^ 4 Profile In Corruption w

Commentary on Rhode Island Politics by State Representative Candidate Daryl Finizio

*

Inside: Statewide Property Tax • Is Bush the Right President?

None of the Above / f %ere is no doubt that there are great issues at stake in the 2004 elections. This JL will be the first presidential election after the attacks of September 11. Three

years later, a largely Christian army is trapped in a melting pot of ethnic hatred and Muslim rage. Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden has yet to be found Truly the end of history has succumbed to the clash of civilizations in which military might cannot be the sole determinant of survival.

Our leaders seem inadequate to the challenges of our times. William Butler Yeats wrote that the "best lack all conviction, while the worst/Are full ofpassionate intensity."fobn Kerry certainly "lacks conviction," while President Bush, following through on bis campaign promise to govern as a "compassionate conservative," has succeeded in uniting his base—against him. President Bush has also presided over the greatest expansion of the welfare state in nearly half a century with the passage of the prescription drug bill. Indeed non-defense discretionary spending has grown by 18 percent. Under Reagan it fell by 14 percent. For good measure, Bush has even added $18 million to the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts. And when the Supreme Court rescued affirmation action last summer, Bush praised their decision as a "victory for diversity." The Federal Marriage Amendment, intended as a nod toward Bush's conservative base, has alienated both libertarians and constitutional conservatives.

Initially, President Bush acted with great conviction in foreign policy—only to produce a state of affairs that must be disquieting to conservatives, regardless of their initial support for the war. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction has rendered the invasion and occupation of Iraq nothing more than an exercise in nation-building. Even the adamantly pro-war National Review recently published an editorial entitled, "An End to Illusion" in which it noted that the Bush administration displayed "a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations."

The great temptation is to vote for a third party candidate. There are two tactical reasons for this. First, a third party revolt may pressure the major party to appeal to its discontents. The advantage of this option is that if the major party does not react, the third party may eventually replace it as one of the major parties or reform the other major party. Indeed, this is how the South switched its allegiance

from the Democratic to the Republican Party. Of course, this all presupposes the existence of a viable third party candidate, which is not the case in 2004.

Clearly, the most important issue in this election is foreign policy. Unfortunately, ourfate in Iraq will not be determined by who wins in November. If Americans re­elect George Bush be will stick with the status quo. Otherwise, to retreat in Iraq would undermine the very basis of his presidency after September 11. It will take another president to amend the Bush Doctrine. That man will certainly not be the ambiguously antiwar Kerry, who simply does not possess the courage to effectively withdraw our troops from Iraq.

Therefore conservative voters should not base their votes for president on the implications for the presidency alone. Rather they should look to the implications

for the judiciary. Herein lies the only authentic conservative justification for voting for Bush: bis judges will be demonstrably less activist than Kerry's. After all, it is the judges who have kept affirmative action intact for another quarter century, taken God out of the Pledge of Allegiance in California, and who now are the black-robed revolutionaries in the front lines over the fight for gay marriage.

T A B L E OF CONTENTS

Academic Freedom News "You Can't Get a Good Education if You're Only Getting Half the Story"

The Perils of the Statewide Property Tax By Brian Bishop

The Proof is not in the Progressive Pudding

A Profile in Corruption By Daryl J. Finizio

Why Rhode Island Needs A Republican Party

\2*Is Bush the Right President? By C h r i s t o p h e r McAuliffe

The Dilemma of a Conservative

16 Subsidizing Shakespeare By Sheila Dugan

Does the National Endowment for the Arts Deserve a Second Chance?

• 4

•

J g Declaration of Dependence By Alan J. Silverman

The Globalization of American Law

The Brown Spectator / May 10, 2004 3

Brown University

In light of the Undergraduate Council of Students' commitment to protect student rights, indicated by the passage of a same-sex marriage resolution, a coalition of rigbt-of center groups has submitted a Resolu­tion on Academic Freedom to the UCS. The resolution reads as follows:

The Brown University Undergraduate Council recognizes that the central purposes ofBrown University are the pursuit of truth the discovery, communication and preserva­tion of knowledge and understanding, the teaching and general development of stu­dents to help them become creative individu­als and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowl­edge and learning to a society at large

Whereas free inquiry and free speech within the academic community are indis­pensable to the achievement of these goals, and

Whereas academic freedom is most likely to thrive in an environment of intellec­tual diversity that protects and fosters inde­pendence of thought and speech,

Be it hereby resolved that the Under­graduate Council of Students affirms the fol­lowing principles of academic freedom and intellectual diversity:

1. Students should be graded solely on the basis of their reasoned answers and ap­propriate knowledge of the subjects and dis­ciplines they study, not on the basis of their political or religious beliefs.

2 Curricula and reading lists in the hu­manities and social sciences should provide students with dissenting sources and view­points where appropriate. While teachers are and should be free to pursue their own find­ings and perspectives in presenting their

views, they should consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints.

3. Faculty should not use their courses for the purpose of political, ideological, reli­gious or anti-religious indoctrination.

4. All faculty should be hired, fired, pro­moted and granted tenure on the basis of their competence and appropriate knowledge in the field of their expertise. No faculty should be hired or fired or denied promo­tion or tenure on the basis of bis or her political or religious beliefs.

5. Selection of speakers, allocation of funds for speakers programs and other stu­dent activities should not discriminate on the basis of political or ideological affiliation.

6. The obstruction of invited campus speakers, destruction of campus literature or any other efforts to inhibit the civil exchange of ideas should not be tolerated

This resolution has been endorsed by Students for Academic Freedom, The Spec­tator, Students for Liberty, College Republi­cans, and Young Americans for Freedom

Editor's note: a version of this resolution was passed try the UCS on April21.

Set* Francisco State University

Tatiana Menaker, afifty five year old Russian student at San Francisco State University, re­cently escaped a five-year expulsion for a se­ries of political confrontations on campus. The impetus for the attempted expulsion stemmed from a lecture given by Deborah Gerson ofJewish Voice for Peace. Menaker was accused of threatening Gerson. In a meeting with a judicial affairs officer after the lecture, the administration accused her of going into a rage and throwing objects around the office upon hearing of her expulsion.

Menaker denied the charges. At the Gerson event, Menaker claims she simply voiced her opinion by saying, 'Ifyou believe when they start killing fews, you will be spared, you will be killed two hours later."

Menaker's case reeked of political bias. In the past, she has been forced to serve forty hours of community service for getting into a verbal disagreement with pro-Palestinian and Marxist activists. Also known for her articles for Front Page Magazine, Menaker could be seen as an embarrassment for an administration upset with her unsavory de­scriptions of academic life at San Francisco State University. In an article entitled, "My Second Marxist Indoctrination," Menaker writes of'sinkfing] in a puddle of socialist propaganda" and highlights similarities be­tween her American education and the one she received at Leningrad University, where professors forced Marxist ideology upon their students.

With help from Students for Academic Freedom and organizations like The fewish Community Relations Council, Menaker is able to continue her education at San Fran­cisco State University. Menaker's case is an example of the university's failure to protect their students' freedom of speech.

