The U.S. Supreme Court: Free Speech Trumps Public Accommodations Law

I contend as a matter of reasoned opinion rather than infallible fact that the Free Speech protection in the U.S. Constitution applies to not only human beings, rather than to non-human legal “persons” (e.g., corporations), but also to speech where the purpose is speech rather than something else. I have written elsewhere on the mistake in treating corporations as if they were human beings, so I treat only the second claim here. I reference the first claim only as context for my broader claim that the U.S. Supreme Court has tended to over-extend applications of the free-speech clause not only beyond its original intent, but also common sense. The latter violation is particularly astonishing. 

That clause, I submit, is oriented to forbidding the state from blocking or punishing what a person would otherwise say or write. The state compelling speech is a different matter, though that too ought to be prohibited in a free society. Also, where the purpose is business, standing up to the state in what a person says or writes is yet another matter. So if I open a business that sells ice-cream, for instance, I would be mistaken were I to view having chocolate ice-cream as a matter of free speech. I would not be selling chocolate ice-cream in order to say something, but to sell a product.

In Creative LLC v Elenis (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court decides in favor of an evangelical Christian whose business includes web-page design for weddings. She maintained that her religious belief against gay marriage should be an exception to the state’s public accommodations law, which bars discrimination against a protected class. Colorado, on the other hand, “argued that its Anti-Discrimination Act regulates sales, not speech, to ensure ‘equal access and equal dignity.’”[1] In other words, making and selling a product (or service) in order to profit financially is not speech. 

So Gorsuch, who wrote for the majority, incorrectly refers to “speech like Ms. Smith’s conveyed over the internet.”[2] At the very least, it is misleading to characterize Smith as conveying speech on the internet, for her purpose and the contours of her activity was to make and sell a product. She was not posting essays, for instance, or constructing her own website (her company’s website too was oriented to selling products rather than conveying “speech”). For a bit of context, the Russian bloggers posting essays online on the Ukraine war at the time would have shaken their heads in disbelief had someone told them that the website of a business engaged in selling products is really about speech rather than business. Even Target, an American retail company, did not put gay Pride flags for sale on the company’s website to make a statement; rather, the company was selling a product. Were the company making a political or ideological statement by adding gay Pride colors to the website, then that would fall under free speech. Smith was not making a political or ideological statement; rather, she was selling a product—webpages for weddings.

Gorsuch attempts to hold the ruling back from enveloping business in its entirety by carving out the production of a product that is "expressive" of the person who makes the product. But a web-page is not a piece of art unless that is the purpose. Also, virtually any product could be said to be "expressive," for product-design itself expresses the work of a designer. Put another way, Smith's own personal website, or even the website of of her business, can be said to express herself in a way qualitatively different from the websites she makes for clients. Gorsuch conflates the two and thus ignores the distinction. He thus unwittingly set up a slippery slope by which virtually anyone in business can obviate public-accommodations law simply by arguing that one's work expresses oneself in some way. Locke, after all, argues that a person mixing one's labor with a piece of land is sufficient to turn it into private property. 

The real tension associated with public-accommodations law is not free-speech; rather, the right of private property is that which is circumscribed by the government mandating that protected classes be served. Smith could have argued that her business’s niche was Biblically-based weddings, based on the fact that the business was her private property. For she was using her property for productive rather than speech purposes, and the substance of her enterprise was making and selling products rather than publishing speeches or essays, or even making a political or ideological statement.

Public accommodations law is not absolute. A store manager of a Starbucks coffeeshop had demonstrated this in having two people removed because they had refused to purchase anything and then ignored the manager’s authority, which in turn is rooted in the right of private property. That those two people were of the Black race is besides the point; anyone, protected class or not, who sits at a table in a restaurant but refuses to order anything is subject to the right of private property. Insecure, Starbucks’ upper management capitulated to the unfair criticism by showing the public that the company could discriminate against Caucasian employees, including a regional manager, who had won her case in court less than a month before the Supreme Court’s decision on “free speech.”

Unfortunately, the dissenting opinion of the court obsesses over discrimination, and President Biden said the court’s decision was unthinkable. The opposition missed an opportunity to point to the jurisprudential mistake in the majority opinion, wherein selling a product is itself characterized as free speech. This rather basic category mistake was missing from the dissent, given the salience of ideology on the court, which in turn is another problem.  I submit that public discourse in the U.S. too often skirts or overlooks underlying problems, while obsessing on flash-point ideological agendas. I write in large part to uncover depth such that it might be more highly valued and sought after.

---

1. Andrew Chung, “US Supreme Court Deals Blow to LGBT Rights in Web Designer Case,” Reuters, June 30, 2023.

2. Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole, “Supreme Court Limits LGBTQ protections with Ruling in Favor of Christian Web Designer,” CNN.com, June 30, 2023 (accessed same day).

