American Maggie

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a unique gun-rights case that has the potential to change years of bad legal precedent. Not only will the case decide whether the Heller v. D.C. decision in 2008 will apply to states, but also whether it can be via the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14^th Amendment.

The 14^th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868, was intended to prevent the states from violating individual rights. At the time, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government, and Southern states and localities in the Reconstruction Era were finding it difficult to treat the newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens or recognize all the rights that that status entails.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is of particular importance in the McDonald case says that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

One of those privileges or immunities is the 2^nd Amendment right to bear arms. But like the Bill of Rights, the 2^nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. However, because the Privileges and Immunities clause was grossly misinterpreted only a few years after its ratification, most of the Bill of Rights has had to be incorporated to the states via due process.

But by trying to incorporate the Heller decision to the states through the Privileges and Immunities clause, Alan Gura, the lawyer arguing the case, is trying to restore the clause back to its original intent.

While it appears likely that the people of Chicago will soon be able to obtain handguns, it doesn’t look as though the Supreme Court will embrace the idea of reversing more than a hundred years of bad legal precedent by restoring the Privileges clause. Even Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia- who recently restored the freedom of speech with their decision in Citizens United v FEC- seemed skeptical about doing so.

But the questions that are at stake in McDonald v Chicago are more fundamental and philosophical than whether or not a city can ban guns. At its core, the case tests the bounds of federalism.

If the states are sovereign and independent entities that can govern as they see fit, how much can the fed really force them to do? Or in other words, should the federal government be able to force the states to recognize rights? The answer is yes, but only under certain conditions.

For the federal government to be able to force states to recognize a specific right, that right must be fundamental, essential to liberty, and easily identifiable and definable. The test that determines that comes from the 1997 case, Washington v Glucksberg.

In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the right to assisted suicide is not covered by the Due Process Clause. Why? Because assisted suicide is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Nor can it be defined with particularity. The Glucksberg test is recognized by both sides of the aisle as being able to determine previously unprotected rights that can be incorporated to the state by due process.

And while it seems that McDonald v Chicago will pass the test in the summer of 2010, the ramifications will last for years.  Some fear that if states are forced to rescind bans on handguns, it will only open the floodgates for hundreds of civil rights lawsuits. On the flip side, if Chicago’s gun laws are upheld, what else could cities get away with criminalizing? It is cause for worry for Conservatives who support gun rights, but also believe strongly in states’ rights as well.

Yes, the federal government should force the states to uphold a Constitutionally-recognized right like the right to bear arms, but how far do privileges and immunities go? Do they include things like drug legalization, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or eco-friendliness? Could the federal government start forcing states to allow any of the aforementioned controversial issues?

Most would say no; that those things wouldn’t pass the muster when it comes to the Glucksberg test. They’re probably right, but even the door is opened to frivolous lawsuits, it’s a small price to pay for finally giving the 2^nd Amendment the respect and rule of law that it deserves. The only unfortunate part of the McDonald v Chicago case is that the Supreme Court passed up the opportunity to return the 14^th Amendment back to its originMcDal meaning.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

The national media, it seems, is still fuming over the recent Supreme Court ruling in FEC v. Citizens United. Writing in last week’s Washington Post, E.J. Dionne said, “The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.”

So what precedents is Dionne referring to? Those would be Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. Both addressed corporate spending in elections, and both upheld restrictions that limited said spending in support of or against any specific candidate.

The 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case came about when the Chamber of Commerce wanted to sponsor a newspaper advertisement that supported a candidate for state office. They argued that because the chamber was technically a “non-profit ideological corporation,” it should be exempt from any restrictions.

When the case made its way to the Supreme Court however, the restrictions were maintained. In his majority opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall found that in practice, the Chamber of Commerce more resembled a business than a political organization, and thus was bound to state campaign finance laws.

The second precedent, McConnell v. FEC, was a 2002 suit challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. Like the Michigan case 12 years earlier, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, specifically the portion that prohibited corporate spending during elections.

The decisions in these two precedents are now, for the most part, void; something that Dionne and his progressive colleagues mourn. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Would Dionne be singing the same tune if media corporations and newspapers like his own Washington Post were subject to the same standards and restrictions that bound other corporations?

In each Supreme Court ruling and McCain-Feingold, media corporations were exempt from any restrictions; a fact Dionne manages to leave out of his scathing criticism. If he had been asked about free speech during the 2008 election, Dionne would surely have touted its importance, while the Post and numerous other outlets championed candidate Barack Obama.

What’s even worse, however, is the fact that outrage over the Supreme Court decision has now transferred into voracious attacks on Justice Samuel Alito, who vividly displayed his disagreement when President Obama said the court “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.”

