![]() |
Home | Rule of Reason Weblog | Initium | Philosophy | Campaigns | Take Action | Media Center | Contribute Online |
Philosophy
Campaigns
Media Center
Feedback
Contribute
Rule of Reason Archives: |
Saturday, April 05, 2003 ::: On March 20, the oft-maligned U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit got one right. The case involved everyone�s favorite topic, child pornography. Actually, the facts of United States v. McCoy describe something somewhat less sinister than an Internet kiddie porn ring: The facts underlying the charge to which McCoy pleaded guilty arise from a single photograph taken in April 2000. The government does not allege that Rhonda McCoy, or her husband Jonathan McCoy, were or are commercial producers of child pornography. At the time charges were filed against the McCoys, the couple had two children: Kala, a ten-year-old daughter, and a twenty-month-old son. The family lived in housing provided by the Navy in San Diego, where Jonathan McCoy served as a Naval Petty Officer. Sometime in April 2000, Rhonda, Jonathan, and Kala were spending an evening at home, painting Easter eggs and taking family photographs. Rhonda, who, according to the presentence report, has a substance abuse problem as well as mental health problems, had substantial amounts of alcohol thatnight. At some point during the evening, Rhonda and Kala, partially unclothed, posed side by side for the camera, with their genital areas exposed. This pose was captured in one photograph. The statutes in question make it a federal crime to produce pornography using �materials��in this case, cameras and film�that at one point traveled across state lines. In this case, the government argued that both the camera and film McCoy used to take the picture were manufactured outside their home state of California. Thus, a federal child pornography case was born, resting on a highly dubious assertion of �interstate commerce� jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit didn�t buy it. By a 2-1 vote, the appellate court found that the statute used in this case was �unconstitutional as applied to simple intrastate possession of a visual depiction (or depictions) that has not been mailed, shipped, or transported interstate and is not intended for interstate distribution, or for any economic or commercial use, including the exchange of the prohibited material for other prohibited material.� The Court�s opinion was authored by Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal circuit judge often considered the Ninth Circuit�s leading radical. In this case, however, Judge Reinhardt was right on the mark. Constitutional challenges to interstate commerce laws generally turn on the meaning of �interstate,� and this case was no exception. But Judge Reinhardt�s opinion also correctly addressed the meaning of �commerce� itself. In this case, McCoy never intended her photograph to become an article of commerce; that is, she had no plans to sell or provide the photograph to persons outside her family. Common sense tells us that, whatever else her act constituted, it was not one of ordinary commerce. Yet the government argued that this was commerce because even if this photo was never used in commerce, it could theoretically stimulate demand for commercial child pornography. Put another way, the government argues the existence of any child pornography is subject to interstate commerce regulation, because all such pornography contributes to the overall volume of said materials. This argument is not just speculative, but patently irrational. Applying this reasoning, Congress could ban, say, homosexual sodomy on the grounds that the existence of such sodomy might contribute to an increase in various crimes such as statutory rape or interstate kidnapping. It�s a slippery slope of tyrannical proportions�the total divorcing of factual reasoning from state action. Given the broad scope of this law, it�s easily subject to abuse, as it apparently was in the McCoy case. To take a more cut-and-dry example, however, consider the potential plight of nudist families. Would a photograph of a nudist family including children be subject to prosecution under this statute? Yes, it would, since intent or context seems irrelevant to the government. This is far removed from what the Constitution anticipated in granting Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The intent of the Constitution�s interstate commerce clause was to give Congress the power to ensure the development of a truly national economic market. The Framers were concerned about, for example, New Jersey slapping a tariff on goods manufactured in New York; the Framers were not all that concerned with what people in New Jersey did once they received their New York-made goods. In this sense, the child pornography law in question here is facially unconstitutional. Congress was not attempting to protect the process of interstate commerce, but rather to regulate private activity under the false pretext that interstate commerce might be somehow affected. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 4:49 PM | link
| donate |
