0

Mea Culpa

My ongoing research on the meaning of the Bill of Rights has changed my view of something that I said in my book on William Jennings Bryan.  Admitting error is an important part of blogging and scholarship, so let me explain.

One theme in the book is that incorporation suffered a setback due to the defeat of the Populist Party.  Basically, the idea is that there was some support for extending parts of the first set of amendments to the states into the 1890s on the Supreme Court, but that support dried up in the wake of the civil unrest that rocked the country in those years.  I then went further and said that Bryan’s defeat in 1900 on imperialism deepened this trend.  Here’s what I said:

“The issue of whether the Constitution should extend to the territories (and thereby limit congressional discretion was similar to the issue of incorporation.  For both, the issue was whether constitutional rights or provisions should be expanded to new political units (the states or the territories).  And the Court’s rejection, in a series of cases, of jury trials and other constitutional rights in the Philippines was partly prompted by a desire to curb dissent, as were some of its decisions with respect to the Populists.  In fact, after the Spanish-American War, the United States met a serious revolt in the Philippines with a harsh response that was not at all consistent with the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause.  Both abroad and at home, the Bill of Rights was on the defensive by 1900.”

What’s wrong with this?  It puts too much emphasis on constitutional law and not enough on what Congress did in extending part of the Bill of Rights to the Philippines in 1902.  That was an important boost to the Bill of Rights–far more important than anything since Bingham’s advocacy for incorporation during the Thirty-Ninth Congress.

3

RBG revises opinion after professor flags error

How often does it happen that a law professor flags a factual error in a Supreme Court opinion and the Justice thereafter changes that opinion to correct the error? Answer: not that often.

So when it happens, some of us think that credit should be given. Okay? So, onto the story, albeit the brief version.

In a post on his Election Law Blog yesterday, Professor Rick Hasen wrote:

In Justice Ginsburg’s 6-page dissent in the Texas voter id case, she writes: “Nor will Texas accept photo ID cards issued by the U. S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.”

A few people have pointed me to material from Texas which seems to suggest that these cards would be acceptable as a form of military identification. Veterans ID cards do not expire, and therefore they seem to meet the Texas requirement: “a United States military identification card that contains the person’s photograph that has not expired or that expired no earlier than 60 days before the date of presentation.” (my emphasis)

By way of an update, he added: The Texas Secretary of State’s office has responded via Twitter: “Veterans Affairs ID cards are an acceptable form of photo ID in TX.

In response, Justice Ginsburg revised her dissent, as noted by Lyle Denniston over at SCOTUSblog:

In ticking off her objections, Ginsburg wrote that Texas would not even accept “photo ID cards issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.”  On Wednesday, the Justice conceded that that comment was incorrect.  That kind of ID card, she said through the Court’s public information office, is “an acceptable form of photo identification for voting in Texas.”  So she simply deleted the sentence, and reissued the opinion.  The Court also said that she had made “small stylistic changes” on two pages of her opinion, and that the corrected version could be read on the Court’s website.

Nothing groundbreaking, but noteworthy nonetheless. Meanwhile, kudos to Professor Hasen (and his tipsters) for helping to get the official record straight.

Re correcting the official record, see: Adam Liptak, “Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing,” New York Times, May 24, 2014 (“The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include ‘truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,’ said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.”).

0

Berkshire and Coca-Cola: Deja Vu All Over Again

 

 

In response to the business media frenzy over what challenges at the Coca-Cola Company mean for Berkshire Hathaway, which owns a large stake in the company acquired in 1988, herewith an excerpt for perspective from Berkshire Beyond Buffett, my book released yesterday.  The book focuses on Berkshire’s 50 main wholly owned businesses, but also has brief passages on some of the companies in which Berkshire owns a minority position.  The following is the passage on The Coca-Cola Company, pages 181-182.  You might call it: Berkshire and Coca-Cola: We Have Been Here Before. 

Before presenting the passage, a related note: when activist Coke shareholders (like David Winters) agitating for change complain about their futile efforts to lure Buffett into their fight, remember that Buffett works for Berkshire and its shareholders, not for Coke or its shareholders. While activism might boost Coke’s shareholders today, Berkshire’s patient quiet approach has boosted Berkshire’s shareholders year in and year out.  For example, the model of quiet patience is precisely why Berkshire was able to reap such enormous gains from its investments during the 2008 financial crisis.

CokeWith sales in 2013 reaching $50 billion, the Coca-Cola Company is about as powerful a brand and company as can be, at home in Atlanta and around the world. Its success is due ultimately to a single product, originally a mixture created in 1886 by pharmacist John Styth Pemberton of sugar, water, caffeine, and cocaine (extracts of the coca leaf and the kola nut). In 1891, fellow pharmacist Asa G. Candler gained control of the product and initiated steps to launch the business. Among early moves was the first bottling franchise in 1899, an investment in local partnerships that became the scaffolding to build the brand: the company makes concentrate for sale to bottlers that mix it into liquid form and package it for sale to retailers. Other early milestones include the 1905 removal of cocaine from the mix and the 1916 creation of the unique contour-shaped bottles.

