Personhood is Right for Wisconsin, Part I: Why Personhood is a Good Idea

The battle for the soul of the pro-life movement is being waged between a pair of cheap office suites in the Milwaukee suburbs.

In the challenger’s corner, scrappy Pro-Life Wisconsin is working to pass an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would recognize the equal rights of all human beings, from conception to dotage.  In the champion’s corner, heavyweight Wisconsin Right-to-Life, standard-bearer for the pro-life cause, official affiliate of the National Right-to-Life Committee, and oldest pro-life org in the state, is campaigning to… block the law giving equal rights to the unborn.

What?

Pictured: The War for the Soul of the Pro-Life Movement, Brookfield theatre. Following a skirmish which, according to survivors, raged “from North Avenue to the horizon,” combatants called a cease-fire so they could grab pizza from that weird Italian place on Blue Mound Road at Thomas Lane.

I’ve written about this controversy before, but, even among pro-lifers, this is a fairly obscure conflict, so I’ll begin my series on Personhood Wisconsin with a recap.

Continue reading

Posted in Abolitionism, Analysis, Law, Why Personhood is Right for Wisconsin | 1,653 Comments

Update: Minnesota Amendment Title Cases

This week saw some briefs filed in the lawsuit over Secretary of State Mark Ritchie’s attempt to unilaterally change the title of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.  The briefs are the first real meat in the case, and help clarify some of the questions I asked two weeks ago.

In the spirit of the moment, I’ll keep my comments brief (see image).  The first document filed was an amicus brief from nineteen Minnesota professors of law, most of them actively involved in the campaign against the Marriage Amendment.  The group is led by Dale Carpenter, of whom I am rather fond.  Their file can be found here.

Continue reading

Posted in Law, Marriage, Politics | 3 Comments

Reference Info: No-Fault Divorce Dates by State

One of the things that makes it difficult to track the Divorce Revolution of the late ’60s and ’70s (and its many dire consequences) is the fact that, after California “started” the revolution on January 1, 1970, the effective date of the Family Law Act of 1969, it’s not really clear which states adopted no-fault divorce and when.  Dates are hard enough to come by, and differing standards of what “counts” as no-fault divorce law makes it even harder to track.

I just read (well, skimmed) a very interesting little paper called The Effective Dates of No-Fault Divorce Laws in the 50 States, by Ashbaugh Vlosky and Pamela A. Monroe, published in the October 2002 issue of Family Relations.  The article is under copyright, so, because American copyright law remains entirely dysfunctional and largely insane, I can’t share the whole thing with you.  However, per the article’s terms of use and the U.S.’s Fair Use doctrine, I can share with you a single table.  This one:

I’m going to leave it here for reference.  Maybe one day some adventurous Wikipedian will come along and document it for the WP article on no-fault divorce in the United States.  I will, of course, refer to it frequently, and, since no one reads this blog, it is mainly for my benefit anyway.

Posted in Analysis, Law, Marriage | 2,121 Comments

A Quick Rundown on Minnesota for Marriage’s Lawsuit against the Secretary of State

If you read this blog, you are probably already aware of the lawsuit the supporters of the Minnesota marriage amendment have filed against Secretary of State Mark Ritchie.  As the local paper-of-record relates:

In late June, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, said he planned to change the title of the amendment question on the November ballot from “Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman” to “Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.”

Supporters of the amendment, which would constitutionally define marriage as only the union of heterosexual couples, say Ritchie “unlawfully” changed the title.

This is an interesting little case.  The politics of this are obvious (the Secretary of State wants the amendment defeated, and is changing the title to make it less attractive to the voters), but the law is not.  Interestingly, it all revolves around Gov. Dayton’s “symbolic veto” of the amendment back on May 25.  Let’s walk through the issues quickly.

Continue reading

Posted in Analysis, Law | 1,673 Comments

Standing by My Man

health reform, affordable care act, reporting on health, supreme court, barbara feder ostrov, health journalism

The last few days have seen an almost unbroken litany of conservative voices condemning the Roberts decision in NFIB v. Sebelius for being political, opportunistic, and incoherent. It has been embarrassing enough to be on the wrong side of Mark Steyn, Bill McGurn, and John Fund.

Far more embarrassing, however, have been those praising Roberts with me.  They aren’t praising him for the correctness of his legal reasoning, folks.  They’re praising him for being political, opportunistic, and incoherent.  This they term “statesmanship.”  That is what it means to be a “moderate” in America: you believe principles are a handicap, all law is sophistry, and utility is the chief good.

Worst of all has been the fallout from Jan Crawford’s CBS News piece revealing the whens and whats of Roberts’ decision to uphold the law.  The piece itself is lousy with innuendo and speculation as to the whys; I disregard most of it on the grounds that her guessing games are almost entirely unsourced.  Even Ms. Crawford’s off-the-record sources were unable or unwilling to confirm her “it was all politics” angle.  Still, it was deeply discouraging to see this coming from Roberts’ staunchest defenders:

Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law.

