April 25 is celebrated as Freedom Day in Portugal.
Freedom Day
April 25 is celebrated as Freedom Day in Portugal.
There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words.
On April 24, 1792, the French national anthem, “La Marseillaise,” was composed by Capt. Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle. Eight years later to the day, the United States Congress approved a bill establishing the Library of Congress.
What happens when politicians create a special new election date in order to place a tax increase before voters . . . when least expected?
Did I mention that, as the Seattle Times reported, Proposition 1 “enjoyed massive support among politicians, labor unions, environmentalists, social-equity groups and business coalitions”?
Or that the YES campaign outspent the NO side by $654,922 to a mere $7,700, a nearly 100 to 1 margin?
The answer: On Tuesday, voters in one of the most liberal counties in America said NO. A solid 55 percent rejected the ballot measure.
Proposition 1 would have hiked King County’s 9.5-cent sales tax by 0.1 percent and imposed a $60 annual car-tab fee. The idea was to provide more funding for mass transit and local roads, with 60 percent of that revenue going toward the area’s mass transit system.
Transit officials argued that without the additional dough they’d have to make deep service cuts.
“The voters are not rejecting Metro; they are rejecting this particular means of funding Metro,” explained County Executive Dow Constantine. “We know the people of King County love and value their transit service.”
Love? Perhaps. Ridership is reportedly at a near-record high, about 400,000 a day.
Value? Not so much.
This very “progressive” electorate expressed, with utmost clarity, their unwillingness to pay higher taxes for transit. Further, there’s an unmistakable signal in the refusal of King County Metro officials to consider raising the price of their beloved service to become sustainable.
Isn’t it only fair to ask those riding the bus to pay the fare?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
On April 23, 1968, students at New York City’s Columbia University held a demonstration to protest military research and the condemnation of part of the neighboring Morningside Heights section of Harlem to make way for a new student gymnasium. The protest escalated into a week-long occupation of five campus buildings before police moved in. Some 712 students were arrested, and over 100 injured during the forcible eviction. After the university-ordered police response, a student strike shut down the campus for the rest of the semester.
Spring is in the air, and old men’s hearts turn to thoughts of . . . law.
Yes, Supreme Court Decision Season has begun. Yesterday, two decisions were handed down.
In Schuette v. BAMN, Justice Kennedy “announced” the decision to reverse a previous court’s determination overruling a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment in Michigan. Kennedy (joined by Alito and Chief Justice Roberts) found that the people could prohibit race-based affirmative action policies in their state. After all, the Supreme Court had merely allowed such practices in previous cases. It did not require them.
This shouldn’t be controversial — indeed, it was decided 6-2 with liberal Justice Stephen Breyer joining conservatives. Still, Justice Sotomayor read her dissent from the bench, saying “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.”
The democratically approved legislation in this case prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race — hardly a source of oppression for anyone. Ilya Somin’s prediction of this decision last October is worth contrasting to Sotomayor’s worry: “In no conceivable world can the Equal Protection Clause — the constitutional provision that bans racial discrimination — prohibit a state law that bans racial discrimination.”
Justice Scalia (joined by Clarence Thomas) used his concurring opinion to make some sense of the constitutional status of race in American higher education with “It has come to this.” It’s quite a read.
But there was no joining of Thomas and Scalia in Navarette v. California. Thomas wrote the opinion, deciding that a traffic stop drug bust was okee-dokee, even if initiated by a 911 caller complaining of a truck-driver’s alleged bad driving. Scalia called the decision “a freedom-destroying cocktail.”
So much for the lock-step left-right divide on the High Court.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Even philosophers will praise war as ennobling mankind, forgetting the Greek who said: War is bad in that it begets more evil than it kills.
“The first thing we do,” declaims Dick the butcher, “let’s kill all the lawyers.”
Last night, as I dined with attorneys David Langdon and Joshua Bolinger, in town representing the Susan B. Anthony List and the Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes before the U.S. Supreme Court today, echoes of Henry VI could be heard amongst the clinking of glasses, the “dead lawyer” jokes, and other minor eruptions of mirth. Shoring up for the big case, you see.
Susan B. Anthony List v. Steven Driehaus involves an Ohio law designating it a crime to knowingly or recklessly make a false statement about a political candidate or ballot measure.
But who is to determine what is false or true in the heat of a campaign?
A government board?
Well, yes. Funny you should ask.
Back in 2010, the Susan B. Anthony List began publicizing that various members of Congress, including Ohio Congressman Steve Driehaus, had voted for federal funding of abortion when they voted for Obamacare. The group planned billboards, to read: “Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion.”
Driehaus quickly filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC). While people of good will can honestly disagree as to the “truthiness” of the charge (as an amusing amicus brief filed by the Cato institute dubbed it), the OEC decided there was probable cause to prosecute the Susan B. Anthony List.
So the billboard company refused the group’s ads. The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes also dropped their plans to similarly publicize Driehaus’s record.
Ohio Attorney General Michael DeWine has admitted harboring “serious concerns” about the constitutionality of the Ohio law. However, today’s issue before the High Court isn’t the policing of campaign speech itself, but whether these groups have standing to challenge the law.
Both issues should be 9-0 decisions.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
On April 22, 1724, German philosopher Immanuel Kant was born.
Freedom is the alone unoriginated birthright of man, and belongs to him by force of his humanity. . . .