Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago School economists and fellow travelers.
demimasque I recently paid a visit to Chicago, and had a pleasant visit with Lex. I also got to take some pictures around Chicago, especially along the river. With no further ado, I present the pictures:
Update: It seems the link below was wrong before. I’ve fixed that now. Thanks for the comments on the pictures; I have to say that Chicago architecture makes taking great pictures so much easier!
[Excerpted from Between Worlds]
James Taranto makes the following comment on a recent E.J. Dionne column, regarding the pretentions of the two national parties:
It has been widely noted that congressional Republicans have failed to live up to their billing as the party of small government, especially since George W. Bush became president. There are exceptions, to be sure, but the allure of spending other people’s money has proved so great that voters have not gotten the spending restraint they expected when they elected a Republican Congress in 1994. About all that Republicans can say in defense of this record is that Democrats have been worse.
Yet what is less widely noted is that the Democrats, in opposition, have presented themselves to a large extent as an antigovernment party. One of their main themes has been that the Bush administration is “incompetent”–that, at least for now, the government can’t do anything right. As we noted in September, former Enron adviser Paul Krugman blamed the allegedly poor response to Hurricane Katrina on Ronald Reagan’s “ideological hostility to the very idea of using government to serve the public good.”
This attitude betrays a fundamental lack of faith in government. Its implication is that the institutions of government are too frail to withstand the pressures of American democratic politics. It is also a remarkably self-serving position. Liberal Democrats take credit for creating an enormous government, which, according to them, doesn’t work–but would work just fine if only the populace were smart enough to elect liberal Democrats.
In sum: Republicans favor small government but embrace big government when they have the power to control it. Democrats favor big government but insist that it can work only when they have the power to control it. Politicians in both parties, then, seem to see government as a means to the same end: their own political power. Little wonder that voters are suspicious of government.
That seems about right. I think many Americans were intrigued, in 1994, by the possibility that the Contract with America might just prove to be the tonic long needed in national government. Unfortunately, as with most revolutions, this one too reversed to Establishmentarian form once its enumerated objectives were met.
Given the choice between bad ideas and no ideas, is it any wonder voters and citizens are tuning out?
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]
Finals season is over, but all is not quiet in Law Law Land. It is now time for the write-on competition for positions on the school’s journals, the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, the Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, and the Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. The subject just so happens to involve Amendment IV, which came up obliquely as part of another topic I’ve been keeping my eye on lately: The raid of Congressman William Jefferson’s offices.
I won’t get into the nitty gritty of the particular events, but I wanted to recall a conversation I had with an online friend lately. The friend had said, in part, the following:
Whether or not the warrant is valid is a separate issue from whether or not the search is allowed ab initio. The warrant could have been perfectly valid and any special procedures could have been followed and the search could still be entirely illegal per AI S6.
This is what I wrote in response:
Hrm. Let me restate what I think you’re saying: Regardless of whether or not procedures are in place and followed in order to separate Speeches and Debates material from material required for a major criminal investigation (specifically, AIS6 excepts “Treason, Felon and Breach of the Peace”), the presence of Speeches and Debates material exempts all other materials in the office.
If I’m misunderstanding you, skip the rest of this post and correct me.
If I’m not misunderstanding you, we have 2 issues raised by that interpretation:
- Are there ever any circumstances in which a MoC’s office can be searched? What about in case of a bomb scare, in which officers (presumably led by Capitol Police, who report to Congress, but possibly including ATF and/or FBI officers, who report ultimately to the Executive) are called about a possible bomb in one of the offices? Such a thing was unfolding this morning when someone reported that there were gunshots at the Rayburn House Office Building. Capitol Police fielded the call, but FBI were involved as well.
If there are some circumstances in which a MoC’s office can be searched, what might pose such a circumstance?
AIS6 poses the following (as you’re aware):
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Notice:
- The privilege from Arrest has nothing to do with “Speech or Debate”.
- The exceptions come first. So where a major crime is involved, there is no privilege.
- Nowhere does it mention an extraordinary privilege from searches and seizures, except possibly with regard to Speeches and Debates.
It seems to me that Jefferson’s Complaint claims not so much that he is protected by the privilege from Arrest than that his office is immune to searches and seizures because searches and seizures should be interpreted as questioining him about his legislative operations.
From there, I can see another way of getting to your conclusion, that validity of warrant is irrelevant. The core issue, as proposed by Jefferson, seems to be: Searches and seizures of an office which holds legislative material should be interpreted as questioning his speech and debate material.
I think there is definitely an issue of law there. A judge must then consider the practical effects.
- If he agrees with the interpretation (i.e., a search of an office, regardless of the target and regardless of procedure, is an unrebuttable per se violation of AIS6), then the following becomes true:
- Jefferson wins.
- Any Member of Congress can hide evidence of treason and felony in his office and claim immunity.
- There would be new issues as to what exigencies, if any, can justify any searches. (That goes back to the item about today’s reported gunfire.)
