Cato’s Constitution Day Sept. 17

Sasha Volokh reminds us to mark our calendars:

Cato’s 14th Annual Constitution Day event will be two weeks from now: Thursday, September 17, at Cato’s offices in Washington, D.C. Here’s a link to the site, so you can register. I’ll be on the 2:15-3:30 panel on “Bizarre State Action”, talking about the Amtrak case that I’ve been involved with — see here for links to my previous blogging on the subject. Tim Sandefur and Adam White will be on that panel with me.

Co-bloggers Jonathan Adler and John Elwood will also be on different panels, as will Walter Olson, Bill Eskridge, and others. Steven Calabresi will give the evening lecture on “Liberty and Originalism in Constitutional Law”.

Filed under: Cato Institute, constitutional law, live in person

Save the date, Sept. 17: Cato’s Constitution Day

Mark your calendar for Sept. 17 when Cato will be holding its 14th annual Constitution Day reviewing the past Supreme Court term and looking forward to the next. I’ll be on a 1 p.m. panel on civil rights with William Eskridge (Yale) and Roger Clegg (Center for Equal Opportunity), moderated by Roger Pilon, where I’ll be talking about religious accommodation in the workplace; other sessions will include such well-known figures as Ilya Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, and Michael Cannon of Cato, Jonathan Adler of Case Western, Timothy Sandefur of PLF, and Damon Root of Reason. The annual B. Kenneth Simon Lecture will be given by Prof. Steven Calabresi of Northwestern.

Register at the link to attend in Washington, D.C., or plan to watch online.

Filed under: Cato Institute, constitutional law, live in person

New books roundup

Widely discussed new Charles Murray book, By the People: Rebuilding Liberty without Permission, includes extensive discussion of failures of law and litigation system [Carlos Lozada WaPo review, Cato’s Letter, podcast and related post, J.D. Tuccille/Reason]
Rare and welcome book-length work on state attorneys general, Paul Nolette’s Federalism on Trial: State Attorneys General and National Policymaking in Contemporary America, I’ll have more to say about it in due course [Liberty and Law, discussion with author]
The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom by my Cato colleague David Boaz, a revised and updated edition of his earlier Libertarianism: A Primer, includes chapter on law and the constitution as well as much related discussion; boasts blurbs from John Mackey, Peter Thiel, and Richard Epstein;
Arnold Kling on Political Realism, new free e-book from Jonathan Rauch; also, Kling reviews a recent talk at Cato by Michael Shermer on his book The Moral Arc: How Science and Reason Lead Humanity toward Truth, Justice, and Freedom;
“We will fight for a fair contract!” proclaimed then-N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine to government workers, neat trick if you accept assumption that he was on opposite side of negotiating table from them [Michael Toth on new Daniel DiSalvo book on public sector unionism, Government Against Itself: Public Union Power and Its Consequences]
In the mail: Akhil Amar, The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic, on how the idiosyncrasies of particular states, regions, and localities have shaped our understanding of the U.S. Constitution;
And: Jay Cost, A Republic No More: Big Government and the Rise of American Political Corruption [related Cato event]
And: Diana Furchtgott-Roth and Jared Meyer, Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young;
And: Jack C. Fisher, Silicone on Trial: Breast Implants and the Politics of Risk [Sager Group]

Filed under: attorneys general, Cato Institute, constitutional law, New Jersey, public employment, silicone breast implants

Obama curtails police military surplus program

What, no more free surplus bayonets and grenade launchers? Radley Balko:

According to NBC News, the new policy will stop “tanks and other tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, firearms and ammunition measuring .50-caliber and larger, grenade launchers and bayonets” from being given to local police agencies.

Additionally, the new policy would attach some restrictions and conditions to the transfer of other equipment, “including armored tactical vehicles like those used in Ferguson, as well as many types of firearms, ammunition and explosives.” These restrictions include requiring the agencies to present “a clear and persuasive explanation of the need for the controlled equipment,” adopt community-oriented policing strategies, agree to “close federal oversight and monitoring overseen by a new federal agency with the power to conduct local compliance reviews,” train officers who will be using the gear, and keep data on how the equipment is used and with what results.

