Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts With Election Day Approaching
|
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
With Election Day Approaching
Gerard N. Magliocca
I thought this passage from Learned Hand's "Spirit of Liberty" speech might be appropriate.
Comments:
It might be appropriate, per "Shag from Brookline," to wish Happy Birthday! to Michael Dukakis, also from Brookline.
Does the phrase "the spirit of liberty" have any meaning? Would anything be lost if, every time that the phrase appears in the second paragraph, we substituted "It is good." It is good not to be too sure that you're right; it is good to seek to understand the minds of other men and women; and so forth. I'm glad that Hand's sort of flowery language has gone out of vogue.
The word "liberty" is present in a range of places including the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, Pledge of Allegiance, Gettysburg Address etc.
Should we replace it with "good" each place? The phrase means "the quality" of "liberty," the latter a basic concept in this country. Does the phrase have any meaning? I think so. OTOH, perhaps Lincoln should have just said 87.
Apparently, for Learned Hand, the spirit of liberty is viewing the world as a judge views a case in equity.
For average people, liberty simply means living our lives as we please so long as we do not harm others. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others... The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Johns Stuart Mill, On Liberty No candidate for president in this election, including unfortunately those running on the Libertarian ticket, are campaigning on a platform to perform the primary purpose of government - to protect our liberty. Instead, all of them want to abuse the power of government to direct our lives. Liberty has long ago died in the hearts of much of our political class.
Mike Dukakis was/is an honest man. I recognize that there are many persons who are honest. But Mike was special as a politician here in MA. A lifelong Democrat, he reformed the Party and much else in MA.
A personal anecdote: When our four kids were at the Lawrence School at the same time, on occasion I would drive them there. And we would spot Mike walking towards the T-stop (he heavily promoted mass transit) to get to his office in the State House. I would point him out saying "Park your carcass, Mr. Dukakis." This was a play on a musician character on a radio variety show in the '30s, '40s. Happy birthday, Mike. Henry, recall the phrasing "letter and spirit" when it is applied to a law. What is the "letter" of "liberty" in the Constitution? Can the usual suspects at this Blog agree upon the meaning of liberty by its "letter"? By its "spirit"? Recall "it depends upon the meaning of what "is" is. " Don't dismiss Learned out of hand.
Alas, SPAM I AM! continues his pseudo libertarian approach, suggesting that so-called average people understand liberty in a particular way. And he closes with his usual doom and gloom. I expect he will soon go full Chicken Little on us.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], many libertarians can be described as "feint-hearted" libertarians." (I use "feint" intentionally.]
Shag:
If you poll the question "Does liberty mean the ability for you to live your life as you please so long as you do not harm another," I suspect over 80% of the polled population would agree. This classical liberal concept is part of the basic American belief system. The vast majority of progressives would agree with this concept. Where your average progressive gets in trouble is they are not willing to extend this liberty to others with which they disagree.
ALL PROGRESSIVES ARE ABOVE AVERAGE.
Query: Is Bundy and his ilk part of that 80%? A valid poll on the subject would have follow up questions to separate the wheat from the chaff. Liberal lunch today (some progressives).
Shag:
Welcome to Lake Wobegon, where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average. Garrison Keillor
On the topic of Hand's flowery language, my recollection is that this is from a speech given to a lay audience in Central park in the middle of World War II, so maybe tht accounts for the rhetorical style.
Mill himself walked away from the idea that government should only exercise 'negative' power, and most people have joined him. If government can take from me to protect me and you from harm from foreign and domestic why not let it take from us to protect us from the harm of workplace accident? If it can take to build roads and canals, why not libraries or universities? The classical liberal idea of liberty was nonsensical.
Mr. W responds to our "feint-hearted" libertarian, pointing out that even Mill evolved: progress.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], SPAM I AM! may not be aware that Garrison Keillor is a progressive.
Mr. W:
Government performs two basic functions - exercise of the police power and provision of public goods. The harm principle applies to the former. A workplace safety statute is your only example of the former and is generally permissible under the harm principle so long as the government can show a genuine harm. Of note, the very definition of the police power is to prevent people from harming one another. As with commerce, progressives have expanded the definition of police power beyond all rational bounds to justify their unlimited government.
Reading between the lines of SPAM I AM!'s rejoinder to Mr. W, SPAM I AM! appears to remain stuck in the past, e.g., The Gilded Age of the late 19th century, his version of America's best days.
By the Bybee [expletives deleted], Mr. W's reference to libraries is a reminder that some Robber Baron types, perhaps with a sense of guilt, permitted their fortunes to be used for such purposes. Progress. Enlightenment.
Shag:
One of the common characteristics of totalitarian government is the 1984-style misuse of the language for propaganda purposes. Totalitarianism is not the future, but rather is the reversal of freedom and the return to past arbitrary exercise of absolute power. Totalitarians call themselves progressive, but the effect of their policies on the citizenry is regressive, the loss of freedom won only recently in human history and the return to the economic stagnation which characterized most of human history.
SPAM IA AM! as an obviously apoplectic troll at this Blog takes two strikes before hitting a foul ball with his eventual comment. SPAM I AM!'s history continues on the histrionic side. He still believes America's best days were The Gilded Age of the 19th century. Yes, SPAM I AM! is back in his Chicken Little mode. But recall how thrilled he was with most of the 8 years of Bush/Cheney when he did not speak of totalitarians with their WMDs and wars and tax cuts that led to the 2007-8 Great recession.