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in Kentucky Association of Health Plans, Inc. v. Miller, a challenge to Kentucky�s �Any Willing Provider� law. What is an Any Willing Provider law? Justice Scalia explains in his introduction to the Court�s unanimous opinion: Petitioners include several health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and a Kentucky-based association of HMOs. In order to control the quality and cost of health-care delivery, these HMOs have contracted with selected doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers to create exclusive �provider networks.� Providers in such networks agree to render health-care services to the HMOs� subscribers at discounted rates and to comply with other contractual requirements. In return, they receive the benefit of patient volume higher than that achieved by nonnetwork providers who lack access to petitioners� subscribers. The specific issue in this case was whether the Kentucky law was preempted by a federal statute, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which regulates national markets for employee benefits, such as health coverage. ERISA prevents states from implementing their own benefit regulations, except that insurance regulation�traditionally a state function�is �saved� from ERISA preemption. Thus, the HMOs asked the Supreme Court to declare the AWP law did not �regulate insurance,� and thus was invalid under ERISA. Kentucky argued AWP does regulate insurance, and thus was saved from preemption. This case was largely an exercise in statutory construction, and the result was probably correct under the circumstances. Still, the problem with the AWP law is not that it runs afoul of ERISA, but that it runs afoul of the Constitution. Any law forcing individuals to associate in a business context�here, compelling networks to admit physicians�violates the First Amendment, and more generally exceeds the federal and state government�s authority. The government has no interest or right to initiate force for the purpose of determining marketplace structure or outcomes, and that is precisely the point of an AWP law. Kentucky�s scheme was designed to allow patients to choose their doctor by denying networks the right to choose whom they wish to conduct business with. Imagine if AWP laws were used in other industries; could you see a law firm being forced to give a partnership to any lawyer who wanted it? Or perhaps a college forced to hire any professor that showed up? Yet it�s somehow acceptable to force physician networks to admit members, even when doing so increases the cost of health care to the consumer. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 4:48 PM | link
| donate |
Back in January, I filed a fairly simple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Federal Trade Commission. I asked the FTC to provide the overall budget allocation for the Bureau of Competition, the FTC�s antitrust enforcement unit, and the general amounts spent on seven cases prosecuted by the Bureau last year Last week, I got my reply...well, a partial reply anyway. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 4:47 PM | link
| donate |
Friday, April 04, 2003 ::: The AP reports that a Colorado jury is out on the case of Roman Catholic Sisters Ardeth Platte, Jackie Hudson, and Carol Gilbert. The nuns are accused of breaking into a Minuteman III missile silo site on Colorado's northeastern plains Oct. 6, where they allegedly defaced the silo lid by swinging hammers and painting crosses on it with their own blood. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:01 PM | link
| donate |
Is there any stopping the Fredrik Norman juggernaut? I hope not. Fredrik adds yet another nation to his Friends of America Network. Bravo! ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:24 PM | link
| donate |
So just who put the teeth in Iraq's dictatorship? The Dissidentfrogman says it wasn't the warmongering states. Go figure. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:25 PM | link
| donate |
When they talk about "paying" for a tax cut. . . . . .you know half the battle is lost. The AP ran a report today titled: "GOP Study Ways to Pay for Bigger Tax Cut." ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:29 AM | link
| donate |
Thursday, April 03, 2003 ::: Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft news coverage Here's the AP report, and here's the Reuters. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 4:35 PM | link
| donate |
Artist Bryan Larsen has another painting at the Cordair Gallery in Burlingame, California. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:42 PM | link
| donate |
Reporting live from Richmond... This morning I attended the latest round in Microsoft�s never-ending antirust defense. Today�s forum was a hearing before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in the case of Sun Microsystems v. Microsoft. This was actually an appeal of a preliminary injunction issued in the Sun case by Baltimore district judge J. Fredrick Motz (whose wife, incidentally, is a Fourth Circuit judge.) In January, Judge Motz granted a pretrial injunction forcing Microsoft to carry Sun�s Java platform in its future releases of Windows XP. Microsoft produces a competing �middleware� product called .Net. Motz�s order essentially said Microsoft could not distribute its own product unless it distributed its competitors as well. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 1:06 PM | link
| donate |
Dirty tricks abound in the debate over the war in Iraq. The latest victim has been Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-FL), whose office e-mail system was hacked. According to the AP, hackers hijacked the Brown-Waite's e-mail and sent a message to her address book disparaging President Bush. Brown-Waite has been a firm supporter of the president�s policies. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:58 PM | link
| donate |
Wednesday, April 02, 2003 ::: Clone Humans? Let "Science Run Its Course", Says Scientific American Op-Ed "It's a horrendous crime to make a Xerox of someone. You're putting a human into a genetic straitjacket." says environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin (apparently forgetting about the environment in human development). ::: posted by John Opfer
at 10:58 PM | link
| donate |
Antitrust Suit Against Visa, MasterCard Can Proceed Law.com: A federal judge Tuesday refused to dismiss an antitrust case brought by 4 million merchants who claim Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. force them to accept their debit cards. More. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 8:14 PM | link