The Right of Political Protest in the U.S.: Nullified in the Outback by Intimidation

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states in part, “Congress shall make no law respecting . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of Grievances.” Peaceable protest, even to protest a government or an official thereof, has come to be regarded as a staple of American democracy. In practice, however, the right can be eviscerated such that peaceful protesting is simply not worth the trouble. Such trouble can be orchestrated by a police force or even a government within the United States.
Implicit in the right to protest is the value put on tolerating the expression of contrary opinions. Conservative and progressive views, even those of racists and anarchists, respectively, are generally accorded the right to peaceably protest in a public way. If a State is sufficiently one-sided, however, public officials, including governors, majors, and police chiefs, can reflect the dominant attitude of residents that protests on behalf certain political, economic, or social ideologies should not be allowed. If they must be allowed, then massive shows of police force can—it is assumed--legitimately be used to intimidate the protesters.

The placement of the three posters illustrates pictorially that business and authoritarian political interests can co-exist comfortably in a broader political coalition. In Nazi Germany, for instance, the industrialists were part of Hitler's authoritarian political coalition. Besides receiving purchase orders from a state that is able to resist popular calls for government spending, business likes the political stability that a "law and order" police-state can provide. 

In Arizona, for example, prior to the 2020 election, a conservative candidate for sheriff of Maricopa County, which includes the Phoenix metropolitan area, displayed signs containing the imperative, “Stand Up to the Mobs!” Just above that line was another imperative—that the laws be enforced. Presumably the unenforced laws on car-emission limits and mask requirements on public transportation were not on the candidate’s mind. Presumably he was not planning on holding the transit authority accountable for allowing passengers without masks to ride the buses and light rail. A supervisor at Metro Valley told me by phone at the time that the county law (and ordinances of the cities) that face masks must be worn on public transportation does not have “legal force” because it is just a requirement. Stunned, I did not point out that her company was in violation of the requirement because even bus drivers did not have to wear masks; I had already investigated the strange messages coming out of that company, such as, “Masks are required and we will allow passengers to board without wearing them.”
The candidate for sheriff was likely referring back to the protests against police brutality (otherwise known as abuses of power). That he did not use the word, “Rioters,” instead of “Mobs” implies that he was including peaceable protests too. Given the bad connotation of the word, “Mobs,” as “a large and disorderly crowd of people” according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a negative attitude toward at least certain peaceful protests can be inferred. I had heard enough Arizona residents conflate “liberal” peaceful protests with riots to know what the candidate meant by mobs. “They are all violent,” one conservative resident insisted to me as I thought of the state’s pre-college education rating of 49^th out of the 50 States.
A few years after the 2016 presidential election, some students of Arizona State University told me that protests against Donald Trump had not really been allowed on campus. One student even observed that Arizona does not tolerate “liberal” protests. Besides the errant assumption that any mob of people is bound to become violent (which in turn rests on an extremely negative view of human nature rivaling that of John Calvin), anger against “liberals,” which was clearly evident locally, was likely behind the excessive police force designed to intimidate even peaceful protests.
With ASU police regularly staked out in jeeps parked on sidewalks and even academic courtyards, an excessive show of force has been the authoritarians’ tactic of choice to intimidate protesters even if they happened to be 20 students in the Global Politics of Human Rights class whose final project was a class protest on campus on April 13, 2017. The students protested against Trump’s policies on immigration, LGBT rights, women’s rights, Black Lives Matter, and even the prison system. 

The class was fluid in its movements, rather than being intent on blocking a sidewalk. (Source: Connor Bolget of The Republic)

As vaguely reported by a local newspaper, “At one point, Arizona State University personnel asked the group to relocate in order to stop blocking the sidewalk. Protesters then stood in a staggered line, with about a foot between each person, instead of standing shoulder to shoulder. Campus police then were called to the scene, as the protesters changed from holding signs to linking arms, walking back and fourth [sic] in front of the grassy area of Hayden Lawn.”[1] The word lawn is important, as the area is a large square of grass with sidewalks on the periphery.
Who were the opaquely labeled university personnel? In addition to the routine police presence on the campus, students working essentially as police aides typically have the campus covered (even sidewalk intersection to intersection). I have seen those security students keeping a particular eye on outdoor “political” tables near the student union building. It is possible that those student-security personnel notified the campus police of the class’s final project as a protest, which the police would have understood as such rather than as an academic project.

The walkie-talkie-clad "eyes and ears" for the campus police are ubiquitous on the main ASU campus--sometimes at every sidewalk-intersection even as observant police jeeps are stationed during the day on sidewalks and even academic courtyards. 

