WEBVTT

NOTE The Fourteenth Amendment

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000
Okay, here we are for number four of these, and this one is on the 14th Amendment.

2
00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:09.000
I think this is the most difficult one of all ten of them this week,

3
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.000
because this is a difficult issue for people of our persuasion to deal with.

4
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:24.000
I am going to take a position on this issue, but it's not one that I think is reached easily,

5
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:28.000
but I'm going to argue for it, and I don't think that if you disagree with me

6
00:00:58.000 --> 00:01:10.000
How is a layman you can possibly hope to form an opinion on this when informed scholars on both sides of this debate seem on the surface of it to make such persuasive claims?

7
00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:25.000
Well, let me begin by reading the 14th Amendment, Section 1, because that's the section where most of the controversy has arisen.

8
00:01:25.000 --> 00:01:33.000
Actually, I think for that reason I might instead just get the rest of the amendment out of the way and then we'll spend the rest of the time focusing on Section 1.

9
00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:43.000
So, Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, most of these sections, Sections 2, 3 and 4 are not of ongoing significance to us

10
00:01:43.000 --> 00:01:54.000
because Section 2 involves penalizing the states for withholding suffrage from the freed slaves

11
00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:58.800
and it's going to proportionately decrease their representation to the extent that they do this.

12
00:01:58.800 --> 00:02:03.800
Well, that provision is superseded by the 15th Amendment two years later.

13
00:02:03.800 --> 00:02:08.500
The 14th Amendment is declared ratified in 1868, 15th and 1870.

14
00:02:08.500 --> 00:02:11.000
So that one's no longer pertinent.

15
00:02:11.000 --> 00:02:18.700
Section 3 says, no person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president

16
00:02:18.700 --> 00:02:22.800
or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state

17
00:02:22.800 --> 00:02:26.800
who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States

18
00:02:26.800 --> 00:02:30.800
or as a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state

19
00:02:30.800 --> 00:02:35.800
to support the Constitution of the United States shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion

20
00:02:35.800 --> 00:02:39.800
against the same or give an aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

21
00:02:39.800 --> 00:02:43.800
But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house remove such disability.

22
00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:49.800
Well, again, that's not relevant to us today because nobody who took part in the Southern Confederacy

23
00:02:49.800 --> 00:03:12.800
Section 4 simply upholds the validity of the public debt of the United States and repudiates the Confederate debt.

24
00:03:12.800 --> 00:03:18.800
Well, again, I don't think that's terribly relevant today because I don't think anybody's walking around with a Confederate savings bond

25
00:03:18.800 --> 00:03:21.800
and the Federal Savings Bond expecting to cash it in.

26
00:03:21.800 --> 00:03:25.800
So we're really focusing on section one of the amendment.

27
00:03:25.800 --> 00:03:27.800
So section one reads,

28
00:03:27.800 --> 00:03:33.800
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

29
00:03:33.800 --> 00:03:37.800
are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

30
00:03:37.800 --> 00:03:39.800
We'll take that sentence first.

31
00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:45.800
This sentence is taken as overriding the Dred Scott decision,

32
00:03:45.800 --> 00:03:49.800
The Dred Scott decision, at least part of the Dred Scott decision of 1857,

33
00:03:49.800 --> 00:03:57.800
in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney had in effect dismissed Dred Scott's claim to freedom

34
00:03:57.800 --> 00:04:02.800
because he argued that Dred Scott, by virtue of being of African descent, was not an American citizen

35
00:04:02.800 --> 00:04:06.800
and therefore had no standing to bring a suit in the Supreme Court.

36
00:04:06.800 --> 00:04:12.800
But according to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, all persons born or nationalized in the United States

37
00:04:12.800 --> 00:04:21.800
The second sentence of Section 1, this is the one that has been the occasion of all the controversy.

38
00:04:21.800 --> 00:04:29.800
It reads, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

39
00:04:29.800 --> 00:04:35.800
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law,

40
00:04:35.800 --> 00:04:39.800
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

41
00:04:39.800 --> 00:04:45.800
Now, on the face of it, that's about as unobjectionable statement as you could ask for.

42
00:04:45.800 --> 00:05:04.800
However, what has arisen ever since the drafting of the amendment, but really in the 20th century, is a debate over what exactly that very legalistic-sounding sentence was intended to do.

43
00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:26.800
And there are scholars on both sides, or actually more than two sides of this issue. On one side you have people like the recently deceased Raoul Berger, who was a professor at Harvard Law School, who wrote a book called Government by Judiciary, which is a long book but is worth the read.

44
00:05:26.800 --> 00:05:38.800
If you don't have time to read Government by Judiciary, you should at least read his shorter book, much shorter book, called The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, because that contains a lot of relevant argumentation.

45
00:05:38.800 --> 00:05:47.800
And I think that Berger, there's nothing more fashionable, or there's only a few things in legal circles more fashionable than to dismiss Berger's scholarship.

46
00:05:47.800 --> 00:05:52.800
But it's actually quite good if you go into it without any particular axe to grind.

47
00:05:52.800 --> 00:06:02.800
It's quite good, and he makes a very persuasive argument, that the 14th Amendment in fact was intended to be very modest in scope.

48
00:06:02.800 --> 00:06:10.800
It was not intended to bring about any kind of revolutionary change of the constitutional order, but rather had a very modest intent.

49
00:06:10.800 --> 00:06:15.800
And in a moment we'll get into more detail about that modest intent, but just for right now,

50
00:06:15.800 --> 00:06:21.060
It was intended to protect at least the most basic and fundamental rights of the freedmen

51
00:06:21.060 --> 00:06:23.800
in the wake of the abolition of slavery.

52
00:06:23.800 --> 00:06:30.860
In addition to Berger, there's Charles Fairman, whom Berger cites at great length in his scholarship.

53
00:06:30.860 --> 00:06:36.240
On the other hand, we have people like Michael Curtis, who since the 1980s has argued to

54
00:06:36.240 --> 00:06:44.280
the contrary, that in fact the 14th Amendment had a much broader and more sweeping intent.

55
00:06:44.280 --> 00:06:59.280
And Curtis puts forth the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment was not merely this limited, modest, finite proposal that Berger suggests,

56
00:06:59.280 --> 00:07:07.280
but rather that it was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights in such a way that they would apply to the states.

57
00:07:07.280 --> 00:07:13.280
Originally, the Bill of Rights were understood to apply not to the states, but to the federal government.

58
00:07:13.280 --> 00:07:20.280
And we can see that in the wording of the Bill of Rights in, for example, most obviously in the First Amendment.

59
00:07:20.280 --> 00:07:25.280
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not say, Massachusetts shall make no law.

60
00:07:25.280 --> 00:07:30.280
You know, that would interfere with freedom of speech or press or religion.

61
00:07:30.280 --> 00:07:32.280
It says, Congress shall make no law.

62
00:07:32.280 --> 00:07:39.280
That was the understanding that the states, given that at the time the First Amendment was drafted, you had all different kinds of states.

63
00:07:39.280 --> 00:07:44.280
You had some states that had full religious liberty, like Virginia or Pennsylvania.

64
00:07:44.280 --> 00:07:51.280
But you also had states like Massachusetts that had tax-funded church establishments.

65
00:07:51.280 --> 00:07:56.280
How are you going to have a common religious policy with such disparate states?

66
00:07:56.280 --> 00:08:00.280
Well, the answer is you just simply leave the federal government out of the matter.

67
00:08:00.280 --> 00:08:04.280
Federal government adopts a completely non-interventionist policy.

68
00:08:04.280 --> 00:08:07.280
That's what the First Amendment was intended to do.

69
00:08:07.280 --> 00:08:19.280
And that was the mainstream opinion throughout the 19th century, was that the First Amendment and the First Eight Amendments to the Constitution were restrictions on the Federal Government that did not apply to the states.

70
00:08:19.280 --> 00:08:25.280
Now, of course, the states themselves have their own state constitutions, which typically would provide these very protections.

71
00:08:25.280 --> 00:08:32.280
But the idea was that the Federal Bill of Rights protects us against only the Federal Government.

72
00:08:32.280 --> 00:08:40.280
This position, that the Bill of Rights originally was intended to apply only to the Federal Government,

73
00:08:40.280 --> 00:08:44.280
receives sanction not only in the text of those amendments,

74
00:08:44.280 --> 00:08:51.280
and not only in the fact that Madison himself favored applying them to the states, but was overruled, we have that.

75
00:08:51.280 --> 00:08:59.280
Also in the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, John Marshall made clear that that was the consensus.

76
00:08:59.280 --> 00:09:19.280
had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states by affording the people additional protection for the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concern themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

77
00:09:19.280 --> 00:09:31.280
So, in that case, Marshall is making clear that the text of the Bill of Rights in no way indicates that they would apply to the states and that if they had been intended to, they would have been written in such a way that that would be obvious.

78
00:09:31.280 --> 00:09:45.280
Well, according to Michael Curtis and his work on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment changes this constitutional order, takes those amendments in the Bill of Rights and applies them to the states so that from the time of the Fourteenth Amendment onward,

79
00:09:45.280 --> 00:09:54.280
And if we take the first amendment onward, now the states also are bound by the first amendment and like amendments.

80
00:09:54.280 --> 00:09:58.280
There is some controversy as to how many of these amendments were intended to be applied to the states.

81
00:09:58.280 --> 00:10:01.280
Would the second amendment apply, for example?

82
00:10:01.280 --> 00:10:06.280
But the point is that particularly the first amendment was being applied to the states now.

83
00:10:06.280 --> 00:10:14.280
And that the federal government, therefore, could enforce these rights against an offending state government.

84
00:10:14.280 --> 00:10:27.280
Now, even that does not sound particularly objectionable, because, you know, why should the state governments have the power to interfere in these types of people's rights, and shouldn't there be some kind of oversight?

85
00:10:27.280 --> 00:10:32.280
Well, those questions we can save for later, but for now, the scope of the argument is this.

86
00:10:32.280 --> 00:10:39.280
If this is true, if Curtis is saying it's true that the 14th Amendment, in fact, was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states,

87
00:10:39.280 --> 00:10:43.280
In the United States, then it does amount to a very radical change to the constitutional order

88
00:10:43.280 --> 00:10:46.280
because it dramatically increases the police powers of the Federal Government.

89
00:10:46.280 --> 00:10:53.280
It gives it a pretext, a multiplicity of pretext for intervening in the life of the states,

90
00:10:53.280 --> 00:10:59.280
presumably in the name of upholding individual rights of the Bill of Rights.

91
00:10:59.280 --> 00:11:02.280
Now these folks have gone back and forth arguing with each other,

92
00:11:02.280 --> 00:11:06.280
particularly Berger and Curtis for years until Berger's death.

93
00:11:36.280 --> 00:11:40.280
in line and just look at them and say, how can I possibly figure out which side is correct?

94
00:11:40.280 --> 00:11:48.280
Well, my own instinct is that Berger is correct, but I don't by any means put that forth to you as an infallible statement.

95
00:11:48.280 --> 00:11:53.280
I could be mistaken on this and I have no particular stake in this one way or the other.

96
00:11:53.280 --> 00:12:01.280
I think Berger is right, but the major argument that's made by the Curtis side is that if you look, for example,

97
00:12:01.280 --> 00:12:09.280
Let's take an example at the major drafters of the amendment, particularly Congressman John Bingham of Ohio.

98
00:12:09.280 --> 00:12:20.280
And you look at what he said. According to Curtis, it's quite clear that Bingham did intend the 14th Amendment to apply Bill of Rights protections to the states

99
00:12:20.280 --> 00:12:24.280
and to give the federal government the power to enforce them against the states.

100
00:12:24.280 --> 00:12:31.780
The counter to this is that if you actually read Bingham's collected statements on the matter,

101
00:12:31.780 --> 00:12:35.280
he's an extremely confused and contradictory fellow.

102
00:12:35.280 --> 00:12:42.780
For example, Charles Fairman describes Bingham as a man of peculiar conceptions,

103
00:12:42.780 --> 00:12:47.780
an ardent rhetorician, not a man of exact knowledge or accurate language.

104
00:12:47.780 --> 00:12:54.780
Alexander Bickel says Bingham was not normally distinguished for precision of thought or statement.

105
00:12:54.780 --> 00:13:01.780
Another scholar, Wallace Mendelson says Bingham is one who used ringing rhetoric as a substitute for analysis.