Of Alito’s reaction, Dionne says that “His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.” Judicial activist? Since when does adhering to the part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law…” warrant the label of judicial activist? But even more than that- Alito was right! Obama’s statement on foreign corporation is provably false.

Moreover, Dionne and others like him seem to think that the decision in Citizens v. FEC is wrong simply because it went against precedent. Should all cases then be decided a certain way simply for the sake of sticking to precedent? If that were the case in 1954, then the Supreme Court never would have ruled in Brown v Board of Education that desegregated schools were wrong.

They would have ruled based on the fact that in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the highest court in the land decided that segregation in public places was constitutional. From then on, the doctrine of “separate but equal” reigned supreme. That is, until the same court later reversed it- and courageously so.

The First Amendment is as clear cut as they come; there’s no room for misinterpretation. Free speech is free speech, no matter where it comes from. But if corporate spending in elections is such a big problem, then John Stossel has an easy solution: “There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

In 1910, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed, “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming.’’

A century later, Roosevelt’s words still ring true. But for women looking at the results of last week’s US Senate race, it’s easy to be discouraged about stepping into the political arena – especially in Massachusetts, where only five women have held statewide office and four have been elected to the US House.

However, despite a few high-profile national and state-level losses, women are great competitors. According to researchers Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox, women candidates raise money as well as men and are just as likely to win in any given race. Problem is, it’s difficult to get enough women to run.

The two of us have been involved in political life for several decades and seen up close what it takes for women to be in the arena. And although we have different views on many political matters, we share the conviction that a “critical mass’’ of women will lead to better public policies.

What’s a critical mass? Research shows that when about 30 percent of a group is made up women, the discourse, values, and working style of the entire organization changes.

Women collectively bring a broader perspective to the political debate, based on their different social roles and life experiences. That breadth is crucial in order to solve the many challenges society faces, including the current economic crisis, national security issues, and health care reform.

While no stereotype is true for all men or all women, social science research says women tend to be more inclusive, more easily build bridges across ideological divides, and are more in touch with their local communities – all necessary traits for the kind of leadership needed in this deeply divided country.

But it will take a big effort to get women to imagine themselves in the political ring. Unfortunately, women candidates are often held to a different standard by power brokers and opinion-makers, including party leaders, donors, and the media. Sometimes other women are a female candidate’s harshest critics – so the obstacles to women participating in electoral office are not placed there by men alone. When a mother runs, voters of both genders often wonder, “Who will care for the children while she campaigns?’’ – a question for Pauline but not Paul. And typically, those controlling the party’s purse strings demand proof that the candidate has raised a substantial portion of her projected budget before even discussing how they can help her win her race.

Women candidates are also often less confident of their own qualifications to serve, and do not want to run until they have achieved higher credentials than a typical male candidate.

But we can’t wait. We’ll have a much stronger country when we’re drawing from 100 percent of our talent pool. Happily, for all the past resistance to women’s leadership, times, they are (if slowly) a-changin’. According to the White House Project Benchmark Study, 94 percent of the public say they’re comfortable with a woman as university president, 96 percent with a woman as head of a large financial institution, and 70 percent with a woman as a military general.

Women in the arena don’t need a brief, polite round of applause for their efforts; it’s not enough when they often have had to work twice as hard just to get into the fight. They need to be recruited, supported, and coached. Our political parties need to encourage women to run, donors need to open their wallets, and the media needs to stop with the random critiques of female candidates’ clothes or hair or belabored debates about whether a tear is from empathy, grief, or exhaustion.

So, to women who dream of changing the world through service in elected office, don’t give up. Get yourselves into the arena.

**This article was also published in The Boston Globe.

******

Swanee Hunt is president of Hunt Alternatives Fund and former US ambassador to Austria. Kerry Healey is former lieutenant governor of Massachusetts.

President Obama is a competent speaker. I don’t think anyone can deny his ability to move an audience like a preacher speaking to his congregation. And in his State of the Union address President Obama did just that. He preached, but in a more anemic manner than usual. Obama may have used repetition to lure in listeners, but this is nothing new. Americans need conviction, not just reiteration.

On the topic of reiteration, President Obama promised continued government transparency. Here is the catch: he made this exact promise throughout his campaign for the White House and all throughout the nitty-gritty health care reform negotiations. Are we supposed to believe him this time? During his race for the White House Obama assured Americans that the entire health care debate would be televised on CSPAN. I watch CSPAN like it is my second job and I did not see any behind-closed-doors discussions on health care reform.