University of Massachusetts - Amherst

The Everywoman's Center, affiliated with U. m

Mass-Amberst, is a "multicultural campus-based women V center established in 1972." Charged with the impossible task of work­ing to eradicate all forms of oppression, the Center posts their Peace Resolution from April 2003 on their Web site. Motivated by their desire to stop violence against women and children, the resolution voices the Center's displeasure with the Iraq War. Dis-re2ardins the Hussein's resime atrocities—

Academic Freedom News ? r - -A

'YouCan'tGetaGood* Education if You'reOnlyGettingHalf~tbe Story"

Edited by Sheila Dugan

many committed against women—it is de­plorable that a resource, meant for "every woman" at the university and surrounding areas, would adopt such a partisan tone.

Historians Against the War

During the 2004 annual meeting of the Or­ganization of American Historians, Histori­ans Against the War petitioned the organi­zation to support a resolution that dealt with freedom of speech and access to records. Established in to oppose the Iraq War, His­torians Against the War held teach-ins and created a petition condemning preemptive war.

At the meeting in March, the Organiza­tion of American Historians9 executive board passed the resolution and agreed to create a committee that would look into HAW's claims: To be fair, some of the topics ad-

dressed in the resolution are legitimate, such as the surveillance of library use under the Patriot Act, but what is ludicrous is HAWs attack of No Indoctrination and Students for Academic Freedom. According to the resolution, these groups are guilty of, "sys­tematic denunciation of historians who have criticized government policy."

It is rather sad that HAW fie Is threat­ened by student groups dedicated to main­taining a certain amount of professionalism in the classroom, only desiring to leave their professor's rants on the Bush administration's foreign policy to letters to the editor.

Cornell University

The Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy at Cornell University exhibited a cer­tain amount of bias in sponsoring an event,

entitled "The Rise of Religious Right,"fea­turing foan Bokaer, director of Theocracy Watch. The president of the orga­nization is on record as saying Theocracy Watch's goal is to, "get the word out to as many people as possible because the agenda of the Christian right is to replace the Constitution with biblical law." The ar­ticle in The Cornell Daily Sun describes the audience at the event being "enthusiastic" In an op-ed written after the event, foe Sabia, a graduate student at Cornell University, high­lighted the absence of a dissenting opinion at the event Although Pat Robertson and ferry Falwell are not always available to pa­rade around campus so students can look at a real member of the Religious Right, an opposing viewpoint could have been brought to the event for the sake of serious academic inquiry on Christianity's impact on the American political process. TBS

Despite Rhode Island's uncooperative meteorological legacy, we have never officially opted out of the adage that March

comes in like a lion and goes out like a lamb. If Rhode Island's weather will not always conform perfectly to this euphemistic ode to the vernal equinox, its political climate is virtually the opposite this year. March began like a lamb with a sleepy session of the general assembly that suddenly became a lion s den of issues.

Next week's weather is, however, much harder to predict than the likely electoral effect of passions recently stirred by the typical cabal of lazy self-interested politicians, labor bigwigs, and go along to get along business interests. That's right, current angst over our chicken in every pot health care conundrum will have no effect whatsoever on the make up of the general assembly. Discontent over our uncompetitive health insurance markets has, however, been handy as an absurdist bully pulpit for sitting legislators. They posture with impossible promises that Rhode Islanders can go to any doctor or any pharmacy as often as they want and health care will cost them less. As per usual, they propose to fix a market that has been ruined by regulation with more regulation to the point where a state-run entity wholly controlled by the same interests that have driven health insurance companies from the state is portrayed as the only answer.

Ironically, the Blue Cross sideshow has all but eclipsed the main political event of March, the event that should be driving voters to the polls with change on their minds. A coalition with such parochial interests that they make the Blue Cross board look like a good government group has proposed a statewide property tax and no-one with exception ofthe outspoken mayor of Cranston has said a thing about it. As teachers unions maneuver for a constitutional I. V. into their bank accounts, those whose pockets are about to get picked seem blithely unaware that making education an entitlement has fractured the polity of numerous neighboring states. Most notably, the institution of a statewide property tax in Vermont has lead to the most substantive secession movement since the civil war as the Town of Killington seeks to renounce its affiliation with Vermont and join neighboring New Hampshire, or perhaps become a territory.

That anyone could propose a statewide property tax as a cost cutting measure with a straight face is ridiculous. That the supposed fiscal watchdog Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council (RIPEC) could do so, reveals the extent to which its executive staff has been seduced by the notion that the state's suburban and rural taxpayers must subsidize the progressive folderol known as "new urbanism "

RIPEC is simply not reading its own reports if it throws its lot in with mayors complaining about under-funding of education. Urban and so-called "urban ring" communities spend 10 percent more per student than their out city brethren in suburban and rural towns. This largess is supported by a state aid formula which already significantly favors the urban core providing 60 percent of urban education budgets while offsetting just over 30 percent for rural and "urban ring" communities and even less, 22 percent, for suburban communities.

Apparently this imbalance is not enough for the political cry babies pushing for a virtual state takeover of educationalfunding.

As teachers unions maneuver for a constitutional I. V. into their bank accounts,

those whose pockets are about to get picked seem blithely unaware that making education

an entitlement has fractured the polity of numerous neighboring states.

You have to give them creditfor a long term vision. Of course their long term vision is not one of educational reform but ofparochial pocket lining. Progressives like Providence Mayor David Cicilline may have been burdened with the new math in school, but be can add and subtract when it comes to the census numbers. What these show is that electoral demographics are slowly shifting in favor of the suburban and rural communities currently being shortchanged - even with the continued influx of immigrants into the urban core.

In this context, it is easy to see that this disproportionate shifting of the state's educational burden to suburban and rural taxpayers, which has been facilitated by the brute force ofthe urban legislative delegations, is at risk Thus, while the proposal to take yet more money from suburban and rural taxpayers might seem like business as usual, it may be viewed optimistically as a last ditch effort to lock this poor policy into the constitutional framework before a suburban and rural majority can defeat it statutorily.

We have been spoon fed the notion that having multiple school districts and teacher contracts is inefficient as well as leading to the labor negotiating phenomenon of leapfrogging in which each district's teachers are trying to outdo the other in gaining salary and

The Perils of the Statewide Property Tax The Proof is not in the Progressive Pudding

; By Brian Bishop

benefits. While this is true, what makes anyone of the least intelligence imagine that a legislature heavy with public school teachers and union sympathies would strike a harder bargain. Again, the RIPEC figures suggest things would be worse if the state legislature ran the schools.