106
00:13:01.780 --> 00:13:07.780
Leonard Levy says Bingham was extremely confused and contradictory in his presentation.

107
00:13:07.780 --> 00:13:13.780
So the typical reply to the claim that, well, you know, Bingham says when he wrote the amendment,

108
00:13:13.780 --> 00:13:17.780
He wrote the amendment. He intended it to have this sweeping effect.

109
00:13:17.780 --> 00:13:24.780
Often times the response to that is that given that Bingham is such a confusing and difficult to follow thinker,

110
00:13:24.780 --> 00:13:29.780
if you're going to engage in a dramatic revolution in the structure of the federal government,

111
00:13:29.780 --> 00:13:35.780
you can't do it on the basis of somebody whose own thought is so internally inconsistent and difficult to follow.

112
00:13:35.780 --> 00:13:47.780
It has to be crystal clear, or otherwise you have to presume, you have to basically be conservative unless there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

113
00:13:47.780 --> 00:14:01.780
There does appear to have been, though, and this is one of Berger's arguments, a widespread understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was simply codifying the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

114
00:14:01.780 --> 00:14:07.780
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been passed because of concerns that now that the slaves were freed,

115
00:14:07.780 --> 00:14:11.780
they might not have all of their rights as freemen fully respected.

116
00:14:11.780 --> 00:14:16.780
And so the federal government wanted to protect them, even against the state governments.

117
00:14:16.780 --> 00:14:21.780
And in particular, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was looking to protect the freedmen

118
00:14:21.780 --> 00:14:28.780
when it came to such matters as being able to enter into contracts, particularly labor contracts, freely,

119
00:14:28.780 --> 00:14:34.780
and not being coerced into them, or the right to be able to travel freely throughout the state,

120
00:14:34.780 --> 00:14:40.780
or the right to be able to vindicate your rights by having use of the court system,

121
00:14:40.780 --> 00:14:43.780
or the right to hold private property.

122
00:14:43.780 --> 00:14:50.780
These fundamental basic rights were being upheld on behalf of the freedmen in the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

123
00:14:50.780 --> 00:14:54.780
Why would the 14th Amendment in effect codify that?

124
00:14:54.780 --> 00:15:01.780
Well, certainly one possible reason is that what if the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were found unconstitutional?

125
00:15:01.780 --> 00:15:07.780
Well, now you'd have the 14th Amendment there that would give constitutional backing to these kinds of protections.

126
00:15:07.780 --> 00:15:18.780
So that's basically to protect the Civil Rights Act from constitutional challenges by actually enshrining it in the Constitution.

127
00:15:18.780 --> 00:15:32.780
So this is basically the Berger position. What we see here is not a dramatic attempt to overturn the relationship between the Federal Government and the states, giving the Federal Government dramatic oversight power over the states.

128
00:15:32.780 --> 00:15:40.780
It really was intended to give the Federal Government a relatively minor oversight power over the states, just when it comes to the most basic rights of the freedmen.

129
00:15:40.780 --> 00:15:46.780
And we see that in some of the contemporary testimonies.

130
00:15:46.780 --> 00:15:54.780
We see quotations from one congressman after another saying that this is in fact what we're doing,

131
00:15:54.780 --> 00:15:59.780
that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment are for all intents and purposes identical.

132
00:15:59.780 --> 00:16:11.780
Now, with the passage of time, this Article 1, by 1925, is being interpreted in the Broadway.

133
00:16:11.780 --> 00:16:22.780
In the first 50 or 60 years of its existence, the 14th Amendment was interpreted more or less as Berger claims that it should have been interpreted.

134
00:16:22.780 --> 00:16:29.780
It was interpreted very narrowly, not as granting major oversight of the states, but relatively minor.

135
00:16:29.780 --> 00:16:38.780
So you had a relatively conservative Supreme Court that interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment relatively conservatively,

136
00:16:38.780 --> 00:16:44.780
although they did sometimes intervene, like in the Lochner case, but we'll just stick to this point right now.

137
00:16:44.780 --> 00:16:50.780
For example, shortly after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, or was declared ratified,

138
00:16:50.780 --> 00:16:54.780
Something called the Blaine Amendment was proposed.

139
00:16:54.780 --> 00:17:02.780
The Blaine Amendment said the restrictions of the Bill of the First Amendment should be applied to the states.

140
00:17:02.780 --> 00:17:05.780
Now, an argument that Berger might make would be,

141
00:17:05.780 --> 00:17:10.780
if the Fourteenth Amendment had been intended to apply the First Amendment to the states,

142
00:17:10.780 --> 00:17:15.780
why would anyone have bothered to propose the Blaine Amendment, which does that very thing?

143
00:17:15.780 --> 00:17:21.780
Why would it affect the same Congress, in large part, that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment?

144
00:17:21.780 --> 00:17:29.780
Why would they also draft the Blaine Amendment, if they had intended the Fourteenth Amendment to fulfill that function?

145
00:17:29.780 --> 00:17:34.780
So this would be evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment had originally been intended not to do any such thing,

146
00:17:34.780 --> 00:17:39.780
or otherwise it would have been absurd to propose the Blaine Amendment.

147
00:17:39.780 --> 00:17:48.780
But by the time you get to 1925, you begin to get, coming from the court, a doctrine that becomes known as the Incorporation Doctrine,

148
00:17:48.780 --> 00:17:54.780
which argues that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights protections against the states.

149
00:17:54.780 --> 00:18:03.780
And that first arises in a case in 1925, Gitlow v. New York, which is a case involving a fellow who was a communist,

150
00:18:03.780 --> 00:18:14.780
And he'd gotten in trouble with the law in the state of New York, which had in effect a law that prohibited somebody from advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

151
00:18:14.780 --> 00:18:20.780
And this fellow did advocate the violent overthrow of the government, so they prosecuted him on the basis of this law.

152
00:18:20.780 --> 00:18:27.780
And he appealed to the Supreme Court and said, hey, they're violating my free speech rights.

153
00:18:27.780 --> 00:18:40.780
Well, the Supreme Court agreed that, in fact, the right of free speech was a right that the 14th Amendment intended to apply against the states

154
00:18:40.780 --> 00:18:47.780
and that the federal government could in effect enforce it on the state governments when they went astray and did something like this.

155
00:18:47.780 --> 00:18:56.780
So that's where it starts to appear, and then the doctrine really begins to get legs, as it were, in succeeding decades,

156
00:18:56.780 --> 00:19:01.780
where you get a kind of full-blown theory of incorporation.

157
00:19:01.780 --> 00:19:13.780
There's no absolute consensus, even into the 50s and 60s, about incorporation.

158
00:19:13.780 --> 00:19:18.780
You do get some legal scholars who say that this doctrine seems to come out of nowhere.

159
00:19:18.780 --> 00:19:22.780
This doctrine seems to be being employed by Supreme Court justices

160
00:19:22.780 --> 00:19:29.780
Today, to question the incorporation doctrine would be

161
00:19:33.380 --> 00:19:39.440
incredibly idiosyncratic, and it just wouldn't be done. It would be like saying that the

162
00:19:39.440 --> 00:19:43.460
federal government doesn't have the power to build highways because it's not listed

163
00:19:43.460 --> 00:19:48.520
in the constitution. That's what Jefferson believed. But if you said that today, they'd

164
00:19:48.520 --> 00:19:58.520
They either say, thank you Congressman Paul for showing up, or they say, you know, we're not interested.

165
00:19:58.520 --> 00:20:10.520
Okay. Now the reason I say that this is a difficult issue for libertarians is that, of course, part of a libertarian wants to do this,

166
00:20:10.520 --> 00:20:15.520
wants to use the federal government when possible for the sake of preserving liberty

167
00:20:15.520 --> 00:20:20.520
and for going after, you know, terrible decisions and oppressions of the state governments

168
00:20:20.520 --> 00:20:25.520
because of course the state governments are not perfect by any means.

169
00:20:25.520 --> 00:20:30.520
They're corrupt and they're criminal and all that.

170
00:20:30.520 --> 00:20:35.520
Yet there are difficulties that are associated with this.

171
00:20:35.520 --> 00:20:37.520
So I'd like to look at some of them.

172
00:20:37.520 --> 00:20:41.520
Let's first look at the issue of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment

173
00:20:41.520 --> 00:20:51.520
If the 14th Amendment could be enforced by angels, then I might support it.

174
00:20:51.520 --> 00:21:00.520
If it could be enforced by angels, or at the very least, people whose view of rights is the same as our view of rights,

175
00:21:00.520 --> 00:21:04.520
then I would almost not have a problem with it, or I'd have much less of a problem with it.

176
00:21:04.520 --> 00:21:14.520
The difficulty is that people who are on the Supreme Court or on these federal courts, to say the least, don't necessarily have our same view of rights.

177
00:21:14.520 --> 00:21:23.520
So when they say, oh, we're just intervening to uphold the Bill of Rights in the states, well, their interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not always yours.

178
00:21:23.520 --> 00:21:37.520
As we'll see, there was a time in the 1970s where the Supreme Court almost found that the Constitution contains a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans as a right.

179
00:21:37.520 --> 00:21:43.520
So if you're going to say, well, you know, we need somebody to keep the states in line, so let's go with the Supreme Court.

180
00:21:43.520 --> 00:21:48.520
Again, be careful. As I say, in strict theory, if the Supreme Court had angels on it, that might be a good idea.

181
00:21:48.520 --> 00:22:13.520
Let's first take a look at the ratification of the amendment, because this is a matter of controversy that got me into a lot of trouble for raising it in the Reconstruction chapter of my American history book, but I'm only repeating a totally mainstream interpretation.

182
00:22:13.520 --> 00:22:19.520
The argument that the 14th Amendment was not constitutionally ratified.

183
00:22:19.520 --> 00:22:22.520
The old National Review used to just take this for granted.

184
00:22:22.520 --> 00:22:26.520
Old conservative publications, libertarians, all understood this.

185
00:22:26.520 --> 00:22:31.520
In the 1950s, U.S. News and World Report published an editorial saying,

186
00:22:31.520 --> 00:22:34.520
of course we all know the 14th Amendment wasn't legitimately ratified.

187
00:22:34.520 --> 00:22:36.520
This was just sort of common knowledge.

188
00:22:36.520 --> 00:22:39.520
Now I say it today and I get Max Boot saying,

189
00:22:39.520 --> 00:22:44.520
There are a few factors to take note of when we look at the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

190
00:22:44.520 --> 00:22:49.520
First we have the fact that the amendment was proposed in Congress

191
00:22:49.520 --> 00:22:56.520
and two-thirds of the people present voted to approve the amendment.

192
00:22:56.520 --> 00:23:05.520
And then it gets sent out to the states, and then three-quarters of the states have voted to approve the amendment.

193
00:23:05.520 --> 00:23:12.520
Well, one thing we can note about the passage of the 14th Amendment is that it was not, shall we say, entirely without blemish.

194
00:23:12.520 --> 00:23:18.520
At the time that the amendment was set to be voted on and discussed,

195
00:23:18.520 --> 00:23:23.520
John P. Stockton was a newly elected senator from New Jersey,

196
00:23:23.520 --> 00:23:27.520
and he was known to be an opponent of the 14th Amendment.

197
00:23:27.520 --> 00:23:35.520
John P. Stockton was a newly elected senator from New Jersey, and he was known to be an opponent of the 14th Amendment.

198
00:23:35.520 --> 00:23:42.520
He duly took his seat in the U.S. Senate at the beginning of the 39th Congress.

199
00:23:42.520 --> 00:23:53.520
Well, informal canvassing of senators made quite clear that there was no two-thirds majority in favor of the amendment at that time.

200
00:23:53.520 --> 00:24:00.520
In fact, it turned out that the amendment would have been one vote short of passage.

201
00:24:00.520 --> 00:24:08.520
So, a motion was introduced not to seat John Stockton.

202
00:24:08.520 --> 00:24:12.520
But he's already been seated. This is the problem. He's already been seated.

203
00:24:12.520 --> 00:24:16.520
So you can't really vote not to seat somebody who has been seated.

204
00:24:16.520 --> 00:24:21.520
If he's been seated and you want to get rid of him for one reason or another, you have to vote to expel him.

205
00:24:21.520 --> 00:24:28.520
But expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. They didn't have a two-thirds vote to expel them.

206
00:24:28.520 --> 00:24:32.520
So they voted not to seat somebody who had already been seated.