Maybe we can trust Obama’s pledge to call for “strict limits” on lobbyists’ contact with his administration and their financial contribution to federal candidates. I have a gut instinct that if we trust his word we will once again be disappointed. According to the Office of Government Ethics, the administration has actually granted 17 waivers allowing lobbyists and others with ties to issues they dealt with in the private sector to serve in government.

He also discussed earmark reform, which obviously went over well with the audience. But this is odd because President Obama avidly agreed to earmark reform during and after his campaign. During his speech Obama honed in on the importance of “restoring American’s trust” by allowing the American people to see how their money is being spent. Well, let’s run the facts. In December lawmakers set aside more than $4 billion in earmarks in the 2010 defense appropriations bill. According to fiscal watchdog groups, earmarks are expected to total nearly $12 billion in fiscal 2010. So far there is little evidence that supports Obama’s vow to follow through with earmark reform.

Tonight’s State of the Union was a rerun of President Obama’s campaign for the White House. Anyone can read a teleprompter and deliver promises. But an administration’s success is not measured by words. It is measured by actions, and tonight Obama spoke in a stream of familiarly faulty guarantees.

******

Kathleen Someah previously attended Kenyon College where she studied English and Political Science.  She was recently an intern with a political think tank where she focuses primarily on issues relating to homeland security.  She currently resides in California.

If the world of nonprofits were a high school, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would be the kid who started a fire in the supply closet and got everybody a day out of class. PETA is known for, among other things, flinging blood onto celebrities, mocking cancer patients, funding terrorism, and “naked spokespeople.” Also, not liking fur. They’ve offended plenty of both the high and the mighty with their exploits, and the latest ad campaign, “Fur-Free and Fabulous,” is no exception. So when I walked into the DC Metro and saw Michelle Obama life-size in a PETA ad, I had to stop and say, “surely not….” The ad was a grainy composite of several celebrities superimposed with Mrs. Obama’s official White House photograph (in the elegant and sleeveless black sheath that caused “arms-gate”). I guessed she wasn’t really hawking for PETA. And I guessed right.

Mrs. Obama is fur-free. But other than deputy press secretary Semonti Stephens’ confirmation in June of last year, she’s quiet about her choice, unlike French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, who wrote a letter condemning fur to PETA staffer Dan Matthews (after PETA thoughtfully leaked criticism of her to the press). Though President Obama has openly advocated animal rights in the past, saying, “I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it’s very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals,” Mrs. Obama has been largely mute. She did not consent to become part of PETA’s, ad campaign, nor is she pleased by her status as an involuntary promoter. But try telling that to PETA.

PETA claims to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, and that seems to include captive first ladies, whom the organization pointed out couldn’t endorse them in an official capacity, so they didn’t bother to ask. But they’re mind readers; they just know Mrs. O loves them.

So much so in fact, that Mrs. O herself couldn’t at first convince them to take down the ads. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk explained her unusual thinking to the Washington Post:  “we got a call from the White House counsel’s office… we said to them, we’re not selling a coat, only an idea that glamorous beautiful women who you look up to don’t wear fur…. We’re honoring her. Lawyers are lawyers, but PETA is honoring her fashion sense.” It’s tough to argue with the unimpeachable logic that lawyers are, generally, lawyers, but it’s more difficult to see how completely disrespecting someone’s wishes honors them. But chalk one up to Mrs. O and those attorneys:  PETA is now pulling the ads.

As an unwilling PETA advocate, Michelle Obama is in good company. None of the other three women in the ad gave their consent either, although Oprah (no last name necessary), Carrie Underwood, and Tyra Banks have all participated with PETA in some capacity in the past. And unconventional (unauthorized) celebrity endorsements or willful misrepresentation are simply modus operandi for PETA. Princess Diana was once a victim, as was the Dali Lama. PETA routinely ropes people into promoting them, fencing them into situations with little room to maneuver, and force-feeding their ideas to the public. Just don’t treat animals that way.

In fact, PETA relies entirely on shock tactics, manipulation, and shaky logic to promote its agenda (such as in a recent ad featured on Hulu.com, where a young man explains that his aversion to eating meat originated with the fact that his dog looked kind of like a pig. And well, he wouldn’t want to eat his dog). While sensitivity to animals is in, the feelings of homo sapiens get short shrift:  in the last year alone, the organization that once packaged people as human meat lost a battle in Germany to place ads comparing Holocaust victims to animals in factory farms, called “Holocaust on Your Plate.” Germany’s high court ruled that the ads were “an offense against human dignity.” PETA countered by claiming they were merely making the point that meat is murder, because the suffering of humans and animals is equal. For them, Auschwitz is just another bacon factory. Or as Ingrid Newkirk put it, “six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.”

