example of a parallel between Bork and a Straussian, see Walter Berns’s, “Government by Lawyers & Judges,” Commentary, June 1987, p. 17. Berns posits a version of “strict constructionism” that is virtually identical to Bork’s.)
Why do I bring this up? It’s well known to anyone who has carefully studied the writings of the Straussians that they believe that the American Founding itself—the original principles of Enlightenment liberalism that this nation was founded on—those enunciated in the Declaration of Independence—are the cause of what they see as the modern decay of society. In short, these principles are the natural rights of liberty and equality, wholly ascertainable by Man’s Reason, unaided by Biblical Revelation. One of these rights is liberty of conscience, which can only be secured by a state that, in James Madison’s words, enacts “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” thus demanding a separation of Church and State.
Here is Thomas West describing Allan Bloom’s thoughts on America: “America was founded on modern principles of liberty and equality that we got from Hobbes and Locke. Liberty turned out to mean freedom from all self-restraint, and equality turned out to mean the destruction of all differences of rank and even of nature.”
This could have been taken verbatim from chapters 3 & 4 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (Indeed, West notes that Bork had made a very similar argument to Bloom’s back in 1984 in Tradition and Morality in American Constitutional Law.) In Slouching, Bork labels Jefferson as “a man of the Enlightenment” and the Declaration as “an Enlightenment document,” and uses this as grounds for rejecting the Declaration. He goes on to say that “Liberalism does not vary; it is always the twin thrust of liberty and equality, and these never change.” pp. 57-58. And that the classical liberalism of the founding has transmogrified into the modern liberalism of today. “Liberty” has come to mean “radical individualism,” “equality,” “radical egalitarianism.”
Bork spends a great deal of time telling us what is wrong with Enlightenment liberalism, and the Declaration, how these principles are “hardly useful, indeed may be pernicious, if taken, as they commonly are, as a guide to action, governmental or private.” But this begs the question: Are these original principles? He lets the cat out of the bag: “Equality and liberty are of course, what America said it was about from the beginning.” p. 56. He further notes that the sixties (which he LOATHES) represented, in some respect, “an expansion of certain American (and Western) ideals…” and that this “deserves to be stressed because if modern developments are in the American grain, if they grow from our roots, as there is reason to believe they do, they will be much harder to reverse than it is comfortable to think.” Id.
So there you have it: This seems to be a clear admission that Bork (like the East Coast Straussians) is against the principles of the American founding. That his (their) position is in reality, anti-originalist.
I tend to agree with these thinkers that what they call radical individualism—(for instance what we saw in the recently decided Lawrence v. Texas case) is consistent with, indeed demanded by, our founding principles of the rights of liberty and to pursue happiness. I just don’t see it as a bad thing, as they do.
But what about radical egalitarianism? Not the classical view of equality, but the post-Marxist version of it that posits “equality of condition,” that everyone should get an equal slice of the pie. Did classical equality turn into this? Bork notes that although the Framers might not have had this theory in mind, the passion that our nation had for equality demanded that the meaning be expanded beyond its original conception. Bloom puts it this way: “More serious for us are the arguments of the revolutionaries who accepted our principles of freedom and equality. Many believed we had not thought through these cherished ideals. Can equality really only mean equal opportunity for unequal talents to acquire private property?” The Closing of the American Mind, p. 161.
The problem with accepting the modern version of equality is that it directly contradicts classical principles of both liberty and property. Indeed, to accept the modern version of equality, one must throw out Locke’s theory of property, which the Founders clearly thought to be a vital natural right. No true originalist can do this. Bloom notes that the “modern” notion of equality has old roots too. It was evident in Rousseau’s critique of Locke, and goes back even further to Ancient Greece: “Can private property and equality sit so easily together when even Plato required communism among equals?” Id.
To answer Bloom, in a word, yes. Classical liberalism (in its present form called libertarianism) posits a perfectly consistent set of rights of liberty, equality, and property, that are in line with our Founding. Modern liberalism sets equality and liberty up against one another and wants to practically throw out property entirely. Thus, this form of liberalism is no more consistent with our original principles as is Bork’s originalism.
(Originally posted on Freespace)
Bork’s constitutionalism is strikingly similar to that of many of the followers of Leo Strauss. (This includes just about all prominent thinkers who studied under Strauss, save Harry Jaffa. The non-Jaffaite Straussians are collectively known as the East Coast Straussians. Jaffa and his followers are sometimes referred to as the West Coast Straussians). Bork, in many of his works, has often cited men like Irving Kristol, Allan Bloom, and Walter Berns. (He has heavily relied on Kristol’s arguments.) These men, like Bork, reject the Declaration. I think it’s fair to say that Bork has been significantly influenced by this crowd of thinkers.
(If you want an example of a parallel between Bork and a Straussian, see Walter Berns’s, “Government by Lawyers & Judges,” Commentary, June 1987, p. 17. Berns posits a version of “strict constructionism” that is virtually identical to Bork’s.)
Why do I bring this up? It’s well known to anyone who has carefully studied the writings of the Straussians that they believe that the American Founding itself—the original principles of Enlightenment liberalism that this nation was founded on—those enunciated in the Declaration of Independence—are the cause of what they see as the modern decay of society. In short, these principles are the natural rights of liberty and equality, wholly ascertainable by Man’s Reason, unaided by Biblical Revelation. One of these rights is liberty of conscience, which can only be secured by a state that, in James Madison’s words, enacts “a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters,” thus demanding a separation of Church and State.
Here is Thomas West describing Allan Bloom’s thoughts on America: “America was founded on modern principles of liberty and equality that we got from Hobbes and Locke. Liberty turned out to mean freedom from all self-restraint, and equality turned out to mean the destruction of all differences of rank and even of nature.”
