Brian Simpson: Is US Constitution in Danger?
James Valliant interviews Professor Brian Simpson to discuss threats to America's constitution from calls to end the filibuster, pack the court, release decisions, and how your economic liberties are protected by the constitution. Also by Brian Simpson:- A Declaration and Constitution for a Free Society Making the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution Fully Consistent with the Protection of Individual Rights.
- Making the U.S. Constitution Fully Consistent with Individual Rights “A Declaration and Constitution for a Free Society” modifies the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution to make them fully consistent with the protection of individual rights and freedom, using Objectivism—the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It demonstrates why a free society is morally, politically, and economically beneficial to human life.
- Lessons from a Review of A Declaration and Constitution for a Free Society Professor Brian Simpson answers arguments against using Ayn Rand’s philosophy Objectivism as the basis for improving the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Ayn Rand Institute on The End of the Federal Protection of Abortion Rights
The philosophers at the Ayn Rand Institute - Onkar Ghate, Ben Bayer, and Yaron Brook - have a thought-provoking discussion on abortion rights with the over-turning of Roe v. Wade, which now allows for state-level bans on abortion.(Though this is not the end of abortion in America, it is an ominous stepping stone to it, as those seeking abortions in states where abortion is/will be banned will have to travel out of state to obtain a legal abortion). Issues covered include:- How the majority opinion empties the right to liberty of its content;
- Justice Clarence Thomas’s opposition to substantive due process;
- Why the Ninth Amendment has not been used in Supreme Court rulings on abortion;
- The incrementalism behind Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence;
- Why Roe v. Wade was a good decision despite its imperfect reasoning;
- The dissent’s defense of individual liberty against majority will;
- The dissent’s forceful protest against the unprincipled, anti-individualist majority opinion;
- Why the dissent is right that the majority is inconsistent with its own reasoning in claiming that abortion is different from other rights;
- Questions about whether the court typically tailors its reasoning to fit a predecided outcome;
- The problem with the viability standard and the idea of balancing rights with a “state interest” in the fetus;
- How the dissent undermines its own case by citing Lochner v. New York as a case that was rightly overturned;
- How the morality of self-sacrifice contributed to the Dobbs ruling and the dissent’s failure to cite the right to the pursuit of happiness;
- Why the widespread acceptance of collectivist premises have contributed to the abridgment of abortion rights;
- Why the concept of “states’ rights” is an expression of collectivism;
- How the fight over abortion rights will continue at the state and federal level.
The Right to Abortion and the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Writes Ira Stoll in Abortion Right Not in Constitution, Doesn't Mean It Doesn't Exist:"The Supreme Court’s opinion in Roe v. Wade,410 U.S. 113 (1973) discovered a right to abortion in the Constitution within the "right to privacy." That privacy right itself had been discovered in a case about birth control, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965). Griswold’s declaration that the "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations," has been widely mocked.To my mind, the gem within Griswold is Justice Arthur Goldberg’s concurrence. Goldberg, joined by Justice Brennan and Chief Justice Warren, focused not on penumbras or emanations but on the plain text of the Ninth Amendment."Stoll goes on to quote Justice Arthur Goldberg:
"The [Ninth] Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him, and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights, and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected....the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments, and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive. ...the fact that no particular provision of the Constitution explicitly forbids the State from disrupting the traditional relation of the family — a relation as old and as fundamental as our entire civilization — surely does not show that the Government was meant to have the power to do so. Rather, as the Ninth Amendment expressly recognizes, there are fundamental personal rights such as this one [abortion], which are protected from abridgment by the Government, though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution."Stoll concludes correctly:
The mere fact that an abortion right isn’t mentioned in the Constitution doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. The rights don’t come from the Constitution. The Constitution exists to protect the rights, including those it doesn’t explicitly mention.Then why explicitly mention and enumerate rights?
"A problem with rights not written into law is that people may have widely varying views of them. Without legislative language, for example, one person’s idea of a right to an abortion may collide with another person’s view of a fetus or embryo having a 'right to life.'Read the whole article.
Jordan McGillis: Climate McCarthyism
Jordan McGillis, deputy director for policy at the Institute for Energy Research, on Climate McCarthyism:In 2020, Senators Elizabeth Warren, Brian Schatz, Tom Carper, and Sheldon Whitehouse penned an open letter to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg calling on the company to toe the Democratic Party line. “If Facebook is truly ‘committed to fighting the spread of false news on Facebook and Instagram,’” the senators wrote, “the company must immediately acknowledge in its fact-checking process that the climate crisis is not a matter of opinion and act to close loopholes that allow climate disinformation to spread on its platform.”Less than a year later, Zuckerberg’s company seemingly tightened its review process to adhere to the Democrats’ wishes. In May 2021, Facebook applied the dodgy new standard against Manhattan Institute senior fellow Mark Mills’s review of a book by Steven Koonin, former undersecretary in the Department of Energy under President Barack Obama. As Koonin described the incident in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, Facebook labeled postings of the Mills review as having “very low scientific credibility” and linked to a critique on the website ClimateFeedback.org, thus discouraging users from engaging with Mills and Koonin’s work—exactly as the Senate Democrats demanded. In these cases, it is easy to blame the companies that acquiesce—perhaps one large rival to Meta in the midst of an ownership change will buck this trend—but the politicians and bureaucrats doing the jawboning deserve ire, too.Read the full article.