Did the university personnel and police over-react? The local newspaper reported, “Passers-by had some difficulties finding their way around the linked demonstrators, so ASU’s campus police stepped in to give a second warning, this time directly” to the professor.”[2]  That the protesters were few (20 with some add-ons) and were generally fluid (i.e., mobile) suggests that both the university personnel and the caller over-reacted. It would not be a crisis for by-passers (especially students) to walk on the grass, especially at that square. The police stepped in to give a second warning, so who gave the first? The student security workers? Given that students ordinarily walked on the grass and the small group was mobile, were two warnings really necessary? Should a university police force be able to interfere with a class project without permission from an upper-level academic administer? I suspect that the police took it upon themselves to threaten the professor as if she deserved to be arrested because students had to make a slight detour on grassy square. I also suspect that the police viewed the event as a political protest rather than as an academic project. That it was the latter means that the police should not have intervened without the permission of an academic administrator. Instead, the incident reflected the local culture wherein mobs protest and protests can be expected to turn violent. With such a negative view of protests even as a class project, it is easy to understand why threats and intimidation would be used with impunity.
Hence even the people in the peaceful protests against abuse-of-power by the police in Phoenix during the summer of 2020 (as distinct from the riots, which rightly have no constitutional protections) had to contend with massive police shows of force. Even a small protest on behalf of Ryan Whitaker had to put up with a police helicopter circling overhead as if twenty people might suddenly lose control of themselves and go on a rampage. A resident who lived near a park where protests against police violence took place told me that even peaceful protests walking to the park had to contend with an overwhelming police presence. I was talking to the other Midwesterner after a police car hit a parking lot curb as the police employee quickly swerved closely by me as I was walking from the main library, which was closed. No one was in the nearby park or even in the library’s parking lot that early afternoon during a weekday. Even though protests were taking place nightly, I contend that the police were over-reacting to one person walking through the parking lot. The aggressive driving was totally uncalled for, and yet the police employee likely, given the culture there, regarded it as measured rather than hyperactive. The underlying assumption, which I had heard from both local police and residents, is that any grouping of citizens in public is likely to turn violent without intimidation from an exaggerated show of force. That very assumption is what puts Arizona at odds with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
During that summer, the city’s mayor was bragging about how minimal the protests were there compared with those in other big cities in other States. If that differential was the result of intimidating peaceful protesters under the subterfuge that they would inevitably become violent because mobs are unruly, then the “success” came by trampling on the right of the people to assemble peaceably, which means without feeling intimidated. I would not call that success.

---

1. Conner Borgelt, “ASU Class Holds Protest as Part of Its Final Assignment,” The Republic (azcentral.com), April 14, 2017.
2. Ibid.

Presidential Authority and Bureaucracy: Regulatory Agencies

Circulating in Congress in the fall of 2012 was a bill that would have allowed "the White House to second-guess major rules and mandate that agencies carefully study the economic effects of new regulation. The change could, in effect, delay a number of rules for the financial industry. Those who support preserving the status quo where Wall Street regulates itself will find much to like in this legislation," said Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, a nonprofit government watchdog group.[1] President Obama had received $1 million from Goldman Sachs as a campaign contribution in 2008. Yet of how much value to Wall Street is a mere delay in regulation? Some, surely, but not enough to make this the decisive issue here. Rather, I submit that the president's control as chief executive of the regulatory agencies and the added bureaucracy are more salient in this case study. 

In terms of Wall Street’s interest, the proposed bill would have permitted the White House only to delay proposed regulations until further explanation is provided; the president would not be able to veto them. The issue from this case can thus be said to be whether the U.S. president as the chief executive in the U.S. Government must have control over even independent agencies such as the SEC. To be tasked with the enforcement of U.S. law and yet not to have the right even to be consulted by agencies as varied as the FCC, the FDIC, the SEC and the CFTC puts the chief executive in a bind—that of constitutional responsibility without the requisite authority. 
At a much less significant level, the added bureaucracy could have been a problem, given how much bureaucracy was in the agencies themselves: “at the minimum a 13-point test for rule-making. That includes finding ‘available alternatives to direct regulation,’ evaluating the ‘costs and the benefits,’ drafting ‘each rule to be simple and easy to understand’ and periodically reviewing existing rules to make agencies ‘more effective or less burdensome.’”[2]

1. Ben Protess, “Lawmakers Push to Increase WhiteHouse Oversight of Financial Regulators,” The New York Times, September 10, 2012. 
2. Ibid.

On the Unitary and Imperial American Presidency

In December 2009, Abdullah II, King of Jordon, dismissed the prime minister and replaced him with a palace aide and loyalist, dissolved Parliament, and postponed legislative elections for a year.   For all the defects of a representative democratic system, it is far superior to autocratic rule, especially by a dictator.   It is natural for people to resist preemption. “The nature of humans is they want democracy,” said Ali Dalain, an independent member of the Parliament that was dissolved. “One person cannot solve all problems and cannot make everyone happy, so people must share in determining their fate.”[1] These quotes are revealing from the standpoint of the unitary and imperial American presidency. 