This could have been taken verbatim from chapters 3 & 4 of Slouching Towards Gomorrah. (Indeed, West notes that Bork had made a very similar argument to Bloom’s back in 1984 in Tradition and Morality in American Constitutional Law.) In Slouching, Bork labels Jefferson as “a man of the Enlightenment” and the Declaration as “an Enlightenment document,” and uses this as grounds for rejecting the Declaration. He goes on to say that “Liberalism does not vary; it is always the twin thrust of liberty and equality, and these never change.” pp. 57-58. And that the classical liberalism of the founding has transmogrified into the modern liberalism of today. “Liberty” has come to mean “radical individualism,” “equality,” “radical egalitarianism.”
Bork spends a great deal of time telling us what is wrong with Enlightenment liberalism, and the Declaration, how these principles are “hardly useful, indeed may be pernicious, if taken, as they commonly are, as a guide to action, governmental or private.” But this begs the question: Are these original principles? He lets the cat out of the bag: “Equality and liberty are of course, what America said it was about from the beginning.” p. 56. He further notes that the sixties (which he LOATHES) represented, in some respect, “an expansion of certain American (and Western) ideals…” and that this “deserves to be stressed because if modern developments are in the American grain, if they grow from our roots, as there is reason to believe they do, they will be much harder to reverse than it is comfortable to think.” Id.
So there you have it: This seems to be a clear admission that Bork (like the East Coast Straussians) is against the principles of the American founding. That his (their) position is in reality, anti-originalist.
I tend to agree with these thinkers that what they call radical individualism—(for instance what we saw in the recently decided Lawrence v. Texas case) is consistent with, indeed demanded by, our founding principles of the rights of liberty and to pursue happiness. I just don’t see it as a bad thing, as they do.
But what about radical egalitarianism? Not the classical view of equality, but the post-Marxist version of it that posits “equality of condition,” that everyone should get an equal slice of the pie. Did classical equality turn into this? Bork notes that although the Framers might not have had this theory in mind, the passion that our nation had for equality demanded that the meaning be expanded beyond its original conception. Bloom puts it this way: “More serious for us are the arguments of the revolutionaries who accepted our principles of freedom and equality. Many believed we had not thought through these cherished ideals. Can equality really only mean equal opportunity for unequal talents to acquire private property?” The Closing of the American Mind, p. 161.
The problem with accepting the modern version of equality is that it directly contradicts classical principles of both liberty and property. Indeed, to accept the modern version of equality, one must throw out Locke’s theory of property, which the Founders clearly thought to be a vital natural right. No true originalist can do this. Bloom notes that the “modern” notion of equality has old roots too. It was evident in Rousseau’s critique of Locke, and goes back even further to Ancient Greece: “Can private property and equality sit so easily together when even Plato required communism among equals?” Id.
To answer Bloom, in a word, yes. Classical liberalism (in its present form called libertarianism) posits a perfectly consistent set of rights of liberty, equality, and property, that are in line with our Founding. Modern liberalism sets equality and liberty up against one another and wants to practically throw out property entirely. Thus, this form of liberalism is no more consistent with our original principles as is Bork’s originalism.
Barnett, Bork, and Originalism:
(Originally posted on Freespace)
I recently visited my alma matter, Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, to see Randy Barnett present a lecture to Temple’s Federalist society. Basically Barnett gave an overview of his new book, Restoring the Lost Constitution. The lecture was excellent. I ordered the book and am waiting for it to come by mail—can’t wait to read it.
Barnett is an important figure because he represents what I think to be “true” constitutional originalism—not the Robert Bork kind. And someone—a heavyweight like Barnett—needs to take concept of “originalism” back from the Borks of the world.
Barnett drafted a brief on behalf of the Institute for Justice for the winning side in the Lawrence v. Texas case. That alone is information enough to help us appreciate the difference between Barnett’s and Bork’s originalism.
Barnett’s originalism, as opposed to Bork’s, is far more in line with the ideals—that is, the original principles—that this nation was founded on. As Tim and others have reminded us at great length, this nation was founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, on “natural right.” Yet, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork explicitly rejects the Declaration and in fact reacts to it as Dracula does to a cross. An originalist rejecting the original principles of natural right that this nation was founded on. Huh? Some originalist.
Bork is actually part of a school of “originalists” who believe in using the formalism of the Constitution not necessarily to secure the Declaration’s natural rights, but often to subvert them. As Thomas West describes this ideology, this form of “constitutionalism requires fidelity to the Constitution, to the institutions and mores created by the Constitution, and a willingness to turn away from the principles of the Declaration, so that they can be kept in check.”
These “originalists” reject that the “natural law” encapsulated in the Declaration is part and parcel of the “organic law” of this nation and that federal courts may properly apply or invoke it.
Did our Founders reject natural rights?
(Originally posted on Freespace)
I recently visited my alma matter, Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, to see Randy Barnett present a lecture to Temple’s Federalist society. Basically Barnett gave an overview of his new book, Restoring the Lost Constitution. The lecture was excellent. I ordered the book and am waiting for it to come by mail—can’t wait to read it.
Barnett is an important figure because he represents what I think to be “true” constitutional originalism—not the Robert Bork kind. And someone—a heavyweight like Barnett—needs to take concept of “originalism” back from the Borks of the world.
Barnett drafted a brief on behalf of the Institute for Justice for the winning side in the Lawrence v. Texas case. That alone is information enough to help us appreciate the difference between Barnett’s and Bork’s originalism.
Barnett’s originalism, as opposed to Bork’s, is far more in line with the ideals—that is, the original principles—that this nation was founded on. As Tim and others have reminded us at great length, this nation was founded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, on “natural right.” Yet, in Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Bork explicitly rejects the Declaration and in fact reacts to it as Dracula does to a cross. An originalist rejecting the original principles of natural right that this nation was founded on. Huh? Some originalist.
Bork is actually part of a school of “originalists” who believe in using the formalism of the Constitution not necessarily to secure the Declaration’s natural rights, but often to subvert them. As Thomas West describes this ideology, this form of “constitutionalism requires fidelity to the Constitution, to the institutions and mores created by the Constitution, and a willingness to turn away from the principles of the Declaration, so that they can be kept in check.”
