Freespace

What I read in 2014 - the best & the rest

Here's what I read this year, and what I thought of it. (Asterisk indicates unabridged audio book.)

Best book I read this year:

1. Grand Theories and Everyday Beliefs by Wallace Matson

I adore Wallace, whose common sense, powerful, principled analysis, and skilled writing make his arguments vivid and persuasive. He cuts through the bull, in other words. This book is really his brief summation of his whole career. There's little here you wouldn't get from his other books, but it's all in one place , in a brisk little book that's almost completely persuasive.

Runners-Up:

"The year's most encouraging development in governance"

That's what George Will says about PLF's victory on behalf of entrepreneur Raleigh Bruner.

John Quincy Adams speaks from the dead

I speak to you with the voice as of one risen from the dead.... [C]ould the sepulchre unbar its gates, and open to me a passage to this desk...I would repeat the question...“Why are you assembled in this place”?—and one of you would answer me for all, —Because the Declaration of Independence, with the voice of an angel from heaven, “put to his mouth the sounding alchemy,” and proclaimed universal emancipation upon earth! It is not the separation of your forefathers from their kindred race, beyond the Atlantic tide. It is not the union of thirteen British Colonies into one People and the entrance of that People upon the theatre, where kingdoms, and empires, and nations are the persons of the drama. It is not that this is the birth-day of the North American Union, the last and noblest offspring of time. It is that the first words uttered by the Genius of our country, in announcing his existence to the world of mankind, was,—Freedom to the slave! Liberty to the captives! Redemption! redemption forever to the race of man, from the yoke of oppression! It is not the work of a day; it is not the labour of an age; it is not the consummation of a century, that we are assembled to commemorate. It is the emancipation of our race. It is the emancipation of man from the thraldom of man!

-John Quincy Adams, 1837

Upcoming talks in CA, AL & KY

I'll be speaking to the Point West Rotary in Sacramento on Jan. 9, the Mobile, Ala., Federalist Society lawyer's chapter on Jan. 27, and at the University of Kentucky Federalist Society on Jan. 29.

More talks to be announced soon.

It really would be cheaper to fly everyone to Japan than to build "high speed rail"

My friend Joshua Thompson points out, apropos of a recent Onion bit, that the cost of California's "high speed rail" project (which is actually no longer a high-speed train, but just an ordinary train) is so high that it really would be cheaper to fly everyone in California to Japan to ride real high-speed rail from Tokyo to Kyoto...and then fly them back again.

Note that this is based on the $91.4 billion price tag that the government itself admits to. Actual costs are, of course, likely to be much, much higher.

$91.4 billion is more than the GDP of the state of Utah. It's also more than the GDP of Wyoming, North Dakota, and Vermont, combined. In other words, we could buy three whole states for the cost of "high speed rail." Heck Greece's GDP is only $241 billion. We could make a substantial down payment on the entire country for the cost of "high speed" rail.

$91.4 billion is a lot. For example, California's farms produce about 38.8 billion eggs per year. In other words, all the chickens in America's third largest state produce about a third as many eggs in an entire year as the Browndoggle train is supposed to cost. According to the government's estimate. Or how about this. There are about 87 million cows in the United States. So...that's roughly one one-thousandth of the number of dollars that'll be poured into the Browndoggle. According to the government.

A plane ticket from San Francisco to LA is, what, $150 - $250? So $91.4 bil is about 365,600,000 plane tickets, or about a dozen or so round trips for every single Californian, man, woman, and child...or a train.

Which, of course, would take longer than a plane flight, even if it were high-speed.

Which it's not gonna be.

If it's ever built.

But it'll pay for itself? Of course, if that were true, then it wouldn't be necessary for the government to force us to pay for it. Airlines pay for themselves (for the most part). That's why the government didn't build the airlines. (We're putting bailouts aside for the moment.) Automobiles pay for themselves. That's why car makers operate their businesses selling cars to people who voluntarily buy them. The train, on the other hand--we're being forced to buy. Why? Because we aren't willing to pay for it voluntarily. Because we don't want it.

Scott Gerber’s bizarre behavior

I’m saddened to have to comment on Professor Scott Gerber’s uncollegial and unbecoming conduct, but it’s come to the point where I can’t avoid making public comment on the matter.

What should I read in 2015?

I’m putting together my annual list of books to read. I rarely, if ever, actually stick to these lists; I get sidetracked like a dog smelling flowers by the side of the road. But it’s still a worthwhile exercise. I’m usually pretty good at the beginning of the year, at least. Anyway, I’d like to get recommendations: is there some book you particularly enjoyed, or thought I would enjoy, or hope will change my mind—or whatever it might be? Please email, comment, tweet, etc.

The President shall take care that the law be faithfully executed. Or ignore it. Whatevs.

Prof. Somin has reiterated his view that the President’s legal obligation to enforce the law—that is, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—really basically allows the President to enforce or not enforce whatever laws he sees fit to enforce or not enforce. Somin insists he’s not actually saying this, but in substance it is what he’s saying. Let’s take a look.

First, the language of the Constitution. This clause may be the most mandatory language in the entire document.* Not only does it use the word “shall”—the President shall take care, not “should” or “ought to” or “can”—but what he shall do is “take care.” Not just that he shall enforce the law, but that he shall take care to enforce it. And not even just enforce the law—but he shall “faithfully execute” the law. He isn’t supposed to just execute the law, but he shall take care to execute it faithfully. He shall execute it in good faith. He shall execute the law in a manner that is faithful—true to their letter and spirit; sincere; loyal.

That term “faithfully execute” is found elsewhere in the Constitution: the President must take an oath that he “shall faithfully execute the office of President of the United States.” His obligation to execute the law is thus equal to the very oath that he must take before entering the office of President. In short, the Take Care Clause is pitched at the highest register of constitutional obligation.

The word “faithfully” is one of those words that gives moderns fits. It’s a normative term. It’s not a precise, mathematical kind of term like “35 years of age.” It’s more ambiguous, like “liberty” or “privileges or immunities” or “freedom of speech.” These terms are, of course, legal terms—constitutional terms—notwithstanding, and thus are the supreme law of the land. And while courts may be reluctant to enforce this provision, that does not mean it lacks status as law. Whatever might be the distinction between law and a “political norm” (norm—from nomos, meaning law—means a rule, and a political rule, a rule for politics, is a constitution), the Constitution itself makes clear that it is the supreme law of the land.

This provision was written for the sole purpose of preventing the President from suspending enforcement of the laws of the United States. As the Virginia Declaration of Rights declared, “all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.” In this, the Declaration was reaffirming a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689: “That the pretended power of suspending…the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament, is illegal.”

[Updated:] My Nat'l Constitution Center talk about Conscience of The Constitution on CSPAN

Update: Here is the video:

I’m in Philadelphia today, speaking at the National Constitution Center’s Bill of Rights Day Book Festival, about my latest book, The Conscience of The Constitution. I’ll be joined by Prof. Kermit Roosevelt and Jeffrey Rosen, the Constitution Center’s President. CSPAN will be covering the event live, and will re-air it on Saturday, Dec. 27.

A new review of Conscience of The Constitution

The latest issue of The Independent Review includes this review of my book by Troy Kickler.