Pols in New Hampshire are under pressure to cut state spending so they are now proposing to, of all things, stop jury trials. Where to begin? They would have us believe that there is no fat left in the budget? Not credible. Are the pols looking for the path of least resistance? No special interest group in the capital looking out for jurors–so go there? Whatever happened to the Constitution? When an institution is put into the Constitution itself, it is no longer a discretionary spending matter. The pols are not free to do a cost-benefit analysis of the Bill of Rights and then reinterpret those provisions so that they comport with the accountant’s findings. Pols that don’t get this need to be shown the door–before they start talking about postponing elections, which are also expensive.
Featuring Holly Bell, Associate Professor (Business), University of Alaska Anchorage; and Hester Peirce, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; moderated by Louise C. Bennetts, Associate Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute.
- Legal Briefs
- Cato Handbook for Policymakers
- Cato Journal
- Cato's Letter
- Cato's Letters
- Cato Papers on Public Policy
- Cato Policy Report
- Cato State Legislative Guide
- Cracking the Books
- Economic Freedom of the States of India
- Economic Freedom of the World
- Public Comments
- Supreme Court Review
In this issue of Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler and Nathaniel Stewart make the case for property-based fishery management, utilizing territorial or catch-share allocation among fishery participants. Also in this issue, Michael L. Wachter explores the relationship between the much-maligned National Labor Relations Act and the decline in union membership.
Latest Blog Post
A nonprofit TV station asks the Supreme Court to review an outdated legal doctrine.
Timothy Sandefur’s insightful new book documents a vital, forgotten truth: our Constitution was written to secure liberty, not to empower democracy.