These “originalists” reject that the “natural law” encapsulated in the Declaration is part and parcel of the “organic law” of this nation and that federal courts may properly apply or invoke it.
Did our Founders reject natural rights?
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Heads Up
I am going to be guest blogging this week on Tim Sandefur's Freespace, one of my favorite blogs. I will copy some of my posts and "replay" them here. At the end of the week, I will notify Freespace's audience of this site's presence, using it as an opportunity to unveil this site to the public.
I am going to be guest blogging this week on Tim Sandefur's Freespace, one of my favorite blogs. I will copy some of my posts and "replay" them here. At the end of the week, I will notify Freespace's audience of this site's presence, using it as an opportunity to unveil this site to the public.
“Where's the late Frank Zappa now that we really need him?”
That line from this excellent article by Dr. Carl F. Horowitz says it all. Horowitz takes the right wing cultural warriors to task for their shameless opportunism, intellectual bankruptcy, and utter disrespect for Freedom.
The article sheds some insight on what is going on with the upcoming “crackdown” on indecency:
“The point is this: The FCC's sudden desire to issue fines, and Congress's sudden desire to raise the limits on them, did not happen in a vacuum. These things happened because the agency is facing demands by certain members of Congress, the Bush administration, think tanks and the media to 'do something' about the alleged coarsening of our culture. Ideas, bad ones included, do have consequences. And in their desire to placate cultural conservatives, the FCC apparently is taking its cue from the state attorneys generals' holy war against the tobacco companies. In short, hit 'em in the wallet.”
Here is my favorite passage from the article:
“The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Novak, writing in National Review Online (February 4), referred to the Super Bowl halftime performers – all of them – as ‘seemingly drugged, indifferent, writhing pagan figures…not living human beings in action…sacks of flesh, writhing, grinding, pawing, acting out no higher appeal than bodily functions.’ He added: ‘It is as if they mean to corrupt, seduce, degrade. A more radically anti-Jewish and anti-Christian assault, embodying the sort of Wagnerian images of pagan disgust and decay that enraptured Hitlerian audiences, would be hard for them to produce.’
Silly me. I always thought it was Kiss who portended the end of Western civilization.”
That line from this excellent article by Dr. Carl F. Horowitz says it all. Horowitz takes the right wing cultural warriors to task for their shameless opportunism, intellectual bankruptcy, and utter disrespect for Freedom.
The article sheds some insight on what is going on with the upcoming “crackdown” on indecency:
“The point is this: The FCC's sudden desire to issue fines, and Congress's sudden desire to raise the limits on them, did not happen in a vacuum. These things happened because the agency is facing demands by certain members of Congress, the Bush administration, think tanks and the media to 'do something' about the alleged coarsening of our culture. Ideas, bad ones included, do have consequences. And in their desire to placate cultural conservatives, the FCC apparently is taking its cue from the state attorneys generals' holy war against the tobacco companies. In short, hit 'em in the wallet.”
Here is my favorite passage from the article:
“The American Enterprise Institute's Michael Novak, writing in National Review Online (February 4), referred to the Super Bowl halftime performers – all of them – as ‘seemingly drugged, indifferent, writhing pagan figures…not living human beings in action…sacks of flesh, writhing, grinding, pawing, acting out no higher appeal than bodily functions.’ He added: ‘It is as if they mean to corrupt, seduce, degrade. A more radically anti-Jewish and anti-Christian assault, embodying the sort of Wagnerian images of pagan disgust and decay that enraptured Hitlerian audiences, would be hard for them to produce.’
Silly me. I always thought it was Kiss who portended the end of Western civilization.”
Friday, March 05, 2004
Of Barbarians, Norsemen, & Comics
Here is an interesting story helping to debunk the myth that the Norse Vikings were well…barbarians (Maybe they were in some respect. My definition of Barbarism is people who are cultural destroyers as opposed to cultural creators—and they definitely did do some destroying). The verdict is not completely out—but as the article indicates, for their time, the Vikings may not have been as backwards as we have been led to believe. And their culture was in many ways, vibrant.
From the article:
“[T]he Scandinavians also had a highly developed legal system, perhaps the most democratic in the known world. Decisions were reached by voting at open meetings where all free men had the right to speak.
Women also had substantial powers. They could own land, inherit, and get divorced. Keys have been found in graves of women, which suggest that women controlled farms and property. There are even legends that tell of women warriors.
The Viking culture was a heathen and rich in mythology. The Viking gods, all with human characteristics, directed and dominated everyday life. The supreme god was Odin, whose two ravens, Hugin (Thought) and Munin (Memory), flew everywhere and spied on everyone.”
Speaking of Viking myths, when I was a young child, I was fascinated with Norse mythology. I preferred these stories to those of Greek mythology. I also have a comic book collection that numbers at roughly 4000. How are these things related? Both Marvel and DC comics have done something very creative with the mythological gods: They have incorporated them into their existing superhero universes. Yes, Zeus exists in the DC as well as in the Marvel universes. Of course, these companies can’t copyright these characters as they can their own wholly created superheroes. But they can copyright their company’s unique expression of these gods and goddesses.
In the 1960s, Marvel took the Thor of Norse mythology and made him into one of their flagship superheroes. This was Marvel creators Stan Lee’s (writer) and Jack Kirby’s (artist) unique take on Thor. This is Thor living in the 20th Century—in the same world as Spiderman, etc.—and fighting supervillians in New York City and elsewhere. And they did a good job of staying pretty close to the original myth, with a few minor changes.
Thor living on Earth as a modern day superhero is only one part of Marvel’s Thor narrative. The other cool thing they do is take Thor back to Asgard (the mythical home of the Norse gods) and here we can see the whole pantheon of Norse gods. Marvel, by doing this, is helping to keep these myths alive by telling new stories in this unique context.
I don’t approve of everything they have done with Thor; yet some of Marvel’s creators have told some great stories while demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the original myths and keeping true to the “spirit” of the original tales as well.
Walter Simonson’s run on Thor deserves notable mention.