From 1998 to 2002per pupil educational expenses in the urban corps went up more than 9 percent per year, ie^ more than three times inflation. Those "inefficient," "parochial" and "unnecessary" outlying districts in the suburbs and rural climes averaged 7 percent per year or a sslitbe"two and a half times inflation—slightly better but not a particularly stellar record Amongst those, however, some municipalities perceived to have been pacing the pack for education envy stand out with significantly lower than average annual educational increases for the same period' Cumberland ̂ percent, Portsmouth Apercent, Barrington 5 percent

If the schools want to team up to buy paper clips at a discount, that is an obvious voluntary arrangement that could be implemented tomorrow through cooperation amongst administrators. But, if decision-making about levels of school spending are lumped together, would you imagine that the trends set in Providence or in Portsmouth will be controlling^ Still you might believe that great efficiencies are achievable by teaming up on a statewide basis such that the potential savings would offset the inevitable tendency of larger less fiscally disciplined jurisdictions to set the bottom line. But all of this would take place under the watchful' eye of the legislature which during the same period from 1998 to 2002 inflated state spending by more than 10 percent per year That is higher than the excesses of any school district (except of course the one the state already runs in Central Falls and the tiny island systems of famestown and New Shorebam).

Those few self-starters who do think this is an ill-conceived policy are probably already aware that the measure has been held for further study by the Senate Finance Committee, legislative lingo for Dead on Arrival But an electorate diverted by sports-car envy over Ron Battista's ride would do well to understand that it is the taxpayer who had better study the pitfalls of the statewide property tax. This coalition will be back pushing their new entitlement as long as necessary. Wbafs a decade long battle to secure the spoils of a century f

It takes astonishing brass to propose both having the historically profligate general assembly mandate local school funding and instituting the Utopian absurdity of appointing the Supreme Court as the state school board and making every student into a potential litigant - an idea already proven ruinous to the polity of the state's which have tried it This political coalition poses a far greater hazard to the solvency of our lively experiment than the currently burning question of whether a complacent Blue Cross Board should have preserved the status quo by funding Ron Basttista's divorce settlement Yet where are the voices in opposition? To date only Mayor Laffey of Cranston has seen through this ruse even while practicing financial hrinksmanship with the Cranston School Committee in order to provide actual property tax relief

This is not to suggest that urban districts don't face challenges of which the entire state should take cognizance, but the current system has written a virtual blank check on the state's general fund for urban education. Mayors in concert with school committees use this as an endowment to buy labor peace at a price their communities truly cannot afford. This is manifest not only in educational expenditures which outpace inflation by 200percent The state's molly coddling leaves more money on the table in these urban municipalities for expansive treatment for fire and police forces. Thus, even with enormous state subsidies, urban property owners are still looking for property-tax relief, which is comical to rural and suburban property owners contemplating the imbalance in state aid.

It is time for a radical restructuring of the notion of who is responsible for a child's education. This coalition resting on the

featherbed of the public-education tradition wishes to answer that question by enshrining in the constitution the ill-begotten notion that the state is responsible. Rather, reform should make it clear that the parent has to be a responsible participant. Property-tax relief can indeed be provided by instituting what is long overdo, a co-payment requirementfor parents sending their children to public schools. As the Providence Journal recently and wisely opined such that it could not be said better:

Co-payments play an important role in medical economics. They force patients to dig into their pockets every time they go to a doctor. This reminds them that their care is not free. A well-designed co-payment is big enough to pinch the patient a bit but not so big that it would deter a reasonable person from seeking needed medical care.

The same is true ofpublic education. Parents don't pay for it directly. They want as much as they can get for nothing, indeed are prone to move from community to community in order to get more for nothing. They don't receive the cost signals that might

motivate their more active participation in terms of fiscal discipline, educational results and even exerting discipline over unruly offspring in order to ensure that the money they are spending on their child's education is not being wasted

A co-payment for education should be structured like medical co-pays. It should be a percentage, so that when the school budget goes up the co-pay goes up. It shouldfall in an affordable range for middle class parents - somewhere in the 15 or 20 percent range of today's public expenditures per pupil of around $10,000. It should of course be means tested which could easily be done by employing

The recent commitment of Providence businesses to form a Business Investment

District and tax themselves to purchase services which have traditionally been

provided by government is a good model for asking the same kind of investment from

parents. - ^ W M — ^ ^ ^ ^ I 1 ^ 1 I fc^^^^MBi I I * fc***^—^^I I • I ^-^^^m I I * • » • * » ^ i l ^ M M H li I I I . • _ - - I I I ^ ^ ^ ^ M M ' - — - J - L - am - - - K

the same metric as the Earned Income Tax Credit which rebates Social Security Taxes on a sliding scale for lower middle class workers.

The state's role beyond passing such a plan for tax relief could be to cover the shortfall in property-tax relief due to the means testing abatements. This would of course favor urban districts with challenged demographics and, perhaps, rightfully so. In the long run such a plan might even favor the goals of new urbanism in a non-coercive way. Those currently fleeing the urban core for better, or at least safer, schooling in suburban and rural climes could make the decision to stay in the urban area and send their children to private or religious schools. They would now have a financial incentive to do so as fleeing to the suburbs and paying more for a home would not completely insulate them from a direct fee for some ofthe educational costs for their children. And a co-pay would not cost the state or municipalities any money, or give rise to the arguments that vouchers and charter schools are diverting resources from the traditional public schools. If enough potential urban ex-patriots made the decision to stay they might even eventually constitute a critical mass of involved parents who decide to participate in the public school experience.

The recent commitment of Providence businesses to form a Business Investment District and tax themselves to purchase services

which have traditionally been provided by government is a good modelfor asking the same kind of investmentfrom parents. Indeed while it may seem surreal that Providence can't clean or police the streets despite its vast overspending, a case can be well made that collections of business foster litter and bring the crowds which require security and that it is not altogether a bad idea for business districts to contract for these services. But these are the same businesses that are being taxed to send your kids to school When are parents going to recognize the same responsibility to come to the table and directly support a portion of the cost of their own children's education f

It may be that the idea of spreading the bulk of the cost of education across society so that the entire burden does not fall directly on parents at the time they are least able to afford it is a useful model. Indeed, the assumption that those who do not have children are well served by the educational betterment of theirfellow citizens is not necessarily entirely false. But taken to the extreme, this notion has disconnected parents, students and citizens from the necessary dialogue about the extent of educationalfunding the public will provide and where parents' responsibility will kick in.

There is no threat to the American tradition of public education in trying to return it to its roots and remind parents of their necessary role in supporting and furthering the education their children receive—and we imply not solely a monetary duty. Morals, self-discipline, respectfor oneself and others are taught at home, not in school—despite the explosion of in pro parentis efforts of the schools to supplant these critical family functions with smarmy secular-humanist self-esteem curriculums. That there are dysfunctional families, that there are impoverishedfamilies is regrettable reality, but our funding mechanisms and pedagogy should not be geared to the worst case scenarios. Rather they should set a model of responsibility with a safety net The fact that the net is not always perfectly invisible is only a stigma to the extent that parents and other adults, ie. teachers and administrators, teach and model for children the idea that it is or fail to perceive and counter peer interactions which ostracize or punish out-group children—a phenomenon in any event as often related to appearance, demeanor, habits and cultural cliques as economic circumstance. Of course this paradigm is not perfect, it's just life.