| donate |
About the War and How We Can Win It Many Objectivists, (the Center's staff included) have been critical of the Bush administration's failure to publicly identify militant Islam itself as a threat to America's security. We have on more than one occasion said, "It's militant Islam, stupid." Our argument says that not to explicitly name the philosophic virtues of America and vices of militant Islam is moral appeasement of America's gravest enemies. Yet that said, I'm starting to see see numerous cracks in the pavement. Consider, just as one example, this excerpt of a message to families of deployed Marines from Lt.Col. Chartier, Commanding Officer, 1st Tank Battalion, 1st Marine Division. "If we go into combat it is with a clear mission - we do not want Islamic militants or any government that supports them threatening our cities or hometowns. Nobody wants to relive September 11th, ever." It seems the men and women of 1st Tanks know what this war is about. And consider how many times President Bush's line about Islam being a "religion of peace" is used against such a proposition. President Bush's sentiments toward Islam are more often treated as an object of ridicule then as a credible statement of the facts. So why then, do we have an administration that does not call a spade a spade? It's less about the failure to understand the threat of militant Islam and more about the failure to understand the genius of America. America is free, secular, and self-interested. But as long as reason and egoism are not firmly entrenched in our culture, and people genuflect toward faith and sacrifice, even as they implicitly practice the opposite in their lives, we will go into battle at least partially disarmed. Arming America is going to take effort. If I may be so bold, here's a good place to start. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 6:11 PM | link
| donate |
NHSA Increases SUV Fuel Economy Standards Yesterday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration issued a regulation requiring auto manufacturers to attain a fleet average for vehicles in the "light truck" category of 22.2 miles per gallon beginning with the 2007 models, an increase of 1.5 mpg over current regulations. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:41 PM | link
| donate |
Yesterday, Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) took to the floor of the House to demand that the US cease combat operations in Iraq. Savor the irony�Kucinich calls for UN inspectors to resume the search for Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, while damning the war as being purposeless. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 2:06 PM | link
| donate |
The Wrong Kind of Liberation Story This from Instapundit: The violent Earth Liberation Front claims its members attacked the US Navy Recruiting Headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama. ELF's website brags about the attack:
If true, I hope the direct law enforcement action is swift, the trial of the perpetrators just, and their punishment severe. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 10:01 AM | link
| donate |
Tuesday, April 01, 2003 ::: Good News, Bad News, Best News. The Good News: The May 2003 Atlantic Monthly has a segment called "Literary Lives" that features Ayn Rand's life in a nine panel cartoon. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 11:07 PM | link
| donate |
Are Asians the new Jews? University of Michigan professor George Bornstein thinks so, at least in how his administration defends its race-conscious admissions policies: Affirmative action transfers places from Asian-Americans to African-Americans and Latinos. Yet both supporters and detractors cast the debate as black vs. white. The true issue is whether we want or need a policy that systematically restricts the places for Asian-Americans in our elite universities.This would have been a great argument for the two attorneys arguing against the university�Kirk Kolbo and Solicitor General Ted Olson�to have used today when questioned by the Supreme Court justices. I would have particularly enjoyed Justice Ginsburg's reaction to Bornstein's argument, given that the justice is both a woman and a Jew, not to mention a likely vote to uphold the Michigan admissions scheme. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 6:48 PM | link
| donate |
Democrats against dictatorship Former Mondale-Ferraro campaign manager Bob Beckel takes his fellow Democrats to task for their continued moral equivalency on the war: I find it so baffling that so many of my fellow liberals oppose the war against, arguably, the most vicious dictator since Hitler. In case you missed it friends, the Sunday before the war began was the 10th anniversary of Saddam Hussein's nervegasing of 5,000 Iraqi civilians in Halabja. Have we forgotten the horrific pictures of distorted bodies in piles? Have we forgotten in that human tyre were the bodies of hundreds of little babies? If so, read the reports out of Basra of Saddam Hussein's secret security force putting guns to the heads of little children to force their fathers to fight, or reports of suspected coalition collaborators having their tongues cut out and left to bleed to death in public parks as a warning to others? Or reports after the last Gulf War of Hussein's thugs rounding up accused spies and forcing them to drink gas in front of their families and then lighting them on fire? ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 6:22 PM | link
| donate |