When I last checked out Thor, Odin had died (in the superhero world, this doesn’t mean much as they can always find some way to resurrect these heroes from the dead—and this is especially true with gods. How do you kill a god for God's sake?) and Thor had assumed the mantle as leader of the Norse gods and became even more powerful by inheriting the “Odin power.”
Here is an interesting story helping to debunk the myth that the Norse Vikings were well…barbarians (Maybe they were in some respect. My definition of Barbarism is people who are cultural destroyers as opposed to cultural creators—and they definitely did do some destroying). The verdict is not completely out—but as the article indicates, for their time, the Vikings may not have been as backwards as we have been led to believe. And their culture was in many ways, vibrant.
From the article:
“[T]he Scandinavians also had a highly developed legal system, perhaps the most democratic in the known world. Decisions were reached by voting at open meetings where all free men had the right to speak.
Women also had substantial powers. They could own land, inherit, and get divorced. Keys have been found in graves of women, which suggest that women controlled farms and property. There are even legends that tell of women warriors.
The Viking culture was a heathen and rich in mythology. The Viking gods, all with human characteristics, directed and dominated everyday life. The supreme god was Odin, whose two ravens, Hugin (Thought) and Munin (Memory), flew everywhere and spied on everyone.”
Speaking of Viking myths, when I was a young child, I was fascinated with Norse mythology. I preferred these stories to those of Greek mythology. I also have a comic book collection that numbers at roughly 4000. How are these things related? Both Marvel and DC comics have done something very creative with the mythological gods: They have incorporated them into their existing superhero universes. Yes, Zeus exists in the DC as well as in the Marvel universes. Of course, these companies can’t copyright these characters as they can their own wholly created superheroes. But they can copyright their company’s unique expression of these gods and goddesses.
In the 1960s, Marvel took the Thor of Norse mythology and made him into one of their flagship superheroes. This was Marvel creators Stan Lee’s (writer) and Jack Kirby’s (artist) unique take on Thor. This is Thor living in the 20th Century—in the same world as Spiderman, etc.—and fighting supervillians in New York City and elsewhere. And they did a good job of staying pretty close to the original myth, with a few minor changes.
Thor living on Earth as a modern day superhero is only one part of Marvel’s Thor narrative. The other cool thing they do is take Thor back to Asgard (the mythical home of the Norse gods) and here we can see the whole pantheon of Norse gods. Marvel, by doing this, is helping to keep these myths alive by telling new stories in this unique context.
I don’t approve of everything they have done with Thor; yet some of Marvel’s creators have told some great stories while demonstrating a thorough knowledge of the original myths and keeping true to the “spirit” of the original tales as well.
Walter Simonson’s run on Thor deserves notable mention.
When I last checked out Thor, Odin had died (in the superhero world, this doesn’t mean much as they can always find some way to resurrect these heroes from the dead—and this is especially true with gods. How do you kill a god for God's sake?) and Thor had assumed the mantle as leader of the Norse gods and became even more powerful by inheriting the “Odin power.”
Sullivan on Stern
I count myself a fan of both Andrew Sullivan and Howard Stern. (Am I one of the rare few, or are there many others out there?) The following is a rarity—Sullivan commenting on Stern. I don’t think that their wires have ever crossed before. Both of them and myself share one thing in common: a more or less libertarian ideology.
From www.andrewsullivan.com:
“'My days here are numbered because I dared to speak out against the Bush administration and say that the religious agenda of George W. Bush concerning stem cell research and gay marriage is wrong. And that what he is doing with the FCC is pushing this religious agenda. And also the fact that the guy takes more vacation than any President ever. It's time for him to leave. Having said that pushed me off the air in six markets.' - Howard Stern, venting. I have no idea whether Stern is being paranoid or not. Since I don't really function before 10 am, I don't have much exposure to him. But I like his spirit; and I do think that Howard Stern and Howard Stern listeners are not people the president needs to alienate in an election year. And it says something about the fragility of the Republican coalition that he feels he has to. Bush is doing his damnedest to make it hard for anyone who isn't a paid-up evangelical to support him this year. Why?"
I count myself a fan of both Andrew Sullivan and Howard Stern. (Am I one of the rare few, or are there many others out there?) The following is a rarity—Sullivan commenting on Stern. I don’t think that their wires have ever crossed before. Both of them and myself share one thing in common: a more or less libertarian ideology.
From www.andrewsullivan.com:
“'My days here are numbered because I dared to speak out against the Bush administration and say that the religious agenda of George W. Bush concerning stem cell research and gay marriage is wrong. And that what he is doing with the FCC is pushing this religious agenda. And also the fact that the guy takes more vacation than any President ever. It's time for him to leave. Having said that pushed me off the air in six markets.' - Howard Stern, venting. I have no idea whether Stern is being paranoid or not. Since I don't really function before 10 am, I don't have much exposure to him. But I like his spirit; and I do think that Howard Stern and Howard Stern listeners are not people the president needs to alienate in an election year. And it says something about the fragility of the Republican coalition that he feels he has to. Bush is doing his damnedest to make it hard for anyone who isn't a paid-up evangelical to support him this year. Why?"
Buchanan and Jurisdiction Stripping
Apparently before Ron Paul made this suggestion (I thought he was the first prominent figure to do so), Pat Buchanan suggested that Congress strip federal courts of jurisdiction on the gay marriage issue:
“Congress should re-enact the Defense of Marriage Act and amend it to deny the Supreme Court any right of review. Congress' power to restrict the appellate review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was granted in Article III of the Constitution for a purpose. This is it.”
Brigham Young University law professor, and anti-gay marriage advocate Richard Wilkins, thinks this is a bad idea. His surface rationale for opposing jurisdiction stripping in this circumstance is because this would, “give us the decision of Massachusetts as the ‘final’ reading of the U.S. Constitution.” Yes, the US Constitution. State courts may still invoke the federal constitution while interpreting this and other issues. And with federal courts out of the picture on the federal constitutionality of gay marriage, state courts could have the final say on gay marriage’s constitutionality not only under each state’s constitution, but also under the federal Constitution. According to Wilkins, “this approach mandates that the Constitution will mean 50 different things in the 50 different states.”
