Kenyon Observerthe

March 28, 2012

What We Gained From KONY 2012

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate Political and cUltUral Magazine

Exculsive Online Content: kenyonobserver.wordpress.com

Gabriel Rom|Page 8

Kenyon Observerthe

March 28, 2012

The Kenyon ObserverMarch 28, 2012

From the Editors

Cover Story gabriel rom What We Gained From KONY 2012

Letter to the Editors The Project for Open Voices Share Your Story, Hear Others

tess waggoner

An Ugly PictureThe NYPD, Civil Rights and Intrusion in the Name of Security

ryan baker

Demystifying China’s RiseA Firm Stance Can Foster Mutual Prosperity

jon green

Hoodies Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill PeopleMisplacing the Source of Threat

jacon fass

Not a Split DecisionA Call for Judicial Minimalism in Consid-ering Health Insurance Reform

5

8

6

10

12

14

16

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opin-ions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication.

Submit to the Observer at tko@kenyon.edu.

Cover Art and Illustrations by Nick Nazmi Quotes Compiled by Ryan Baker

Editors-in-Chief Jonathan Green and Gabriel Rom

Managing EditorSarah Kahwash

Web EditorAlexander Variano

Featured Contributors Ryan Baker, Jacob Fass,

Megan Shaw, Tess Waggoner

Contributors Tommy Brown, Matt Hershey,

James Neimeister, Richard Pera Jacob Smith, Yoni Wilkenfield

Layout/Design Wilfred Ahrens

Illustrator Nick Nazmi

Faculty Advisor Pamela K. Jensen

“We are the people our parents warned us about.” Jimmy Buffet

5

Dear Prospective Reader,

The Kenyon Observer’s first issue since returning from Spring Break consists of our contributors’ thoughts on both current and persistent issues in the American and international political discourse. It is also im-portant to note that this is our first issue since launching our website (kenyonobserver.wordpress.com) where readers can find exclusive online content updated daily, along with articles that previously appeared in print.

Headlining this issue, Gabriel Rom discusses the potential for positive outcomes related to the KONY 2012 movement. Other features include Tess Waggoner commenting on the implications of the NYPD profiling the Muslim community for targeted surveillance, Jon Green responding to events that have trans-pired in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s death, Ryan Baker outlining the nature of the United States’ foreign policy situation regarding China and Jacob Fass discussing the legal precedent surrounding the individual health insurance mandate.

Our goal continues to be the presentation of a publication that disagrees with itself without fighting itself. If we are successful, the commentary provided here will demonstrate the multiple sides to many stories that are often resolved in our own minds. As no consensus can be reached without prior argument, we hope to start some of these conversations on our pages.

As always, we invite letters and full-length submissions either in response to content in this issue or on other topics of interest.

Your Editors,

Gabriel Rom and Jonathan GreenEditors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

FROM THE EDITORS

6

LETTER TO THE EDITORS

To the Editors:

What qualities define academic institutions?Every college has its own history and countless

traditions that are sacred and dear to students, faculty and staff. Founded in 1824, Kenyon prides itself on being the oldest private college in Ohio. Needless to say, our school is defined by the past in many ways but, like any community, the climate has changed and will continue to do so. Consider the fact that Kenyon was a men’s college until 1969. Forty years later, stu-dents are unable to imagine walking through a single-sex campus.

Consider the fact that Kenyon accepted its first African-American students in 1949, before the Civil Rights movement and desegregation. One of those two students was Allen Ballard Jr. who wrote that he “[...] had the misfortune to become the first of our race to enter Kenyon College. In retrospect, it is clear that — with some exceptions — our existence on that campus was defined not by us but by the constant ne-cessity to be everything that negated the white man’s concept of n***ers. We were, in fact, forced to sup-press our natural inner selves so as to conform to the mores of a campus dominated by upper-middle-class Americans.” Sixty-three years later, 17 percent of Kenyon’s student body is students of color (not including international students) and 50 percent of all students receive need-based financial aid.