207
00:24:32.520 --> 00:24:39.520
I mean, it's sort of like, how can something be both A and not A at the same time and in the same manner?

208
00:24:39.520 --> 00:24:43.520
So they voted not to seat this man who had already been seated.

209
00:24:43.520 --> 00:24:48.520
And then they went ahead and voted to approve the Fourteenth Amendment.

210
00:24:48.520 --> 00:24:55.020
Now that's really not legal, it's not a proper procedure, but that's actually the least of the problems associated with the amendment.

211
00:24:55.020 --> 00:24:56.820
Then it goes out to the states.

212
00:24:56.820 --> 00:25:02.620
Now Tennessee ratifies the amendment, but here's how Tennessee ratified the amendment.

213
00:25:02.620 --> 00:25:11.720
The problem that was occurring in Tennessee was that opponents of the amendment were refusing to show up at the state house and thereby preventing a quorum.

214
00:25:11.720 --> 00:25:16.220
You have to have a certain minimum number of people present in order to conduct business.

215
00:25:16.220 --> 00:25:22.220
Well, opponents of the amendment thought one way to prevent its ratification is just not to show up, and then they wouldn't have a quorum.

216
00:25:22.220 --> 00:25:38.220
Well, in order to get a quorum, two of the anti-amendment Tennessee legislators were actually kidnapped and forcibly brought to the State House and declared to be present so that the vote could take place.

217
00:25:38.220 --> 00:25:47.220
Now, there are some sticklers, you know, who think that kidnapping is immoral, you know, who would throw, you know, some doubt on this, the legality of this.

218
00:25:47.220 --> 00:25:55.220
And the thing is that when the House Speaker called the roll, well, these two representatives refused to answer.

219
00:25:55.220 --> 00:26:00.220
They refused to say they were present because in their mind they weren't, spiritually they weren't present.

220
00:26:00.220 --> 00:26:04.220
They were only there, you know, under duress, I mean, really by force.

221
00:26:04.220 --> 00:26:09.220
In Oregon, there was a situation that was at least as irregular as that one.

222
00:26:09.220 --> 00:26:14.220
In Oregon, you had a case where the legislature of Oregon voted on the amendment,

223
00:26:14.220 --> 00:26:17.220
and they voted to approve the amendment.

224
00:26:17.220 --> 00:26:22.220
But then it was discovered that two of the Republicans who had been elected in Oregon

225
00:26:22.220 --> 00:26:24.220
had actually not been legally elected.

226
00:26:24.220 --> 00:26:27.220
When they actually looked again at the votes, it turned out that,

227
00:26:27.220 --> 00:26:31.220
The Republicans who had been elected in Oregon had actually not been legally elected.

228
00:26:31.220 --> 00:26:37.220
When they actually looked again at the votes, it turned out that Democrats had been elected in those two seats.

229
00:26:37.220 --> 00:26:41.220
So two Republicans were removed and replaced by two duly elected Democrats.

230
00:26:41.220 --> 00:26:47.220
So some people thought, well, we should re-vote on the amendment now that we have the legitimately elected people present.

231
00:26:47.220 --> 00:26:50.220
This time they voted not to approve the amendment.

232
00:26:50.220 --> 00:26:54.220
But they were told by the federal government, sorry, we take your first answer.

233
00:26:54.220 --> 00:27:10.220
New Jersey, now New Jersey and Ohio, the irregularities there are, it's not quite so clear cut, I mean obviously in Oregon there's no excuse for that, and in Tennessee there's obviously no excusing that.

234
00:27:10.220 --> 00:27:23.220
New Jersey and Ohio is not quite so clear cut, but arguably there's at least some kind of irregularity here, because both of these states rescinded their ratifications, and they rescinded them though, before the amendment went into effect.

235
00:27:23.220 --> 00:27:53.220
I mean, you could argue that if the amendment has already gone into effect, and then you vote to rescind your ratification, it is probably too late, but arguably, they may at least have had some right to withdraw, but they were told once again, sorry, we take your first answer, and New Jersey in particular, at the time that they attempted to withdraw their ratification, they actually announced, they said that, we are fearful that this amendment has been worded ambiguously with deliberate intent,

236
00:27:53.220 --> 00:27:58.220
So that, in the future, it can be used to deprive us of our liberties.

237
00:27:58.220 --> 00:27:59.220
Very interesting.

238
00:27:59.220 --> 00:28:04.220
Well, the most fundamental reason, though, that there was an illegality involved here,

239
00:28:04.220 --> 00:28:11.220
is that here you have the southern states, which they ratified the 13th Amendment in 1865,

240
00:28:11.220 --> 00:28:14.220
abolishing slavery, no one had any problem with the men.

241
00:28:14.220 --> 00:28:20.220
1867 rolls along, the radical Republicans in Congress, who are the wing of the Republican Party,

242
00:28:20.220 --> 00:28:25.220
The Republican Party who favor a very harsh settlement with the South.

243
00:28:25.220 --> 00:28:30.220
Now that they're in power, in 1867 they declare, other than Tennessee,

244
00:28:30.220 --> 00:28:33.220
they like Tennessee because Tennessee ratified the 14th Amendment,

245
00:28:33.220 --> 00:28:36.220
but other than Tennessee, the other former states of the Confederacy,

246
00:28:36.220 --> 00:28:42.220
the other ten states were declared in 1867 to be illegal, without legal governments.

247
00:28:42.220 --> 00:28:47.220
And they're going to be militarily occupied, they're going to be divided into five military districts,

248
00:29:17.220 --> 00:29:21.720
And you can't ask them to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, because they're not legal states.

249
00:29:21.720 --> 00:29:26.720
You may as well ask France to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would be perfectly irrelevant.

250
00:29:26.720 --> 00:29:30.220
So in other words, you're depriving them of all the privileges of statehood,

251
00:29:30.220 --> 00:29:33.720
but nevertheless you're going to impose on them one of the burdens of statehood.

252
00:29:33.720 --> 00:29:37.220
You're going to actually demand that they ratify an amendment to the Constitution,

253
00:29:37.220 --> 00:29:39.720
when you yourself have just said they're not even legal.

254
00:29:39.720 --> 00:29:43.220
The states as constituted in the South are not legal.

255
00:29:43.220 --> 00:29:46.720
So it's been argued that therefore their votes could not have counted.

256
00:29:46.720 --> 00:29:56.720
In no way could an illegal state, by definition, that vote for the amendment be counted as a vote in favor of the amendment.

257
00:29:56.720 --> 00:30:00.720
That's not to mention the coercion involved here.

258
00:30:00.720 --> 00:30:11.720
There was one congressman who said that when the Fourteenth Amendment was sent out to the states, Tennessee approved it, but the other ten southern Confederate states rejected it.

259
00:30:11.720 --> 00:30:15.160
The Northern Congressmen who said, well, the Southern states have rejected the 14th Amendment,

260
00:30:15.160 --> 00:30:20.600
so we're going to march upon them at bayonet point until they do ratify it.

261
00:30:20.600 --> 00:30:28.400
Well, most legal principles would have it that a decision that you're forced to make under duress is not legally binding.

262
00:30:28.400 --> 00:30:30.640
So we have that difficulty as well.

263
00:30:30.640 --> 00:30:36.640
And for these reasons and even several others, very recently, like early 1990s,

264
00:30:36.640 --> 00:30:42.640
As far as McDonald concluded that the 14th Amendment was never constitutionally ratified.

265
00:30:42.640 --> 00:30:45.640
Now, Forrest McDonald is not some wacko lunatic.

266
00:30:45.640 --> 00:30:49.640
I mean, he's received countless honors.

267
00:30:49.640 --> 00:30:52.640
He's a Jefferson lecturer of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

268
00:30:52.640 --> 00:30:55.640
It's like the highest honor you could get. He's not a nutcase.

269
00:30:55.640 --> 00:30:58.640
He's repeating what was kind of a standard view for a good long time.

270
00:30:58.640 --> 00:31:05.640
He repeated this position and lays out the evidence for it in an article that appeared in the Georgia Journal of Southern Legal History.

271
00:31:05.640 --> 00:31:12.640
and Legal History and it's well worth reading. It's very useful and I give you the exact citation on it.

272
00:31:12.640 --> 00:31:22.640
So we have this, you know, very, I think pretty strong case that the amendment is not constitutionally ratified.

273
00:31:22.640 --> 00:31:25.640
We'll return to what the implications of that are.

274
00:31:25.640 --> 00:31:36.640
What I'd like to do at this point is look at where in recent years the Fourteenth Amendment has gone.

275
00:31:39.640 --> 00:31:49.640
And in at least some cases, I'm grateful to the work of Jean Healy, who is with the Cato Institute,

276
00:31:49.640 --> 00:31:53.640
Mises Institute, and most of them are very, very pro 14th Amendment.

277
00:31:53.640 --> 00:31:56.640
Healy has been a source of skepticism about it.

278
00:31:56.640 --> 00:31:59.640
And if you want to get a good overview of Healy's thinking on this matter,

279
00:31:59.640 --> 00:32:07.640
on the Mises Institute website, there is a link to unpublished working papers.

280
00:32:07.640 --> 00:32:11.640
And if you go through the working papers, you do a little search for Healy.

281
00:32:11.640 --> 00:32:14.640
It'll bring you right to that paper. It's excellent.

282
00:32:14.640 --> 00:32:17.640
I mean, he needs to publish this and do more with it.

283
00:32:17.640 --> 00:32:25.040
But Healy raises some serious objections by, for one thing, pointing out what the amendment has actually been used for.

284
00:32:25.040 --> 00:32:30.440
I mean, let alone, forget about all the sugary saccharine language about we're going to protect people's rights and this and that.

285
00:32:30.440 --> 00:32:34.640
What has it actually been used for in practice?

286
00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:43.040
Well, for example, and I cite this in my reconstruction chapter, in the case of U.S. versus Yonkers,

287
00:32:43.040 --> 00:32:50.040
You had a federal judge who demanded that the city government of Yonkers had to build

288
00:32:51.040 --> 00:32:54.040
basically scatter site public housing throughout Yonkers

289
00:32:55.040 --> 00:32:58.040
so as to bring about racial integration in the schools.

290
00:32:59.040 --> 00:33:05.040
Now that, you know, I know there are people in Washington DC who don't think there's anything wrong with that

291
00:33:05.040 --> 00:33:10.040
but this is sort of disruptive to normal community life to have this sort of thing be done

292
00:33:10.040 --> 00:33:12.040
and to require that people pay for this.

293
00:33:13.040 --> 00:33:17.360
But this was done so as to bring about equality in the schools, supposedly.

294
00:33:17.440 --> 00:33:21.280
And if Yonkers did not comply with this,

295
00:33:21.360 --> 00:33:25.000
the court imposed a fine, a non-compliance fine,

296
00:33:25.080 --> 00:33:28.200
that would have bankrupted them within three weeks.

297
00:33:28.280 --> 00:33:30.640
And that was done in the name of the 14th Amendment.

298
00:33:30.720 --> 00:33:35.080
Now, you have to ask yourself, did anybody, whoever it was, even Bingham,

299
00:33:35.160 --> 00:33:38.520
did anybody ratifying the 14th Amendment think it would be used for this purpose?

300
00:33:38.600 --> 00:33:41.160
The question answers itself.

301
00:33:41.160 --> 00:33:46.160
Then you have the case of Missouri versus Jenkins, where the Supreme Court declared

302
00:33:46.160 --> 00:33:53.160
that a federal judge had the power to order a local government to increase property taxes

303
00:33:53.160 --> 00:34:00.160
for the purpose of furthering integration and allowing for busing or whatever other purpose,

304
00:34:00.160 --> 00:34:06.160
even if such a tax increase was actually barred by the state constitution.

305
00:34:06.160 --> 00:34:08.160
A federal judge could override that.

306
00:34:08.160 --> 00:34:17.160
and that's all in the name of the 14th Amendment, so as to grant people the equal protection of the laws and so on and so forth, whatever phrase they're going to refer to there.

307
00:34:17.160 --> 00:34:31.160
Now Healy anticipates an objection here, he says, and I understand libertarians will come back with, well serves you right for having public schools in the first place, you know, of course the government is going to want to regulate them and serves you right, you shouldn't have them.

308
00:34:31.160 --> 00:34:39.160
But he says, well, wait a minute. Take what happened in Prince Edward County, Virginia in the 1960s.