Wilkins does inform us that even on other issues, he is against this type of jurisdiction stripping, that he probably would think it’s a bad idea if tried anywhere:
“’Jurisdiction stripping’ has been the proposed ‘fix’ for everything from school prayer to abortion to the Ten Commandments dispute to marriage. But in the past 50 years, close to 100 such proposals (on busing, school prayer, abortion and flag burning) have been introduced, subjected to hearings and often intense debates – with never a single instance of success.”
That last point is an important one: This idea, although invoked many times, has never been done; it’s never been successful.
Jon Rauch’s proposed Constitutional Amendment, of course, would solve this problem by preventing state courts from invoking the federal Constitution on this issue, while still giving states full rights to implement gay marriage, even in the manner that Massachusetts did it.
Somehow I don’t think that Wilkins would go for Rauch’s solution. I have a suspicion that for all of his talk about state courts interpreting the federal constitution, that Wilkins just doesn’t want gay marriage recognized anywhere in the US, period.
Apparently before Ron Paul made this suggestion (I thought he was the first prominent figure to do so), Pat Buchanan suggested that Congress strip federal courts of jurisdiction on the gay marriage issue:
“Congress should re-enact the Defense of Marriage Act and amend it to deny the Supreme Court any right of review. Congress' power to restrict the appellate review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was granted in Article III of the Constitution for a purpose. This is it.”
Brigham Young University law professor, and anti-gay marriage advocate Richard Wilkins, thinks this is a bad idea. His surface rationale for opposing jurisdiction stripping in this circumstance is because this would, “give us the decision of Massachusetts as the ‘final’ reading of the U.S. Constitution.” Yes, the US Constitution. State courts may still invoke the federal constitution while interpreting this and other issues. And with federal courts out of the picture on the federal constitutionality of gay marriage, state courts could have the final say on gay marriage’s constitutionality not only under each state’s constitution, but also under the federal Constitution. According to Wilkins, “this approach mandates that the Constitution will mean 50 different things in the 50 different states.”
Wilkins does inform us that even on other issues, he is against this type of jurisdiction stripping, that he probably would think it’s a bad idea if tried anywhere:
“’Jurisdiction stripping’ has been the proposed ‘fix’ for everything from school prayer to abortion to the Ten Commandments dispute to marriage. But in the past 50 years, close to 100 such proposals (on busing, school prayer, abortion and flag burning) have been introduced, subjected to hearings and often intense debates – with never a single instance of success.”
That last point is an important one: This idea, although invoked many times, has never been done; it’s never been successful.
Jon Rauch’s proposed Constitutional Amendment, of course, would solve this problem by preventing state courts from invoking the federal Constitution on this issue, while still giving states full rights to implement gay marriage, even in the manner that Massachusetts did it.
Somehow I don’t think that Wilkins would go for Rauch’s solution. I have a suspicion that for all of his talk about state courts interpreting the federal constitution, that Wilkins just doesn’t want gay marriage recognized anywhere in the US, period.
Truth is Funnier than Fiction
John Kerry & George Bush are related. They are ninth cousins twice removed. And they share a common ancestor: none other than Mr. Hugh Hefner.
John Kerry & George Bush are related. They are ninth cousins twice removed. And they share a common ancestor: none other than Mr. Hugh Hefner.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Abolish the FCC
The FCC: An unconstitutional federal administrative agency who seems to be effective at doing only one thing: violating the First Amendment. Howard Stern is getting thrown off Clear Channel radio network. On the surface this appears to be a wholly internal decision on their part. And if that’s all there is, then it doesn’t raise a First Amendment issue (although they may very well be acting illegally in violating their contract with Stern).
But of course, that is not all there is. Is there anyone who thinks that if the FCC weren’t breathing down Clear Channel’s neck (because of the Janet Jackson brouhaha) that they would have done this? They are offering Stern up as a sacrificial lamb under coercion by a bunch of bureaucratic thugs.
It’s time to put the FCC to rest. If you don't agree, then check out their hair brained Indecency regulations and see if your mind changes.
The FCC: An unconstitutional federal administrative agency who seems to be effective at doing only one thing: violating the First Amendment. Howard Stern is getting thrown off Clear Channel radio network. On the surface this appears to be a wholly internal decision on their part. And if that’s all there is, then it doesn’t raise a First Amendment issue (although they may very well be acting illegally in violating their contract with Stern).
But of course, that is not all there is. Is there anyone who thinks that if the FCC weren’t breathing down Clear Channel’s neck (because of the Janet Jackson brouhaha) that they would have done this? They are offering Stern up as a sacrificial lamb under coercion by a bunch of bureaucratic thugs.
It’s time to put the FCC to rest. If you don't agree, then check out their hair brained Indecency regulations and see if your mind changes.
How would they find if it were 1789?
Clayton Cramer bemoans lawyers and judges for judicial activism: “The delusion of ‘living constitution’ has given way to something a bit more bald-faced: judicial tyranny.” Cramer defines judicial activism as any judge not pretending that he or she lives in 1789 (or 1868) when interpreting the Constitution. For instance, when dealing with whether there is a right for consenting same-sex adults to have sex within the privacy of their homes…well let’s ask what people of that time specifically thought about these acts; when asking what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, we need to get into a 1789 frame of mind, etc.
The problem with Cramer’s analysis is that arguably this is NOT how the framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They realized that opinions would change, and wrote a Constitution that contained many broad generalities capable of changing with the times. One reason why the Constitution has lasted so long is precisely because it was written with such generalities that don’t trap us in a 1789 frame of mind. This is NOT the same things as believing in a “living Constitution.” That means that judges are free to cut parts out of the Constitution and add parts in. The text of the Constitution is what it is. If an individual right is listed in there—for instance, the right to bear arms, then this is a right that the people have, period. We must follow the text of the Constitution and keep consistent with original principles—the underlying policies that led the Founders to write those texts in the first place.