These are only two examples proving that our school is evolving. But the question arises — is the culture on this campus embracing change? Consid-er Kenyon’s mission statement regarding diversity: “We’re a community that values tolerance and mu-

tual respect, and this spirit of openness to others embraces race, gender, nationality, ethnicity, religion and sexuality.” Forty years ago this mission statement did not exist. This proves that the administration modified its mission over the years to meet the needs of a changing student body. But then a second ques-tion arises — the administration has recognized the growing diversity of the Kenyon community over the years, but have the students?

Kenyon students arrive on campus their first year from all corners of the globe. Some arrive paying full tuition and some on financial aid. They are African-American and Latino and Asian American, bi-racial and multi-racial. They are lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, straight, transgender, queer and questioning. They are agnostic and atheist, Catholic and Presbyterian, Muslim and Hindu, Buddhist and Jewish. They are able and differently-abled, mentally, physically and emotionally.

What are the experiences of students on this cam-pus regarding their identity? The Project for Open Voices seeks to answer this question. By calling on the student body to submit anonymous narratives, we hope to give every student on this campus a voice.

For more information, visit www.facebook.com/Pro-jectOpenVoices.

Sincerely,

The Project for Open Voices

“A healthy state encourages many voices — and lots of listening.” Kathleen Sebelius

Share Your Story, Hear Others

Advertisement

8

GABRIEL ROM

Imagine the KONY 2012 campaign as a giddy tod-dler with snot running down his nose and a stupid gap-tooth, furiously blowing air into a straw in his drink at some respectable restaurant. Now imagine that drink to be a thick stew of politics, technology, foreign affairs, racial tension and imperialism — the cultural zeitgeist of America. The drink overflows, bubbles explode and liquid sprays everywhere. Each article that is posted, each fuming response we see and each Facebook conversation that we engage in is one of those issues bubbling and then bursting to the top of our national consciousness, all propelled by that immature kid blowing directly into the mix.

Teju Cole recently wrote an article for the Atlantic entitled “White Industrial Savior Complex.” Cole’s argument boils KONY 2012 down to a neo-colo-nialist project that takes agency away from Africans, a manifestation of Western privilege and racial ig-norance.

To accuse the entire movement of having unin-tentionally racist motives is a pretty serious claim. If Cole were correct in saying that any American charity engaged abroad is tainted by the transgres-sions of every colonial enterprise in history, the en-tire concept of foreign aid would be dead on arrival.

Ugandan lawyer Norbert Mao had a more nuanced outlook: “This man [Joseph Kony] with whom I have had many encounters is now the subject of a powerful video that has captured the imagination of the world. Is the video a bad thing? I would say ‘no.’ Has it got gaps? Plenty.”

The debates and discussions many critics of KONY 2012 wish would take place are now oc-curring with more frequency, ubiquity and fervor than before, all thanks to one thirty minute video. No, the video is not perfect; you cannot pack an entire sociological and historical survey into thirty minutes. There is some ugliness behind it and some misguided intentions, but the end result is an un-equivocal net-gain. The movement has stretched the boundaries of the public and political dialogue. It has given a previously unknown issue international importance within a matter of hours. Critics like Cole have created a false dichotomy between doing something about a problem in the immediate and doing something about its causes. The two can exist in harmony.

In fairness to KONY 2012’s critics, the video is indeed remarkably simplistic. The viral campaign presents clearly defined ‘good guys’ (the United

“One dog barks at something. And a hundred dogs bark at the sound.” Chinese Proverb

What We Gained from KONY 2012

SOMETIMES SIMPLISTIC MESSAGES CAN SPUR POSITIVE OUTCOMES

9

States Government, NGO’s, Invisible Children) ver-sus clearly defined ‘bad guys’ (Kony, Lord’s Resis-tance Army, Kony). This simplistic dialectic offers viewers an already assembled activist movement. All we have to do is click, and the rest is done for us. Staple a poster, wear a bracelet; the individual’s only role is to spread the message. Any cognitive tasks beyond that are left up to larger powers (I.C., AFRI-COM, etc). There is no place for direct action.

The lack of individual agency in the KONY 2012 movement can be contrasted to Occupy Wall Street in which individual demands dictate where and how the movement shapes itself. These two examples are extremes and they are both inherently dysfunctional. A middle ground between pre-organized, simplistic narratives and anarchic, complex narratives would seem to be the most potent form for future social movements.

