Archive for July, 2017

NYC cops: we’ll use body camera footage against false claims

Refuting false claims against cops is just as legitimate a reason for body cameras as validating accurate claims. “The NYPD hasn’t decided whether it will allow the cops to use the footage in lawsuits, according to Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins, who believes the footage is fair game for criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against people who file false claims.” [New York Daily News]

The other half of the matter: citizens have a right to record police, too. [Jonathan Blanks, Cato] And in strongly worded decision that cites a Cato Institute amicus on pp. 12 and 13, the Third Circuit joins several other circuits in recognizing a constitutional right to record police. [Fields v. City of Philadelphia]

Food roundup

“Maine tried to raise its minimum wage. Restaurant workers didn’t want it.”

A dozen servers at a Bangor steakhouse were relieved when the Maine legislature reversed plans to impose a high employer-paid wage on tipped workers. “I don’t need to be ‘saved,’ and I’ll be damned if small groups of uninformed people are voting on my livelihood,” said one. “James Dill, a college professor and the Democratic state senator from Maine’s 5th District, received hundreds of emails and phone calls from unhappy servers, he said. He initially voted for the ballot referendum because he supports a higher minimum wage. After the outcry, he signed onto a Republican measure to lower the tipped wage down again.” [Caitlin Dewey, Washington Post “Wonkblog”]

Medical roundup

Martin Redish: “Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression”

The Supreme Court has been vigorous over the past 40 years in extending First Amendment protection to truthful commercial speech. Yet the “scholarly community has, with only rare exception, been either grudging or downright hostile to extending constitutional protection to commercial advertising. Most, although not all, scholars believe that protecting commercial speech trivializes what the First Amendment is truly about,” endangers vigorous regulation, “and risks diluting the strong protection traditionally given to more valuable areas of expression.” In this new Cato Institute policy analysis, Martin Redish of Northwestern University School of Law undertakes a defense:

…the question of protecting such speech should not be in doubt. Controversy comes from a failure to recognize how commercial speech furthers the values implicit in the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression. To show how commercial speech advances free speech values, I adopt a “perspectives framework” for First Amendment theory. First Amendment values are appropriately viewed from four different perspectives: the speaker perspective, the listener perspective, the regulator perspective, and the rationalist perspective. Subsequently I will show how protecting commercial speech advances freedom of speech from each perspective; in contrast, rejecting or reducing constitutional protection for commercial speech contravenes the reasons each perspective values free speech.

Banking and finance roundup

Decline and fall of the Contracts Clause

George Leef reviews James W. Ely, Jr., book The Contract Clause: A Constitutional History. The clause, part of Article I, prescribes that no state shall pass any law “impairing the obligation of contracts”:

By the end of the Marshall era, the Contract Clause provided a firm defense against legislative interference for rights under public and private contracts. That would be its high-water mark. Soon state and federal courts began to whittle away at it….

The 1934 Supreme Court case of Home Building and Loan v. Blaisdell is often cited as a turning point in the clause’s demotion, but the stripping away of protection against such laws has continued into more modern times.

Thus, state governments now have nearly unlimited power to tamper with contractual obligations and the reliability of a contract depends upon how judges might weigh several vague factors. Where the Founders wanted certainty, we now have a great deal of uncertainty.

Ely concludes by taking us into recent cases where the clause has been resurrected in efforts by public employee unions to prevent legislatures from whittling away any of their promised benefits through efforts to lower budget deficits.

These may sometimes prevent even laws aimed at reducing “unearned” future benefits arising from public-sector work that has not yet been performed. Even as some courts render such benefits provisions constitutionally binding on subsequent legislatures, they show little interest in reviving the clause’s old scope so as to bar legislation that impairs the obligation of existing private contracts.