Man.  With friends like these…

Well, I’m with Roberts.  His opinion was the correct one in this case.  Even if Roberts comes out and says he did it all for politics and didn’t believe a word he wrote, I still believe it was correct.  Only two things could persuade me otherwise: (1) an argument articulating why the mandate can not be construed as a tax, or (2) an argument articulating why the Court should not construe it as a tax, given that it is fairly possible.

Continue reading

Posted in Law, Mere Opinion, Politics, Reads & Reactions | 1,107 Comments

Roberts Rules: Why the Obamacare Ruling was Right

I still have to read Ginsburg’s opinion and the Scalia opinion’s rabid concurrence with Roberts on the broccoli horrible, but I’ve read everything Roberts and Scalia et al. had to say about the taxing power in NFIB v Sebelius (aka “the Obamacare case”).  I have changed my mind.

The case appears to boil down to two conflicting canons of interpretation.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Master_of_the_Spes_Nostra_001.jpg
Pictured: the Canons of Interpretation at the funeral Mass of the Privileges & Immunities Clause, 1873

Continue reading

Posted in Analysis, Law | 884 Comments

Reads & Reactions: Executive Overreach

When John Yoo, of all people, tells you that you’ve taken executive authority beyond the bounds of the Constitution, either you’re in a comedy that gets its laughs through dry irony, or you should have serious second thoughts.  Here is Mr. Yoo:

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the president has the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This provision was included to make sure that the president could not simply choose, as the British King had, to cancel legislation simply because he disagreed with it. President Obama cannot refuse to carry out a congressional statute simply because he thinks it advances the wrong policy. To do so violates the very core of his constitutional duties.

There are two exceptions, neither of which applies here. The first is that “the Laws” includes the Constitution. The president can and should refuse to execute congressional statutes that violate the Constitution, because the Constitution is the highest form of law. We in the Bush administration argued that the president could refuse to execute laws that infringed on the executive’s constitutional powers, particularly when it came to national security — otherwise, a Congress that had a different view of foreign policy could order the military to refuse to carry out the president’s orders as Commander-in-Chief, for example. When presidents such as Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, and FDR said that they would not enforce a law, they did so when the law violated their executive powers under the Constitution or the individual rights of citizens.

Full comment at National Review Online.

Posted in Law, Politics, Reads & Reactions | 1,507 Comments

Special Comment on the President’s Institution of the DREAM Act

I was on a really nice date tonight — mostly just talked for hours — and then I came back post-date to this.  The President has decided that he will no longer enforce valid immigration law, because he does not think it is good law.  Notice that this is not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, although it appears as one in form.  It is an executive repeal of legislative law that was passed under and in no way violates the Constitutional compact.  Don’t take it from me; take it from his Secretary of Homeland Security:

“I’ve been dealing with immigration enforcement for 20 years and the plain fact of the matter is that the law that we’re working under doesn’t match the economic needs of the country today and the law enforcement needs of the country today,” Napolitano told CNN. “But as someone who is charged with enforcing the immigration system, we’re setting good, strong, sensible priorities, and again these young people really are not the individuals that the immigration removal process was designed to focus upon.”

I wrote this immediately.  I haven’t read the commentaries, I haven’t delved into the legal background, I haven’t glanced at the election impact.  Maybe everyone on the Right is saying this; maybe I’m alone.  But it’s from the heart:

I count myself deeply sympathetic to immigrants, and loyally trace my family line back to Kate Durkin, the bold Irish woman whose family shipped her here in the depths of the potato famine — because they could not feed her. She started with nothing, ended with little, and sacrificed everything to get our family on its feet. She came over in an era before immigration was at all restricted, and I know how broken our modern immigration system is. I have a lot of worries about the DREAM Act specifically, but I do, in general, support a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Let them pay their debt to our society and get on with living.

All that being said, this order is a flagrant, brazen violation of President Obama’s oath of office. “I do solemnly swear,” he said three years ago, “that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His office — his sole and highest duty — is to faithfully execute the law. That’s not me talking; that’s the Constitution. Presidents have bent the law, often, in service of dire needs, but to simply come out and announce that you, personally, have decided Congress is acting “too slowly” and isn’t showing enough compassion, and therefore you have decided to ignore valid law is — was — unthinkable. I’m frankly astonished, partly that the President is willing to do this, but mostly because he apparently believes he’ll get away with it. What should terrify all Americans is that he might.

Continue reading

Posted in Law, Mere Opinion, Politics | 5 Comments

New Study on Same-Sex Parenting Raises Questions

There’s a new study out next month, by Dr. Mark Regnerus, about same-sex parenting.  The study relies on a national probability sample — and that is a big deal.  Nobody has ever done that before.  Since any general sociological finding not based on a probability sample has approximately the same weight as cheesecake on a serving plate made of cavorite, we have not, to date, really known anything solid about same-sex parenting and its long-term effects on children.

Continue reading

Posted in Marriage, Mere Opinion | Comments Off on New Study on Same-Sex Parenting Raises Questions