Quote of the day: why our Constitution establishes limited government

A great quote from a source with a decidedly mixed record in defending liberty:

If there be a political proposition universally true -- one which springs directly from the nature of man, and is independent of circumstances -- it is, that irresponsible power is inconsistent with liberty, and must corrupt those who exercise it.  On this great principle our political system rests.  We consider all powers as delegated by the people, and to be controlled by them, who are interested in their just and proper exercise; and our Governments, both State and General, are but a system of judicious contrivances to bring this fundamental principle into fair, practical operation. 

John C. Calhoun (1782-1850), Southern statesman, in the Exposition and Protest (Dec. 19, 1828).

Justice Scalia says there is no constitutional right for a state to secede from the Union

Here's the story.   Scalia is reported to have said:

"I cannot imagine that such a question could ever reach the Supreme Court,” Scalia wrote. “To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. … Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the state suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit."

Scalia's comments address two critical questions. First, he quite astutely points out that as a practical matter, a state simply does not have the right to unilaterally secede from the Union. Second, and I think more interestingly, he addresses the question of the justicability of a claim by a state to have such a right. As he points out, there simply is no mechanism for such a claim to be brought by a state in court. The claim is not only extra-constitutional, it is extra-legal. As a consequence, it is not in any meaningful sense, a legal claim.

Scalia's points are absolutely damning when it comes to assertions of a legal right to secession by a state. Even if it could be established that a state had the constitutional right to secede, the state still could not make a legal claim to that effect because it is unable to bring suit against the federal government without the federal government's consent. The state could make a political claim, a moral claim, a philosophical claim. But it could not make a legal claim, because the state's case could not be placed before a court of law. Unless, of course, the federal government consented. But then the state would probably not be acting unilaterally in pursuit of secession.

Washington Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated against the states

Here's the story.  A major victory for gun-rights, although it was a defeat for the appellant in the case before the court.  Definitely an interesting ruling.  For what it's worth, I think that Justice Stephens had the better approach; the state supreme court probably should have refrained from addressing the issue of incorporation until the federal Supreme Court decided the issue.  But that's a question of prudential judgment.  I think the majority's opinion is pretty persuasive. 

Here's the court's decision in the case:   State v. Sieyes.  Here's my favorite line from the majority's opinion:

Accordingly we regard the history, lineage, and pedigree of the Second Amendment right to bear arms necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice. It is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.

Amen to that.

Of course, as the Washington supreme court points out in its ruling, the Washington constitution itself provides significant protections for gun owners.  In article 1, section 24 the state constitution explicitly states that:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

The Washington constitution makes clear that the right to keep and bear arms, at least under state law, is a right designed not only to allow for a state controlled militia, but also for personal defense. 

Which makes me wonder, couldn't the court have decided the case on narrower grounds, basing its decision on the Washington constitution alone, without addressing the question of the 2nd Amendment?  This is why I think Justice Stephens' more prudential approach has merit.  Why decide a question federal constitutional law if it isn't necessary to do so?  And why decide a question of federal constitutional law that is currently before the federal Supreme Court?  Wouldn't it be better to wait to see what the federal Supreme Court will do?

Supreme Court imposes shorter word limits on reply briefs

Here's the story. This isn't a huge shift, but it is telling that the Court is shortening the length of reply briefs. One gets the sense that in addition to the appellate record, briefs from the parties, amicus briefs, etc., the justices may be feeling a little swamped...

"You are aware that I am not really a wizard?"

Here's Sir Ian McKellen in a hilarious sketch centering on a big question within the dramatic world: "what is acting?" Inside all of the comedy is a very serious point that McKellen has made over and over again through the years regarding the nature of the craft. At the end he sums up his essential view of acting, one that I share for what it's worth: "The whole thing is illusion, you see...You are pretending. And that is acting." McKellan's long campaign against "method acting" continues:

(Hat tip to Ann Althouse.)

Of course, it comes as no surprise that McKellen's views on the craft of acting echo those of the Bard himself, William Shakespeare, as voiced by the character of Prospero in the final monologue of what may have been Shakespeare's final play, The Tempest:

Charles Taylor on the "New Atheism"

Here's an interview with Canadian philosopher and scholar of secularism Charles Taylor, dealing with the "New Atheists" (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, etc., etc.). The whole interview is well worth a read. Taylor's essential point isn't an attack on atheism per se, it is an attack on fundamentalist attitudes infecting atheism, fundamentalist attitudes he sees as dominating the work of the "New Atheists":

Atheists are reacting in the same way that religious fundamentalists reacted in the past. They are people who have been very comfortable with a sense that their particular position is what makes sense of everything and so on, and then when they are confronted by something else they just go bananas and throw up the most incredibly bad arguments in a tone of indignation and anger. And that’s the problem with that whole master narrative of secularization, what’s called the secularization thesis, that people got lulled into—you know, that religion is a thing of the past, that it’s disappearing, that it did all these terrible things but it’s going to go away and so on—because when it comes back people are just undone.