A spokesman for the Fraternal Order of Police has already promised to fight the plan. Despite the changes to the 1033 surplus program, so far as I can tell, municipalities and states will remain perfectly free to purchase most of the named categories of equipment; they’ll just have to do so on the open market with their own money. Of course, once they are constrained to weigh such purchases against other uses of public funds, most will probably have little interest in doing so — which is part of the point we critics have been making.

Radley Balko himself deserves applause for having led the way on the issue of police militarization, both when he was at the Cato Institute and more recently as an independent reporter and Washington Post commentator, above all in his book Rise of the Warrior Cop. More of his work on the issue at Cato’s Letter (2013), at this video, and in a white paper on paramilitary police raids, as well as a general link to Cato’s work on the subject by many authors. I’ve covered the subject in many posts here and elsewhere, as well as in a podcast.

Filed under: Barack Obama, Cato Institute, police

Environment roundup

Judge Royce Lamberth: EPA “offensively unapologetic” about its failures to comply with FOIA requests [Josh Gerstein/Politico, Washington Post, Courthouse News]
Cato President and CEO John Allison to Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.): “Your letter of February 25, 2015 is an obvious attempt to chill research into and funding of public policy projects you don’t like. … you abuse your authority when you attempt to intimidate people who don’t share your political beliefs.” [Patrick Michaels, Cato; earlier Allison rebuff to intimidating tactics by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)]
Smithfield Foods questions plaintiffs’ lawyers’ client recruitment methods in North Carolina farm-nuisance suit [Wilmington Star News]
“Can Market Urbanism Revive U.S. Cities?” [Scott Beyer]
Addressing sweetheart don’t-force-us-to-regulate consent decrees: “Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act” would “require regulatory agencies to give public notice when they learn of a lawsuit that could eventually impose a federal rule” and “[give] outside parties an opportunity to intervene in the court case” [American Action Forum, U.S. Chamber in 2013]
After nine-year battle, Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service will let Native American pastor use sacred eagle feathers [WSJ via Becket Fund, Kristina Arriaga, Daily Caller, earlier on eagle feathers and the law here, here, etc.]
“Yes, Gov. Whitman, states may choose which federal laws to implement” [Jonathan Adler]

Filed under: Cato Institute, consent decrees, environment, Environmental Protection Agency, FOIA and public records laws, Senate

Supreme Court roundup

Very Cato-centric this time:

Perez v. Mortgage Bankers: yes, agencies can dodge notice and comment requirements of Administrative Procedures Act by couching action as other than making new rule [SCOTUSBlog and more links, earlier; Michael Greve and followup; Daniel Fisher on concurrence by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito and related on Thomas, Alito concurrences in Amtrak case]
New Jersey high court is unreasonably hostile to arbitration clauses, which raises issues worthy of review [Shapiro on Cato cert petition]
“When Wisconsin Officials Badger Their Political Opponents, It’s a Federal Case” [Ilya Shapiro, earlier here, here, etc.]
Richard Epstein on King v. Burwell oral argument [Hoover, earlier]
With Profs. Bill Eskridge and Steve Calabresi, Cato files probably its last same-sex marriage brief before SCOTUS [Shapiro; Timothy Kincaid, Box Turtle Bulletin]
On Abercrombie (religious headscarf) case, Jon Hyman sees an edge for plaintiff at supposedly pro-business Court [Ohio Employer Law Blog, earlier]
A different view on Fourth Amendment challenge to cops’ warrantless access to hotel guest registries [James Copland on Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz brief; earlier Cato amicus]
“Why the Court Should Strike Down the Armed Career Criminal Act as Unconstitutionally Vague” [Trevor Burrus]

Filed under: administrative law, arbitration, Cato Institute, constitutional law, Fourth Amendment, New Jersey, Supreme Court, Wisconsin

Prohibition and the lessons of Repeal Day

Last month the Cato Institute hosted a panel celebrating Repeal Day
with me, alcohol policy expert Michelle Minton of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Stacia Cosner of Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and Cato Digital Marketing Manager Kat Murti as moderator.

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, supposedly ending our nation’s failed experiment with prohibitionism. Yet, 81 years later, modern-day prohibitionists continue to deny the laws of supply and demand, attempting to control what individuals can choose to put into their own bodies….