   

Regarding “one person cannot solve all problems,” the American theory of the unitary executive and, moreover, the imperial presidency can be challenged. The unitary executive means that one person as president is better than a presidential council, for example. In a council, it may be difficult to reach a final decision, which is a drawback especially in times of emergency. Hence, the president's role as commander in chief has been tied to the unitary executive model. However, the emergency card has, I submit, been overplayed. A better reason is that a final say may be needed on contending military plans, but a council's majority could be taken. Most importantly, one person can be wrong, even in military matters. Would President George W. Bush have been able to link Iraq to the attack on September 11, 2001 and thus invade the country and occupy it for years had a presidential council have had to sign off? To be sure, only Congress can declare war, for it is a conflict of interest for the commander in chief to do so. Yet the fact that such commanders have been able to unilaterally begin military engagements means that the problem of one person being wrong should be taken seriously.  

The imperial presidency refers to the increase in presidential power in the twentieth century in the U.S. This has been at the expense not only of Congress, but also the state governments, given the federal power of preemption. In proposing laws, the president depends theoretically on Congressional leaders to steer the legislation through the lawmaking machinery. Should the Congress pass an alternative, the president can veto it, yet this does not mean the president's own proposal becomes law. So, constitutionally, the relationship seems balanced, and ample opportunity for voices exists. Even so, the president has an edge on Congress in that the latter goes on recesses whereas the West Wing is always working (though the same could be said of congressional staffs). So more to the point, the president is nearly always in the spotlight--relative even to individual senators--and thus can mold public opinion. 

Given the increased power of the presidency, it can be argued that too much power has come to be in the hands of one person. Human nature may not handle wielding so much power very well. The Stanford experiments in the 1960's on the abuse of power testify to the problem. Whereas the presidency may have a figure head without running into this problem, spreading out the power may fit better with how humans are constituted, especially those humans who suffer from ailments such as malignant narcissism. A presidential council could put a check on such a person, especially if he tends to lose control of his urges of the moment at the risk of the reputation, at least, of the presidency and the U.S.  

Disassociating the presidency from "one person" could also disspell any associated hero worship that has held on from ancient king-worship.  This tendency is evinced not just when a president is sworn in, but also when he gives the State of the Union address. Contributing to the problem, the media obsesses on his every move, including what he is doing on vacation.  

1. Michael Slackman, "Jordan's King Remakes His Government," The New York Times, December 22, 2009. 

On the Economic Justification of American Society and Federalism: The Oxymoron of Congress Mapping the Human Brain

In his 2013 State of the Union Address, President Obama cited brain research as an example of how the government could and in fact should literally “invest in the best ideas.”[1] He cited the $140 return to the economy from every dollar that had been invested to map the human genome, and added that funding the Brain Activity Map would be a job-creating investment in science and innovation. In terms of comparative economic advantage, he said, enlarging the “knowledge economy” would be a good strategy for maintaining a formidable standard of living. As laudatory as more knowledge of the human brain is, Obama's perspective suffers from economic reductionism and a lack of political basis.
Economic reductionism means that everything reduces finally to its economic impact. Mapping the genome may have good economic returns, but the impact in terms of human fulfillment is arguably much more beneficial and thus important. Finding the gene that causes baldness, for instance, would surely have an economic benefit for some, but the non-economic benefits to bald men would be much more important. More importantly, to the extent that mapping the genome has led to new treatments for illness, especially those that are fatal, the primary benefits have surely not been economic in nature. An old person who can live ten more years rather than one does not leap for joy because of the the additional retirement income. Because this is obvious, Obama's economic basis can now be seen as artificial or skewed at best even it it was politically and economically prudent for him to point to economic returns as they would have been particularly of interest to the companies that made campaign and other, less direct, economic contributions to the Wall Street president. Unfortunately, people reading or hearing his speech could have gotten the idea that the reduction to the economic effect is fitting rather than distorting. A government, after all, should look after the public good, which is not only economic. Of course, it has been by lip service to the general welfare that U.S. presidents have tried to justify federal spending in virtually any area, hence robbing the state governments of more and more sovereignty. 
That the federal government had any constitutional basis to be funding a map of the brain's activity is a question the federal president seems not to have considered. To be sure, balancing spending for the general welfare with the enumerated (i.e., limited) powers of the federal government is a difficult task unless the general-welfare spending is assumed to pertain only to the enumerated (i.e., listed) powers of that government. It makes no sense to say that government's powers are limited and yet spending can pertain to any domain, even preempting state spending. So by logic alone, it stands to reason that the spending clause must have been intended to furnish Congress with the authority to fund its enumerated powers.
Put another way for the faint of heart, if a positive economic return to the economy is the litmus test, then the federal government could intercede in so many areas that the state governments could eventually become little more than local governments. The crucial political benefit of federalism, wherein the state governments have the power to act as a check against encroaching or tyrannical federal power so the only check is not on the state governments by the federal government, is lost if federal lawmakers and the executive can amass virtually unlimited power for the U.S. Government (and themselves in the process!) especially if done at the expense of the states. 