309
00:34:39.160 --> 00:34:44.160
They refused to assess taxes for the schools and they shut them down altogether.

310
00:34:44.160 --> 00:34:55.160
And the court in 1964 ordered the county to raise the taxes and reopen the schools in the name of the 14th Amendment.

311
00:34:55.160 --> 00:35:05.160
So, yet again, here you have the 14th Amendment being used for a purpose that is obviously not compatible with a classical liberal understanding of government.

312
00:35:05.160 --> 00:35:17.160
Healy likewise points out that when the Virginia Military Institute was forced to abandon its male-only admissions policy,

313
00:35:17.160 --> 00:35:21.160
rather similar to the Citadel in South Carolina.

314
00:35:21.160 --> 00:35:26.160
You might think, well, it's a public institution.

315
00:35:26.160 --> 00:35:30.160
They should be forced to admit anybody they want.

316
00:35:30.160 --> 00:35:35.160
Well, one possibility was that the Virginia Military Institute could have just become private,

317
00:35:35.160 --> 00:35:38.160
and then maybe the 14th Amendment wouldn't have applied to them,

318
00:35:38.160 --> 00:35:45.160
but they bore in mind this precedent whereby in the 1960s,

319
00:35:45.160 --> 00:35:50.160
When Virginia closed down its schools and just, in effect, had a private school system at that point,

320
00:35:50.160 --> 00:35:54.160
they were ordered to reopen them on the basis of what the court wanted,

321
00:35:54.160 --> 00:35:58.160
and the VMI people were afraid this would be done even if they went private.

322
00:35:58.160 --> 00:36:01.160
You know, maybe the court could intervene in a similar way

323
00:36:01.160 --> 00:36:06.160
and demand that they return to the previous public situation.

324
00:36:06.160 --> 00:36:13.160
So we have here cases that are at the very least disturbing from a libertarian point of view.

325
00:36:13.160 --> 00:36:24.160
We then have the fact that David Bernstein writes that during the Warren Court era, liberal legal scholars hoped that the Supreme Court would even find a right to a minimum income in the 14th Amendment.

326
00:36:24.160 --> 00:36:36.160
Had it not been for the Nixon administration's appointment of several new, more conservative justices, the Supreme Court might very well have entrenched the American welfare state in the morass of modern constitutional law.

327
00:36:36.160 --> 00:36:43.160
Now of course the irony here is that the Nixon administration favored a minimum income as part of their domestic policy.

328
00:36:43.160 --> 00:36:47.160
Nixon was notoriously bored to death by domestic policy.

329
00:36:47.160 --> 00:36:52.160
He used to say that the American economy is so strong it would take a genius to wreck it.

330
00:36:52.160 --> 00:36:56.160
So it could basically run itself and the president really should be dealing with foreign policy.

331
00:36:56.160 --> 00:37:03.160
Probably sound given that every time Nixon did deal with domestic policy it was terrible, like wage and price controls.

332
00:37:03.160 --> 00:37:08.160
I mean, my gosh, take your own advice. Let Nixon be Nixon. Let him deal with the other stuff.

333
00:37:08.160 --> 00:37:11.160
Actually, don't even let him deal with that, actually, as a matter of fact.

334
00:37:11.160 --> 00:37:13.160
He's not good at either one of them, come to think of it.

335
00:37:13.160 --> 00:37:17.160
But, yeah, Nixon's Family Assistance Program had actually seriously proposed

336
00:37:17.160 --> 00:37:21.160
a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans, for heaven's sake.

337
00:37:21.160 --> 00:37:24.160
So that came very close to happening.

338
00:37:24.160 --> 00:37:29.160
So the reason that there has been some libertarian concern about the Fourteenth Amendment is that,

339
00:37:29.160 --> 00:37:32.160
of course, on the surface it sounds wonderful, but in practice,

340
00:37:32.160 --> 00:37:38.160
In practice, there are human beings with agendas who are employing the Fourteenth Amendment

341
00:37:38.160 --> 00:37:43.160
and they're taking some of these phrases in it and using them as loopholes to drive trucks through

342
00:37:43.160 --> 00:37:54.160
to apply all kinds of undreamed of measures to the states, by no means all of which are compatible in any way with liberty.

343
00:37:54.160 --> 00:38:01.160
Now, in California has been the subject of all kinds of Fourteenth Amendment difficulties in recent years.

344
00:38:01.160 --> 00:38:06.160
In 1996, California, as you all know, has been having budget problems forever.

345
00:38:06.160 --> 00:38:11.160
What other explanation can there be for the fact they voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their governor?

346
00:38:11.160 --> 00:38:18.160
Maybe they think that he can use some of his movie hero tactics to cut the budget or something.

347
00:38:18.160 --> 00:38:22.160
No one knows what to do in California anymore. They've all gone crazy out there.

348
00:38:22.160 --> 00:38:27.160
Is anybody here from California? Yes, I knew it. I knew I was going to regret saying that.

349
00:38:27.160 --> 00:38:30.160
But I'm sure you agree with me. There's definitely something not quite right out there.

350
00:38:30.160 --> 00:38:38.160
Well, these poor folks, they're trying various things and the Supreme Court keeps, or some Federal Court keeps intervening largely on 14th Amendment grounds.

351
00:38:38.160 --> 00:38:48.160
For example, in 1996, the California government wanted to respond to the fact that because they have relatively high welfare payments,

352
00:38:48.160 --> 00:38:54.160
a lot of people from around the country were moving out to California for the express purpose of going on welfare there.

353
00:38:54.160 --> 00:39:11.160
The California law was passed in 1996 that said that if you come to California and you go on welfare, the first year you're on welfare you are restricted to whatever amount you would have received in your state of origin.

354
00:39:11.160 --> 00:39:15.160
But then in subsequent years you get all the full benefits of California welfare.

355
00:39:15.160 --> 00:39:20.160
Well, this obviously, I mean, this is just like the Nazis, right?

356
00:39:20.160 --> 00:39:23.160
It's incredible that anyone would even think of doing something like this.

357
00:39:23.160 --> 00:39:30.160
And sure enough, the court declared that this was to be struck down.

358
00:39:30.160 --> 00:39:32.160
This California law was to be struck down.

359
00:39:32.160 --> 00:39:40.160
So in effect, what the court is saying is, in effect, you're going to have to raise taxes to pay now the higher welfare benefits.

360
00:39:40.160 --> 00:39:42.160
So you've got courts in effect imposing taxes.

361
00:39:42.160 --> 00:39:48.160
14th Amendment grounds because they say that it violates the right to travel.

362
00:39:48.160 --> 00:39:55.160
Because if I can't get the full California welfare benefits, then my right to travel is being impaired.

363
00:39:55.160 --> 00:40:01.160
See, this is where it goes. Like again, you think, oh well, this is wonderful, we'll just force the states to be nice to people.

364
00:40:01.160 --> 00:40:08.160
The problem is you have stark raving lunatics enforcing this thing. That's the problem. If you had angels, it might be another matter.

365
00:40:08.160 --> 00:40:17.160
Then there was the notorious, two years earlier than that, 1994, there was the notorious Proposition 187, California, dealing with the immigration problem.

366
00:40:17.160 --> 00:40:26.160
I read about a month ago that Arnold Schwarzenegger had said at one time, we need to, he said very recently, we need to build a fence and stop the illegal immigration thing,

367
00:40:26.160 --> 00:40:36.160
and then in like three seconds there was such a huge outcry, and he said, oh, no, no, my English was very bad, I didn't mean build a fence, I meant welcome people with cakes, that's what I meant.

368
00:40:36.160 --> 00:40:39.160
Sorry, you took it as offense. I'm sorry.

369
00:40:39.160 --> 00:40:44.160
Well, anyway, the problem in California was that they have so many illegal immigrants coming in

370
00:40:44.160 --> 00:40:48.160
that they're using public services and they're using hospitals and getting free services,

371
00:40:48.160 --> 00:40:53.160
racking up a $30,000 bill and then they can't pay it and then the state is going bankrupt.

372
00:40:53.160 --> 00:40:54.160
How do we deal with that?

373
00:40:54.160 --> 00:41:00.160
So Proposition 187 would have said that if you are an illegal immigrant,

374
00:41:00.160 --> 00:41:30.160
Well, I'm sure some of you remember that at the time this was proposed, every fashionable person in the country, on the left and the right, denounced it. Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett, went out there and told these people, don't you do this, and all the leftists were against it, whatever, even some libertarians were against it, and I thought, well, here's something that actually cuts the budget. Why would you be against it? Like it cuts the budget, right? Well, it passed. It passed. It passed.

375
00:41:30.160 --> 00:41:37.160
I don't think I even need to ask, do you think people who drafted the 14th Amendment were thinking that we're going to give the people who drafted the 14th Amendment

376
00:41:37.160 --> 00:41:38.160
the right to pass?

377
00:41:38.160 --> 00:41:39.160
I don't think so.

378
00:41:39.160 --> 00:41:40.160
I don't think so.

379
00:41:40.160 --> 00:41:41.160
I don't think so.

380
00:41:41.160 --> 00:41:42.160
I don't think so.

381
00:41:42.160 --> 00:41:43.160
I don't think so.

382
00:41:43.160 --> 00:41:44.160
I don't think so.

383
00:41:44.160 --> 00:41:49.160
Somebody who is illegally in the country is equally entitled to free stuff as anyone else.

384
00:41:49.160 --> 00:41:52.160
That's the argument that's made.

385
00:41:52.160 --> 00:41:55.160
Now, I don't think I even need to ask,

386
00:41:55.160 --> 00:41:58.160
do you think people who drafted the 14th Amendment were thinking

387
00:41:58.160 --> 00:42:02.160
that we're going to give absolutely free services to people

388
00:42:02.160 --> 00:42:07.160
like everybody is entitled to it as a matter of human right?

389
00:42:07.160 --> 00:42:13.160
And even if you're not in the country legally, the question answers itself.

390
00:42:13.160 --> 00:42:22.160
Well, one of my favorites was California passed a measure in effect abolishing affirmative action in state university admissions.

391
00:42:22.160 --> 00:42:25.160
Well, that's, you know, it's not really directly a libertarian issue.

392
00:42:25.160 --> 00:42:29.160
It means there are state universities and, you know, that sort of complicates the question.

393
00:42:29.160 --> 00:42:40.160
But what's significant is that immediately the Clinton Administration Justice Department intervened on 14th Amendment grounds to try to get that overturned.

394
00:42:40.160 --> 00:42:43.160
Now let's pause and understand what is happening there.

395
00:42:43.160 --> 00:42:51.160
What's being done in that measure is we're saying that we're not going to give special privileges to members of different racial groups

396
00:42:51.160 --> 00:42:54.160
or give them special consideration in admissions.

397
00:42:54.160 --> 00:42:59.160
We're going to view people on the basis of merit alone and treat all the races equally.

398
00:42:59.160 --> 00:43:03.160
Well, isn't that what the 14th Amendment calls for, equal protection of the laws?

399
00:43:03.160 --> 00:43:09.160
But yet in the name of the 14th Amendment, the Clinton administration justice department intervenes and says

400
00:43:09.160 --> 00:43:15.160
We need equal protection of the laws, so you need to re-establish a racial quota system.

401
00:43:15.160 --> 00:43:20.660
So in other words, the Clinton administration is calling for more or less the exact opposite of the equal protection of the laws.

402
00:43:20.660 --> 00:43:26.660
They're calling for a racial caste system and racial preferences, as if that's what the 14th Amendment calls for.

403
00:43:26.660 --> 00:43:30.660
But it was in the name of the 14th Amendment that they did that.

404
00:43:30.660 --> 00:43:34.160
Well, this goes to show how out of control the amendment is.

405
00:43:34.160 --> 00:43:42.160
Now, you may well say, well, these are all very regrettable, but nevertheless, it's still better to have the 14th Amendment than not to have it.

406
00:43:42.160 --> 00:43:47.160
Well, that's a legitimate position, but we should at least be aware of where the thing can lead.

407
00:43:47.160 --> 00:44:00.160
Well, I'd like to return to Healy again, because I think he raises some interesting points that can guide us in our own thoughts on this matter.

408
00:44:00.160 --> 00:44:06.160
And he begins his argument by recalling the Lysander Spooner position

409
00:44:06.160 --> 00:44:09.160
that's come up a couple of times over the past couple of days.