Brian Bishop dm fast of Rule Free Radio on AM 132a is leading CARPE Diem—Co-pay Admcates/or Responsible Participation in Education—a coalition to oppose the statewideproperty tax

TBS

T^hode Island government today is a perfect example of the JL\waste, rot, and corruption that is inherent in one party government. Rhode Islanders now hear the fourth highest tax burden in the nation. Rhode Islanders also have endured scandal after scandal in their State government and face the prospect of bankruptcies in their cities and towns. A nd Rhode Island public schools, and other state services, perform below the national average and Rhode Island's unemployment rate is consistently higher than the national average

Many citizens of Rhode Island have come to realize that in order to reverse these saddening trends, Rhode Island needs an opposition party in government Even many prominent Democrats have joined in calling for the election of more Republicans to our current, one party controlled, Democratic legislature. Many others, however, wonder how Rhode Island came to be in the situation it is in, and how a two party system of government will help the State get out of it.

Part of the situation is a result of state constitutional history and part of it is the result of a one party partisan alignment Both pose significant problems for the state and its citizens, including students at Brown University. Many Brown students may not be aware of the background of Rhode Island's political processes, and may fail to understand bow it will have any effect on them It is the purpose of this article to explain the historical development of Rhode Island's constitutional structure, the problems posed by its current one party dominated legislature, and the effect of all of these concerns on students at Brown.

m

The Constitutional History

Rhode Island has a unique constitutional history not only among the other forty nine states, but also amongst the constitutional governments of other nations around the world Many school children learn that Rhode Island was founded by Roger Williams in 1636 on the principals of religious liberty, following Williams' expulsion from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This is usually where the average person's knowledge of Rhode Island's

founding ends. The full story of Rhode Island's constitutional beginnings is far more complex

In 1644 Roger Williams secured the first constitutional document for the new Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. This 'Parliamentary Patent" was granted to Williams by Oliver Cromwell and the British Parliament durinz the brief

period when England was a republic, during and following th English Civil War. Cromwell, a fellow puritan, granted to William a parliamentary government without a separate executive and n colonial governor appointed by the mother country. Due to the siz of the colony and the loose affiliation of its townships, tbi parliamentary system worked very well

Following the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660, the validit of the patent was called into question. A new group of Rbod Island lobbyists set off for London, this time led by fobn Clark of Newport, to secure the rights of the colony. Whether in th interests of ease or pragmaticism, King Charles II decided to issu

* 1

A Profile In Corruption Why Rhode Island Needs A Republican Party

By Daryl J. Finizio 1 ' 1 • i *

a charter to the colony in 1663 that retained its legislative system of government, established a weak executive, and left the colony without a Royal Governor. In this respect, Rhode Island was unique amongst all the original thirteen colonies. So bold were the rights guaranteed by this charter that the King declared it "A Lively Experimentm

One of the key provisions of the charter, however, was that it could not be changed without the consent of the legislature. As the legislature had all the power, it was unlikely that they would voluntarily surrender their power. Indeed, after the drafting of the Federal Constitution in 1787, with its stronger executive and separation of powers principals, Rhode Island continued to operate under its charter of1663 and refused to adopt a state constitution.

The legislature grew increasing unrepresentative and corrupt, and public policy in the state suffered The legislature became dominated by a one party faction and acted only in the interests of a privileged connected few. Finally in 1842, the people had bad enough. Lead by a reform minded State Representative, Thomas Wilson Dorr, an opposition party challenged the State Government

To avoid an outright rebellion and to appease the masses, the legislature adopted a State Constitution in 1842. The new Constitution did not, however, adopt all of the Dorrite proposals. Most notorious amongst its provisions was Article 6, Section 10, which allows the legislature to exercise "All the powers it has heretofore exercised" This provision held over all of the powers of that the General Assembly bad under the Charter of1663. The Legislature retained the powers to exercise executive authority, control the courts by firing its judges, and dominate all public policy in the state.

It may surprise Brown students to learn that to this day in 2004 Rhode Island's legislature operates under Authority granted to it by a British Royal Charter of1663. Rhode Island government is totally lacking in the concepts of separation ofpowers and checks and balances that have so well served our federal government (and all other state governments) for over 200years.

Luckily, as in 1842, the people of the state have bad enough. After years of fighting, the people of the state will finally have the chance to vote on a separation of powers amendment to our state constitution which will eliminate Article 6, Section 10 and give Rhode Island a long overdue entry into the modern constitutional world All Brown students who vote here in Rhode Island should vote in favor of this amendment.

This amendment is an important step towards reforming our state government, but absent a balanced partisan system, real separation of powers will not be realized

The Partisan Imbalance

Since 1935 the Democratic Party has controlled the Rhode Island Legislature. In the last 30 or so years their majority has consistently extended to over 75 percent of all the legislative seats. The current Rhode Island legislature is controlled by the Democrats who bold an astounding 85 percent of all the legislative seats.

As a result, no governor, Republican or Democrat, can even threaten, or much less sustain, a veto over any legislation. Even if a separation ofpowers amendment passes, if the legislature can out vote the other two branches of government at their whim, then real separation of powers will not be realized

This need for constitutional balance is also not only a theoretical argument Imbalancedparty representation and imbalance amongst the branches ofgovernment leads to bad public policy. Public policy benefits from a healthy and balanced debate with all interests having representation.

The current Democratic majority is so large that it can demand rigid loyalty from its membership. Examples abound on how this can skew public policy. One example that can help crystallize this point is public-sector health-care provision.

The Democratic majority in Rhode Island gets most of its support and funding from public-sector employee unions. Regardless of what might make good public policy orfinancing, these unions have been able to demand, unchallenged, every benefit they have wanted in these last few decades. Due to this intense political pressure, Public employees in Rhode Island now get free

full health coverage with a zero percent pay-in. Tew other public employees around the nation get so generous a deal, and such a benefit is unheard of in the private sector. This mandate for health care provision is also dramatically expensive; indeed it is well beyond Rhode Island's financial means. In Providence alone, the pension fund for public employees in the State system is in debt over $500 million dollars, and the health system is in debt over $300 million dollars. Both debts are growing by tens of millions of dollars each year, and despite unparalleled tax rate bikes, continue to grow. In several years, regardless of increases in tax rates which will soon

The current Democratic majority is so large that it can demand rigid loyalty from its

membership. Examples abound on how this can skew public policy. One example that can

help crystallize this point is public-sector health-care provision.

make Rhode Islanders the most taxed people in America, the city will be in debt over $1 billion dollars. With an operating budget oj only under $400 million, this spells bankruptcy for Providence, and many other cities and towns in Rhode Island

Fortunately, Mayor Cicilline (a reform Democrat) and Governor Carcieri (a reform Republican) both recognize this problem and art trying to do something about it. Last year Governor Carcieri submitted a very modest proposal to the legislature. The Governor suggested a 2 percent health care pay in for public employees. This would still represent one of the best possible health care deals for any employees, public or private, in the entire nation. Still, even though citizens are literally being taxed out of their homes, and with our cities and towns facing financial disaster, the unions opposed this proposal, and the legislature shot it down. Tht Governor tried to make a stand, warning of future dire financial consequences, and vetoed the budget. The Legislature, with its 85 percent voting power, overrode the veto in less than 48 hours. Tht representative for Brown, Edith Ajello, voted with the unions and the party bosses to override the veto. This came as no surprise, sinct Rep. Ajello has received most of her campaign funding, ana volunteer support, from public sector unions.