Do I have any evidence that the Founders did NOT want us to constantly "go back in time to 1789" when deciding present Constitutional issues? Yes. From Thomas Jefferson:
“[L]aws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
As long as we pay fidelity to the text and original principles of the Constitution, where the Constitution speaks in broad generalities such as “Congress shall make no law…abridging the Freedom of Speech,” we rightly conclude that the Founders intended this meaning to change with the times and didn’t want us to ask, “what would we do in 1789?”
Clayton Cramer bemoans lawyers and judges for judicial activism: “The delusion of ‘living constitution’ has given way to something a bit more bald-faced: judicial tyranny.” Cramer defines judicial activism as any judge not pretending that he or she lives in 1789 (or 1868) when interpreting the Constitution. For instance, when dealing with whether there is a right for consenting same-sex adults to have sex within the privacy of their homes…well let’s ask what people of that time specifically thought about these acts; when asking what “cruel and unusual punishment” means, we need to get into a 1789 frame of mind, etc.
The problem with Cramer’s analysis is that arguably this is NOT how the framers intended the Constitution to be interpreted. They realized that opinions would change, and wrote a Constitution that contained many broad generalities capable of changing with the times. One reason why the Constitution has lasted so long is precisely because it was written with such generalities that don’t trap us in a 1789 frame of mind. This is NOT the same things as believing in a “living Constitution.” That means that judges are free to cut parts out of the Constitution and add parts in. The text of the Constitution is what it is. If an individual right is listed in there—for instance, the right to bear arms, then this is a right that the people have, period. We must follow the text of the Constitution and keep consistent with original principles—the underlying policies that led the Founders to write those texts in the first place.
Do I have any evidence that the Founders did NOT want us to constantly "go back in time to 1789" when deciding present Constitutional issues? Yes. From Thomas Jefferson:
“[L]aws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
As long as we pay fidelity to the text and original principles of the Constitution, where the Constitution speaks in broad generalities such as “Congress shall make no law…abridging the Freedom of Speech,” we rightly conclude that the Founders intended this meaning to change with the times and didn’t want us to ask, “what would we do in 1789?”
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Lamenting the Iraqi Constitution
(Adapted from comments I made on Freespace)
Iraq (and I believe Afghanistan too) has done something in its newly founding document that this nation did not do with Christianity in ours. Here’s the text of the constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam...may be enacted during the transitional period. "
Those claiming that Christianity is the legal foundation for this nation are perpetrating a fraud, as neither words—“Christian” or “Jesus”—or any variation thereof are mentioned in either the Declaration or the Constitution. Yet if Islamo-fascists manage to get into power in Iraq and thunder that, “this nation is founded on Islam,” they have Iraq’s founding document to back them up.
On a related note, while flipping through the channels, sometimes I tune into the 700 Club to see what good old Pat has to say and on more than one occasion I heard Robertson demand that the Constitutional government that America is helping to establish in Iraq be secular, one that separates Church and State. Well I have to agree with you there, Mr. Robertson. I only wish that you would be so enthusiastic about secular government in America as well. Perhaps the reasons why it’s a good idea for Iraq’s government to be secular in principle are the same ones that explain why our Founders established a secular American government.
Obviously, Christians won’t be able to worship freely in Iraq if there is no such separation. And before our Founders separated Church & State, non-dominant sects could not worship freely in the West. Contemporary Islam’s problems can be boiled down to one statement: They haven’t yet been through an Enlightenment.
It’s time that Islam joined the modern era. And I don’t know if this new Iraqi constitution is helping that particular nation to do that.
One of the cardinal principles of the Enlightenment (especially Locke’s teachings) is the separation of Church & State, a doctrine based on the natural right of liberty of conscience. And this right is not being adequately secured in Iraq's constitution.
(Adapted from comments I made on Freespace)
Iraq (and I believe Afghanistan too) has done something in its newly founding document that this nation did not do with Christianity in ours. Here’s the text of the constitution: "Islam is the official religion of the State and is to be considered a source of legislation. No law that contradicts the universally agreed tenets of Islam...may be enacted during the transitional period. "
Those claiming that Christianity is the legal foundation for this nation are perpetrating a fraud, as neither words—“Christian” or “Jesus”—or any variation thereof are mentioned in either the Declaration or the Constitution. Yet if Islamo-fascists manage to get into power in Iraq and thunder that, “this nation is founded on Islam,” they have Iraq’s founding document to back them up.
On a related note, while flipping through the channels, sometimes I tune into the 700 Club to see what good old Pat has to say and on more than one occasion I heard Robertson demand that the Constitutional government that America is helping to establish in Iraq be secular, one that separates Church and State. Well I have to agree with you there, Mr. Robertson. I only wish that you would be so enthusiastic about secular government in America as well. Perhaps the reasons why it’s a good idea for Iraq’s government to be secular in principle are the same ones that explain why our Founders established a secular American government.
Obviously, Christians won’t be able to worship freely in Iraq if there is no such separation. And before our Founders separated Church & State, non-dominant sects could not worship freely in the West. Contemporary Islam’s problems can be boiled down to one statement: They haven’t yet been through an Enlightenment.
It’s time that Islam joined the modern era. And I don’t know if this new Iraqi constitution is helping that particular nation to do that.
One of the cardinal principles of the Enlightenment (especially Locke’s teachings) is the separation of Church & State, a doctrine based on the natural right of liberty of conscience. And this right is not being adequately secured in Iraq's constitution.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Rauch's and Paul's Compromises
Hoping to avoid a full-scale culture war blowout on the gay marriage issue with an outcome that is too extreme on one end or the other, various compromises have been floated. I don’t think that the FMA will pass and greatly hope that it doesn't. While I support gay marriage in principle, I think that a Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage in the next ten or so years would be extremely undesirable, simply because the nation is just not ready for that yet. (For instance, when the Supreme Court finally recognized the "right" to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, only 16 states prohibited such marriages; the rest allowed them. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided -- striking down ALL sodomy laws -- most states had already gotten rid of such laws. We will be ready for a Supreme Court decision giving us gay marriage when most states have already recognized such marriages. I know, I'm speaking in practicalities and not principle. In principle -- in an ideal world -- gays should presently have the right to marry in every state).