A Congressional rendering of how the human brain might be mapped.      Source; nytimes.

Admittedly, a person could look at the U.S. Constitution and point out the spending clause, whereby the Congress has the authority to spend funds “for the general welfare.” in itself, the clause contains no limitation, and the general welfare is indeed wide in scope. Scientific advancement, it could be argued, is surely in line with advancing the general welfare of the people. Virtually any purpose, even those purposes in which the effect on the general welfare is merely a byproduct, could fit within the clause. To restrict the clause could foreseeably hold back the general welfare from what it would otherwise be. 
Turning to the enumerated powers of Congress, the commercial implications from mapping the brain's activity might seem to fit within the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Wickard v. Filmore (1942) that even a farmer in Iowa who grows wheat for his family's own consumption can be subject to regulation. Even if his activity "be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect."[2] The majority opinion reasons that the harvests of wheat for private consumption, if aggregated, would have a significant effect on the interstate wheat commerce. Even an indirect effect on the interstate wheat market can justify even the growing of wheat for private consumption being subject to the interstate commerce clause, and thus federal power. So it is no accident that the federal executive publicly justified the federal funding to map the brain's activity by characterizing such a map as "a job-creating investment in science and innovation." Obama may have engaged in warped economic reductionism in order to gain more power for his government. He and the federal court before him both distorted logic for the sake of additional power going to the federal government.
The institutional and personal conflicts of interest should be obvious. Since that ruling, the reach of the commerce clause has expanded. Even something that is not itself commerce can be federally regulated as commerce. This flawed logic should be enough of a red-flag to tell us that something went deeply wrong in the federal court's reasoning where federal power was at stake or could be expanded. 
In regard to funding the mapping of the brain's activity, commerce of the completed map could indeed extend beyond state lines (i.e., be interstate commerce), but to argue that the regulating of interstate commerce extends to investing in manufacturing of the product itself conflates spending with regulating, which is to set rules. 
President Obama could be challenged for his presumption that the federal government is the definitive level of government for virtually any matter of public policy to be enacted into law. He could have quoted from Alexander Hamilton, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention and the first U.S. Treasury Secretary,  who had wanted the states to be mere districts implementing federal policy. Of course, he also wanted the U.S. president to be in office for life.
Before Obama was the federal executive, I asked Sandra Day O’Conner, a former justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, why the Court had allowed the Congress to encroach so onto state matters. "It takes a majority," she said (meaning of justices). Then she observed that Congress was “acting like a state legislature.” This remarkable insight would prompt me years later to wonder whether Obama himself was conflating the federal and state levels. He may not have fully realized the distinctiveness of federal government on the empire scale from governance on the state, or kingdom, level. Whereas an empire-scale government of a federation must take into account differences in culture, political and moral ideology, economy, and even religion that exist from state to state, a state government need not as a state can be homogeneous rather than diverse within. The British, who had once had an empire to manage, suppose their state in the E.U. is diverse. I submit that the E.U. itself is much more diverse from state to state, and so taking into account such differences is an appreciable aspect of E.U. governance but not of that of a state, even the United Kingdom (or California in the U.S.). Yes, Virginia, such a comparison is valid.
I submit that President Obama did not sufficiently heed the vital differences between the federal and the state governments. Nor have majorities of justices sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court. Viewing things from the perspective of the federal government, and even having its interests at heart, it is possible to interpret general welfare and the commerce clause so broadly as to warp logic and yet not even notice this or the eventual cost (to use an economic term!) to the Union itself (i.e., impairing its federal system). Economic reductionism can be placed in service, resulting in bloated federal power and a warping of priorities (i.e., financial as the definitive litmus test for everything, including the public good). Of course, big business feels right at home in such a society--societal norms and values reflective of those of business. Meanwhile, the warped system feeds on itself, without being noticed and becoming even more warped in the process. For all of the reliance on the general welfare, who exactly is looking out for it as regards the impact on it from the federal system of government and the economic reductionism? 

See related: Institutional Conflicts of Interest, Essays on Two Federal Empires, and British Colonies Forge an American Empire, available at Amazon.

1. John Markoff, “Obama Seeking to Boost Study of Human Brain,” The New York Times, February 17, 2013.
2. Wickard, 317 U.S. at 125.

The Ministerial Exception: A Religious Right to Discriminate

In early 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized, for the first time ever, a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws, saying that churches and other religious groups must be free to choose and dismiss their leaders without government interference. In his written opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “The Establishment Clause [of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution] prevents the government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own.” The wrench in the works here concerns the matter of delimiting the exception, given the inflation in what constitutes “ministerial” in terms of tasks.