It is clear that the people have had enough. Democrat, Republican, Green, and Independent alike, Rhode Islanders art demanding political change before the state plunges into financial ruin. Years of poor budgeting, unethical conduct, and non­competitive elections have frustrated voters to the breaking point More and more Rhode Islanders are coming to understand thai only with a viable Republican opposition in the Legislature can change be instituted, and these trends reversed Since most Rbodi Island Republicans are also social progressives and liberals, it is alst easy for Rhode Islanders to support local Republicans whilt continuing to oppose the views of national Republican leaders.

The remaining question is: How does this affect students a\ Brown f

The Impact of the Imbalance on Brown Students

Brown students have as much at stake in the effort to reform Rhode Island's political processes as long term residents do.

If the current trends continue: rising taxes, potential bankruptcies, higher unemployment caused by slow business

. growth (due to a bad tax climate for opening businesses in State), the costs will ultimately be born by all, including students at Brown.

If you live off campus, your rents will skyrocket in the next few years as massive tax hikes on owners get passed off against tenants. If you ever seek to work in this state after graduation— whether there are jobs, or good paying jobs—will depend on the state ability to reduce taxation to encourage businesses to relocate here. If you do vote in Rhode Island elections while you are at Brown, whether you have any real choice at the ballot box will depend on whether Rhode Island can establish a viable opposition party. All of these points are but a few examples of the impact that continuing a one party machine in government can have on Brown students, but the worst case scenario makes these problems pale in comparison.

If the Providence dives further into debt, or worse, drops into bankruptcy, political pressure will mount to put Brown (and other non-profits) back on the tax rolls. Over 40 percent of all the land in Providence is non taxable. Much of the premium land in Providence is owned by Brown. If the city financially hits rock bottom, and

residents are taxed to the limit, taxing Brown will become a viable option. Should Brown be taxed, the impact on Brown's finances will be massive, and where do you think the Brown Corporation will look to close the gapf If you guessed student tuition, you guessed right.

While this remains a preventable hypothetical scenario, its likelihood increases the longer Rhode Island continues down the path of one-party, free-spending, special-interest government.

Conclusion t f

When Brown students go to the polls this November in Rhode Island, they should understand that much more is at stake in their local race for State Representative then they might have thought In this race Democrat and Republican labels do not mean what they mean on the federal level, and the impact of your votes could be crucial, not only for long term Rhode Islanders, but for Brown students as well This November, regardless of who you vote for in the national elections, or what your personal political affiliation is, all Brown students should vote for the Separation of Powers Amendment to the Rhode Island State Constitution, and should vote Republican for state representative,

DarylJ. Finizia, Republican Candidate for Stale Representative, District 3, Providence.

TBS

A true believer in coUecthist socialism will probably have a difficult « X time deciding for whom to vote for president this November. John Kerry, a populist third-way liberal, certainly would not represent the idealfor such a voter. Of course, there's always Ralph Nader, or a Green or Socialist candidate, but wouldn't a vote for a hopeless third party equal a vote for the despised George W. Bush?

Conservatives and libertarians, to be sure, face a similar dilemma The American Right, represented by a President many see as insipid and hopelessly centrist, is in the midst of a season of restlessness. As a leader elected under a conservative banner, President Bush has plunged the nation into record deficits whilst seemingly embracing the Great Society welfare state that has united conservatives and libertarians in opposition for two generations. Furthermore, Bush will face increasingly tough questions in the coming months concerning bis handling of the War on Terror and the situation in Iraq, the latter for which the progressive British Prime Minister Tony Blair has been a far more convincing spokesman. Meanwhile, the President's presumptive opponent will offer no incentive for disaffected conservatives to sit out the coming election. Massachusetts Senator fohn Kerry is, to put it nicely, simply awful

Still, there are compelling reasons to vote for President Bush this November. He is infinitely better than the only other competitive candidate, and, probably, a better choice than third party candidates who have no intention of running a competitive campaign. I cannot, of course, speak for all right-leaning preferences, but I can offer a considered, libertarian-leaning conservative opinion: a vote for President Bush is probably the best move on Election Day, both because it is imperative to defeat fohn Kerry, and because there are no particularly compelling reasons to vote for a third party this year. It is not a vote I shall relish, but it is the best possible choice.

Bust vs. Kerry: Fiscal Policy President Bush's free-wheeling spending is inexcusable. There

is simply no sensible explanation as to why a self labeled conservative would allow himself to be responsible for the most massive increase in the size of government since the days of Lyndon Johnson. Also worrisome is Bush's inability to acknowledge this plain fact. Conservatives and libertarians face, once again, the unpalatable choice of big government or bigger government, of reckless liberal or regulatory liberal, of tax-and-spend or borrow-and-spend

It is worth pointing out that, despite the professed small-government preference of the Republican Party, not a single president

of either party has succeeded in reducing the size of the federal government since the Great Depression. Adjusted for inflation, Ronald Reagan presided over a miniscule reduction in non-defense discretionary spending, but that is only a fraction of the overall federal pie. It is simply beyond argument that, without a significant change in the budget process (such as a balanced budget amendment), America will never see a net reduction in the size of the federal government

President Bush's critics on the Right are correct in pointing out that he cannot explain away his spending spree by pinning the

I

My heart is still with Gary Nolan> but my head is with George Bush.

blame solely on the process. After all, federal largess under bis administration has truly been earth-shaking, larger than any postwar binge save the Great Society. Of course, Bush has been dealt a bad band He inherited a situation in which the bills for years ofeconomic irresponsibility at home and strategic indifference abroad came suddenly due. Still, more than half of the President's overall spending increases have gone not toward defense and homeland security, but toward vote-buying domestic programs. Since Bush has yet to veto a single bill, now would be a good time to wonder where he might conceivably draw the line between good and bad spending increases.

