Tag: posts

Like co-blogger Eugene Volokh, I am open for business when it comes to giving virtual talks on Zoom and other similar platforms. During the summer and fall of 2020, I did numerous online speaking engagements, including ones at universities such as Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Duke, Oxford, Cornell, the University of Virginia, and schools in Canada, Mexico, and Argentina.  I also did events with think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs.   I have also done events for high school classes and other groups. If nothing else, I have accumulated some useful experience in the process!

Many of my recent and upcoming talks have been about my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom. But I am happy to do presentations on any issues related to my areas of expertise, including federalism, migration rights, political knowledge and ignorance, property rights, constitutional theory, and others. My work and my areas of expertise are described in more detail at my website here.

Virtual speaking events have some disadvantages relative to in-person ones. But they do have the benefit of being easier and cheaper to set up. If the talk is about one of my books, the organizer will get a free copy, and it might be possible to provide discount copies for at least some audience members. With respect to Free to Move, 50% of all royalties go to charities supporting refugees.

If you would like to invite me to give a “virtual” talk about any of my areas of expertise  at your own university, think thank, or other similar organization, please feel free to contact me!

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3mcVfSN
via IFTTT

Before you lash out at me for picking on the California GOP, please keep in mind that most of my writing over the past 22 years has chronicled the myriad ways that the state’s union-controlled Democratic Party has destroyed the California Dream. We desperately need a healthy Republican Party to provide political competition.

Thanks to one-party control, California has the highest poverty rates in the nation, crummy schools, crumbling infrastructure, absurdly high housing prices, and high taxes and punitive regulations that send our residents fleeing to other states. These crises are the result of policy choices, not happenstance.

Despite Joe Biden’s overwhelming victory in California, Republicans scored significant victories in down-ticket legislative and congressional races. Those wins, however, do not signify the party’s sudden resurgence, as some Republican leaders would like us to believe.

Instead of developing a new strategy to recruit better candidates and promote more-appealing ideas, the party is likely to double down on its current approach because it worked (sort of). In this regard, winning may be more problematic in the long run than losing.

The fundamentals haven’t changed. The GOP no longer is competitive in statewide constitutional races (governor, treasurer, secretary of state, etc.). Democrats control super-majorities in both houses, thus leaving Republicans with virtually no influence in Sacramento.

Not all of the Republican Party’s problems are of its own making. Democrats widely outnumber Republicans and out-gun them financially, too. But Republicans can do a better job crafting a message to our state’s increasingly nonpartisan and surprisingly libertarian-ish electorate.

California voters made remarkably sensible choices in statewide ballot measures. They rejected a massive property tax increase and rent control, said “no” to racial quotas, and gave Uber and Lyft exemptions to a draconian anti-contracting law. That shows that voters aren’t incorrigibly progressive—and could be won over by a properly positioned GOP.

Nevertheless, after its interviews of Democratic and Republican candidates, this Editorial Board often found itself surprised by the overall quality of the local Democratic candidates even though it strongly disagreed with their viewpoints. Republican contenders often underwhelmed the board even though their views more closely aligned with its positions.

One example jumps to mind. This newspaper endorsed Greg Raths for the 45th congressional district race against Democrat Katie Porter—not because he seemed particularly thoughtful in his old-school Orange County conservative approach, but because Porter’s progressive views were too far to the Left for what has become a politically competitive district.

Not long after Raths received the endorsement, he blasted the Orange County Register in a campaign email, saying he doesn’t subscribe because “the liberal media has become a wing of the Democrat party.” He was angry the media didn’t report on a photo of a mask-less Porter at a gathering—even though the photo was taken before the onset of the coronavirus. It was one of several boneheaded campaign stunts.

Yet Raths received an impressive 47 percent of the vote. The big question, from a future-of-the-GOP perspective, is whether the party is sufficiently encouraged by that close result to continue along its merry old way—or whether it realizes that it might win back that and other close seats if it starts recruiting candidates who are as sophisticated and thoughtful as Porter.

When the Register‘s editorial board asked Republican legislative candidates about their views on police reform, almost all of them offered simplistic law-and-order answers. They said they were against “defunding the police” (who isn’t?) and refused to commit to modest, limited-government reforms such as reining in qualified immunity for misbehaving officers.