"past arbitrary exercise of absolute power."
But this is of course nonsense. The Congress could stop any executive exercise of power tomorrow. They don't because none are overwhelmingly unpopular. Also, if you don't like any exercise of executive power, simply elect an executive in our regular elections who will reverse them. The fact that no winning candidate had done what Bart wants isn't an usurpation of freedom.
Mr. W:
Congress cannot effectively reverse a decree of the absolute bureaucracy because of the Constitution's checks and balances, the fact that the party establishments lie to their constituents claiming they oppose excessive regulation and then do nothing to reverse it, and because the people generally have no idea what the bureaucracy is doing and thus cannot pressure their representatives. While progressive presidents often work through the progressive bureaucracy to rule by decree, a libertarian/conservative president cannot simply reverse the bureaucracy with his or her pen and telephone. If the libertarian/conservative president does not go through the entire rule making process all over again, a progressive court will strike down the reversal. The bureaucracy will drag out any such process until the president is either out of office or moved onto other things. Even we assumed your claim that the elected branches of government could effectively reverse a decree of the absolute bureaucracy, this does not change the fact that the bureaucracy and the president working through the bureaucracy are arbitrarily ruling by decree in the first instance.
SPAM I AM! is Orwellian with his:
"Totalitarians call themselves progressive, ..." a lie ("1984-style misuse of the language for propaganda purposes.") for which SPAM (if I may get personal as well as save keyboard strokes) deserves a chorus of JUMBO LIAR (equal to a dozen Pinocchios). By the Bybee [expletives deleted], was Orwell prescient in his book "1984" (published in 1949) of the Reagan Administration? Is that when SPAM claims totalitarianism began?
"because of the Constitution's checks and balances,"
Of course. Like most wannabe dictators it's the Constitution that gets in your way. " If the libertarian/conservative president does not go through the entire rule making process all over again, a progressive court will strike down the reversal." Again, the very rule of law you lament as dead is active enough to thwart you.
Can SPAM I AM! identify a President of the US who was "a libertarian/conservative"? Frankly, I don't think libertarians are capable of governing as such.
BD: "because of the Constitution's checks and balances,"
Mr. W: "Of course. Like most wannabe dictators it's the Constitution that gets in your way. As usual, you willfully have the situation ass backwards. The Constitution's checks and balances were meant to require a supermajority consensus before the government was allowed to exercise its powers over the People. Progressivism has perverted the checks and balances to protect the dictators of the unconstitutional absolute bureaucracy from being reversed by the People through their elected representatives. BD: "If the libertarian/conservative president does not go through the entire rule making process all over again, a progressive court will strike down the reversal." Mr. W: Again, the very rule of law you lament as dead is active enough to thwart you. You offered the argument that the power of one elected dictator and the bureaucracy to reverse the decrees of the last elected dictator and the bureaucracy was somehow a confirmation of continuing viability of our representative democracy.
"The Constitution's checks and balances were meant to require a supermajority consensus before the government was allowed to exercise its powers over the People."
You're just making up stuff. Nowhere in the Constitution does it prescribe a different process for making laws as it does for repealing them. The Constitution was meant to prescribe a process for any governmental action, including changing past actions. As usual, your problem is with the American system our Founders set up. "the power of one elected dictator and the bureaucracy to reverse the decrees of the last elected dictator and the bureaucracy was somehow a confirmation of continuing viability of our representative democracy." That is literally what a representative democracy is: you elect people who do things and you have periodic elections to replace them if so desired. Your opposition just confirms even more that it's our representative democracy that you dislike.
John Dingell, long time member of Congress, recently tweeted this:
There's a old story that's been swimming around in my head in recent days and I thought I would share it with you if that is alright. In 1945, Franklin Roosevelt ordered a blessing carved into the stone fireplace of the White House State Dining Room, where it remains. The blessing was actually written by John Adams, an excerpt of a letter he wrote to his wife Abigail in 1900. In it, he updated her on his travels and some personal affairs, but he closed with a blessing that always struck me--and FDR--as meaningful. He wrote: "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of Blessings on this House & all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise Men ever rule under this roof." FDR ordered this inscribed into the fireplace where our President gathers with world leaders and foreign dignitaries. He wrote of Men because most did not yet recognize that women would one day make their voices heard and prove they could do or be anything. [It's an ideal.]
Mr. W's rejoinder to SPAM I AM!:
"Your opposition just confirms even more that it's our representative democracy that you dislike." is demonstrated by the fact that SPAM's libertarianism has never took hold politically.
BD: "The Constitution's checks and balances were meant to require a supermajority consensus before the government was allowed to exercise its powers over the People."
Post a Comment
Nowhere in the Constitution does it prescribe a different process for making laws as it does for repealing them. The Constitution was meant to prescribe a process for any governmental action, including changing past actions. As usual, your problem is with the American system our Founders set up. Straw man. The problem is not Congress's ability to reverse its own laws, but rather the decrees of a unconstitutional absolute bureaucracy which the Founders never set up. BD: "the power of one elected dictator and the bureaucracy to reverse the decrees of the last elected dictator and the bureaucracy was somehow a confirmation of continuing viability of our representative democracy." Mr. W: That is literally what a representative democracy is: you elect people who do things and you have periodic elections to replace them if so desired. Your opposition just confirms even more that it's our representative democracy that you dislike. We do not elect presidents to rule by decree or to change the decrees of a past elected dictator.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |