Cato Institute
1000 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001-5403
 Phone (202) 842 0200
Fax (202) 842 3490
 Contact Us
Support Cato

Cato Policy Report, May/June 1997

Cato Studies

Assessing Clinton's Constitutional Record

Although President Clinton has expressed support for an "expansive" view of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, his "record is, in a word, deplorable," writes Timothy Lynch in the new Cato study "Dereliction of Duty: The Constitutional Record of President Clinton" (Policy Analysis no. 271). Lynch, assistant director of the Cato Institute's Center for Constitutional Studies, contends that if "constitutional report cards were handed out to presidents, Clinton would receive an F." As evidence of Clinton's poor record, Lynch cites the administration's attempts to censor the rights of peaceful protesters; its military involvement in Bosnia and missile attacks on Iraq, which did not have congressional approval; and its attempts to federalize health care, crime fighting, environmental protection, and education. On questions of both economic and civil liberties, Lynch concludes, President Clinton has acted beyond his constitutional authority and has placed the liberty of American citizens in peril.

School Vouchers: A Free-Market Debate

Disentangling the government from matters with which it should not be involved is often very difficult. Education is a prime example. In the new Cato Institute study "Vouchers and Educational Freedom: A Debate" (Policy Analysis no. 269), Joseph L. Bast and David Harmer square off against Douglas Dewey on the issue of school vouchers. Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, and Harmer, author of School Choice: Why You Need It, How You Get It, maintain that vouchers would not subject private schools to excessive government regulation and in fact would eventually lead to the complete separation of school and state. Perhaps more important, they contend that no greater reform is politically feasible. Dewey, president of the National Scholarship Center, counters that vouchers would create a vast system of government contractors and parents with "school stamps," a massive lobby for ever-increasing subsidies. In addition, he argues that Bast and Harmer are wrong in suggesting that vouchers would not lead to greater regulation of private schools. This study is the first "dueling" Policy Analysis the Cato Institute has ever published.

The Problems of "Global Leadership"

In a new Cato study, "U.S. 'Global Leadership': A Euphemism for World Policeman" (Policy Analysis no. 267), Barbara Conry, foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, argues that "global leadership" should not be the goal of U.S. foreign policy. "Although 'leadership' sounds benign," she writes, "today's proponents of global leadership envision a role for the United States that resembles that of a global hegemon--with the risks and costs hegemony entails." Instead of policing the world, she maintains, the United States should concentrate on protecting its vital national security interests. That could be done through greater reliance on regional security organizations, the creation of spheres of influence, and regional balance-of-power arrangements.

Programming Mandates vs. the First Amendment

In August 1996 the Federal Communications Commission adopted rules requiring television broadcasters to air at least three hours per week of "educational" programming for children. In a new Cato Institute study, "Regulation in Newspeak: The FCC's Children's Television Rules" (Policy Analysis no. 268), attorney Robert Corn-Revere argues that that rule is flawed in two respects: it will not achieve the desired goals, and it is unconstitutional. The theory behind the mandate is that the market will not provide educational programming on its own because the audience does not desire it. If that is so, then regulation is not a solution, since the FCC cannot force anyone who would not have already done so to watch educational programming. Moreover, Corn-Revere argues, "Governmental interest in protecting children from programming deemed inappropriate does not translate into a constitutional mandate to compel programming the government believes is beneficial. The commission's mandate for 'educational' television plainly overreads the extent of the FCC's authority under the Constitution."

Chilling Effects on the Internet

In the new Cato Institute study "Chilling the Internet? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting" (Policy Analysis no. 270), Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa of the University of California at Davis maintain that the Communications Decency Act could do much to prevent the free flow of ideas on the Internet. The authors argue that previous federal initiatives aimed at "improving" the content of speech over electronic media--such as the Fairness Doctrine--actually constrained robust public debate. After the Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987, "the volume of informational programming increased dramatically--powerful evidence of the potential for regulation to have a 'chilling effect' on free speech." If upheld by the Supreme Court, Hazlett and Sosa contend, the CDA would likely have a similar chilling effect.

This article originally appeared in the May/June 1997 edition of Cato Policy Report.