• StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad

« Toward a Marxist Theory of International Law | Main | Mental illness is, in the first instance, a disturbance of the mind (and thus not the brain) »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Steve Shiffrin

Charlie, Fernando, and Jimbino: thanks for the comments.
Charlie, we agree that the violation is a democratic one. I had Fed. 10 in mine when I referred to the constitutional plan. Fed. 10 is also relevant to the campaign finance issue. But I also would go further in claiming the violation also implicates the First Amendment.
Fernando, I am not sure how you connect Trump to your comment. If the "militant left" would exclude pro-Trump speakers from public university campuses when those speakers would engage in speech that should be protected under the First Amendment, I would not concur the exclusion. If the exclusion is on a private campus, the First Amendment does not apply (though it's spirit could). One place where we disagree is that I would join the position of the Europeans and the Canadians in prohibiting some forms of racist speech (including some other protected classes)(though my definition might be narrower than that used in some European countries). By the way, do you think that the Canadians and Europeans who support hate speech are all part of the "militant left"?
Jimbino, treating singles differently than marrieds (which has nothing to do with the First Amendment) is not the same as discriminating on the basis of point of view which clearly implicates First Amendment issues.

Charlie Firestone

Brazenly, the Republicans legislated the monumental tax bill without any input from half the country -- no hearings, no involvement from Democrats. And it is not as if the Dems did not want to be a part of it. They were excluded from the beginning in the writing of the legislation.

I don't see this as a first amendment violation, but a democratic one, and one contemplated as noxious in Fed. 10.

Fernando Teson

Perhaps you are overlooking the threat to the First Amendment by the militant left in university campuses, my friend?


"Obviously, it would be unconstitutional for Congress to tax Democrats in ways that are different from Republicans."

How so? Congress explicitly taxes singles more than marrieds and the child-free more than breeders.

The comments to this entry are closed.