When faced with such an apparently bleak situation, advocates of small government would do well to consider two things. First, Bush ran for president under the somewhat murky banner of 'compassionate conservatism" True conservatives and libertarians are justifiably disgusted by this bastardization, but a presidential candidate must appeal to the center, and compassionate conservatism is what the center demanded In 1980, the center wanted an economic turnaround and a harder line on the Soviets. In 2000, two decades of good economic performance and relatively low government growth, along with a looming surplus, engendered a hunger for new spending programs. Promises were made because they bad to be made, and those promises were kept

Second, it would behoove fiscal conservatives to compare Bush's spending programs not with their absence, but with the likely alternatives. The prescription drug bill is one example Though

Is Bush the Right President* 9

The Dilemma of a Conservative m

By Christoper McAuIiffe • •

the president's Medicare drug benefit is a case in point of badfiscal policy, it could have been much worse. The Democratic alternative would been at least twice as expensive, and without any of the market reforms introduced in the Republican bill

Senator Kerry's economic programs promise to be as bad as can be expected On energy, rather than drilling for oil in Alaska, Kerry wants massive subsidies for etbanol and research into sci-fi alternative technologies. The rest of bis domestic agenda is almost humorous in its vacuous populism. Education: 'John Kerry believes that we need to invest in our schools instead of giving tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans." Homeland security: "fohn Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security."Health care: fohn Kerry "will stand up to big insurance and drug companies that impede progress* George Bush has chosen to lavish tax cuts upon the wealthiest among us while working Americans struggle to afford health care for their families." fob growth: "George W Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy and specialfavors for the special interests over our economic future." Rising college costs: "While George Bush gives tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, students are struggling to find the support they need to succeed "

The enemy, in Kerry's view, is not excessive spending but tax cuts. In fohn Kerry's America, failing public schools could be fixed with just one more fiscal injection, the government could improve health care but for those troublesome drug companies, and tax increases could create jobs. For those who think that Bush's policies are wacky, this must sound like something out of the lower-left quadrant of the progressive galaxy.

This is not to say that Bush needn't work harder to earn the votes of fiscal conservatives. The president must, at the very least,

renew his commitment to continued tax cuts, tort reform, and private accounts in social security. This last item could leave a lasting imprint on the political fabric of our nation, given its potential to create a nearly universal investor class which will, as a result, pull the entire electorate in a fiscally conservative direction. None of these policies will ever come out of a Democratic White House, and Bush has placed all three on bis economic platform

Bush vs. Kerry: The War on Terror and Foreign Policy With all due respect to anti-war conservatives, there is no contest

here. After some initial complacency, President Bush took 9/11 as an opportunity to shape bis presidency around a fundamental paradigm shift in foreign policy. No longer is terrorism seen as a purely domestic matter in the realm of intelligence and law enforcement More important still, Bush has made clear that it is no longer an option to wait for the next attack before reacting. Under the president's leadership, America has taken the initiative in preventing attacks before they happen. The most likely response to 9/11 from a Democratic administration would have been to bomb Afghanistan for a few days, get out, and declare victory, ifeven that much.

Conservatives and libertarians must, of course, draw their objections to the Iraq War on grounds of national interest. It is impossible to make the case that the people of Iraq are worse off for having lost the services of Saddam Hussein. The war was moral The only remaining question is whether or not it was necessary.

President Bush could and should do a much better job in re-explaining the rationale behind the war. The United States attacked Iraq on the basis of uncertain evidence, and in the midst of a national security crisis. The knowledge on hand at the time was,

however, nearly universally accessible. John Kerry himself votedfor the war resolution, and has spent the majority of his campaign distancing himself from that vote. Most recently, when asked about bis constructive alternative to Bush's policy, Kerry replied, "Right now, what I would do differently is, I mean, look, I'm not the president, and I didn't create this mess so I don't want to acknowledge a mistake that I haven't made."Does the United States, in times of such a dire threat, really need a leader who is so indecisive and manipulablef Given what we knew in March of2003 about Saddam's deep hostility toward the United States, connections with terrorist groups, and determined efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, war was truly a lesser gamble than doing nothing. If fohn Kerry felt otherwise, be did not say so.

Kerry has directed most of bis criticism of the war toward George Bush's "unilateralism" and "arrogance," one of the most absurd grounds on which to criticize the President's foreign policy. Would that other nations bad joined us. Would that the United Nations were not a rabidly anti-democratic body full of tyrants and murderers. However, reality does not change according to fohn Kerry's desires. Appeals for a greater role for the United Nations amount to little more than ceding moral authority from the United States to an international body with absolutely no moral legitimacy.

The Bush administration has stumbled occasionally in its terror response. Bowing to Democratic demands to federalize the airport security forces was clearly not the right move, but was agreed to at a time when the nation had little patience for partisan bickering. The Patriot Act was, of course, a case study in bad legislation, but enjoyed almost universal support and is beyond the scope of partisan blame. Most importantly, George Bush has adopted a clear policy in response to a daunting threat Those who would criticize him have yet to offer anything approaching a convincing alternative method of taking the war to the terrorists.

Why not a third party f While most conservatives and libertarians will concede that

George Bush is preferable to John Kerry, many still recoil at the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils. After all, why should anything change if Bush learns that be can abandon bis fiscally conservative base and still get re-electedf Why not sit this election out or vote for a third party candidate from the Constitution Party or Libertarian Party f

There are several reasons why that may not be the best move. First of all, it is as of yet unclear whether any of the candidates from those parties will actually be better than Bush. The Constitution Party's most accentuated characteristic is its militant Christianity and apparent desire to undo decades of jurisprudence on the establishment clause, fudge Roy Moore, their likely candidate, has built a career on demagoguery, most recently criticizing President Bush for appointing Bill Pryor to the federal bench. Pryor is the former Alabama Attorney General, a principled conservative who agreed with Moore's view that a statue of the Ten Commandments should have been allowed to stay in the Alabama Supreme Court building. However, Pryor upheld the law by insisting that Moore

obey the ruling of a higher court that the statue be removed For this, the former Attorney General has earned the wrath of the Constitution Party. Apparently, some conservatives are only in favor of the rule of law when it works to their advantage. My libertarian angels will not allow me to support this Religious Right racket

The situation in the Libertarian Party is somewhat better, but still uncertain. As of this time, the two possible nominees are Aaron Russo and Gary Nolan. Russo is something of a kook, a doctrinaire libertarian who somehow believes that the United States' purpose in Iraq is to steal "their oil wells and their gold" Fringe candidates like Russo and Moore are generally a waste of a vote. Since they offer no realistic vision, a vote for them is likely not to be noticed or, if it is, send only the message that a conservative President should not be allowed to appeal to the center, an electoral necessity.

Gary Nolan cannot be dismissed so easily. He is a principled, and somewhat more moderate candidate. His vision is still far from the minds of most Americans, but entirely worthy of support on a normative level He takes national security seriously, but issues a qualified stance against the Iraq War. He is for lower taxes and lower spending, but stops short of calling for the abolition of all social programs, instead drawing attention to the necessity for private Social Security accounts.

Still, there may be yet another reason to vote for Bush over Nolan. Despite what many disaffected voters on both the left and the right believe, there is still a very major difference between the two major parties, and this could prove to be Bush's trump card I am referring, of course, to the appointment of federal judges. It is becoming ever more apparent that the courts are the primary front in the most important ideological battles. The Democrats certainly realize this, and hence their unprecedented obstruction of the president's judicial nominees. If conservatives and libertarians are to stop the trend of unaccountable judges imposing their progressive visions, they must do everything possible to load thefederal judiciary with as many Antonin Scalias and Clarence Thomases as possible.