But there is a compelling explanation for why the video received over 85 million views and galvanized youth all over the world for a single cause. If the video were a more academic and sociological study of the region, the response would be minimal. Is that a problem? Maybe, but that is the way the world works and Invisible Children understood this reality.

Balancing a structural knowledge of other re-gions and being aware of privilege and perspective are integral to making decisions that benefit others. But sometimes simplistic messages can spur positive outcomes. Sometimes good intentions do lead to good results. Skepticism of American-do-gooderism is healthy, but unequivocal dismissal is not.

Apart from its videos, Invisible Children has cre-ated an ingenious tool called the LRA Crisis Tracker, which documents LRA attacks in and around Ugan-da and broadcasts troop movements over the radio so families can escape attacks.

While much has been made of the LRA’s dimin-ished capacity, there were still over a dozen attacks this past month that killed four civilians. Critics call-ing Invisible Children neo-imperialists are off the mark as well because the group is not advocating further intervention; its goal is to keep the politi-cal issue of Uganda on the minds of international politicians and assure that the one hundred military advisers in the region remain there.

The morals behind a slick propagandist 30-min-ute video aside, its normative effects have spurred dialogue not only about Joseph Kony, child soldiers and the Lord’s Resistance Army, but about media itself and the subtle distinctions between civic par-ticipation and exploitation.

The movement has highlighted the power of media to blind people to nuance and complexity in global affairs, but it has also shown the massive po-tential for civic engagement.

How do we take this desire for civic participation and nurture it without turning off viewers’ criti-cal faculties? How do we help people to be critical consumers rather than mass consumers? And when does simplifying an issue do more harm than good? These are vexing questions, but questions that are now part of the public dialogue as a result of the KONY 2012 campaign.

“Every nation ridicules other nations, and all are right.” Arthur Schopenhauer

FLICKR CREATIVE COMMONS

TKO

10

TESS WAGGONER

So begins The Third Jihad: Radical Islam’s Vision for America, a 72-minute “documentary” which aims to show the infiltration of radical Islam into the United States.

Though the film begins with this disclaimer, the method of argumentation includes various misrep-resentations of Islam which directly contradict it. It describes the first two major jihads in Islamic history as Islam’s original expansion and Islam’s ar-rival in Europe in the 13th century, while the third jihad supposedly aims to establish a global Islamic state, which will be achieved through a combina-tion of violence and deception. The film “exposes” the “creeping threat of Sharia” over Constitutional law and elicits concern for radicalization in prisons via conversion to Islam. The Third Jihad presents a clash of civilizations approach, portraying Islam as incompatible with modernity and democracy, and framing Muslim integration into American society as part of a 1,400 year holy war. In doing so, the

film fosters dangerous and counter-productive an-ti-Muslim sentiment.

The Third Jihad was produced by the Clarion Fund, the group responsible for the production and dis-tribution of Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West to 28 million U.S. households in battleground states in the lead-up to the 2008 elections. An orga-nization dedicated to producing films about “radi-cal Islam,” the Clarion Fund’s advisory board is made up of such luminaries as Frank J. Gaffney Jr. and Daniel Pipes, figures with histories of fostering anti-Islamic sentiments. Featuring interviews with “expert” Islamophobes including Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Phares and Bernard Lewis and government leaders including Tom Ridge, former Secretary of Homeland Security and R. James Woolsey, former director of the CIA. The Third Jihad is a divisive and slanderous attack on the United States’ Mus-lim communities. It was troubling, then, when news broke that the film was used in counter-terrorism

“It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them.” Alfred Adler

An Ugly Picture

THE NYPD, CIVIL RIGHTS AND INTRUSION IN THE NAME OF SECURITY

“This is not a film about Islam. This is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radical.”