410
00:44:09.160 --> 00:44:15.160
Spooner was a 19th century thinker who believed that in the absence of consent

411
00:44:15.160 --> 00:44:19.160
authority is not binding on an individual.

412
00:44:19.160 --> 00:44:28.160
So in politics, for example, that means that unless I have myself expressly consented

413
00:44:28.160 --> 00:44:33.160
I never signed the Constitution. I never gave any express consent to it.

414
00:44:33.160 --> 00:44:37.160
And you cannot conclude simply on the basis of my living here

415
00:44:37.160 --> 00:44:42.160
and enjoying the advantages of this place that I'm giving some kind of formal consent.

416
00:44:42.160 --> 00:44:45.160
I'm not. Consent is consent.

417
00:44:45.160 --> 00:44:48.160
We know what consent means from every other aspect of human life.

418
00:44:48.160 --> 00:44:51.160
And so Spooner comes to the radical conclusion

419
00:44:51.160 --> 00:44:54.160
that the Constitution is not binding on people

420
00:44:54.160 --> 00:45:00.160
The Constitution is not binding on people because none of us were involved in drafting it or signing it or whatever.

421
00:45:01.160 --> 00:45:07.160
And in the absence of a unanimous consent, you cannot apply the Constitution to every single person.

422
00:45:08.160 --> 00:45:12.160
Well, what Healy says is that in reality, of course, as Spooner himself acknowledged,

423
00:45:13.160 --> 00:45:21.160
this kind of consensus, a unanimous consensus, is not going to occur.

424
00:45:21.160 --> 00:45:35.160
Spooner acknowledges this, and this is why he argues the way he does, that since you can't get this type of consent, then typically government is not legitimate.

425
00:45:35.160 --> 00:45:42.160
Obviously other political thinkers have not been willing to take such a radical step, but Spooner does.

426
00:45:42.160 --> 00:45:49.160
Healy says that we realize that we're not going to get absolute universal consent to a government.

427
00:45:49.160 --> 00:46:02.160
He said, but the next best thing, in the absence of that, if we are going to live under a government to which we haven't given our individual consent, then the next best thing we can live under would be what Healy calls constitutional consent.

428
00:46:02.160 --> 00:46:16.160
And so that is that he says that the theory of the Constitution is that the people of the states hold the power, and they delegate some of this power through their state to the federal government.

429
00:46:16.160 --> 00:46:22.160
And they can amend the Constitution through two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states.

430
00:46:22.160 --> 00:46:29.160
And this is at least some way that at least a portion of the people can give their consent to the order under which they live.

431
00:46:29.160 --> 00:46:34.160
That's at least some kind of substitute for consent. That's at least the second best thing.

432
00:46:34.160 --> 00:46:42.160
If you have to live under a coercive state, then at least you can have some kind of consent being granted, says Healy.

433
00:46:42.160 --> 00:46:45.160
So this is where his argument is going.

434
00:46:45.160 --> 00:46:52.160
So he says, therefore, that this helps us to understand what we should think about the 14th Amendment.

435
00:46:52.160 --> 00:46:59.160
Because he says that, given that the 14th Amendment was not constitutionally ratified,

436
00:46:59.160 --> 00:47:03.160
and therefore does not enjoy any kind of constitutional consent,

437
00:47:03.160 --> 00:47:08.160
it is not the fruit of freely given consent on the part of the people,

438
00:47:08.160 --> 00:47:12.160
that has to influence the way we interpret the amendment.

439
00:47:12.160 --> 00:47:17.160
Because he says that we should interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as narrowly as possible.

440
00:47:17.160 --> 00:47:23.160
Regardless of how all these debates between Raoul Berger and Michael Curtis come out,

441
00:47:23.160 --> 00:47:26.160
whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to be this broad or this broad,

442
00:47:26.160 --> 00:47:31.160
doesn't matter in effect, says Healy, because given that it wasn't legitimately ratified,

443
00:47:31.160 --> 00:47:36.160
but given that we do want to live under a regime in which we give consent to how we're governed,

444
00:47:36.160 --> 00:47:39.160
we never gave consent, legitimate consent to this amendment,

445
00:47:39.160 --> 00:47:45.160
Then, therefore, justice demands that it be interpreted as narrowly as possible.

446
00:47:45.160 --> 00:47:50.160
I think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.

447
00:47:50.160 --> 00:47:56.160
Now, the other way of thinking about the 14th Amendment would be

448
00:47:56.160 --> 00:48:01.160
the kind of approach that you get from Bruce Ackerman of Yale University.

449
00:48:01.160 --> 00:48:06.160
Ackerman would say that you don't always have to have amendments to the Constitution

450
00:48:06.160 --> 00:48:14.160
The Constitution or legitimately ratified amendments of the Constitution in order for the constitutional order to legitimately, legitimately to change.

451
00:48:14.160 --> 00:48:28.160
He says that in history there are moments, there are constitutional moments that occur where there is such an outpouring of popular support for expanded federal powers that it renders the formal amendment process unnecessary.

452
00:48:28.160 --> 00:48:31.160
You can just say, you know what, I'm having a constitutional moment.

453
00:48:31.160 --> 00:48:38.160
We're all sort of mystically giving the federal government new powers. It's a constitutional moment.

454
00:48:38.160 --> 00:48:44.160
He says, for example, the New Deal in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt supposedly trying to get us out of the Depression.

455
00:48:44.160 --> 00:48:49.160
He's doing things that are obviously not authorized by the Constitution, but that's okay, says Ackerman,

456
00:48:49.160 --> 00:48:53.160
because, guess what? That was a constitutional moment.

457
00:48:53.160 --> 00:49:00.160
Now, where this goes, I think, is obvious enough. How would you control a government like that, that could always just claim,

458
00:49:00.160 --> 00:49:03.120
Well, maybe you don't like what we're doing, but guess what, my friends?

459
00:49:03.120 --> 00:49:04.440
You know what time it is?

460
00:49:04.440 --> 00:49:06.760
Constitutional moment, baby, OK?

461
00:49:06.760 --> 00:49:10.760
Same thing would apply to the 14th Amendment.

462
00:49:10.760 --> 00:49:14.440
Forget about the ins and outs of how it was ratified or whatever.

463
00:49:14.440 --> 00:49:16.560
It's a constitutional moment.

464
00:49:16.560 --> 00:49:17.560
Jump on board.

465
00:49:17.560 --> 00:49:18.720
Get with it.

466
00:49:18.720 --> 00:49:23.280
And Healy is arguing that this is not a legitimate perspective,

467
00:49:23.280 --> 00:49:28.160
because given that, again, we can't live under the spoonerite view

468
00:49:28.160 --> 00:49:32.160
...where everybody gives his consent, at least in the short run that's not going to happen,

469
00:49:32.160 --> 00:49:42.160
he believes the next best is constitutional consent, and given that in no way can it be said that that was granted through the procedures of the Constitution,

470
00:49:42.160 --> 00:49:48.160
then we cannot proceed as if the Fourteenth Amendment is a broad, radical reconstruction of the constitutional order.

471
00:49:48.160 --> 00:49:57.160
That type of thing can be done only through at least some institutional form of popular consent, and that's lacking in this instance.

472
00:49:57.160 --> 00:50:06.160
There's an interesting statement by, of all people, Richard Posner, a sort of Chicago affiliated guy, who says,

473
00:50:06.160 --> 00:50:13.160
Please apply the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause

474
00:50:13.160 --> 00:50:20.160
and you weaken the states tremendously by handing over control of large areas of public policy to federal judges.

475
00:50:20.160 --> 00:50:28.160
It is hard to believe that this was intended by all the state legislators whose votes were necessary to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

476
00:50:28.160 --> 00:50:33.160
And in fact, about 12 years ago, I was mentioning one or two talks ago,

477
00:50:33.160 --> 00:50:40.160
Professors Quirk and Bridwell, who wrote a book called Judicial Dictatorship in the 1990s,

478
00:50:40.160 --> 00:50:48.160
they noted that as of 1993, the courts controlled 80% of all state prison systems

479
00:50:48.160 --> 00:50:51.160
and about 33% of the 500 largest jails in the nation,

480
00:50:51.160 --> 00:50:56.160
and they said that the Supreme Court routinely overrules the actions of the local police,

481
00:50:56.160 --> 00:51:03.160
In the name of protecting rights, an enormous amount of discretionary power has been given to the Supreme Court that is very difficult to rein in.

482
00:51:03.160 --> 00:51:12.160
Sometime within the past two weeks, or maybe three weeks, there was an article that appeared by the Supreme Court of the United States,

483
00:51:12.160 --> 00:51:19.160
The enormous amount of discretionary power has been given to the Supreme Court that is very difficult to rein in.

484
00:51:19.160 --> 00:51:26.160
Sometime within the past two weeks, or maybe three weeks, there was an article that appeared by,

485
00:51:26.160 --> 00:51:33.160
it was co-authored by Walter Block and Stephen, don't you dare call me Stephen, Kinsella,

486
00:51:33.160 --> 00:51:38.160
who wrote an article on federalism on the Lew Rockwell website,

487
00:51:38.160 --> 00:51:42.160
in which they took, I think, a position that I'm drifting toward in my own thinking

488
00:51:42.160 --> 00:51:46.160
which is to say that if we say that the state has a right to do this or that

489
00:51:46.160 --> 00:51:50.160
we don't actually mean that in some abstract, you know, metaphysical sense

490
00:51:50.160 --> 00:51:53.160
they have a right to enact rent control or something

491
00:51:53.160 --> 00:51:59.160
but what we are saying is that given that the federal government has agreed to be bound by certain limits

492
00:51:59.160 --> 00:52:01.160
and to be bound by certain rules

493
00:52:01.160 --> 00:52:07.160
it's not unthinkable for a libertarian to demand that the government in fact bind itself by those rules

494
00:52:07.160 --> 00:52:12.160
and that let's say the federal government intervened on 14th Amendment grounds somehow

495
00:52:12.160 --> 00:52:15.160
to strike down New York's rent control laws.

496
00:52:15.160 --> 00:52:18.160
You know, on the one hand, you know, you'd have to cheer that

497
00:52:18.160 --> 00:52:22.160
because rent control laws are indefensible and evil.

498
00:52:22.160 --> 00:52:27.160
On the other hand, there's a concern, though, that you can't just look to the short run.

499
00:52:27.160 --> 00:52:29.160
I mean, as economists, you have to know that.

500
00:52:29.160 --> 00:52:31.160
You know, you can't just look to the short run.

501
00:52:31.160 --> 00:52:34.160
You have to think of the long run consequences for all of society,

502
00:52:34.160 --> 00:52:38.160
not just the short-run consequences in the housing market in New York

503
00:52:38.160 --> 00:52:43.160
and Block and Kinsella are voicing this concern.

504
00:52:43.160 --> 00:52:50.160
They say, if we as libertarians advocate that the Federal Government engage in an unconstitutional action

505
00:52:50.160 --> 00:52:56.160
to force New York to drop its rent controls because that result is a libertarian one,

506
00:52:56.160 --> 00:53:03.160
the immediate and accompanying cost is that we are advocating the principle that the Feds can disregard the Constitution.

507
00:53:03.160 --> 00:53:07.460
That means we are advocating getting rid of one of the few institutional features

508
00:53:07.560 --> 00:53:10.960
that, as a practical matter, does put some limits on the central state.

509
00:53:11.060 --> 00:53:13.160
And I think that's a very judicious way of thinking about this.

510
00:53:13.260 --> 00:53:15.760
It doesn't mean that we're vindicating the state's right

511
00:53:15.860 --> 00:53:19.560
to be stupid and destructive and evil,

512
00:53:19.660 --> 00:53:24.660
but rather that it can, in the long run, be counterproductive

513
00:53:24.760 --> 00:53:26.960
for the federal government to have so much power

514
00:53:27.060 --> 00:53:28.860
that it can intervene to correct things like this.

515
00:53:28.960 --> 00:53:31.360
Because, typically, given the type of people

516
00:53:31.360 --> 00:53:38.360
I think the tolerable outcome is that sometimes the states do awful things, but that the price of correcting them all is to empower a much less responsive and more difficult-to-control institution, and so that's why you have to understand that there's no perfect outcome.

517
00:54:01.360 --> 00:54:06.360
In the ultimate scheme of things, I have this hesitation about the 14th Amendment.