The full essay is at "The Ministerial Exception."

Christianity by State: The Religious Dimension of Federalism

According to the  2010 U.S. Religious Census of Religious Congregations & Memberships Study by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies, less than 50 percent of the people living in the United States identified themselves as Christian adherents in 2010. There were more than 150.6 million out of 310 million. Even so, candidates for the U.S. presidency still felt the need to vocalize the fact that they are Christian (while the opponent doesn't quite measure up in that respect). President Obama made a point during his first two years in office to stress his Christianity as if it were the membership card to the Oval Office. It would seem that the litmus test was already antiquated and thus needlessly constrictive on potential candidates.

The study also discerned differences between the states, once again giving evidence of the heterogeneous nature of the empire of fifty republics. States where more than 55% of the residents identified themselves as Christian were either in the South or in the Midwest. Mississippi (59%), Utah (57%), Alabama (56%), and Lousiana (54%) top the list. Interestingly, the two clusters of dark red on the map point to two distinct Christian cores in the United States. It would be interesting to study whether or how the two cores differ. One indication is that there were differences is that all of the states in the southern core had the death penalty at the time, whereas two of the three states in the northern core did not. I suspect that the southern core was more ideologically conservative in nature (i.e., social issues)--the Northern core's conservatism being moderated perhaps by the tradition of Hubert Humphrey.

States where less than 36% of the residents identified as Christian were in the West and New England. Vermont (23%), New Hampshire (23%), Maine (25%), and Massachusetts (28%) have the fewest Christians on a percentage basis (the map incorrectly shows MA as bright red). In these states, it would be particularly untenable were public services and offices to close on Good Friday and the following day. Unlike Christmas, Easter does not have the secular holiday component (which is recognized as a national holiday in the U.S.).  In fact, the sheer extent of difference between states like Mississippi (high 50s) and those like Vermont (low 20's) suggests that holidays should be declared on the state rather than the federal level. The question of whether the U.S. Constitution's establishment of religion clause applies at the state level is also relevant.

In short, the multi-colored map of the U.S. in terms of Christianity suggests that a "one size fits all" approach through Congress has the significant downside of ignoring significant cultural and religious differences. In other words, to take Vermont and Mississippi and "split the difference" is not likely to fit with the condition in many states. The fact that those two states are in the same union testifies to the fact that the union itself is on the empire-level, meaning that its member states are themselves commensurate with countries around the world that are not themselves on the empire-level. It should be no surprise, then, that federalism, which originated at the empire level in alliances, is a system of governance particularly well-suited to accommodate the sort of diversity that exists in the U.S. (and E.U.). The key to enabling federalism to accommodate the different religious makeups of the states is to keep the imperial-level government from stifling the state governments. In other words, they need to have enough space to produce legislative action that is tailored to their respective religious cultures. In states that are dark red, it makes sense that Good Friday would be a recognized holiday, whereas such a practice in Vermont or Oregon would impose too much on too many people. 

On Federalism in America and Europe, see Essays on Two Federal Empires: Comparing the E.U. and U.S., Essays on the E.U. Political Economy: Federalism and the Debt Crisis, and British Colonies Forge an American Empire, all available at Amazon.

Source:

The Huffington Post, "Most and Least Christian States in America," May 29, 2012. 

Automatic Standing: The American States in Federalism Cases

Unlike that of the E.U., the U.S. system of public governance is structurally biased toward  political consolidation at the expense of federalism. In fact, the bias extends to jurisprudence. This is evident in a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on September 8, 2011 against Virginia on the 2010 federal health-insurance reform law.

According to the Wall Street Journal, at issue was “whether the federal government can require Americans to either carry health insurance or pay a fee starting in 2014.” In a unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond Virginia “found Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli lacked legal standing to bring his challenge. That threw out a ruling [in 2010] by a lower court judge who said Mr.Cuccinelli was entitled to sue and found the law’s requirement to carry insurance went beyond Congress’s powers under the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Cuccinelli, a Republican, had argued Virginia had standing because, shortly after President Barack Obama signed the health law, the state’s previous governor had signed a law saying the state’s residents shouldn’t be required to carry health insurance. But the Fourth Circuit judges found that law alone wasn’t enough to generate standing for Virginia, and the state couldn’t show it was directly burdened by the insurance requirement. ‘If we were to adopt Virginia’s standing theory, each state could become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts; no issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state’s power to litigate in federal court,’ Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote. She and the other two judges were appointed by Democratic presidents.”

Analysis:

In her statement, Judge Motz fails to grasp one of the fundamental mechanisms of modern federalism—namely, that the two systems of government—that of the states and the federal government—check and balance each other. This is necessary because governmental sovereignty is divided up between the two systems in modern federalism. The division and the related enforcement mechanism of “check and balance” are means of protecting the citizens’ liberty at the expense of tyranny (i.e., unaccountable government action). For modern federalism to work effectively, any encroachment on the sovereignty of one system by the other must be repelled. Otherwise, even one successful encroachment by one system could snowball into such an imbalance of sovereignty between the two systems that the federalism itself is defeated and the union is either de facto dissolved or consolidated with the people’s liberty paying the ultimate price.