- If he disagrees with the interpretation (i.e., a search of an office, regardless of the target and regardless of procedure, is an unrebuttable per se violation of AIS6), then the following needs to be resolved:
- Must searches and seizures be limited to Capitol Police, which report to the Congress?
- May Executive Branch officers ever be involved (considering the FBI’s heavy involvement in D.C., it probably would not be practicable to exclude Executive Branch officers entirely)?
- Under what circumstances may Executive Branch officers be involved? (Presumably, only when the Judiciary signs off on a warrant; i.e., no unilateral action by the Executive Branch.)
- Under what circumstances, if any, may a Judicial Branch officer sign off on a search?
My guess is that no judge will grant absolute immunity of the sort Jefferson seems to be looking for. I also don’t think any judge will lay down an exact rule as to how a search may be conducted. If anything, the court would probably issue a guideline or a balancing test to help future judges decide whether or not appropriate precautions have been and will be taken before signing off on a warrant.
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]
Reader Marian Wirth recently took me to task over an earlier piece on immigration. Marian took issue with my characterization of French and German immigration policies, and expounds on the debate much more fully his own website.
First, the semantic issues. It is quite true that the failure of border patrol in the United States does not amount to much of a policy. As for what German immigration is, I’ll defer to Marian’s more intimate familiarity with that issue. However, what I was speaking of was immigration systems. This is probably a bit of a vague term, so I’ll get on with it.
Second, and more to the point, I want to address the illegal immigration issue here in the United States.
Ever since I can remember, the political discourse in the United States regarding immigration has been broadly characterized in the media as a typical struggle of Marxist proportions (although no newspaper will use those words). Specifically, the media portrays it as a struggle between poor, downtrodden laborers, and the rich, racist, WASPs who criminalize them with wicked laws. Since 9/11, another hue has been added to the picture: In addition to being rich, white, and oppressive WASPS, those in favor of tighter border security are now portrayed as paranoid right-wing nutjobs irrationally trying to isolate themselves from the world. This is a characterization which Democrats have unfortunately been quick to seize upon. From the Pete Wilson-era propositions which would have discontinued funding for bilingual immersion classes, and withheld all but emergency medical services from illegals, to the push to require legal status (citizenship, residence, guest worker, approved student, etc.) in order to obtain a driver’s license, anything that tried to find any semblance of structure was met with one epithet: racist.
Thus, anyone who didn’t support the May Day protests with full-hearted enthusiasm must be racist. Never mind that nobody’s advocating an end to immigration; the boycott was also called Immigrant Day. Never mind that what many are objecting to is the flood of illegal immigration. If you opposed illegal immigration you must be ipso facto a racist opposed to all immigration. Many of the organizers wanted the world to think that this was all about jobs and nothing else. (It really is no coincidence that the people trying to turn this into a debate about labor mobility are, for the most part, post-modern Communists. International A.N.S.W.E.R., a vociferous critic of capitalism, was one of the organizers. The first of May, by the way, happens to be May Day, or International Workers’ Day, a Communist holiday.)
So let’s take them at their word, that all immigration was only about jobs. Let us also take into account the fact that the overwhelming number of illegal immigrants are from Mexico, which the activists would have you believe is a symptom of racism, rather than of the geographical fact that Mexico has a long border with the United States. If the issue was only jobs, why not reform the immigration system so that we have a more flexible way of providing for everybody’s needs?
Like Mad Minerva, I come from a family that immigrated to the United States legally (although many better-placed families were able to use their connections to expedite their visa applications in the rush to leave Taiwan after President Carter officially switched recognition to the People’s Republic of China). We would represent those that intend to make the United States our home, a place where we intend to develop roots.
There are many others who would be more than happy to just come to the United States to work, then after they’ve saved up enough money, go back to their home countries and, hopefully, retire. Examples of these include a large portion of illegals from Mexico, but also a large number of pre-20th Century immigrants from all over the world, including Ireland after the potato famine, and China during the California Gold Rush. Many of these probably would like to stay eventually.
And why not? Engraved at the base of the Statue of Liberty is a poem that beckons to the world’s tired, hungry, and wretched. America, it is said around the world, is a land of dreams, of opportunities. The tales of streets paved with gold are a bit exaggerated, but the promise of reward to go with a good work ethic is basically alive and well.
But what dream would it be if it could be dashed at any moment by instability, if there is no rule of law to settle disputes? And yet some of these activists would have us throw out our system of laws, just because Jose or Juan couldn’t be bothered to file for a work visa?
Clearly, the status quo does not serve us well. But is amnesty the right answer? DJ Drummond thinks so, and brings up some very good points:
Sharpen the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘resident’, make clear that we welcome all sorts of legal immigrants but must protect our borders and enforce our laws, and offer the chance to start over for people who leave politely and immediately. And make very, very clear that anyone who remains here against the law after than point may expect a stronger and more determined, coordinated response at all levels.