518
00:54:06.360 --> 00:54:11.360
It isn't that, boy, I sure hope Ohio goes and oppresses some people,

519
00:54:11.360 --> 00:54:17.360
but rather that I'm less trusting of, say, the Supreme Court or Federal Courts

520
00:54:17.360 --> 00:54:22.360
than are some of the lawyer types who have been condemning me on the Internet.

521
00:54:22.360 --> 00:54:26.360
I mean, of course, they put a lot of trust in these judges, but I don't.

522
00:54:26.360 --> 00:54:40.360
So that's why I think you can make at least a reasonable libertarian case for at least grave concern about the 14th Amendment and need for tremendous oversight over it now that we have it.

523
00:54:40.360 --> 00:54:50.360
Now I'm finishing rather early today so we can take, given that really these first four talks now that I think about it have really dealt with the states and the federal government.

524
00:54:50.360 --> 00:54:56.160
Government. So now as we close this up I'll be happy to take questions not only

525
00:54:56.160 --> 00:54:59.480
about this or comments like what your thoughts are on this because these are

526
00:54:59.480 --> 00:55:03.840
these are difficult this is not you know this is not an easy issue. On this or

527
00:55:03.840 --> 00:55:07.360
any other thing that we've done up to now I would welcome because every time

528
00:55:07.360 --> 00:55:10.520
we've ended there have been extra questions so now is your chance to ask

529
00:55:10.520 --> 00:55:13.360
the extra questions. Okay, yes.

530
00:55:13.360 --> 00:55:28.360
Would it have been a natural gift if the states had in fact intended to afford the bill of rights to apply to them, for them individually to amend their own constitutions rather than give all this power to the federal guerrilla?

531
00:55:43.360 --> 00:55:54.360
When the 14th Amendment, I think your point is a good one, because that would be the way to deal with it, is just reform of the states, one state at a time.

532
00:55:54.360 --> 00:56:01.360
The 14th Amendment is just filled with open-ended phrases that may have had a specific meaning when they were first written,

533
00:56:01.360 --> 00:56:07.360
but that today are totally detached from the original context, so you get phrases like equal protection of the laws,

534
00:56:07.360 --> 00:56:12.360
And that is used to justify federal courts taking over school districts,

535
00:56:12.360 --> 00:56:18.360
taking them over, shoveling kids around like concrete, imposing taxes on people,

536
00:56:18.360 --> 00:56:25.360
changing residential patterns in neighborhoods, forcing people to be bussed two hours a day,

537
00:56:25.360 --> 00:56:29.360
destroying local communities in ways like this.

538
00:56:29.360 --> 00:56:33.360
And that all comes from the seemingly harmless phrase, equal protection of the law.

539
00:56:33.360 --> 00:56:36.360
So, much better to see reform at a state by state level.

540
00:56:36.360 --> 00:56:46.360
and the analogy that I think of is with a national bank that if you don't like the way the state banks are behaving,

541
00:56:46.360 --> 00:56:51.360
the way to solve that is not necessarily to establish a great big national bank

542
00:56:51.360 --> 00:56:56.360
because maybe the great big national bank will do exactly what the state banks are doing.

543
00:56:56.360 --> 00:57:02.360
Why don't you reform the state banks? Why don't you do what, as Rothbard shows in his book Panic of 1819,

544
00:57:32.360 --> 00:57:39.360
The use of science of justification to strike down a lot of economically unsound state laws, like Lochner in the first view, wasn't that the case?

545
00:58:02.360 --> 00:58:05.360
The Fourteenth Amendment is a great protector of property rights.

546
00:58:05.360 --> 00:58:08.360
Let's use it to smash this or that.

547
00:58:08.360 --> 00:58:11.360
I totally favor... I want to smash this or that.

548
00:58:11.360 --> 00:58:14.360
You're right. I want to smash these things that impair the freedom of contract

549
00:58:14.360 --> 00:58:17.360
and are economically foolish.

550
00:58:17.360 --> 00:58:20.360
I want to smash this or that.

551
00:58:20.360 --> 00:58:23.360
I want to smash this or that.

552
00:58:23.360 --> 00:58:26.360
I want to smash this or that.

553
00:58:26.360 --> 00:58:29.360
I want to smash this or that.

554
00:58:29.360 --> 00:58:39.360
Freedom of Contract and are economically foolish, but at the same time, I worry, I'm using this bludgeon right now, but who's going to use this bludgeon ten years from now?

555
00:58:39.360 --> 00:58:46.360
And when you consider that the type of people who tend to go into government tend not to be people who detest government.

556
00:58:46.360 --> 00:58:52.360
They tend to be people who like it, it brings them prestige and they like wielding power over people.

557
00:58:52.360 --> 00:58:58.360
In the long run, it seems to me that given the type of person you're going to wind up with, that bludgeon is going to wind up in very dangerous hands.

558
00:58:58.360 --> 00:59:26.360
I hear where you're coming from, but how do you get people in there who are going to make these reforms and make these changes, because it's either Republican or Democrat, third parties aren't heard, libertarians aren't heard.

559
00:59:26.360 --> 00:59:29.360
You know, how do you go about doing this?

560
00:59:29.360 --> 00:59:38.360
I mean, it seems like the more I see things happening, people are starting to take laws into their own hands.

561
00:59:38.360 --> 00:59:42.360
You know, the whole minivan project and stuff, but they're vigilantes.

562
00:59:42.360 --> 00:59:45.360
You know, the whole, I'm just joking.

563
00:59:45.360 --> 00:59:47.360
Yeah, I got that.

564
00:59:47.360 --> 00:59:49.360
Alright.

565
00:59:49.360 --> 01:00:02.360
I just see that happening more and people are becoming more and more aware who have never been aware of what's going on in the country and I think that's going to continue to be what happens.

566
01:00:02.360 --> 01:00:11.360
People are going to take it on to their own hands and we're going to have a real world within our own country before you know it. I just think it can come down to that.

567
01:00:19.360 --> 01:00:33.360
This is the question that comes up all the time, the strategic question of how do you advance your ideas in a world that doesn't even consider these proposals.

568
01:00:33.360 --> 01:00:42.360
The way I've always phrased it is that the establishment world, the Democrats, the Republicans, the New York Times, the Washington Post,

569
01:00:42.360 --> 01:00:56.360
They've got this view that as long as we're talking about, well, to what extent should we dictate to local school systems, or how much should we tax people, or how many, whatever.

570
01:00:56.360 --> 01:01:05.360
As long as you ask those questions, you're okay with how many countries should we bomb, or should we bomb Syria in three weeks or seven weeks, or should we announce that we're bombing them?

571
01:01:05.360 --> 01:01:21.360
That's all fine, but if you say, you know, maybe it's counterproductive, not to mention immoral to be bombing countries on false pretenses, or, you know, maybe we shouldn't be having an income tax, you know, then it's, that doesn't even get raised.

572
01:01:21.360 --> 01:01:25.360
I mean, then you're not staying on the three by five card.

573
01:01:25.360 --> 01:01:35.360
Now, I happened to be looking in the stacks, by the way, before coming in here, and I read, I was looking at Barry Goldwater's book, where he was talking about where he stands.

574
01:01:35.360 --> 01:01:46.360
What I found fascinating was, you get to the income tax, and he says, you know, I agree, here's Barry Goldwater, you know, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

575
01:01:46.360 --> 01:01:59.360
And there he is in his book, saying that the income tax, you know, we agree that the tax system needs to be reformed, but abolition is just being advocated by crazy people and that's not helping anybody.

576
01:01:59.360 --> 01:02:06.360
I thought, this is the big extreme guy? I mean, like he's afraid even in a book to talk about revealing the income tax?

577
01:02:06.360 --> 01:02:13.360
So, I don't know what the strategic answer is, like how do you actually bring these things about, or if it can be done, I'm not even sure.

578
01:02:13.360 --> 01:02:18.360
All I know is that I don't know how to do that. All I know how to do is this.

579
01:02:18.360 --> 01:02:23.360
So I figure I do this long enough, somebody figures out how to implement some of these things.

580
01:02:23.360 --> 01:02:29.360
That's sort of my thought, but we shouldn't give up because I know this is getting to be a cliché,

581
01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:36.360
but with the Internet, our ideas are actually much, much more widespread than they ever were.

582
01:02:36.360 --> 01:02:41.360
Much more than we could ever have expected 10 or 15 years ago, and it still isn't enough.

583
01:02:41.360 --> 01:02:47.520
isn't enough, but we're at least getting to be on the radar screen a little bit.

584
01:02:47.520 --> 01:02:52.920
And so that when whatever happens, the welfare state just collapses or there's a financial

585
01:02:52.920 --> 01:02:58.820
crisis or whatever, we've got as good a chance as any of getting out into the public

586
01:02:58.820 --> 01:03:02.080
realm legitimate responses to these things.

587
01:03:02.080 --> 01:03:04.080
I don't know if I even really believe what I just said there.

588
01:03:04.080 --> 01:03:05.080
Okay, I'll tell you.

589
01:03:05.080 --> 01:03:06.080
Okay.

590
01:03:06.080 --> 01:03:07.080
Let me start.

591
01:03:07.080 --> 01:03:20.080
How would or how does Michael Curtis explain the proposal for the Blaine Amendment?

592
01:03:37.080 --> 01:03:43.580
I honestly don't know how he answered or if he answers it, if it even comes up, but that's a good question.

593
01:03:43.580 --> 01:03:49.080
If anybody watching knows the answer to that, then email me or tell, you know, whatever, I'd like to know what the answer to that is.

594
01:03:49.080 --> 01:03:52.580
Okay, we'll go down this row coming from the back toward the front. Yes?

595
01:03:52.580 --> 01:03:55.080
This is a kind of weird counterfactual question.

596
01:03:55.080 --> 01:03:56.580
Okay.

597
01:03:56.580 --> 01:04:02.580
If we suppose that the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't passed, I mean, what effect do you think it's really had having been passed?

598
01:04:02.580 --> 01:04:07.580
You know how loose they are with the language, wouldn't they have just found some other justification to do whatever it is that they want?

599
01:04:32.580 --> 01:04:38.780
That's how they, for a long time, until finally even the Supreme Court in the 90s said this is a stupid argument,

600
01:04:38.780 --> 01:04:46.880
but the Gun-Free School Zone Act thing that said you can't have guns in a school zone,

601
01:04:46.880 --> 01:04:49.880
which like the states wouldn't have thought to keep an eye on that themselves.

602
01:04:49.880 --> 01:04:54.080
We need the federal government to say, you know, guns really shouldn't be in the school area.

603
01:04:54.080 --> 01:04:58.080
The argument for that was, to the extent that they ever have to appeal to the Constitution,

604
01:04:58.080 --> 01:04:59.580
they say, well, interstate commerce, right?

605
01:04:59.580 --> 01:05:05.580
I mean, if the kids can't learn, because they're afraid of getting shot at, or kids are getting shot at, how are they going to learn?

606
01:05:05.580 --> 01:05:09.580
How are they going to contribute to interstate commerce?

607
01:05:09.580 --> 01:05:15.580
I mean, that's not even close to what the framers could possibly have meant.

608
01:05:15.580 --> 01:05:23.580
So, you know, the more I think about it, the more I think that in the absence of the 14th Amendment, they could have, I think they could have done this.

609
01:05:23.580 --> 01:05:26.580
I think you're really raising a very important point, because think of it this way.

610
01:05:26.580 --> 01:05:31.580
I think Joe Sobran has used this example. Think of the income tax.

611
01:05:31.580 --> 01:05:35.580
Now, you know, there are some arguments that the income tax amendment was not properly ratified.

612
01:05:35.580 --> 01:05:40.580
The point is that people did believe it required an amendment to the Constitution.

613
01:05:40.580 --> 01:05:45.580
Now suppose today, let's just say we had a sales tax, we had no income tax.

614
01:05:45.580 --> 01:05:49.580
Do you think there'd be anyone who said, wait a minute, before we impose an income tax, we'd better amend the Constitution?

615
01:05:49.580 --> 01:05:55.580
Would that happen? They would just do it. Or prohibition is a good example.

616
01:05:55.580 --> 01:06:00.580
For Prohibition, when they did that, they amended the Constitution.

617
01:06:00.580 --> 01:06:03.580
Whereas today, if they wanted to reenact Prohibition, do you think they'd bother?

618
01:06:03.580 --> 01:06:06.580
They'd just come up with, again, they'd use the interstate commerce clause.

619
01:06:06.580 --> 01:06:11.580
If everybody's drunk, it impairs interstate commerce so we can prohibit alcoholic beverages.