Bush's appointments thus far have been stellar, and quite conservative. This means, of course, that they generally pay heed to the Constitution and rule of law, in sharp contrast to the ends-based approach preferred by Democratic appointees. Should Bush win a second term in office, he will certainly be appointing at least two Supreme Court fustices. The stakes in this battle are too high to ignore.

As of now, I must still withhold a final judgment. Still, principled conservatives and libertarians must realize that there is a compelling conservative case for President Bush. A Kerry administration would be a disaster on all fronts, and an improvement on none. Furthermore, a vote for a third party candidate, with its message that a major party candidate should not appeal to the electoral center, is a serious decision which must be made under careful consideration, and not as an ideological tantrum With this in mind, my heart is still with Gary Nolan, but my head is with George Bush.

TBS • • t • i

J"Ytf«rf Gioia has an impressive resume. A graduate of Stanford U and Harvard University, be translates poetry from Latin, Italian, German, and Romanian. Gioia worked as an executive for General Foodforfifteen years to support his writing career. And his first year as chairman for the National Endowmentfor the Arts has not been marked by controversy. Instead, the Bush White House has embraced him and the National Endowment of the Arts.

In a speech on fanuary 29, 2004, Laura Bush said, President Bush and I appreciate your leadership at the National Endowment for the Arts, and your vision." In that same speech Laura Bush announced President Bush's request to add $18 million dollars to the NEA's budget Slated as the largest increase for the agency since 1984, the president's proposal highlights the government's role in arts funding and whether or not the agency is really necessary.

From Piss Christ to Shakespeare: Is it time to embrace the NEAt

President Bush's friendly relationship with the NEA stands in contrast to what bis fellow social conservatives have long felt about the agency. In the nineties when someone mentioned the National Endowment for the Arts, one immediately thought of Andres Serrano's crucifix submerged in his own urine or Robert Mapplethrope's homoerotic photographs. When one thought of Republicans and the NEA, Senator fesse Helms from North Carolina and bis desire to curtail or restrict the NEA came to mind The Bush administration's proposal to inflate the NEA's budget could not have been predicted when Congress slashed the budget from around $162 million to $99 million in 1995.

Goia, however, represents a departure from the sort of NEA that patronized the likes of Serrano and Mappletbrope. As a traditionalist, Gioia's pet project is Shakespeare in American Communities. The NEA advertises the project as the biggest tour of Shakespeare in the country's history and plans on bringing productions to smaller communities like Wallingford, Connecticut and Whitefish, Montana. Workshops and resource packets accompany performances of Othello, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, A Midsummer Nighfs Dream, and RichardIII, making arts education a trademark of the initiative

Shakespeare in American Communities is the type of project that is hard to object to, unless one is scanning the verses of Shakespeare's plays looking for evidence of sexism or racism. With such heavyweights from the literary and artistic community as Harold

Bloom, A ngela Lansbury, and fames Earl fones, Shakespeare in American Communities serves as perfect material for a president seeking reelection, proclaiming a commitment of the country's artistic community to voters who care about such things. Gioia's Shakespeare project also fulfills what conservatives mightfeel is the proper role of the NEA, exposing children to great works of literature without the discomfort of controversial avant-garde pieces. Are Gioia and his initiatives, such as Shakespeare in American Communities, to be embraced^

Objections to the NEA should not be based just on the activities of the agency, but on the very idea of subsidizing the arts. One such

. . • ~ - - " - - - - - - - r • - | [ r i i i i • n - L I I I ! • I ^ M . B T - - % . • - - | | | | | p , , , i n n I - . H J r- - n [ • i i mm i - i 11 i .

The romantic notion of artists as part of the renegade element of our culture still exists.

Their informal job description is to make the population pause and reflect on life.

Government subsidies undermine their artistic credibility, as recipients know that

they are on the government's bankroll just like employees at the DMV.

side effect of the disbursement of NEA fellowships and grants is the creation of arbitrary categories of "good9* and If ad39 art The tastes of a small elite or a cautious eye cast on conservative constituents adverse to anything modern could result in government support for a select politically popular artists or programs. It is best to leave these choices to the free market and the American public rather than glorified bureaucrats or overly sensitive citizens that can organize well and lobby to their congressmen to stop funding for projects that offend their sensibilities.

The problem is not just limited to who has access to funds. The romantic notion of artists as part of the renegade element of our culture still exists. Their informal job description is to make the population pause and reflect on life. Government subsidies undermine their artistic credibility, as recipients know that they are on the government's bankroll just like employees at the DMV They become tools, with the possibility of being exploited to fulfill the interests of a president or Congress.

M

Subsidizing Shakespeare Does the National Endowment for the

Arts Deserve a Second Chance? • 1 1 *

* * w * •

*

* t

By Sheila Dugan

Can Shakespeare Pay For Itself*

It should be noted that the administration's announcement to increase the NEA's budget came in the midst of the Iraq War and the reality that the country would be spending billions in the region in the future. Eighteen million dollars is chump change compared to other government programs, but the priorities of the Bush administration must be questioned. The American government can entertain the idea of funding the endowment only when the country does not have to worry about a ridiculously huge deficit,

fighting a war against terrorism, and rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan. That aside, it is an undisputed fact that the National

Endowment for the Arts is the single largest patron of the arts in the United States, providing early financial support for The Sundance Film Festival and Spoleto Festival U.SJt. This is no surprise considering our current cultural climate seems to favor Britany over Beethoven. Still, government funding should stem from necessity. Is it crucial for an entity like the NEA to existf The value of our artistic communities cannot be brought into question—it is certainly preferable that a child's first exposure to Shakespeare should be a professional performance rather than have him or her stumble over Desdemona's lines in a classroom.

In an article for Policy Review, William Craig Rice, affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, argues that America will not see the collapse of its artistic community if the National Endowmentfor the Arts would disappear. Rice points out a raise in ticket prices could replace the money given by the NEA. Such prestigious companies, like the Metropolitan Opera and Alvin Alley American Dance Theater, can surely find alternative sources of funding, especially when one considers that the grants range in thousands rather than millions.

Smaller institutions, like nonprofit publishers, may face some challenges, but with advancements in software and the Internet, they may be able to survive, Rice says. Furthermore, it does not seem too much to ask these smaller organizations to compete in the free market, like many small businesses across the country. Maybe what the arts community needs is an environment where groups actively compete for consumers, leading to an enlarged readership or audience.

Moreover, History contains many examples of successful artists that relied on private patrons rather than tax dollars. Count Ferdinand Ernst Gabriel von Waldstein will always be associated with the help be provided to Beethoven, now forever immortalized in one of Beethoven's sonatas. Patrons like Waldstein are not just part of the past An article in The New York Times, speaks of Eli Broad, founder of two Fortune 500 companies, and bis $50 million dollar donation to the Los Angles County Museum of Artfor a new building. The piece in the Times estimates he spend over $25 million a year collecting contemporary art. The existence of patrons like Broad illustrates that people's fears that the eradication of the NEA would leave programs without funds may be unfounded

"A Great Nation Deserves Great Art"

The slogan of the National Endowment of the Arts, peppered throughout the organization's Web site, is "A great nation deserves great art." No one disputes the importance of art in American Society. As Laura Bush said in her speech in January, (tTbe study and enjoyment of the arts helps build greater appreciation of our rich history and artistic legacy."It is also true that a great nation does not need help from a federal government to produce great art TBS

Declaration of Dependence Tbe 'Globalization "of American Law

By Alan J . Silverman

ft is my fating sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment— Independencenowand'Independent*'forever.