11

training by the New York Police Department.Though news of the NYPD’s use of the film was

first reported by the Village Voice over a year ago, the New York Times recently revealed that the film wasn’t merely shown “a couple of times,” as NYPD Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne originally as-serted. Rather, it was shown for a period of three months as part of mandatory counter-terrorism training. Research by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School revealed that almost 1,500 officers watched this film as part of their training. And what’s more, among those inter-viewed for the film were NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly and former NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

This incident is just one in a series of affronts by the NYPD toward the Muslim community in New York. A recent report reveals NYPD profiling of Shiite mosques for targeted surviellance. The docu-ment also argues that “The Palestinian community, although not Shi’a, should also be assessed due to presence of Hamas members and sympathizers and

the group’s relationship with the Iranian govern-ment.” Given the type of “research” that seems to inform the NYPD’s counter-terrorism strategy, surveillance tactics such as these are unsurprising. But it’s worse than that, as additional reporting by the Associated Press and others has revealed the extent of NYPD ethnic mapping, surveillance and coercion of Muslim citizens across the tri-state area, including infiltration into university student groups.

Dr. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute describes the coercive techniques used by officers to obtain information: “the police scoured records of taxi drivers looking for those who had unpaid tickets and other violations. Those who also had immigration status issues were given the option of acting as spies or facing possible deportation ... they were then asked to go to popular gather-

ing places (coffee shops, stores, etc), attend reli-gious services and other community events in or-

der to report on who was present and what was said. This material has been entered into extensive surveillance files, even when the activities attend-ed and the words spoken have been innocent and protected by the First Amendment.” NYPD docu-ments obtained by journalists show to what extent the NYPD has mapped much of New York and the surrounding area — names, ethnicities, and pho-tographs of residents, businesses, and community locations are catalogued in excruciating, intrusive and absurd detail.

In an article this summer, the Associated Press reported that “the NYPD has become one of the nation’s most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies, targeting ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government.” In the wake of uproar over these reports, the federal government is inter-vening.

Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed on March 9 that the Department of Justice is review-ing NYPD surveillance techniques.

When a police commissioner says, as Kelly does in the film, that Muslims want to “infiltrate and dominate” America, he inhibits his own ability to properly engage with that community. Interfaith and Muslim leaders have openly protested these surveillance tactics, some by boycotting New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s annual interfaith break-fast. As echoed by the top agent in the FBI in New Jersey, the NYPD’s tactics obstruct their ability to successfully subvert terror plots by breeding dis-trust and resentment. Honesty and collaboration with Muslim leaders is the most effective way to keep America safe.

This article originally appeared on the Yalla Change Campaign blog: www.yallachange.org/blog.

“Those are my principles. If you don’t like them I have others.” Groucho Marx

TKO

nyPd docUMents obtained by joUrnalists show to what extent the nyPd has MaPPed MUch of new yorK and the sUrroUnding area.

the brennan center for jUstice at new yorK Uni-versity law school re-vealed that alMost 1,500 officers watched this filM.

In the decades since The Great Leap Forward, China has experienced unprecedented economic growth and social transformation. Following Chairman Deng Xiaop-ing’s introduction of elements of a free-market system and gradual reduction of government regulations, China has become a serious competitor in the international economy. Its population is rapidly urbanizing in response to new demand for labor from international and domestic corpo-rations. It currently ranks second internationally, both in nominal gross domestic product and in purchasing power parity behind the United States.

This kind of rapid development and widespread media coverage of China has prompted a guarded rivalry between China and the U.S., which particularly intensified over the past decade. Many political theorists and commentators further propagate this phenomenon with dire predictions of the decline of American dominance and the rise of China as a new superpower — sometimes even as the un-disputed global superpower. This is a dangerous perspec-tive of China, not only because it encourages unnecessary fear-mongering, but also because it injects new tension to a relationship that is crucial for American foreign policy today and decades into the future.

China certainly competes with the United States eco-nomically. With the world’s largest population and ability to attract foreign investors, China’s powerhouse economy is here to stay. Industrialization proceeds rapidly apace, as reflected by the urbanization of the population. In just the

past year, China’s urban population increased by 21 million people. A strong economy, however, does not necessarily ensure a better standard of living: China’s income per cap-ita is still significantly lower than that of the U.S., by about $40,000. This is a poignant sign of a country still in de-velopment and, more importantly, a convergent economy. China will inevitably catch up to America on these fronts. Danger lies not in whether or not China achieves parity, but in how American policymakers react.