620
01:06:11.580 --> 01:06:13.580
That's what they would do. They wouldn't even bother.

621
01:06:13.580 --> 01:06:16.580
It wouldn't even occur to them that an amendment was necessary.

622
01:06:16.580 --> 01:06:23.580
So I think that's an extremely thought-provoking and, at the same time, very depressing observation.

623
01:06:23.580 --> 01:06:33.580
I have a similar question, but now thinking on this, what do you think the true check is to the central power if it isn't the Constitution?

624
01:06:33.580 --> 01:06:35.580
You mean how do we...

625
01:06:35.580 --> 01:06:50.580
Well, not even how do we, but even historically, if the Constitution can be interpreted in these poetic constitutional moments, then what effectively is holding back the centralized power?

626
01:06:50.580 --> 01:06:57.580
Well, you know, I think I'll give the sort of Rothbardian answer that in a way, you know, there is this, you know, Rothbard always talks about public opinion,

627
01:06:57.580 --> 01:07:04.580
and he's written about a lot of people who have made this point that, you know, in a way public opinion does serve as a restraint,

628
01:07:04.580 --> 01:07:11.580
I mean, as a constraint on government, because if all of us absolutely committed not to go along with something we just weren't going to obey,

629
01:07:11.580 --> 01:07:17.580
then they couldn't do it. I mean, if we all said we're not doing X, Y, or Z, then they can't do it.

630
01:07:17.580 --> 01:07:26.580
People are trained from age 5 to age 95 that the government is wonderful and it's just there to help you.

631
01:07:26.580 --> 01:07:33.580
It's staffed by disinterested crusaders for justice who are there to protect you from wicked people in the private sector.

632
01:07:33.580 --> 01:07:39.580
Then you're not going to raise any objection to it. Why would you? It's a wonderful thing.

633
01:07:39.580 --> 01:07:44.580
So I think there was more skepticism of government in the past than there is now.

634
01:07:44.580 --> 01:07:55.580
I think that helps to account for it. But ultimately, though, it seems to me that the only thing that limits a central government in our day and age is just simple prudence, what they think they can get away with.

635
01:07:55.580 --> 01:08:05.580
There are some things they could not get away with. If they said, we're going to raise all your children for you, I think there are enough parents out there who would say, probably that's a bad idea.

636
01:08:05.580 --> 01:08:22.580
Okay, but short of that, it seems to me, and I mean, I think over the past, I don't know, however many years, it's like the federal government has gotten away with so much that they must be shocked at how easy it is to get away with it.

637
01:08:22.580 --> 01:08:27.580
You know, I mean, I think, I don't want to, here I am saying I don't want to politicize this too much, here I am, you know.

638
01:08:27.580 --> 01:08:34.580
with the Iraq War, that's something that they must be stunned they got away with that.

639
01:08:34.580 --> 01:08:39.580
Not only did they get away with it, but they have idiots on TV and radio 24 hours a day

640
01:08:39.580 --> 01:08:45.580
who are just repeating Pentagon propaganda as if it's true when it's been refuted about,

641
01:08:45.580 --> 01:08:51.580
oh, I don't know, 87,000 times now by other independent sources around the world,

642
01:08:51.580 --> 01:08:54.580
and yet people are still repeating it as if it hasn't been refuted

643
01:08:54.580 --> 01:09:01.380
And it's like you're living in the world of Pravda and the Kremlin, you know, and these are conservatives supposed to be skeptical of government.

644
01:09:01.380 --> 01:09:03.380
The government must be amazed they're getting away with it.

645
01:09:03.380 --> 01:09:09.580
And there are so many dupes who just want to be in the good graces of the White House that they will just prostitute themselves for whatever cause.

646
01:09:09.580 --> 01:09:12.080
They must be stunned at what they're getting away with.

647
01:09:12.080 --> 01:09:18.880
And if people don't respond to these things, then they just get more and more, they get more and more daring.

648
01:09:18.880 --> 01:09:24.180
And that's why I so admire the American colonists who fought against the British.

649
01:09:24.180 --> 01:09:28.880
Because by comparison, when you look at what the British were doing to them, it's obnoxious,

650
01:09:28.880 --> 01:09:33.380
but it's not absolutely like the most appalling human rights offence in the history of mankind.

651
01:09:33.380 --> 01:09:37.880
And so Edmund Burke actually said that the interesting thing about the Americans

652
01:09:37.880 --> 01:09:43.580
is that they fight in anticipation of oppressions that haven't yet occurred.

653
01:09:43.580 --> 01:09:45.880
I mean, that's the spirit that we need.

654
01:09:45.880 --> 01:09:47.680
All right, so we'll continue down. Yes, sir?

655
01:09:47.680 --> 01:09:52.880
What happened to the flying amendment? Was it overtaken or was it just died on committee?

656
01:09:52.880 --> 01:09:54.480
Did it just die on committee or was it rejected?

657
01:09:54.480 --> 01:09:55.400
That I don't know offhand.

658
01:09:55.400 --> 01:09:59.480
All I know is that obviously it was never ratified.

659
01:09:59.480 --> 01:10:03.160
But I don't actually know that.

660
01:10:03.160 --> 01:10:04.720
Yes, sir, and then Bob in the back.

661
01:10:04.720 --> 01:10:06.400
Oh, and if you have the one, too.

662
01:10:06.400 --> 01:10:09.200
I'm just going to say that having been down the road

663
01:10:09.200 --> 01:10:13.680
farther than some of you, I think a lot of us

664
01:10:13.680 --> 01:10:17.200
have been neutralized by the sense of false security

665
01:10:17.200 --> 01:10:21.960
and by Phillips and we're not hungry.

666
01:10:21.960 --> 01:10:36.960
and I think that has had a tendency to lull us into complacency, that really what you're doing and what the Institute is doing and many of you may know the John Birch Society, what it's doing and some other conservatives.

667
01:10:36.960 --> 01:10:47.960
Those ideas have been planted into the minds of younger people and I'm really impressed to see the younger people here and I'll read, I know what the Mises Institute is doing with a lot of young people.

668
01:10:47.960 --> 01:11:02.460
I think it's those things that we've got to push forward, and either with letters to editors, ourselves, you know, we just can't sit back and expect things to happen without our getting involved in it.

669
01:11:02.460 --> 01:11:02.960
Right, I know.

670
01:11:02.960 --> 01:11:15.960
We've got to be involved in it, and it's my battle just as much as it is anyone else's, and it's probably because my generation and the one before me have not done our job like we should have if we're in the mess we're in today, because we didn't say anything.

671
01:11:15.960 --> 01:11:16.960
That's right, that's right.

672
01:11:16.960 --> 01:11:46.960
Well, all I'd add to that is that I think that it's a common complaint that many people on our side have had is that, for example, the market is so incredibly resilient and productive that it can continue to create prosperity even when every obstacle is put in its path, it still creates it to the point that people begin to think that it's just normal that, you know, everybody has an air-conditioned car, like this is just a human right everybody would just naturally have, and there's no institutional mechanism necessary to bring this about.

673
01:11:46.960 --> 01:11:49.960
That's the way life is. We just live in a world of abundance.

674
01:11:49.960 --> 01:11:51.960
People just don't even think about it.

675
01:11:51.960 --> 01:11:53.960
Whereas I actually tell my students, I say to them,

676
01:11:53.960 --> 01:11:57.960
before you start griping that you've got some second-hand car,

677
01:11:57.960 --> 01:12:02.960
let's bear in mind that some of you have a DVD player in your freaking car.

678
01:12:02.960 --> 01:12:06.960
Some of you are taking pictures with your phone in the classroom

679
01:12:06.960 --> 01:12:09.960
and sending it to somebody in Spain.

680
01:12:09.960 --> 01:12:12.960
This does not happen naturally. This doesn't just happen.

681
01:12:12.960 --> 01:12:15.960
It happens because of certain institutional frameworks.

682
01:12:15.960 --> 01:12:28.960
It happens because of the free market and whatever, and yet we live under a system that whether it's because of wars or inflation or government spending or government policy, whatever, it's constantly wearing that down, wearing that down.

683
01:12:28.960 --> 01:12:37.960
But people have just come to, the market is so resilient that people just think that all these things are a perfectly compatible mix of forces, but they can't be forever.

684
01:12:37.960 --> 01:12:39.960
Yes, and then Bob.

685
01:12:39.960 --> 01:12:45.960
You mentioned about a California decision dealing with equal protection of the 14th Amendment

686
01:12:45.960 --> 01:12:54.960
in relationship to the preventing movements of people around and not getting benefits because of it

687
01:12:54.960 --> 01:13:02.960
and I was thinking they were just basically trying to prevent people from going on progress

688
01:13:02.960 --> 01:13:07.960
if there were royalty traveling around, but I got a question, what's the case site on that?

689
01:13:07.960 --> 01:13:13.960
I'll look it up afterward. We'll go out together and we'll get it.

690
01:13:13.960 --> 01:13:16.960
Presumably that's one you would want to read.

691
01:13:16.960 --> 01:13:21.960
Either to laugh or cry, but we will find the site for that case.

692
01:13:21.960 --> 01:13:24.960
Do you still have a question, Bob?

693
01:13:24.960 --> 01:13:40.960
Of course, most of us in here are talking about the states where it sounds very reasonable and so on, but I just had the impression that a normal American would think you were incredibly naive or a closet racist.

694
01:13:40.960 --> 01:13:51.960
You're just not aware of the awful things that were happening and how necessary the federal government is going to take care of it, and I'm wondering if there's a simple answer.

695
01:13:51.960 --> 01:14:21.960
Yeah, I know it, I know it. That's a tough one, that's a tough one, but I mean, this is almost one that it's, it's hard to give a glib answer because it's, I think the, we need the federal government to intervene is the glib answer and sometimes, I sometimes think that the reason that whenever you see somebody who has a car with more than three bumper stickers on it,

696
01:14:21.960 --> 01:14:25.460
or a backpack with more than four pins, let's say.

697
01:14:25.460 --> 01:14:28.460
It's almost always somebody on the left, isn't it?

698
01:14:28.460 --> 01:14:32.460
Almost always. And it's not just because conservatives or libertarians have a better aesthetic sense.

699
01:14:32.460 --> 01:14:34.960
I don't want to have bumper stickers all over my car.

700
01:14:34.960 --> 01:14:39.960
But it's this thinking that every issue can just be reducible to one sentence.

701
01:14:39.960 --> 01:14:44.460
And so that's all I need is I've got a bumper sticker on it.

702
01:14:44.460 --> 01:14:47.460
Meat is murder. That's it. Meat is murder.

703
01:14:47.460 --> 01:14:49.460
You're killing something and that's it.

704
01:14:49.460 --> 01:14:51.460
Just one sentence resolves the whole matter.

705
01:14:51.460 --> 01:14:55.020
and so likewise I think this is one of these things that you know requires you

706
01:14:55.020 --> 01:15:00.300
kind of sit down and and and hash it over but okay let's just take for example

707
01:15:00.300 --> 01:15:07.060
employment discrimination I mean obviously for example the black leadership

708
01:15:07.060 --> 01:15:12.100
has a vested interest in arguing that blacks progressed because of political

709
01:15:12.100 --> 01:15:15.620
measures obviously they're going to want to advocate that because they're all

710
01:15:15.620 --> 01:15:21.220
politicians these people so of course they want to suggest that but I show you

711
01:15:21.220 --> 01:15:31.220
Just citing Thomas Sowell that in fact the 1964 Civil Rights Act does not accelerate employment trends for blacks at all.

712
01:15:31.220 --> 01:15:42.220
I understand that correlation does not imply causation, but we actually see a slowing of black employment trends

713
01:15:42.220 --> 01:15:47.220
in the couple years after the Civil Rights Act as compared to the one year before it.

714
01:15:47.220 --> 01:15:53.220
To avoid it, there were huge strides already being made in the 40s and 50s.

715
01:15:53.220 --> 01:15:57.220
This isn't just, oh you're naive and you don't understand what the nature of things was.

716
01:15:57.220 --> 01:16:03.220
The evidence is just overwhelming and I cite some of it in my civil rights chapter.

717
01:16:03.220 --> 01:16:08.220
I think the other factor would be, I think I need to say two things.

718
01:16:08.220 --> 01:16:16.220
Number one, the federal government gave protection to slavery throughout the 19th century.