I don’t care for the word “amnesty”, but if that’s what it must be called to get the requisite votes to clear Congress, so be it. But DJ is clearly on the right track. There is no way we can afford to deport 12 million people. Like it or not, we’re stuck with them. So, how do we integrate them into our society, and how do we pave the way for a more effective future system?
I won’t pretend that I have the perfect, or even the only viable plan. But here’s what I think:
The point is, people see the shining beacon that is America. They should be allowed to become “official” Americans, provided they can show, through their hard work and contributions to the life of the community, that they love this country. This is important; have you ever seen the giddiness a “newly minted” American exudes? While certain cultural values will always be shifting, others cannot be abrogated. Civic awareness, typically very low in non-Western nations, is important.
Integration does not mean simply providing services and then hoping the immigrants sink or swim, as with the European model. Integration means actual involvement with the day-to-day civic life. Perhaps America doesn’t need to reach out anymore to scour the planet for those who want to come here; but we need to make sure there are no delusions about what it takes to be an American, and no mistakes that the vast bounty of America’s resources will not be doled out to those who would break American laws.
I imagine some will be turned off by this. You can’t please everyone. But I’m pretty sure that if someone is turned off because he has to (*gasp*) work at getting what he wants, American really doesn’t want him around. We’ve got plenty of people who already do not believe in personal responsibility; we don’t need more.
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]
Do you remember the first time you gave some money to a beggar? How many had you turned away, telling yourself, “next time, next time” before you finally dug some change out of your pocket? If you have given often, have you ever thought, he’s just going to use it to get drunk? I’ll bet you have. Did that stop you from giving again?
If you could help everyone who was in need, and it was no sacrifice, I bet most of you would. But you can’t, so you have to be picky. The guy at the street corner with that smoldering spark of hope in his eyes, holding up a sign declaring that he will work for food: I bet you’d rather help him than the inebriated chap stumbling toward you saying, “Gimme yer money, I need some fuckin’ money!” I bet the choice is even easier when both guys are standing right there, in front of a bar. You have this gut feeling that the guy who hasn’t given in to drink is probably more worth your dollar than the lush.
So it is with humanitarian aid: In a world of finite resources, you help the ones that will benefit most, or maybe the one that’s easiest to reach. So too with humanitarian intervention. Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe writes in defense of a humanitarian case for the Iraq War, beginning with a quote from Pamela Bone:
She is writing about a group of female Iraqi emigrees whom she met in Melbourne in November 2000.
“They told me that in Iraq, the country they had fled, women were beheaded with swords and their heads nailed to the front doors of their houses, as a lesson to other women. The executed women had been dishonoring their country with their sexual crimes, and this behavior could not be tolerated, the then-Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had said on national television. More than 200 women had been executed in this manner in the previous three weeks…. Because the claims seemed so extreme, I checked Amnesty International’s country report…. Some of the women’s ‘sexual crimes’ were having been raped by one of Saddam’s sons. One of the women executed was a doctor who had complained of corruption in the government health department.”
It was cruelty such as this that has stirred other liberal lions, such as Christopher Hitchens, to join others in support of the war. And yet. And yet:
I remember asking Ted Kennedy during the run-up to the war why he and others in the antiwar camp seemed to have so little sympathy for the countless victims of Ba’athist tyranny. Even if they thought an invasion was unwise, couldn’t they at least voice some solidarity with the innocent human beings writhing in Saddam’s Iraqi hell? Kennedy replied vehemently that he took a back seat to no one in his concern for those who suffer under all the world’s evil regimes, and demanded to know whether supporters of war in Iraq also wanted to invade North Korea, Burma, and other human-rights violators.
It was a specious answer. The United States may not be able to stop every homicidal fascist on the planet, but that is hardly an argument for stopping none of them.
It is not a perfect analogy to the beggars, certainly. The fact of war makes it a less than perfect analogy. But the fact is that, despite whatever you, dear reader, may believe about the Bush Administration’s rationale for war, there was a deeply urgent humanitarian need in Iraq, that could only be met by the ousting of Saddam’s regime. Iraq was the case that could most benefit from “help”, and that was most easily reachable: Saddam had, through his intransigence not only on ceasefire terms, but U.N. Security Council Resolutions (for what they’re worth), provided the legal basis for what amounted to a resumption of the first Gulf War. There are few other countries that are implacable inimical to the United States, that are also security risks as well as humanitarian time bombs waiting to go off.
There is no doubt that we have expended much treasure on Iraq, not only in money, but in the irreplaceable lives of our sons and daughters. A cost so dear may not seem, to some, to have been worth it. Yet how much more meaningful is our aid, than mere money? Anyone can throw money around. But how many would have sacrificed lives? Especially, who among the Western nations would have sent soldiers in the path of real harm, for a people from such a different culture?
Anyway, what’s done is done. Now we have a choice. Do we withdraw, and congratulate ourselves for having given a fish to the pauper? Or do we stay, and teach the pauper how to fish for himself?
(Hat-tip: Lorie Byrd)
[Cross-posted at Between Worlds]