A Good Crisis and an Opportunity: The Lessons of Catholic Social Teaching

In conjunction with some papers that I am completing, I have been thinking a lot about the Catholic notion of subsidiarity and what how it may inform our thinking about proposed expansions of the state in response to various “crises,” e.g., the financial seizure, global warming and perceived flaws in the delivery of health care.

Subsidiarity tells us that a “higher order” of authority should not do what individuals or a “lesser order” can do for themselves. Thus, the argument might proceed, the federal government should not do what a state goverment could do. Government should not do what voluntary mediating institutions can do.

Conservatives often advance subsidiarity as a justification for limited government and it often is. But it’s not that simple either. 

Continue ReadingA Good Crisis and an Opportunity: The Lessons of Catholic Social Teaching

Gableman Prognostication

Yesterday a three judge panel heard oral arguments on the disciplinary complaint against Justice Michael Gablemen. You can review the offending ad here and my recent discussion of it on Prawfsblawg there.

There are two rules that are pertinent. The first sentence of 60.06(3)(c) provides “[a] candidate for a judicial office shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard for the statement’s truth or falsity misrepresent the identity, qualifications, present position, or other fact concerning the candidate or an opponent.” This is the proscription that the Judicial Commission says was violated by the Mitchell ad.

But there is a second sentence. It states that “[a] candidate for judicial office should not knowingly make representations that, although true, are misleading, or knowingly make statements that are likely to confuse the public with respect to the proper role of judges and lawyers in the American adversary system.”

The difference between “shall” and “should” is significant. The preamble to the Judicial Code states that “[t]he use of “should” or “should not” in the rules is intended to encourage or discourage specific conduct and as a statement of what is or is not appropriate conduct but not as a binding rule under which a judge may be disciplined.” (emphasis supplied)

Continue ReadingGableman Prognostication

Constitution Day

The most inspiring of holidays grow out of a society’s history and culture, but modern governments are also prone to “manufacturing” holidays for ideological reasons.  Constitution Day is the latter type of holiday.  It has prompted no shortage of interesting academic programs and presentations, including the panel in the Law School on September 17, 2009.  But at the same time, there won’t be many public parades of Americans waving copies of the Constitution.

The road to Constitution Day began in the 1930s when William Randolph Hearst used his chain of newspapers to call for a holiday honoring naturalized American citizens.  Congress responded in 1940 by designating the third Sunday in May “I Am an American Day.”  Then, in 1952, President Harry Truman signed a bill changing the day to September 17 and the name to “Citizenship Day.”  In 2004, with the passage of an amendment to the spending bill sponsored by Senator Robert Byrd, the holiday was again renamed, this time to “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day.”  Those interested in seeing what Congress took to be the purpose of the day, may consult 36 U.S.C. 106.

Continue ReadingConstitution Day