Accordingly, governments of republics that are members of a modern federal system of governance have standing constitutionally, as semi-sovereign members, to challenge possible encroachments by the general government. I contend that Virginia had standing in the appeal because a Congressional over-reach based on the interstate commerce clause (i.e., the enumerated power authorizing Congress to regulate the commerce between two or more states) would be at the expense of Virginia’s sovereign sphere. Moreover, it is in the interest of the federal system itself, and the U.S. Constitution, that members or branches of one of the two systems of government have standing to contest over-extensions by a member or branch of the other system because otherwise one system could come to eclipse the power of the other (i.e., consolidation or dissolution).

It could be argued that Virginia’s standing is pretty obvious given Virginia’s membership in the U.S. federal system and the fact that Congress’s encroachment would be at the expense of the polity members because the federal law would bind the Virginia government. The fact that the appeals court is itself a member of one of the branches of one of the parties may account for the judge’s refusal to find standing.

In terms of the constitutional law jurisprudence, being burdened should not be required of Virginia in order for the republic to have standing; merely having an interest in terms of its sovereignty should be sufficient. Such an interest is triggered by a possible encroachment by Congress beyond its enumerated powers because the Virginia government would not otherwise be confined in its legislative, executive or judicial actions. Above all, it is in the interest of the federal system itself, and thus the United States, that both systems of government within the system have standing to contest any and all possible encroachments. Perhaps if the state governments’ standing were recognized where it is possible that Congress, the president or a federal court has unduly constricted the states’ semi-sovereign situs in the federal constitutional order, the U.S. system of public governance would be closer to federalism rather than consolidation. Given the extent of the latter, it would not be a bad thing to have each state “become a roving constitutional watchdog of sorts; no issue, no matter how generalized or quintessentially political, would fall beyond a state’s power to litigate in federal court.” Perhaps then a balance of power—and of the respective sovereignties—which is necessary for a modern federal system (i.e., not confederalism, such as in an alliance), would be within reach; the check and balance between governments that exists in viable federalism could once again function (if it ever did in the American context).

Source:

Janet Adamy, “Court Upholds Health Law,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2011. 