Last week I mentioned the International Olympic Committee's inaction in the face of torture accusations made against Iraqi Olympic Committee president Uday Hussein, son of the dictator himself. Today, the United States once again acted in the face of international trepidation: The Iraqi National Olympic Committee headquarters was bombed and largely destroyed Tuesday by U.S. war planes, prompting mixed reaction from former Iraqi athletes who said they have been tortured by Olympic committee chief Uday Hussein. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 6:16 PM | link
| donate |
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has ordered a trial in a class action case against Visa and Mastercard: A federal judge has denied a request by Visa USA and MasterCard International to throw out an antitrust lawsuit against the credit card giants, clearing the way for a trial later this month.Visa and MasterCard have been a favorite antitrust whipping boy in recent years. Their well-earned dominance of the credit card market (and now the debit card market) has only benefitted consumers by expanding the availability of credit to millions of Americans. This success, however, inevitably makes Visa and MasterCard guilty of antitrust violations. If a merchant is fazed by the "honor all cards" rule, they have an adequate market remedy: stop accepting cards. Amazing as it seems, businesses can refuse to accept credit cards. I know many local merchants that accept cash-only. Of course, this was force the class action plaintiffs in this case, such as Wal-Mart, to admit that Visa and MasterCard's market dominance�high fees and all�actually benefits retailers, by giving them access to a gigantic credit market. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 3:39 PM | link
| donate |
Transcripts of the University of Michigan racial preference cases The Detroit Free Press has posted transcripts of today's oral arguments in the University of Michigan racial preference cases. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:01 PM | link
| donate |
Audio Broadcast of the University of Michigan racial preference cases To hear today's oral arguments in the Michigan affirmative action cases, visit the C-SPAN Radio Web site. C-SPAN says the audio will be available after 12:15 p.m. today. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:00 PM | link
| donate |
Monday, March 31, 2003 ::: The Associated Press reports: BOSTON - A federal judge has fined Boston Scientific Corp. more than $7 million for violating Federal Trade Commission instructions to preserve competition in the market for coronary catheters, a penalty the government called the largest ever related to an FTC order. It's hard to fault Boston Scientific for being less than eager to share its property with a competitor whose claim depended on the FTC's initiation of force. Still, Boston Scientific can look on the bright side: the FTC only got $7 million of the $35 million it was seeking in fines. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 5:49 PM | link
| donate |
Craig Biddle to lecture at George Mason University On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. in Johnson Center Assembly Room E, the George Mason University Objectivist Club presents a live talk: ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 1:55 PM | link
| donate |
NBC News fired Peter Arnett after the veteran correspondent gave an interview to Iraqi state television claiming the U.S. war plan had "failed." At first, NBC tried to downplay Arnett's actions, claiming he gave the interview as a "professional courtesy." Today, however, NBC changed their tune and fired Arnett, saying in a statement: "It was wrong for him to grant an interview to state-run Iraqi TV, especially in a time of war." Arnett, to his credit, appeared on NBC's Today show this morning and apologized for his actions. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:43 PM | link
| donate |
UPDATE: We've updated the page on our website dedicated to the University of Michigan cases. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 12:28 PM | link
| donate |
Arnold Kling has questions. Too bad for Peter Arnett that he didn't ask these questions. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 11:37 AM | link
| donate |
Sunday, March 30, 2003 ::: Among the many redundant amicus briefs supporting institutional discrimination (aka "affirmative action") in the University of Michigan case is a brief submitted by Howard University in Washington, D.C. The brief, co-signed by former Baltimore mayor and current Howard Law School dean Kurt Schmoke, repeats the common pro-Michigan party line: But the diversity concept is really quite different. Its premise is that where there are, for example, only white people in a discussion, then the viewpoints, as seen through the eyes of persons of a different racial or ethnic background--meaning those aspects of difference or sameness from a person who has experienced life as a black person or as a Latino or as a disabled person, no matter how varied from black person to black person or Latino to Latino, will in fact be missing. This is true without regard to the diversity on other, non-racial or ethnic grounds, of the group. University officials seeking to create a rigorous intellectual environment as well as prepare students for leadership in a multi-racial world, determined that the one-race dimension that so many students get in their segregated elementary and secondary classrooms did not serve this purpose. Admissions programs to promote diversity recognize the salience of race and ethnicity without making any assumptions about the cohesiveness or sameness of viewpoint among members of any group. In fact, the more varied the viewpoint of those persons typically absent from the conversation, the better, which is why a critical mass of minority students is needed--to prevent the stereotyping that would be likely to occur if there were only a token number of minorities at the school. This is all well and good, but what gives Howard the standing to make this case? Howard University's student body is 