The Obama Administration’s strategy over the past few years has been defined by presenting a face of cooperative intent while maintaining a hard line on American interests in the region. This kind of influence can be exerted be-cause, despite new prominence on the international stage, China has nowhere near the military and defensive capabili-ties of the United States. As controversial as the defense budget is, its contribution to American credibility in foreign policy is undeniable. As of 2011, the U.S. leads the world in military expenditures, grossing a total of $741 billion. China trails by half in second at $380 billion, something to keep in mind next time American defense spending cuts are discussed.

While military capability allows America the privilege of conducting foreign policy as we see fit, this is not what will ensure a beneficial relationship with China. America should focus on fostering a stronger economic relationship with China because it is a hotspot for foreign investment, an export powerhouse and a promising economic partner in

Demystifying China’s Rise

RYAN BAKER

12

“The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas.” Linus Pauling

A FIRM STANCE CAN FOSTER MUTUAL PROSPERITY

“If there’s only one answer, then this must not be a very interesting topic.” Ron Jeffries

TKO

the future once it is fully developed. When China’s income per capita rises to parity with the world average, the sheer size of their population will ensure the ability to reward economic partners, not only through investment activity and exportation, but also through the availability of human capital that comes with sustained economic growth.

The Obama Administration has stuck fairly closely to this two-pronged approach to foreign policy with China over the past three years. The president reached out to Chi-nese leaders early on in his term to nurture the foundations of a healthy relationship. On the other hand, he has also met several times with the Dalai Lama, signed a $6.4 billion arms negotiation with Taiwan, and scrutinized Chinese-Iranian relations as well as the specter of China’s human rights violations.

But Obama has been less proactive in addressing eco-nomic policy that depends heavily on China, which is what many Americans believe to be the higher priority. China consistently undervalues its currency, whimsically sanc-tions various foreign investors and imposes what some

call a technology tax on foreign corporations conducting business in China. This last practice forces foreign cor-porations to share new technology and internet protocol information with the state involves, allowing the Chinese to accelerate their own development and competitive edge with countries. Many believe policymakers should priori-tize these issues.

As the presidential election approaches, Americans should understand relations with China. Presidential plat-forms on Chinese policy have been mixed: Obama prom-ises more of the same, while his Republican opponents swing back and forth on how they would approach Chi-nese foreign policy.

China’s economic skullduggery cannot be allowed to continue, but neither can America sacrifice the potential gains from a long-term partnership. China should cooper-ate not out of deference to America’s economic, defen-sive and technological supremacy, but out of interest in a partnership that can enable American and Chinese citizens alike to prosper in the future.

Nite Bites CaféDon’t Study on an Empty Stomach!

Smoothies! Coffee! Paninis!

Nothing more expensive than $3.50

Now Accepting K-Cards

Peirce Pub Monday and Wednesday (10 p.m. - 1 a.m.) Tuesday and Thursday (11 p.m. - 1 a.m.)

Advertisement

14

On Feb. 26 Trayvon Martin was visiting his father in a gated community in Sanford, Florida when George Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watch-man, shot him. Zimmerman claimed self-defense; Martin was holding a pack of Skittles and a can of iced tea. Over the subsequent weeks, the public has turned attention to the events surrounding Martin’s death. The Department of Justice has also opened an investigation into the actions of both Zimmerman and the authorities who readily took Zimmerman at his word that he feared for his safety and, according to ABC News, “corrected” a witness when she stated that the cries for help that she heard were from a boy, not a grown man.

Last Friday, Geraldo Rivera took to the airwaves of FOX News to give his take on the Trayvon Martin case. After briefly expressing sympathy towards Tray-von Martin and his family, Rivera’s remarks quickly de-volved into a racially charged tirade against the clothes stereotypically associated with young African-Ameri-cans and Latinos:

“I think the hoodie is as much responsible for Tray-von Martin’s death as George Zimmerman was … When you see a Black or Latino youngster, particularly on the street, you walk to the other side of the street.

You try to avoid that confrontation ... [Trayvon Mar-tin] didn’t deserve to die. But I bet you money, if he didn’t have that hoodie on, that nutty neighborhood watch guy wouldn’t have responded in that violent and aggressive way.”

Rivera then implored African-American and Latino parents to forbid their kids from leaving the house wearing hoodies, adding that he has frequently yelled at his son for doing as much.

