Topic: Law and Civil Liberties

Forty Years of Loving

Tuesday is the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia, in which the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. It’s a good time to reflect on the social progress that Brink Lindsey discusses in The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Changed America’s Politics and Culture. Indeed, the Freedom to Marry Coalition has been celebrating the anniversary with a series of newspaper ads highlighting the interracial marriages of such prominent Americans as Jeb Bush, Mitch McConnell, Clarence Thomas, Jim Webb, and Tiger Woods.

But Virginia’s attempts to impede the course of true love didn’t begin or end with its “anti-miscegenation” statute. As I noted for Reason a couple of years ago, in the early part of the 20th century the state was in the habit of sterilizing “imbeciles.” The Supreme Court, influenced by Progressivism, approved that exercise in social engineering. And in our own times, Virginia has been repeatedly banning same-sex marriage, not worrying excessively about how much collateral damage it does to wills, custody agreements, medical powers of attorney, or joint bank accounts.

I wrote about the state’s tradition of interfering with private choices:

Neither of these now-derided laws is a perfect match with the predicament facing gays in Virginia, but both flowed from an arrogant desire by the state to control private relationships. The state is schizophrenic about such things, but if the past is any indicator, things do not look good for gay Virginians. In the 1995 case of Sharon Bottoms, the Virginia high court took a two-year-old child away from his lesbian mother, because of her sexual orientation. If voters pass the amendment against gay marriage and civil unions next year, it would have real teeth. Already, many gays in Virginia are talking about moving to Washington or Maryland if what they view as an anti-gay crusade doesn’t recede. If things continue on their present course, the state might have to amend its slogan, “Virginia is for lovers,” to include the caveat, “some exceptions apply.”  

Tyranny Can Be Fun

The Washington Post has a travel article about Atlantic City featuring a brief review of this amusing little bar in the Tropicana Casino:

We stopped at Reichstag (no cover!), a bar with faux-Nazi decor. A portrait of Hitler hangs over the hostess station, and the light fixtures are shaped like Nuremberg Rally torches. For $12.75, I enjoyed the best Pilsner I’ve ever had.

Not so funny? How about this:

We stopped at Red Square (no cover!), a vodka bar with faux-Commie decor. A portrait of Lenin hangs over the hostess station, and the light fixtures are shaped like the turrets of St. Basil’s. For $12.75, I enjoyed the best vodka tonic I’ve ever had.

Is it funnier now?

Rhetoric

Thomas Sowell has some interesting thoughts about political rhetoric:

An issue can be enormously important and well within most people’s understanding. Yet the way words are used can determine whether people are aroused or bored.

One of those issues is what legal scholars call “takings.” There is a masterful book with that title by Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School.

But if you are in a bookstore and see a book with the title “Takings” on its cover, are you more likely to stop in your tracks and eagerly snatch it off the shelf or to yawn and keep walking?

Read the whole thing.  For more about how the pols use and abuse language, go here.

The Show was a Hoax, but the Organ Shortage Is Real!

It is disappointing that it takes the sensationalism of a hoax reality show to focus attention on a very real tragedy.

On Friday June 1st, as part of the Dutch “Big Donor Show,” it was revealed that the woman willing to donate a kidney to one of three lucky contestants in need of an organ was an actress. The whole show was a publicity stunt to motivate the Dutch government to reform its organ donation laws which currently only allow organ donation between family and friends.

In the U.S. organ donation is not just limited to family and friends, but the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 forbids anyone from receiving “valuable consideration” for a human organ. This provision is interpreted as prohibiting the donor from receiving any compensation beyond the good feeling of having done an altruistic deed. Medical expenses directly related to the transplant and recovery are usually paid by the transplant unit or the recipient’s insurance, but any payment of expenses beyond these initial transplant related costs are legally questionable. Both state and federal lawmakers have introduced legislation to allow organ donors to recover other more distantly related costs such as lost wages, travel expenses and future medical expenses potentially related to the donation.

Given the very real tragedy of an average of seven people dying daily in the U.S. while waiting for an organ that never comes, why not allow “valuable consideration” in order to save lives? Maybe a reality show competition isn’t the most tasteful way to proceed, but giving someone life-long medical coverage, life-insurance, or whatever other arrangement competent adults are willing to make, seems a logical way to proceed.

The common argument that receiving “valuable consideration” for human organs must be prohibited because it offends human dignity is paternalism at its worst. Only the donors themselves are in a position to judge what is or is not an affront to their dignity. It is hard to imagine how saving a life, whether someone is compensated for doing so or not, could ever be an affront to human dignity.

Sigrid Fry-Revere interview on Fox News before show was revealed as a hoax:
http://www.cato.org/realaudio/fry-revere-on-fox-news-05-31-07.html

CBS News report that “Big Donor Show” was a hoax:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/01/health/printable2876573.shtml

Insight and Insult from National Journal

This week’s National Journal has a story (not available online) that is at once insightful and insulting. In “The Coming Storm,” Shane Harris reviews the difficulties that are anctipated when the Department of Homeland Security transitions to new leadership under a new administration. There are lots of “politicals” at DHS and not a very deep bench of talent.

Here’s the insightful: “Al Qaeda has launched attacks on the West during moments of governmental weakness: at elections and during transitions to new administrations.

The evidence for this is pretty good (if not rock solid), and it jibes with the strategy of terrorism, which is to goad a stronger opponent into self-injurious missteps. Attacking at a time of vulnerability for the political administration is more likely to induce overreaction and error.

Here’s the insulting: “A mass exodus of Homeland Security officials in late 2008 and early 2009 could leave the country vulnerable.”

This must play like the sweetest lullaby to bureaucrats in Washington — “you’re important; you’re really, really important” — but it is a bald insult to the ordinary citizens, police, firefighters, and investigators who would actually detect and prevent any attack or suffer its brunt and deal with the consequences.

The bureaucrats in Washington have very, very little to do with actual protection of the country from terrorist attack or with response to it. They are the mouthpieces who will rush to the cameras and microphones to foment hysteria. They are the FEMA directors who will bungle the response and the officials who will actively undermine restoration of services. They are not our protection, and their departure does not make us vulnerable.

In fact, their presence adds to our vulnerability. The terrorism strategy succeeds by knocking the political regime off balance. Having a large, prominent, federal protective agency gives terrorists a ripe target. If there were no prominent federal apparatus attached closely to the president — no homeland security secretary to embarass, challenge, and frighten — the strategy of terrorism would be less attractive and harder to execute.