Some links related to the discussion:

All the panelists quoted from Daniel Okrent’s excellent history of Prohibition, Last Call. You can find out more about the book at the author’s site.
I quote from a speech by the late Christopher Hitchens delivered ten years almost to the day before our panel. It is excerpted in this David Boaz post.
Radley Balko wrote a 2003 Cato Policy Analysis, “Back Door to Prohibition: The New War on Social Drinking“. More: The federal Centers for Disease Control, as I noted, has been an agency of choice for public health campaigners because of its legacy of scientific credibility, yet this credibility is itself put increasingly at risk as the CDC lends its name to propaganda. Jacob Sullum provides examples from the agency’s elastic application of the term “binge drinking” to the trouble it seems to have acknowledging that minor alcohol consumption does not seem to correlate with poor health outcomes;
As I mention, the Prohibition episode was important in eroding constitutional protections against various law-enforcement tools, especially search and seizure, the law being inherently aimed at contraband goods. The same is true of the nascent Drug War undertaken following the Harrison narcotics act of 1914. You can read about one of the resulting Supreme Court cases here.
The role of exorbitant cigarette taxes in contributing to New York’s giant black market in cigarettes came to wider public notice following the police custody death of Eric Garner on Staten Island; more here, here, etc. The New York Post reported that Mayor Bill de Blasio ordered the city law department to refrain from filing an intended press release over a would-be landmark suit filed over untaxed cigarettes the week of the Garner grand jury decision, because it interfered with City Hall’s efforts to downplay the role of the tobacco black market.

Filed under: alcohol, Cato Institute, Centers for Disease Control, illegal drugs, live in person, obesity, public health, tobacco

Donate

If you like the contribution the Cato Institute (which publishes this site) makes to a world of individual liberty and free markets, please give today at this link.

Filed under: Cato Institute

Friday at Cato, Repeal Day celebration: “Prohibition Still Doesn’t Work”

Register here for the 5 p.m. Cato event. Description:

Featuring Walter Olson, Senior Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute & Editor, Overlawyered.com (@walterolson); Stacia Cosner, Deputy Director, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (@TheStacia); Michelle Minton, Fellow in Consumer Policy Studies, Competitive Enterprise Institute (@michelleminton); moderated by Kat Murti, Digital Marketing Manager, Cato Institute (@KatMurti).

On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, supposedly ending our nation’s failed experiment with prohibitionism. Yet, 81 years later, modern-day prohibitionists continue to deny the laws of supply and demand, attempting to control what individuals can choose to put into their own bodies.

Please join the Cato Institute for a celebration of the 81st anniversary of the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Panelists will discuss modern prohibitions—from the Drug War to blue laws; tobacco regulation to transfats—drawing connections with their earlier antecedent.

Alcoholic beverages and other commonly restricted refreshments (bring on the trans fats!) will be served following the discussion.

#CatoDigital (formerly #NewMediaLunch) is a regular event series at the Cato Institute highlighting the intersection of tech, social media, and the ideas of liberty.

This event will be live-streamed and questions may be submitted via Twitter using #CatoDigital.

If you can’t make it to the Cato Institute, watch this event live online at www.cato.org/live and follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.

Filed under: alcohol, Cato Institute, live in person, nanny state, tobacco, trans-fats

Damon Root, Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court

On Monday I moderated a panel at Cato on Damon Root’s splendid new book on the long debate over judicial activism from the Civil War to the present (blurbs). Commenting were prominent legal journalist Jeffrey Rosen, president of the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and Roger Pilon, director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies, whose work figures prominently in the book. From the description:

What is the proper role of the Supreme Court under the Constitution? Should the Court be “active” or “restrained”? Or is that even the proper way to look at the question, however much we’ve heard it put that way for several decades now? In his new book, Damon Root traces this debate from the Constitution’s conception to the present. His central focus, however, is on the emergence of the modern libertarian approach, which cuts through the often sterile debate between liberals and conservatives and points to the Constitution itself by way of determining the proper role of the Court under it.

Filed under: Cato Institute, constitutional law, on TV and radio