I’d like to see this battle waged in the states for the immediate future. Jon Rauch, one of the most eloquent defenders of gay marriage, actually proposes an alternative Amendment to the FMA that codifies this "states' rights" view and just might be a compromise that both sides would be willing to accept. The wording of Rauch’s amendment would be:
"Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.”
In Rauch’s own words, “That's an ironclad guarantee that the states and federal government can all go their own ways, without any national court mandate.”
Interestingly enough, Congressman Ron Paul offers a compromise that would accomplish exactly what Rauch’s Amendment would, without amending the constitution: Have Congress use its rarely invoked power to take this issue away from the federal courts.
“The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights.”
Both proposals are not without their problems. I don’t want to see the constitution amended over this, period. And what Paul suggests is a power of Congress that is rarely if ever invoked. If Congress starts getting in the habit of doing this, it could greatly upset our traditional balance of power that has been in place since Marbury v. Madison. Still, both solutions would be desirable to either the passage of the FMA, or an ugly culture war that tears this nation apart. I could sign on to either compromise.
Hoping to avoid a full-scale culture war blowout on the gay marriage issue with an outcome that is too extreme on one end or the other, various compromises have been floated. I don’t think that the FMA will pass and greatly hope that it doesn't. While I support gay marriage in principle, I think that a Supreme Court decision mandating gay marriage in the next ten or so years would be extremely undesirable, simply because the nation is just not ready for that yet. (For instance, when the Supreme Court finally recognized the "right" to interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, only 16 states prohibited such marriages; the rest allowed them. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided -- striking down ALL sodomy laws -- most states had already gotten rid of such laws. We will be ready for a Supreme Court decision giving us gay marriage when most states have already recognized such marriages. I know, I'm speaking in practicalities and not principle. In principle -- in an ideal world -- gays should presently have the right to marry in every state).
I’d like to see this battle waged in the states for the immediate future. Jon Rauch, one of the most eloquent defenders of gay marriage, actually proposes an alternative Amendment to the FMA that codifies this "states' rights" view and just might be a compromise that both sides would be willing to accept. The wording of Rauch’s amendment would be:
"Nothing in this Constitution requires any state or the federal government to recognize anything other than the union of one man and one woman as a marriage.”
In Rauch’s own words, “That's an ironclad guarantee that the states and federal government can all go their own ways, without any national court mandate.”
Interestingly enough, Congressman Ron Paul offers a compromise that would accomplish exactly what Rauch’s Amendment would, without amending the constitution: Have Congress use its rarely invoked power to take this issue away from the federal courts.
“The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights.”
Both proposals are not without their problems. I don’t want to see the constitution amended over this, period. And what Paul suggests is a power of Congress that is rarely if ever invoked. If Congress starts getting in the habit of doing this, it could greatly upset our traditional balance of power that has been in place since Marbury v. Madison. Still, both solutions would be desirable to either the passage of the FMA, or an ugly culture war that tears this nation apart. I could sign on to either compromise.
Prager not getting Separation of Church and State:
Dennis Prager, in a recent column, writes about America’s enemies, one from abroad, one from within: “America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.”
There are a number of problems with Prager’s analysis. Right off the bat, he identifies “Judeo-Christian” civilization as “a unique American creation.” Excuse me, but the Judeo-Christian tradition predates the American founding by many thousands of years. Perhaps he wasn’t choosing his words carefully enough. Perhaps what he really meant to say was, we are in a “war for the preservation of the Judeo-Christian element in America’s culture.”
And in fact Prager, invoking de Tocqueville, tells us that America is not a wholly Judeo-Christian nation (say, in the way that every aspect of Islamic nations—every institution, private or public—are religious to the core). America is in fact, “a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.” Prager doesn’t focus too much on the implications Tocqueville’s comments; but perhaps he ought to. Yes, America has a tradition of maintaining a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, but we also have a tradition of secular government, one that makes a distinction between the religious (private) and the civil (public).
There is also a “contradictory” tone to Prager’s article. On the one hand, Prager’s sole purpose seems to be to defend America's Judeo-Christian tradition. In this war between the “secularists” and the “traditionalists” as Bill O’Reilly would put it, Prager is clearly on the side of the latter. Yet his comments (especially his citation of Tocqueville) also indicate that he accepts secularism—that our public institutions are intended to be, in principle, secular—just so long as we don’t fall into the trap of “radical secularism.” Thus, the distinct aspect of America is not so much our “Judeo-Christian” tradition, but the unique balance that this nation maintains between the secular and the sacred. “Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful.”
(Prager deserves kudos for his recognition that America has a “secular” government. Too many prominent religious conservatives absolutely refuse recognize any form of secularism, or that America’s government is supposed to be secular in principle. Instead they claim that America’s government is built “wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation.” Others simply ignore the “Judeo” and flat out declare that we were “founded” on Biblical Christianity. Perhaps as a non-Christian, Prager realizes that it benefits him to live in a nation where his religion exists, as a legal matter, on an equal footing with Christianity. And perhaps this cannot be done, if “Christianity” serves as the legal basis for this nation.)
But what is the “right” balance of the secular and the sacred? What is the “American formula” for doing this? America maintains a “proper” balance between the religious and the secular by consigning “the religious” to the private sphere and adopting “public” legal rules that are secular and neutral, that don’t discriminate in favor or against one’s religion or lack thereof (or at least our constitutional ideals inform us that this is what ought to be done). In other words, religious traditions and values deserve absolute protection—but only in the private sphere of life. Our public rules should be neutral and accommodate or “equally apply” not only to religious conservative folks, but to those of us that fall outside of this tradition as well.
As a general principle, this is known as “separation of Church and State.” Now this is unique to American society (at least we started it).