Federalizing the Criminal Code: Racial Opportunity Costs

On December 13, 2011, a bipartisan group of legal experts told a panel of lawmakers in the U.S. House of Representatives that the federal criminal code had grown so large that U.S. citizens could not possibly keep up with it. “We ought to get rid of the old myth that you’re presumed to know the law,” Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) said. About 4,500 criminal statutes exist, according to Ed Meese, a former U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan. “This is in addition to over 300,000 other regulations that don’t appear in the federal code but nevertheless carry essentially criminal penalties including prison,” he said. “So the vast array of traps for the unwary that lurks out there in federal criminal law is more extensive than most people realize.” The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts figures some 80,000 defendants are sentenced in federal court each year.
Back in the 1990s, Sandra Day O’Connor, then a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, said at a small gathering, “Congress is acting like a state legislature.” She went on to point to all the crimes being federalized. I asked her why the Rehnquist Court had not applied the brakes to this breach of federalism. “Because it takes five,” she replied. In other words, not even the Rehnquist conservative majority, which had been responsible for the Morrison and Lopez rulings, was sufficient to arrest the ongoing political consolidation via the federalizing of criminal law.
In late 2011, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s panel on crime, introduced a bill that would reduce the federal criminal code by a third and define the level of criminal intent that is necessary to break the law. Laying aside the matter of Congress over-criminalizing society at the expense of liberty, and the related matter of the “micro-managing” mentality that is implied in a ceaseless desire to “mold” or control others by threatening penalties, federalism itself ought to be brought to bear on Sensenbrenner’s proposal.
Specifically, in addition to reducing the quantity of federal criminal statutes and regulations to that which the citizenry can reasonably be expected to digest, each statute and regulation should be either retained or thrown out on the basis of whether it falls within one of the enumerated powers of Congress. By “falls within,” I do not mean indirectly or by extension, as in the specious argument that an Iowa farmer’s home-grown wheat used solely by the farmer (and his family) is subject to the reach of the interstate commerce clause because if enough farmers grew wheat for their own consumption, the price of wheat transported between states would be impacted. The term expressly need not be used in the U.S. Constitution for it to be understood that the enumerated powers do not distend through sheer reasoning to preempt those powers reserved to the American republics or their residual powers. Wheat that never leaves Iowa cannot, by definition, be considered to be part of interstate commerce. I suspect that the same logic is being broken in Congressional efforts to federalize criminal law.
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the police power resides with the states. Considering the abuses associated by state officials in implementing (or abusing) that power (e.g., California police pepper-spraying students to manipulate them off the sidewalk on a public university campus), the U.S. Government could shift from undercutting federalism by “federalizing” criminal law outside the enumerated powers to strengthening federalism by acting on a check against abusive state officials. In other words, federal criminal law could be primarily directed to the states (i.e., their officers), and to citizens secondarily and only within the powers enumerated for Congress. This approach is consistent with the confederal element that is retained in the broader notion of modern federalism (e.g., as applied in the U.S. and E.U.), while acknowledging that the general government also reaches to the citizenry directly (“direct effect”).
One example of the federal government attempting to check a systematic abuse of power by police in a state’s county is the three-year investigation by the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice of the Maricopa County sheriff’s office in Arizona. The ensuing report found “a pervasive culture of discriminatory bias against Latinos” reaching Sheriff Joe Arpaio himself. Deputies are said to “target Latino drivers on the roadways and detain innocent Latinos in the community in their searches for illegal immigrants,” according to the New York Times. Such practices, according to the report, are in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures. The report adds that Latinos have been systematically mistreated in the county jail. Besides the report, a separate federal grand jury investigation was underway as well, focusing on accusations of abuse of power by the sheriff department’s public corruption squad.
For its part, the Justice Department was urging the sheriff to cooperate with the federal government in turning his department around, or risk a lawsuit and the loss of millions of dollars in federal money. Even so, Arpaio “brushed off the criticism in a news conference as politically motivated,” according to the New York Times. He was particularly upset that the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, had announced that the federal government would no longer allow the sheriff’s deputies to check the immigration status of inmates in their custody. In reaction, the sheriff remarked, “This is a sad day for America as a whole.”
Besides the inherent impoussance of the Justice Department’s plan “to do cultural change” in a sheriff department that is headed by intransigence, the sheer time during which the alleged abuses had been allowed to continue (e.g., the report taking three years) bespeaks a woefully inadequate priority in the federal government to act as a real check on the states. To be sure, Arizona is a sovereign state with regard to its police power, and the federal government is obliged to respect that sovereignty. However, neither a government of a state nor of the union is free to violate the U.S. Constitution, which is the source of all of the governmental sovereignty that is in the federal system (characterized by dual sovereignty—split between two systems of government, that of the states and that of the union). So Arisona is not free to violate the Fourth Amendment, and the general government can legitimately provide a check, as judged by the judiciary. Therefore, rather than usurping state criminal law by federalizing criminal statues, Congress should go to work to give the federal government better tools with which to act as a check on sheriffs such as Arpaio. Generally speaking, there is more than enough for the Congress to do within its federal role without encroaching on federalism itself paradoxically by “federalizing” powers assigned to the several states. The latter activity involves an opportunity cost that I dare say the Latinos in Maricopa County doubtless do not appreciate.

Sources:

Gary Fields and John Emshwiller, “Criminal Code Is Overgrown, Legal Experts Tell Panel, Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2011. 

Marc Lacey, “U.S. Says Arizona Sheriff Shows Pervasive Bias Against Latinos,” The New York Times, December 16, 2011. 

Wickard vs. Filburn: Federalism vs. Congress

If you are wondering how the Congress got away with taking over so much from the state legislatures, you need look no further than Wickard v. Filburn, on which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously decided that the interstate commerce clause can reach all the way to penalize a farmer for growing his own wheat.

Filburn and his wheat.  (Mary Lou Spurgeon  NYT)

The complete essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.

Achieving Balance in American Federalism: On the Crusade of Texas’ Rick Perry

As the governor, or head of state, of Texas, Rick Perry has been on a crusade to reinvigorate American federalism. Referring to the efforts of officials in the U.S. Government to secure the Mexican border, Perry said, “It is part of that frustrating paradox where Washington neglects their responsibility for areas clearly within their purview, while interfering in other areas in which they’re neither welcome nor authorized.”  The chief executive was pointing to a little-noticed point concerning the expansion of the domains in which the federal government is active.

The complete essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.

See Rick Perry, Fed Up! and the critique of Perry's book, Skip Worden, American and European Federalism: A Critique of Rick Perry's 'Fed Up!

The General Welfare Clause: Is the Power of Congress Constitutionally Unlimited?

Art. 1, Sec. 8. of the US Constitution: Congress “shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Does this clause mean that the US Government can legislate in any way that benefits the Union? According to Thomas Woods, the general welfare clause “was a restriction on the power of the federal government: it had to exercise the powers delegated to it with an eye to the welfare of the country as a whole, not to the particular advantage of one state or section.” That is to say, the Congress could provide for the general welfare of the United States only within its delimited powers listed in the US Constitution.

The complete essay is at Essays on Two Federal Empires.