According to Rivera, it is too much to ask to expect a person to check their xenophobic urges associated with racially charged stereotypes. However, Rivera finds it totally reasonable to expect African-Americans and Latinos to avoid certain clothes out of fear that they will invite racially based violence. According to him, we should sympathize with George Zimmerman because “we’re all afraid of black people in hoodies, right?”

On a college campus like this one, the stereotype associating hoodies with African American gang mem-bers is obviously misguided. Colleges across the coun-try graduate millions of hoodie-wearing millennials every year; almost none of them have criminal records. Rivera’s fear of people wearing hoodies is irrational and devoid of factual grounding. It is also hypocriti-

JON GREEN

“A conclusion is the place where you got tired thinking.” Martin H. Fischer

Hoodies Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

MISPLACING THE SOURCE OF THREAT

“I’d rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.” Kurt Cobain

15

cal; since he made his comments numerous pictures of Geraldo Rivera wearing hoodies have emerged on Tumblr.

While Rivera’s comments are not only reprehen-sible because they blame Martin for his own death, it is far more likely that if Zimmerman did in fact feel threatened it was because he was holding a gun, not because Martin was wearing a hoodie. While unfound-ed racial stereotypes certainly do not help, forthcom-ing research from The University of Notre Dame and Purdue University finds that any person, racist or oth-erwise, who is holding a gun is more likely to perceive others as also holding a gun:

“In five experiments, subjects were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and deter-mined whether the person was holding a gun or a neu-tral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

The researchers varied the situation in each experi-ment — such as having the people in the images some-times wear ski masks, changing the race of the person

in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they perceived the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation the observers found themselves in, the study showed that respond-ing with a gun biased observers to report “gun pres-ent” more than did responding with a ball.

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that simply let-ting observers see a nearby gun did not influence their behavior; holding and using the gun was important.”

The study shows that the phrase, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” cannot be considered uni-versal. Given access to means of violence, people who would not otherwise act violently do so because they wrongly perceive others as being able to harm them. In other words, guns really do kill people. Abraham Kaplan coined the famous (and mistakenly-attributed to Mark Twain) saying: “if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” If Zimmerman had not been in possession of a gun, not only would he have been unable to shoot Martin, he may not have felt threatened in the first place. TKO

FLICKR CREATIVE COMMONS

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on the constitutionality of the individual mandate at the core of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, many expect the ruling to be a 5-4 decision that breaks down on ideological lines with Justice An-thony Kennedy casting the deciding vote.

This partisan brand of jurisprudence would not be out of the ordinary for our high court, but if the justices examine the mandate from a legal instead of a political lens, if they take an honest look at the precedent of the court and their own legal histories, then the decision will not be close.

Politically, the requirement that everyone pur-chase health insurance is or pay a small fine is over-whelmingly unpopular; nearly two thirds of the American public opposes it. This could be due in part to a large contingent of conservative commen-tators who have adopted apoplectic tones about the end of the Republic if the mandate is allowed to stand. Liberals counter by pointing out that these same commentators were notably silent when Mitt Romney adopted the same mandate in Massachu-setts, when Newt Gingrich proposed it as an alter-native to Bill Clinton’s health insurance reform plan

Not a Split Decision

JACOB FASS

16

“You get to ask the questions, and I get to answer like I want to.” Rick Perry

A CALL FOR JUDICIAL MINIMALISM IN CONSIDERING HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM

“I am quite sure the health care mandate is constitutional. My authorities are not recent. They go back to John Marshall who said that Commerce ... is the power to regulate. To my mind that it is the end of the stor y to the Constitutional basis for the man-date.”

Charles Fried, former Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan testifying before the Senate Judiciar y Committee.

“It’s a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn’t want to hear.” Dick Cavett

and the conservative Heritage Foundation designed it as a private sector solution to the insurance crisis.

But so what? Politics and economics have no bearing on constitutionality. Mitt Romney may have been for the mandate before he was against it, but conservative hypocrisy alone does not vindicate the individual mandate. Conversely, Charles Fried has his doubts about whether or not the Affordable Care Act is good policy but he is nevertheless certain that mandates are constitutional. Good policy is not al-ways legal; legal policy is not always optimal. There can be vast differences between what is sensible and prudent regulation in the 21st century and what the constitution permits Congress to legislate.