From a short-term political standpoint, I can’t blame them for refusing to trigger the ire of the state’s notoriously powerful police unions. State Sen. John Moorlach (R–Costa Mesa) is one of the California GOP’s most principled politicians, and someone who embraced justice reforms and has repeatedly warned about the pension crisis. He lost his seat, after unions spent exorbitant amounts attacking him.

By contrast, Assemblyman Phillip Chen (R–Brea) handily won his re-election even though he was the co-sponsor of a cynical firefighter-union bill that largely forbids California cities from hiring new employees who aren’t part of the state’s budget-busting pension systems.

What do you suppose the party will learn from those two races? How many Republicans will put taxpayer interests above union interests now—even though California’s biggest problems are the direct result of public-sector union influence? When Republicans co-sponsor these big-government bills, it’s hard to see the benefit of electing them.

The GOP needs to embrace policies that hold the line on spending, rein in union influence, sensibly reform the criminal justice system and deal with the debt and pension crises. They need good candidates who can make that case to a public that seems unusually willing to listen. Unfortunately, I’d guess the party did just well enough in the last election to punt those discussions to another day.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ldGgqm
via IFTTT

11/27/1964: WGCB carried a 15-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of the “Christian Crusade” series. This broadcast gave rise to Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969).

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Je0GlI
via IFTTT

In the fifth century A.D., Pope Gelasius declared that Christians have dual citizenship under “two sovereigns,” one divine and one temporal, that must not be combined.

In the 11th century, a monk and future bishop argued that people are released from submission to any king who “transgress[es] the contract by virtue of which he is chosen.”

In the 12th century, the canonist Gratian wrote that “princes are bound by and shall live according to their laws”—a departure from the previous understanding that royals were above legal formalities.

In the 13th century, St. Dominic asked that his 12 monasteries elect delegates to convene and write the rules that would govern the Dominican order.

In America on Trial, Westminster Institute Director Robert R. Reilly cites each of these examples to show that such concepts as representative democracy, consent of the governed, separation of church and state, and the right to resist tyranny grew out of the fertile soil of classical Christianity. The book is a rejoinder to a cadre of conservative scholars who have called into question the moral underpinnings of the American experiment.

For critics such as Notre Dame’s Patrick Deneen, the liberal principles on which the United States was founded are products of post-Enlightenment modernity representing a decisive and misguided break with the Judeo-Christian tradition. Reilly compellingly asserts that the opposite is true: The American project is an application of ideas whose roots are in ancient Greece, the Hebrew Bible, and medieval Christendom.

There can be no Declaration of Independence without natural law, Reilly suggests, and no natural law without the revolutionary notion that God made man in his own image and did not wish him “to have dominion,” as St. Augustine put it, “over those who are by nature its equal, that is, its fellow man.”

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2HGExMq
via IFTTT

An amicus brief was filed earlier this week in the Pennsylvania election litigation by Erwin Chemerinsky, Marin Levy, Leah Litman, Portia Pedro, and Rick Swedloff. I’m not competent to assess the Purcell-principle arguments, but the laches arguments are excellent.

Here’s a key paragraph:

Laches has particular force in the context of election challenges. Indeed, laches often bars equitable relief in actions brought by tardy plaintiffs prior to the relevant election. See Navarro v. Neal, 904 F. Supp. 2d 812, 816-817 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (collecting cases); see also Stein v. Boockvar, Civ. No. 16-6287, 2020 WL 2063470, at *19 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 29, 2020). And for good reason. Plaintiffs who sleep on their rights only to bring last-minute challenges create “a situation in which any remedial order would throw the state’s preparations for the election into turmoil.” Nader v. Keith, 385 F.3d 729, 736 (7th Cir. 2004). By strictly applying laches in the election setting, courts properly encourage parties to litigate their claims at the earliest possible time, resulting in the least disruption to the election and, ultimately, the voters. See Richard L. Hasen, Beyond the Margin of Litigation: Reforming U.S. Election Administration to Avoid Electoral Meltdown, 62 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 937, 998 (2005) (“Courts should see it as in the public interest in election law cases to aggressively apply laches so as to prevent litigants from securing options over election administration problems.”).

The brief is here.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/39jGr0U
via IFTTT