719
01:16:16.220 --> 01:16:21.220
This is not an obvious matter of dispute regarding federal government and state's rights.

720
01:16:21.220 --> 01:16:26.220
Federal government was imposing the fugitive slave law and the states were ignoring it.

721
01:16:26.220 --> 01:16:31.220
But there's also the fact that, you know, look at what forced busing did.

722
01:16:31.220 --> 01:16:38.220
And that's a federal government that's, you know, that's a federal government that if you like anti-discrimination law,

723
01:16:38.220 --> 01:16:41.220
there's no way to stop the federal government from doing things you don't like,

724
01:16:41.220 --> 01:16:50.220
Most normal people did not like busing, even black parents who were about 50-50 about it when it began, became huge opponents of it now.

725
01:16:50.220 --> 01:16:57.220
In fact, it was chapters of the NAACP that began petitioning the courts to please, please stop the busing.

726
01:16:57.220 --> 01:17:03.220
It has been an absolute catastrophe because it's destroyed black communities, it's destroyed their little micropatriotisms,

727
01:17:03.220 --> 01:17:11.220
and it's done absolutely nothing after spending billions of dollars, absolutely nothing for black achievement.

728
01:17:11.220 --> 01:17:19.220
Other than as Zora Neale Hurston used to say, Zora Neale Hurston is a great black author, their eyes were watching God.

729
01:17:19.220 --> 01:17:25.220
She used to say that what it has done is given the impression that unless I'm sitting next to a white in my classroom,

730
01:17:25.220 --> 01:17:32.220
then my classroom is inferior. That's basically what it's done. It's destroyed a whole institutional structure.

731
01:17:32.220 --> 01:17:36.220
Zora Neale Hurston, by the way, was of course hated because you're not supposed to say these things.

732
01:17:36.220 --> 01:17:39.220
You're supposed to be grateful for all of this.

733
01:17:39.220 --> 01:17:43.220
But Zora Neale Hurston was a big supporter of Senator Robert Taft,

734
01:17:43.220 --> 01:17:50.220
who was probably about the best presidential candidate I think we had in the past half century.

735
01:17:50.220 --> 01:17:57.220
But if only Murray were here to tell us about how the Eisenhower people stole it from Taft at the convention.

736
01:17:57.220 --> 01:18:00.220
But anyway, those are just some thoughts off the top of my head.

737
01:18:00.220 --> 01:18:07.220
This really is a topic that I want to return to and write about so that I can say that I've got my answer,

738
01:18:07.220 --> 01:18:13.220
maybe you don't like it, maybe it's not good enough, but it's an answer and it should be food for thought.

739
01:18:13.220 --> 01:18:19.220
Plus, I don't know, I just tend to think most normal black parents today have to be asking themselves,

740
01:18:19.220 --> 01:18:24.220
what are the fruits of federal involvement from welfare and everything else?

741
01:18:24.220 --> 01:18:30.220
I mean, look around, look at the absolute dysfunction of the black community today,

742
01:18:30.220 --> 01:18:35.220
such that if you simply say, you know, things are very bad, everyone pounces on you.

743
01:18:35.220 --> 01:18:38.220
Or actually, now, if you're Bill Cosby, you say things are very bad.

744
01:18:38.220 --> 01:18:41.220
People say, how courageous you are to say things are bad.

745
01:18:41.220 --> 01:18:44.220
Well, for heaven's sake, they obviously are pretty bad.

746
01:18:44.220 --> 01:18:46.220
You know, I mean, what's going on here?

747
01:18:46.220 --> 01:18:51.220
So, I don't think there's an unambiguous good that has taken place.

748
01:18:51.220 --> 01:19:07.220
We don't want people to be oppressed and hurt, but at the same time, you know, sometimes it's cruel to be kind and I think the Charles Murray thesis about what the welfare state has done is, it has to be well taken, it's just overwhelming.

749
01:19:07.220 --> 01:19:13.220
Anyway, sorry that's so disjointed, but there's so many things I want to say at the same time. Yes?

750
01:19:13.220 --> 01:19:26.220
You have a couple of reasons why there is a problem with the libertarian court, which rights are going to be enforced by the enhancements of the federal government's power.

751
01:19:26.220 --> 01:19:32.220
It seems like there is a third reason. I don't know if I get this out right, but it seems like it is a problem with the democratic government in general.

752
01:19:32.220 --> 01:19:43.220
I talked with the democratic government and the Austrian Scholars Conference, and they discussed the government's purpose, I guess, and they said that it would enforce equality.

753
01:19:43.220 --> 01:20:01.220
But liberty is just as much. It seems that when governments have liberty as their purpose, to the extent that it's possible that, I know it's not impossible, but to the extent that the Iraq war was fought for the liberty of Iraqis, it wouldn't necessarily fail.

754
01:20:01.220 --> 01:20:18.220
It seems like in order for a right to be a right, it has to be enforced through case law or interactions with other individuals at the local level in order for it to actually even be a right.

755
01:20:31.220 --> 01:20:41.220
He wrote an essay on the Fourteenth Amendment in his book, Original Intentions, and the name of that chapter is Changed Only a Little, and I forget what the subtitle is.

756
01:20:41.220 --> 01:20:52.220
He takes the position that the Fourteenth Amendment did have only a modest character, but that there are some people who wanted to impose on it this teleocratic nature,

757
01:20:52.220 --> 01:21:00.220
by which I mean that the 14th Amendment wouldn't just be something that would fulfill certain institutional...

758
01:21:00.220 --> 01:21:11.220
that it wouldn't just be a limited legal innovation, but it would instead be this sort of ideologically charged instrument

759
01:21:11.220 --> 01:21:15.220
that's used to bring about a revolutionary egalitarian agenda.

760
01:21:15.220 --> 01:21:19.220
And that, of course, is how it's been used today.

761
01:21:19.220 --> 01:21:25.220
I mean, telling the Citadel in South Carolina that they can't be an all-male military academy,

762
01:21:25.220 --> 01:21:31.220
what person voting for the Fourteenth Amendment thought that it abolished male-only military academies?

763
01:21:31.220 --> 01:21:33.220
The answer, no one.

764
01:21:33.220 --> 01:21:40.220
So, what the Fourteenth Amendment is being used for is not for the limited, finite purposes that people originally had in mind,

765
01:21:40.220 --> 01:22:04.220
When you talk about the framers and these finite definitions of the Constitution, and then it brings to mind to me the argument that the Constitution is this living, breathing document.

766
01:22:04.220 --> 01:22:07.220
And I'm wondering, as a historian, where do you think that comes from?

767
01:22:07.220 --> 01:22:12.220
Is it just a means to do whatever you want with the commerce clause?

768
01:22:12.220 --> 01:22:18.220
And also, how do you counter people who are just like only one reason about something?

769
01:22:18.220 --> 01:22:20.220
I just want to say, well, we're going to do what we want.

770
01:22:20.220 --> 01:22:24.220
Right, right. Well, I mean, what if I said to that person,

771
01:22:24.220 --> 01:22:28.220
all right, well, you know what, I'm having the police put you in jail for that.

772
01:22:28.220 --> 01:22:31.220
And then they would say, well, you have no right to put me in jail for that.

773
01:22:31.220 --> 01:22:35.220
I'd say, well, you know, look, the Constitution is a living, breathing document, my friend.

774
01:22:35.220 --> 01:22:39.220
And, you know, today the Constitution says that you're going to jail.

775
01:22:39.220 --> 01:22:43.220
Well, then you'd say, maybe I don't favor that philosophy.

776
01:22:43.220 --> 01:22:46.220
But I think partly it comes from the fact that the...

777
01:22:46.220 --> 01:22:48.220
I was just talking to somebody about this before.

778
01:22:48.220 --> 01:22:52.220
The Constitution is so difficult to amend and it was deliberately made that way

779
01:22:52.220 --> 01:22:57.220
that I think sometimes people would just say, well, it's just too much of a hassle to amend the thing.

780
01:22:57.220 --> 01:22:59.220
So instead, let's just go ahead and do what we feel like doing.

781
01:22:59.220 --> 01:23:09.220
And that's what Jefferson warned about at the beginning when he said that our unique security lies in, you know, having a written constitution, let's not make it into a blank paper by construction, by construing it so broadly.

782
01:23:09.220 --> 01:23:14.220
So I think some of it just comes from an impatience with the amendment process.

783
01:23:14.220 --> 01:23:21.220
Other of it comes from an impatience with the idea of, I don't know, just anything that's fixed and definite.

784
01:23:21.220 --> 01:23:51.220
The interesting thing, though, is that the colonists, when they were living under the British, the British Constitution to them was a living, breathing, it wasn't a document, but it was a living, breathing tradition, and from the colonial point of view, this was the problem with it, was that it was so living and breathing that the colonists would say, hey, you're violating the British Constitution, and the British would say, no, we're not, and the colonists would say, but yes, you are, I mean, just look at the whole tradition.

785
01:23:51.220 --> 01:23:55.220
In the tradition of British history, you're obviously violating the constitution and the British would say,

786
01:23:55.220 --> 01:24:01.220
well, you know, if parliament passes it, then it's constitutional. So what's your right?

787
01:24:01.220 --> 01:24:04.220
It was so living and breathing, you couldn't pin the thing down.

788
01:24:04.220 --> 01:24:07.220
And I think that's part of the reason there's a desire to have a written constitution.

789
01:24:07.220 --> 01:24:10.220
So it's precisely to avoid that.

790
01:24:10.220 --> 01:24:14.220
But, of course, written constitutions have their own problems. They don't solve everything.

791
01:24:14.220 --> 01:24:24.020
When I was a naive child, I used to watch the political conventions in the 1980s,

792
01:24:24.020 --> 01:24:31.620
back when you could still sort of watch them, like today, I just think I would just be violently ill if I had to sit through one of the conventions,

793
01:24:31.620 --> 01:24:35.420
but it was still weirdly watchable in the 80s.

794
01:24:35.420 --> 01:24:39.820
I could watch Reagan giving a speech, I'll admit that, I could watch him giving a speech.

795
01:24:39.820 --> 01:24:47.820
I was 12 years old at the 1984 convention, sitting there eating popcorn in my living room, going yeah, Ronald Reagan, you know, I loved it.

796
01:24:47.820 --> 01:25:01.820
And I thought that a written constitution solves all these problems, but of course we live under a written constitution and not all problems are solved because somebody has to interpret that document and who's going to wind up interpreting it?

797
01:25:31.820 --> 01:25:41.820
This one in particular, because Hans has been trying to say for years, and Murray before him,

798
01:25:41.820 --> 01:25:45.820
but Hans has been saying that limited government is impossible.

799
01:25:45.820 --> 01:25:48.820
If you want to talk about something that's utopian, this is utopian.

800
01:25:48.820 --> 01:25:52.820
Here we'll have this institution with a monopoly on the use of force,

801
01:25:52.820 --> 01:25:56.820
and we'll restrain it by a document that it itself will interpret.

802
01:25:56.820 --> 01:26:02.820
and this will be kept limited and just limited to the enforcement of individual rights.

803
01:26:02.820 --> 01:26:06.820
Now, it could be that no other system could work, okay?

804
01:26:06.820 --> 01:26:09.820
It could be that other systems are impractical.

805
01:26:09.820 --> 01:26:14.820
That does not take anything away from the fact that Hans' argument is extremely persuasive,

806
01:26:14.820 --> 01:26:16.820
particularly when you look at the American experience.

807
01:26:16.820 --> 01:26:24.820
How much clearer could you be here that the framers, even Alexander Hamilton,

808
01:26:24.820 --> 01:26:29.300
did not intend that every school system should be overseen by a federal judge.

809
01:26:29.300 --> 01:26:33.060
I mean, that's quite clear, and yet that's what we live under.

810
01:26:33.060 --> 01:26:37.020
And so it makes you think that maybe Hans Hoppe is right, OK?

811
01:26:37.020 --> 01:26:40.300
But Hans has already given his seminar, so you can go listen to that

812
01:26:40.300 --> 01:26:44.820
and basically get all the ultimate answer to the ultimate questions.

813
01:26:44.820 --> 01:26:49.020
By the way, the ultimate answer is 42. That's right.

814
01:26:49.020 --> 01:26:52.980
Again, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, you should all be reading as well.

815
01:26:52.980 --> 01:26:57.260
All right, I think we're more or less out of time, so thank you all very much.

816
01:26:57.260 --> 01:26:59.260
We'll talk about the New Deal tomorrow.