86% African American. Less than 5% of their campus is white or Asian. Is Howard thus implicitly saying diversity is valuable for schools where the majority of students are white, but has no value to majority-black schools? This is a particularly hypocritical argument coming from Howard, which as a private university could impose racial quotas without regard to the constitutional issues Michigan faces. Howard also receives special funds from the federal government as a "historically black college," meaning they actually benefit from practicing a mild form of racial segregation. Now, this is not to suggest Howard should start altering admissions criteria to admit more white people. Such an argument would be absurd on its face�"a critical mass of white students is necessary to prevent stereotyping." But this only further erodes the Michigan supporters argument. When you judge people as members of a racial collective, as the Michigan policy does, you send the message that they must tie their personal identity to said race. Once you de-individualize people that way, regardless of their race, then of course they're going to argue they need a "critical mass" to express themselves. After all, mobs only have power when they act in numbers. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 10:59 PM | link
| donate |
We can bomb Iraq. We can kill Iraqi soldiers in combat. We can overthrow Saddam Hussein's murderous regime. But we can't use tear gas? So it would seem according to international law. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 10:36 PM | link
| donate |
S.M. Oliva continues to take the Federal Trade Commission to task for its attack against �superpremium� ice cream manufacturer Nestle-Dreyer�s and its recent criticism of antitrust opponents. Read about it at Initium. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 3:07 PM | link
| donate |
The Bush administration says they'll continue to push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR drilling opponents remain equally committed to stopping the administration. Among my favorite arguments against ANWR drilling is this statement from an engineering professor: "Wildlife refuges ought to be the one place where wildlife interests come first." ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:59 PM | link
| donate |
And they didn't ask France for permission... A group of American figure skating figures got so fed up with the corruption of their support's worldwide governing body, the International Skating Union, that they formed their own rival sanctioning group, the World Skating Federation. The WSF hopes to convince national figure skating bodies to join their cause, and eventually to force the International Olympic Committee to dump the ISU in favor of the WSF. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:52 PM | link
| donate |
Columbia's faculty not only loves Saddam Hussein, but Josef Stalin as well. ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:45 PM | link
| donate |
If there was any question which side is right in Lawrence v. Texas�a constitutional challenge to a state law banning homosexual sodomy�syndicated columnist Cal Thomas answered it: Before the Supreme Court rules that the Founders had the right to practice sodomy in mind when they wrote the Constitution, we should ask where the chipping away at law and morality is leading us. Right away, Thomas invokes Elizabeth Smart in order to foreclose rational debate on the question at hand. By invoking the slippery slope, Thomas employs fear over facts to make his basic case, which is nothing more than "I don't like gay people, and society should reflect my personal value judgments, so gay sodomy should be illegal." Thomas goes on to argue that opponents of the sodomy ban are likely pedophiles. But that's not the worst of it. Not content simply to have the government enforce his prejudices, Thomas next proposes to redefine the concept of law: In the past, the law has been viewed as something that flowed from a Law-giver, outside of the reach of humankind to create or manipulate. But since humanity now sees itself as the law-maker (the breaking of that ancient Law is now celebrated in personal behavior and encouraged in film, in magazines and on TV), who is to say whose morality, if any morality, should prevail? Having made "choice" He has this backwards: If man is not to be the Law-giver, than who is? God? Which God would that be? Even among Christians, there's a wide disagreement as to which divine laws are applicable and which aren't. But since man is not morally entitled, according to Thomas, to judge for himself which laws are necessary, which God are we then to sacrifice our minds to? I suspect Thomas has an answer for that, and it's not one most of us would likely agree with. Thomas concludes his bigoted remarks with a wholly illogical declaration: "If the Texas sodomy law falls, "marriage" will be redefined and the demise of the human family will be complete." Funny, many states have long repealed their sodomy laws, and families continue to function within those jurisdictions. Perhaps Thomas should have produced some proof to support his sweeping claim. Then again, that's asking too much: as mere men, we're not to seek evidence or reason, but simply accept whatever claims are made by those claiming to represent Divine will. Hey, it worked out pretty well for Iran, didn't it? ::: posted by Skip Oliva
at 12:42 PM | link
| donate |
. . .and now they will march for racial preference. The Detroit Free Press says 100,000 demonstaters are expected to come to Washington on Tuesday to support the University of Michigan as it argues in favor of affirmative action before the US Supreme Court. ::: posted by Nicholas Provenzo
at 5:37 AM | link
| donate |
|
Copyright
� 2003 The Center for
the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism |