Thursday, August 02, 2007
Rights and Rights
I ran across a link to the Cato Institute on Daily Kos, in which Cato is marketing a book called David's Hammer, by Clint Bolick. Douglas Kmiec of Pepperdine University submitted a short review of the book that intrigued me. Here it is:
What intrigued me about the review was the request that those of us who value freedom of speech should "not begrudge like recognition of property rights...." I know that some of us who treasure the First Amendment right to freedom of speech tend to forget that there are limits on freedom of speech. The right is not absolute. The classic example is that one does not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Professor Kmiec is a conservative but also a reasonable man. I am sure that he recognizes that a property right or a right of intellectual property is also not absolute. I own my house; my wife and I paid off the mortgage thirteen years ago. However, I do not have the right to set up a slaughter house in my back yard, nor do I have the right to operate a jet aircraft engine at full power which generates a sound level of 160 decibels. My neighbors have the right not to be annoyed or harmed by what I choose to do with my property.
I wonder whether our new conservative Supreme Court will recognize sensible and logical limits on the use of provate property.
“Clint Bolick is one of America’s greatest champions of freedom. In this accessible and timely book, he challenges the political left and right to set aside time-worn and ill-defined complaints of “judicial activism.” His writing is a call to principled reciprocity: those who readily embrace speech and associational rights ought not begrudge like recognition of property rights or our innate desire to pursue a lawful occupation. At a time when Supreme Court Justices are mounting national platforms to defend judicial independence, Bolick reminds those privileged to serve in the third branch that judges are given independence for a reason—and it is neither unthinking deference to legislative majority nor the imposition of personal will.”
What intrigued me about the review was the request that those of us who value freedom of speech should "not begrudge like recognition of property rights...." I know that some of us who treasure the First Amendment right to freedom of speech tend to forget that there are limits on freedom of speech. The right is not absolute. The classic example is that one does not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Professor Kmiec is a conservative but also a reasonable man. I am sure that he recognizes that a property right or a right of intellectual property is also not absolute. I own my house; my wife and I paid off the mortgage thirteen years ago. However, I do not have the right to set up a slaughter house in my back yard, nor do I have the right to operate a jet aircraft engine at full power which generates a sound level of 160 decibels. My neighbors have the right not to be annoyed or harmed by what I choose to do with my property.
I wonder whether our new conservative Supreme Court will recognize sensible and logical limits on the use of provate property.
Labels: Cato Institute, Clint Bolick, Daily Kos, Douglas Kmiec, Pepperdine University
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Was it Legal? Was it Wise?
A large amount of paper and ink have been used up in the commentaries on the affair of the sacked attorneys. Critics of the Bush administration, myself included, suspect a very crass, sleazy motive was behind the firing of the eight US Attorneys. We suspect, for example, that Carol Lam was sacked to save Congressman Jerry Lewis, who was in her sights to be indicted for corruption. We suspect that David Iglesias of Albuquerque was let go because he was slow about prosecuting suspected Democratic activists for voter fraud. We know that the US Attorney in Little Rock was relieved of his job to make room for a protege of Karl Rove.
Today Professor Douglas Kmiec weighs in with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times to defend Mr. Gonzales and the President. Professor Kmiec argues correctly that the President has and should have the right to discharge any US Attorney who, in the President's judgment, is not enthusiastically carrying out the President's policy regarding the enforcement of the law.
Professor Kmiec is trying to change the subject. The subject is, or should be, did the President and Mr. Gonzales exercise good judgment in firing the attorneys? Were they clear as to the reasons for the firings? What about the timing? Were they prepared to give convincing and honest answers to the charges by critics that the firings were done to achieve some sleazy, underhanded political advantage and not to improve the enforcement of the law?
Let me put aside for the moment my own suspicion that the replacement of the eight attorneys was done for some partisan political motive. Even if we assume good faith by the Administration, both the timing and the lame excuses put forth by the Justice Department and the White House indicate to me that neither Mr. Gonzales nor Mr. Bush were paying close attention to what was going on. Neither one of them was able to foresee the chorus of criticism that followed the sudden discharge of eight US Attorneys all at once. Could they not see that firing Carol Lam after she had successfully put one Republican Congressman in prison and was about to go after another Republican Congressman would look like partisan pay-back and not like an attempt to improve the process of enforcing the laws fairly and effectively? Could they not see that firing Mr. Yglesias after he had been pressured by a US Senator and a US Representative to speed up the indictments of some Democratic activists for Republican electoral advantage would smack of political sleaze?
No one denies that the President has the authority under law to fire US Attorneys. My concern is whether the President used good judgment in choosing which attorneys to fire and when to fire them. On the surface, the affair was either something that was justified but carried out very badly or something that was done for a very unfair partisan political advantage. In either case, it looks as though the President and his advisors ignored the obvious criticism that would arise. Perhaps they believed that no one would pay any attention to the firings. I can't make up my mind as to whether the President was stupid or venal. What do you think?
Today Professor Douglas Kmiec weighs in with an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times to defend Mr. Gonzales and the President. Professor Kmiec argues correctly that the President has and should have the right to discharge any US Attorney who, in the President's judgment, is not enthusiastically carrying out the President's policy regarding the enforcement of the law.
Professor Kmiec is trying to change the subject. The subject is, or should be, did the President and Mr. Gonzales exercise good judgment in firing the attorneys? Were they clear as to the reasons for the firings? What about the timing? Were they prepared to give convincing and honest answers to the charges by critics that the firings were done to achieve some sleazy, underhanded political advantage and not to improve the enforcement of the law?
Let me put aside for the moment my own suspicion that the replacement of the eight attorneys was done for some partisan political motive. Even if we assume good faith by the Administration, both the timing and the lame excuses put forth by the Justice Department and the White House indicate to me that neither Mr. Gonzales nor Mr. Bush were paying close attention to what was going on. Neither one of them was able to foresee the chorus of criticism that followed the sudden discharge of eight US Attorneys all at once. Could they not see that firing Carol Lam after she had successfully put one Republican Congressman in prison and was about to go after another Republican Congressman would look like partisan pay-back and not like an attempt to improve the process of enforcing the laws fairly and effectively? Could they not see that firing Mr. Yglesias after he had been pressured by a US Senator and a US Representative to speed up the indictments of some Democratic activists for Republican electoral advantage would smack of political sleaze?
No one denies that the President has the authority under law to fire US Attorneys. My concern is whether the President used good judgment in choosing which attorneys to fire and when to fire them. On the surface, the affair was either something that was justified but carried out very badly or something that was done for a very unfair partisan political advantage. In either case, it looks as though the President and his advisors ignored the obvious criticism that would arise. Perhaps they believed that no one would pay any attention to the firings. I can't make up my mind as to whether the President was stupid or venal. What do you think?
Labels: Alberto Gonzales, Carol Lam, Douglas Kmiec, firing US Attorneys, Karl Rove, Yglesias