—Daniel Webster

For myself it would'bemostirksomefobended byabeity Platonic Guardians, even if I knew bow to choose them, which I assuredly do not

—Learned Hand

yustice Sandra Day GConnor recently said that American courts must pay attention

to international law to improve this country's standing in tbe eyes of foreigners. "The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark,39 the fustice said in a speech before tbe Southern Center for International Studies in Atlanta, Georgia She mentioned two cases wherein tbe United States Supreme Court used international law to justify its rulings: Atkins v. Virginia, holding unconstitutional tbe execution of mentally retarded prisoners, and Lawrence v. Texas, invalidating laws against sodomy. "I suspect," fustice O'Connor added, "that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues."

It would be wonderful to dismiss these remarks as expressing only tbe idiosyncratic wishes of tbe Court's dumbest fustice, but on this issue, fustice OConnor is not alone. Back in fuly, fustice Stephen G. Breyer said, on ABC's This Week, that tbe U.S. Constitution will have to 'fttfj into the governing documents of other nations," citing globalization and immigration as reasons for giving up our sovereignty. And in August, fustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered a speech to the American Constitution Society in which she, too,

openly endorsed tbe use of international law by American courts. 'Vur island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change," she said 'Justices are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."

These statements, coming as they do from three Supreme Court Justices, is positively bone-chilling. It is both illogical and unconstitutionalfor our courts to use international law in their decisions. As the expression goes, if your friends jumped off a cliff (as they have—witness tbe Europeans' attachment to socialism), would you jump toof Besides, the fact that other countries have different laws and practices than the United States gives no more reason to cast aside ours for theirs than vice versa. Nobody ever suggests that other countries should adopt our laws to create a better impression for us. And no one can pretend that Americans' opinion of other nations does not ifleave [a] mark," as the invasion of Iraq demonstrates. Other countries should not bend to our will on matters of domestic policy; on this, tbe elites are correct But neither should the United States bend to foreign countries' will in these areas. To argue that this country should adopt certain laws and practices, simply because other countries have done so, is to apply tbe ad hominem fallacy to nation-states.

On the issue of constitutionality, only laws enacted by American legislators have any legal authority in American courts. Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution vests all federal legislative power in the Congress of tbe United States, and Section 7 sets out the process by which Congress enacts laws. Section 8 specifies Congress's powers, and tbe rarely-enforced Tenth Amendment reserves for tbe states all legislative authority in relation to those subiects not mentioned

in Section 8. Tbe Supremacy Clause in Article VI provides, ftTbis Constitution, and tbe Laws of tbe United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under tbe Authority of tbe United States, shall be tbe supreme Law of tbe Land-" No legislative choices made by foreign nations are binding on the United States, unless representatives of the latter have also ratified those choices.

When two or more countries sign a treaty, this does require that each country's behavior change somewhat to suit the others' goals, and the United States has signed not a few treaties over the past five decades. However, this change of behavior must be limited to the terms stipulated in the treaty. When a country joins the United Nations, this does not mean that it has agreed to tailor its social legislation or criminal justice policies to the wills of tbe French and German constituencies. And even if tbe United States did sign a treaty entrusting its domestic policy even partially to other countries, that treaty would be null and void. Federal legislative power is nondelegable; it must reside exclusively in Congress. As to state legislative power, tbe Tenth Amendment provides that the states may enact whatever policies they wish, so long as they do not usurp the federal government's delegated powers or violate any provision of the Constitution. Thus, it is unlawful to set any authority, foreign or domestic, above the states in regard to these matters. Obviously, the central government cannot sign over a power that the Constitution withholds from it.

There are many who wish that our lawmakers copied the practices of their foreign counterparts more often than they do. Much of the reason why American courts do not ordinarily behave like European courts is that tbe former interpret American rather than European law, and American law presently is more conservative. Tbe undoubtedly numerous judges who dislike this state of affairs nonetheless have no right to change it. Chief fustice John Marshall wrote, in bis historic opinion for tbe Court in Marbury v. Madison, "It is emphatically tbe province and duty of tbe judicial department to say what tbe law is." Judges who see a greater role for themselves

than this, who believe that tbey have a mandate to impose tbeir political preferences on the rest of us, have no respect for the constitutional design of government and should immediately resign. For unelected officials to write policy does violence to the separation ofpowers at the core of American law.

Alas, in a very real sense, the constitutional objection misses the point. For the past two generations, the Constitution has held very little significance in constitutional law. Legal reasoning is outmoded; only the fusticesy opinions of desirable policy matter now. Applying this mindset to the global age will wreak havoc on the law and on our republic's greatest traditions. Alexander Hamilton observed, in Federalist No. 78, that laws require the consent of the governed in order to be valid But fustices O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer think that they know better. The more they use global law to defend their indefensible rulings, the less public policy will reflect public opinion. Instead of the system envisioned by our Founders, in which

policy is made by elected representatives speaking for Americans, these fustices are advocating a system where policy is made by our courts, speaking for the citizens of other countries.

The problem, then, goes deeper than the enactment of our neighbors' bad policies. A t bottom, it is this: in being forced to adopt the laws and practices of other nations, America will become less and less American—without her consent. It is ironic that these pompous mandarins, who pretend to be enthusiastic about protecting rights, have no concern at all for Americans' most important right: the right to rule their own affairs. Though tbey pretend otherwise, tbeir goal has never been to maximize freedom but to impose tbeir opinions as law on the country. That is indefensible. What makes tbeir wishes better than anyone else'sf The author wishes that he could date Michelle Branch, but obviously that does not justify bringing about that situation regardless of what Ms. Branch thinks. To make such an admission is to reveal a character trait that no one ever inculcated in

4

the aforementioned fustices: humility, defined for present purposes as the recognition that one is not God

Most disturbing, the fustices' remarks did not excite the public condemnation that tbey so richly deserve. Bearing in mind the old legal maxim that silence gives consent, tbey, and likeminded judges throughout our legal system, will almost certainly feelfree to continue importing foreign laws into American courts. And so, self-government will be sacrificed to placate foreign politicians and judges, who neither pay taxes to the IRS nor vote in our elections. Americans used to brag, "Here, sir, the people rule!" No longer. Members of our highest court have declared us dependent on the rest of the world The open acknowledgment that the Constitution must change to fit the laws and customs of other nations will leave no meaningful check on the power of our judges to write policy from the bench—a far greater role than was envisionedfor them by the Framers. Those who have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution have now officially discarded it I dissent TBS