In reality, humans are far kinder to animals than nature, as anyone watching Animal Planet knows. What PETA unwittingly demands of its supporters is that they behave like the rest of us: treat animals better than animals treat each other, and acknowledge that humans are different than animals in their capacity to act in reason and kindness, rather than instinct. Respect for the dignity of humanity is thus not merely essential, but central to their message. It’s time for PETA to acknowledge that fact, and support the ethical treatment of people. Including first ladies.

******

Skyla Freeman (skylafreeman.com) is a former writer for President George W. Bush.  She blogs about style and culture at Sanity Fair online (sfair.blogspot.com).

The week of January 20, 2010 fared much better than the week of January 20, 2009. Well for conservatives, anyway. While President Obama was celebrating his one year anniversary of being sworn in as the president who promised transparency, nay pledged to uphold the values his predecessor had so ruthlessly shoved aside, conservatives were enacting their revenge. And oh, was it sweet.

First, there was Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts senate race. In a race that will surely go down in the Democrats’ Book of Moments They’d Like to Forget, a Republican was elected in the northern bastion of liberalism. And for Teddy Kennedy’s seat, no less! What a day that was.

With Scott Brown’s election to the Senate came the Republicans 41st vote against health care reform, or what is fondly known as ObamaCare. It was also an overwhelming rejection of bank bailouts, civilian trials for terrorists, auto company takeovers, stimulus packages, tax increases, and individual mandates; basically, President Obama’s entire agenda. If only the president and the people of Massachusetts could have gotten together over a beer, perhaps the outcome would have been different. But then, who knows?

And better yet, while the liberal Congressmen and political pundits were still foaming at the mouths over the stupidity of the people in Massachusetts, coming up with elaborate explanations as to why it was not a referendum on Obama, and promising to still fight the good fight of health care reform, the Supreme Court made its ruling in Citizens United v. FEC.

The facts of the case are these: Citizens United, a conservative, grass roots advocacy group, produced a documentary entitled “Hillary: The Movie.” Before the documentary could be released however, the FEC decided that it was a piece of political propaganda that supported one candidate over the other, and thus because of McCain-Feingold, was actually illegal.

Citizens challenged that assessment, and the case made its way to the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who ruled with a 5-4 majority that not allowing corporations (like Citizens United) to spend money to advocate for a political candidate is a violation of free speech. And they were right. Free speech is, after all, free speech; no matter where it comes from.

For some, government banning of political documentaries sounds downright Orwellian. To others, it’s necessary in order to “protect democracy,” or something like that. Take for example, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who in response to the Citizens ruling, said it “might actually have more dire implications than Dred Scott v Sandford.”  In other words, free speech for corporations is so bad, it’s actually worse than the Supreme Court deciding that African Americans had no rights that white men were bound to uphold.

Or, consider Obama’s reaction: With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics…This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.” This, coming from the man who bailed out Wall Street, catered health care legislation to the wishes of health insurance companies, struck deals with special interest, and filled his administration with former and current lobbyists.

The truth is that the plight of the “average American” has never been championed as aggressively as it was during Citizens United, and in the years since McCain-Feingold was passed when opponents argued that such laws unconstitutionally expanded government power and inhibited the most basic of freedoms. Apparently though, President Obama’s outrage doesn’t extend to those average Americans who come together to form a corporation.

But the Democrats’ revulsion of the Supreme Court decision and the obliteration of campaign finance reform revolves around the “if we let this happen, the consequences will be dire and all hell will break loose” argument. They used that to pass Cash for Clunkers, the various bailouts, and in blocking Republican attempts at health care reform (as if making people freer will actually result in total chaos and destruction). And look how well all those things have turned out.

Last week the people of Massachusetts, in a stunning display of democracy in action, rejected the proposals of the Democratic Party. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed that yes, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy- not a hindrance or a path to corporate-controlled elections. So for now anyway, it seems as though advocates for limited government finally have cause to celebrate.

But the Democrats’ revulsion of the Supreme Court decision and the obliteration of campaign finance reform revolves around the “if we let this happen, the consequences will be dire and all hell will break loose” argument. They used that to pass Cash for Clunkers, the various bailouts, and in blocking Republican attempts at health care reform (as if making people freer will actually result in total chaos and destruction). And look how well all those things have turned out.

Last week the people of Massachusetts, in a stunning display of democracy in action, rejected the proposals of the Democratic Party. And the Supreme Court reaffirmed that yes, freedom of speech is a cornerstone of democracy- not a hindrance or a path to corporate-controlled elections. So for now anyway, it seems as though advocates for limited government finally have cause to celebrate.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.