What Prager refers to as “radical secularism,”—what threatens to destroy the “religious” aspect of this nation—could only do so if we blur the lines between Church and State and legally impose secular principles upon private religious entities. So long as the separation is maintained and private religious groups are given complete autonomy to operate in the private sphere, then I don’t see how gay marriage is a threat to “the sacred.” In other words, only if the state not only legalizes gay marriages, but also begins to force the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian Churches and Synagogues to marry same-sex folks, does “radical secularism” threaten “our Judeo-Christian morality.”
What Prager is arguing for is the hegemony of orthodox Judeo-Christian norms in the public, as well as in the private spheres of society.
To me this is inconsistent with our national ideal of having a government that is (supposed to be) secular and one that in no way favors “religious opinion” over others that operate outside of such traditions or vice versa.
Dennis Prager, in a recent column, writes about America’s enemies, one from abroad, one from within: “America is engaged in two wars for the survival of its civilization. The war over same-sex marriage and the war against Islamic totalitarianism are actually two fronts in the same war -- a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization.
One enemy is religious extremism. The other is secular extremism.
One enemy is led from abroad. The other is directed from home.”
There are a number of problems with Prager’s analysis. Right off the bat, he identifies “Judeo-Christian” civilization as “a unique American creation.” Excuse me, but the Judeo-Christian tradition predates the American founding by many thousands of years. Perhaps he wasn’t choosing his words carefully enough. Perhaps what he really meant to say was, we are in a “war for the preservation of the Judeo-Christian element in America’s culture.”
And in fact Prager, invoking de Tocqueville, tells us that America is not a wholly Judeo-Christian nation (say, in the way that every aspect of Islamic nations—every institution, private or public—are religious to the core). America is in fact, “a unique combination of secular government and religious (Judeo-Christian) society.” Prager doesn’t focus too much on the implications Tocqueville’s comments; but perhaps he ought to. Yes, America has a tradition of maintaining a vibrant Judeo-Christian culture, but we also have a tradition of secular government, one that makes a distinction between the religious (private) and the civil (public).
There is also a “contradictory” tone to Prager’s article. On the one hand, Prager’s sole purpose seems to be to defend America's Judeo-Christian tradition. In this war between the “secularists” and the “traditionalists” as Bill O’Reilly would put it, Prager is clearly on the side of the latter. Yet his comments (especially his citation of Tocqueville) also indicate that he accepts secularism—that our public institutions are intended to be, in principle, secular—just so long as we don’t fall into the trap of “radical secularism.” Thus, the distinct aspect of America is not so much our “Judeo-Christian” tradition, but the unique balance that this nation maintains between the secular and the sacred. “Not only has this combination been unique, it has been uniquely successful.”
(Prager deserves kudos for his recognition that America has a “secular” government. Too many prominent religious conservatives absolutely refuse recognize any form of secularism, or that America’s government is supposed to be secular in principle. Instead they claim that America’s government is built “wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation.” Others simply ignore the “Judeo” and flat out declare that we were “founded” on Biblical Christianity. Perhaps as a non-Christian, Prager realizes that it benefits him to live in a nation where his religion exists, as a legal matter, on an equal footing with Christianity. And perhaps this cannot be done, if “Christianity” serves as the legal basis for this nation.)
But what is the “right” balance of the secular and the sacred? What is the “American formula” for doing this? America maintains a “proper” balance between the religious and the secular by consigning “the religious” to the private sphere and adopting “public” legal rules that are secular and neutral, that don’t discriminate in favor or against one’s religion or lack thereof (or at least our constitutional ideals inform us that this is what ought to be done). In other words, religious traditions and values deserve absolute protection—but only in the private sphere of life. Our public rules should be neutral and accommodate or “equally apply” not only to religious conservative folks, but to those of us that fall outside of this tradition as well.
As a general principle, this is known as “separation of Church and State.” Now this is unique to American society (at least we started it).
What Prager refers to as “radical secularism,”—what threatens to destroy the “religious” aspect of this nation—could only do so if we blur the lines between Church and State and legally impose secular principles upon private religious entities. So long as the separation is maintained and private religious groups are given complete autonomy to operate in the private sphere, then I don’t see how gay marriage is a threat to “the sacred.” In other words, only if the state not only legalizes gay marriages, but also begins to force the fundamentalist Jewish and Christian Churches and Synagogues to marry same-sex folks, does “radical secularism” threaten “our Judeo-Christian morality.”
What Prager is arguing for is the hegemony of orthodox Judeo-Christian norms in the public, as well as in the private spheres of society.
To me this is inconsistent with our national ideal of having a government that is (supposed to be) secular and one that in no way favors “religious opinion” over others that operate outside of such traditions or vice versa.
I am a 30 year old lawyer (born in 1973 -- I won't be 30 forever, and this blog might be around for a LONG time) and college professor, at three colleges in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area. My politics are libertarian. I know just what you are thinking: another libertarian lawyer college professor blogger.
I have two Bachelors degrees (a double major from the same college -- Berklee College of Music), a JD, MBA, and an LL.M., all graduate degrees from Temple University.
My personal hobbies are reading books (little fiction -- mainly legal and political issues), THE INTERNET (way too much time online!), collecting comic books (that's where I do all my fiction reading), playing guitar, blogging, movies, and watching TV (that last one -- did it really deserved to be mentioned? Well I've watched enough TV in my life that in all honesty I think I had throw it in).
My mission is to offer something *different* to the blogsphere, something that will distinguish this site from all of the other libertarian lawyer professor blogs.
I have two Bachelors degrees (a double major from the same college -- Berklee College of Music), a JD, MBA, and an LL.M., all graduate degrees from Temple University.
My personal hobbies are reading books (little fiction -- mainly legal and political issues), THE INTERNET (way too much time online!), collecting comic books (that's where I do all my fiction reading), playing guitar, blogging, movies, and watching TV (that last one -- did it really deserved to be mentioned? Well I've watched enough TV in my life that in all honesty I think I had throw it in).
My mission is to offer something *different* to the blogsphere, something that will distinguish this site from all of the other libertarian lawyer professor blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)