Since the Warren Court era, conservatives and liberals alike have seen the court as an escape hatch to modify legislation to which they had political ob-jections. Allowing this practice to persist denigrates our constitution, turning it into a partisan weapon instead of a framework for democratic governance. Policy made by judicial fiat, whatever the merits of the decision, is considered illegitimate by broad swaths of the public and sow political and social division. For an example, look no further than Roe v. Wade. In that spirit each justice should cast aside ide-ology and see the upcoming Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida case through the pragmatic lens of whether or not the mandate is allowed under the commerce clause.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who has opposed most of what the federal government has done since the Progressive Era, is considered a lock to oppose the law. But the other eight justices, including the four other justices appointed by Republican Presidents, have shown a broader perspective on commerce. In Gonzales v. Reich, allowing the government to prohib-it home-grown medicinal marijuana, Justice Scalia (perhaps the court’s most prominent conservative) wrote the majority opinion which heavily cited the 1943 case of Wickard v. Filburn. Filburn prohibited a wheat farmer from growing extra wheat for personal use and violating government quotas, showing that individual choice can be regulated as interstate com-merce. In Reich, Justice Kennedy joined in an even more expansive opinion written by John Stevens.

A vote by any of these Justices to reject the in-dividual mandate, essentially unraveling the entire health law, would cut against decades of legal prec-

edent, some of it set by current members of the court. It would essentially return constitutional law to the 1930’s when the conservative “Four Horse-men,” as they were called, routinely struck down Franklin Roosevelt’s economic policies. Whether

you think that the New Deal was creeping social-ism or the savior of the workingman, this kind of unapologetic judicial activism had a corrosive effect on our democracy, and it nearly led to constitution-al crises in which Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with compliant justices.

On questions of economic regulation a majority of the court has come to grips with the notion that the Commerce Clause, as John Marshall said in 1819, “is the power to regulate that is to proscribe the rule by which commerce is governed.” No one can argue that the decision to purchase or not purchase health insurance is no part of commerce; not when health expenses account for 17 percent of GDP and near-ly two thirds of American bankruptcies are due to medical bills. Health insurance is intimately tied to commerce; the individual mandate was merely how Congress chose to regulate such commerce.

There is a serious and principled libertarian ob-jection to the individual mandate, but judicial prec-edent is at odds with such an interpretation of the Constitution. Since the end of the Lochner Era, in which minimum wage laws, child labor rules and bank regulations were struck down, the nation and the court have gradually accepted a larger role for the government in the economy.

Maybe we would be better off if we returned to that age of minimal government. But that is a deci-sion to be made by our elected representatives, not by men in black robes like Antonin Scalia and John Roberts who claim to loathe judicial activism and tyranny.

17

TKO

it woUld essentially retUrn constitUtional law to the 1930’s when the conserva-tive “foUr horseMen” roU-tinely strUcK down rossev-elt’s econoMic Policies.

RYAN BAKER AND MEGAN SHAW

Iran- undefeated but largely untested since beating Iraq in 1988

Israel- coming in on a hot streak with recent wins against Syria and Lebanon

North Korea- how do they respond in their first game with a new signal-caller?

South  Korea-­‐  lackluster  non-­‐conference  schedule  won’t  matter  in  this  matchup  

Russia- strong defensive squad rocked by match-fixing scandal just before tournament

Russia- scrappy upstarts who seem to have every call go the other way.

Greece- hit hard by recent salary cap penalties

European Union- dogged by criticisms of being ‘soft,’ will they step it up come tournament time?

 

Iran- undefeated but largely untested since beating Iraq in 1988

Israel- coming in on a hot streak with recent wins against Syria and Lebanon

North Korea- how do they respond in their first game with a new signal-caller?

South  Korea-­‐  lackluster  non-­‐conference  schedule  won’t  matter  in  this  matchup  

Russia- strong defensive squad rocked by match-fixing scandal just before tournament

Russia- scrappy upstarts who seem to have every call go the other way.

Greece- hit hard by recent salary cap penalties

European Union- dogged by criticisms of being ‘soft,’ will they step it up come tournament time?

 

Asia

Europe

Shaka Smart

NorfolkState

Presidential Final Four: Obama’s March Madness