Irony

Irony defined: US Senate Committee on EPW global warming hearing postponed due to snowstorm

[hat tip Geoffrey Plauché]

Constitutional Issues

In Freedom's Law, Dworkin draws the distinction between constitutional persons and actual persons. He argues that the constitutional status of fetuses, slaves, and corporations doesn't actually depend on biology but on the legal definition of personhood. Fair enough.

But the question also presumes the constitution has ANYTHING at all to say on these issues. On some it does, but I am at a loss to find the concept of a fetus written anywhere in the constitution. I'm sorry people, the constitution just doesn't say aye or nay on this issue. Anyone who claims they can find it is engaging in pure sophistry.

Interestingly, if biologists and philosophers managed to come to a consensus on what a person is then it would be still a question whether constitutional jurisprudence would need to alter its definition. That depends whether one holds an originalist interpretation (what did the authors of the constitution mean when they referred to persons) or a best available theory interpretation which would update our idea of personhood or due process of law depending on the best available current informaton about what that requires.

Campaign finance

Liberals reacted to the supreme court decision to strike down donation limits on corporations like conservatives reacted to allowing due process for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay.

I don't claim to know much about the constitutional merits of the question, but I share the liberal concern this much: corporations are fictional, legally created entities. They receive the privilege of limited liability for their shareholders. This limited liability subsidizes their levels of risk taking but also comes at the price of extra taxation.

My concern is that the corporation is created for a purpose, and that purpose is economic, not political. When corporations can pursue profit by political means, both the efficiency and the legitimacy of the market are compromised.

The free speech of individual shareholders is not compromised by restrictions on political contributions, as long as they can set up other organizations for this purpose.

Here is where liberals and I part ways: there is nothing wrong with individuals pooling resources together to advocate for a candidate or give money to a candidate. That is the essence of free speech and free association. Money does not taint politics as long as it is not explicitly exchanged for favors.

The solution is not to eliminate money from campaigns but eliminate discretionary spending, logrolling in large bills, and the line item veto. A healthy democracy is one that constrains its legislative process, not its citizens.