In 1919, Candler sold the company to Ernest Woodruff and an investor group which promptly took it public. In 1923, Ernest’s son, Robert Winship Woodruff, became president, a position he held through 1954, followed by serving as a director through the 1980s. Coke went global in the 1940s, establishing bottling plants near the fronts in World War II. With the stewardship of CEO William Robinson, in 1960, Coke acquired Minute Maid Corporation and in 1961, launched Sprite, the first of many brand expansions it would continue as it developed its product line of five hundred different drinks.

Under Paul Austin during the 1970s, despite reasonable sales, the company stumbled from one problem to another. Bottlers felt misunderstood, migrant workers in the Minute Maid groves were mistreated, environmentalists complained about its containers, and federal authorities challenged the legality of its franchise bottling system. Although Austin launched Coca-Cola into China and was responsible for other international achievements, critics say he neglected the flagship brand by diversifying into water, wine, and shrimp. With investors punishing the stock, the board finally ousted Austin in 1980, replacing him with Roberto C. Goizueta, Coca-Cola’s most famous CEO, serving from 1981 through 1997.

A legendary businessman and Wall Street darling, Goizueta returned to basics, focusing on the Coke brand and rejuvenating Coca-Cola’s traditional corporate culture of product leadership and cost management. During his tenure, Goizueta led the company to widen profit margins from 14 to 20 percent, boosted sales from $6 billion to $18 billion, drove profits from less than $1 billion to nearly $4 billion, and pushed returns on equity from 20 to 30 percent.  These measures were propelled by expanding Coke’s global network and the successful 1982 launch of Diet Coke.

There were, of course, a few errors along the way. One, the lamentable 1985 birth and death of New Coke after it flopped with consumers, simply revealed the power of the core brand. Another was Coca-Cola’s 1982 acquisition and 1987 divestiture of Columbia Pictures after it had become disillusioned with the inscrutable ways of Hollywood. But this diversion simply proved the durability of Coke’s corporate culture—and was also lucrative, as the company paid $750 million for Columbia and sold it for $3.4 billion.

In 1988 and 1989, Buffett heralded Goizueta’s achievements when Berkshire bought the large block of Coca-Cola shares it still owns today and Buffett joined the board (on which he served until 2006). After Goizueta’s sixteen years, however, the company’s CEOs came and went more like temps, four in thirteen years. But despite mistakes, none could fail so spectacularly as to ruin the Coke brand or Coca-Cola’s corporate culture. Douglas Ivester (1997–2000) swapped the contour-shaped Coke bottle for a larger unfamiliar variant, compromising a valued trademark. Douglas N. Daft (2000–2004) fired large numbers of people, a slap in the face to the employee-centric culture that prided itself on lifetime employment.

Yet changing strong corporate cultures is not easy, and at Coca-Cola, successors quickly reversed course. E. Neville Isdell, who returned from retirement to right the ship, and Muhtar A. Kent, who took over in 2009, revived a decentralized structure and the professional style that Goizueta favored. They also understood the importance of international markets, especially in southeast Asia, where growth prospects remain strong. Kent celebrates Coca-Cola’s greatest tradition, epitomized by its history of using hundreds of bottling partners: being simultaneously global and local.

Coca-Cola has been a profitable investment for Berkshire—worth today twelve times what Berkshire paid for it. And Buffett’s son Howard has been on its board since 2010. The company appears to be prospering, and the Buffetts are bullish on it. Buffett and Munger continue to give the brand free advertising by sipping it on the podium at Berkshire’s annual meetings. But skeptics wonder about the durability of its economic characteristics in a health-conscious world turning away from carbonated beverages.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 37 (First Amendment News) McCutcheon case produces flood of scholarly commentary — 41 works!

UPDATED: 10-24-14

Before proceeding to the scholarly output on McCutcheon, here is where we stand this Term on First Amendment free expression cases:

Review Granted

  1. Elonis v. United States (to be argued on 12-1-14)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
  3. Reed v. Town of Gilbert

Review Pending

  1. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  2. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell
  3. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission

Review Denied

  1. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  2. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  3. Mehanna v. United States 

* * * *

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

Erin Murphy arguing in McCutcheon case

The decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014) is barley six months old and it has already produced an abundance of scholarly commentary, including books, symposia, and articles — no fewer than 40 such works. And all of this before the revered Harvard Law Review issue dedicated to the last Supreme Court term finds its way to print. Ditto for the equally acclaimed Supreme Court Review. How times have changed. The days of waiting are over; we live in a wired era. That’s the good news. The bad news, of course, is: who can possibly begin to read all of this?

That said, and for better or worse, below is a list of books (e-books and print ones) and articles and essays (in online companions and print journals) that either discuss McCutcheon in full or in part (e.g. Zephyr Teachout’s book) or issues very much related to the decision (e.g, Robert Post’s book). All were published after the decision came down on April 2, 2014. Browse them and see how many catch your eye.

5 Books

36 Scholarly Articles or Blog Posts  Read More

1

FAN 36.3 (First Amendment News) A street named Carlin

Cardinal Carlin

Cardinal Carlin

UPDATED

Tomorrow New York City will rename a street to honor the late George Carlin, the famed comedian and inspiration for FCC v. Pacifica (1978), the infamous First Amendment case sustaining a broadcast ban on “7 dirty words.”

Although “George Carlin Way” will begin at Amsterdam and West 121st Street, because of construction the ceremony tomorrow will be one block away at Morningside Drive and West 121st Street.

 → This from Howard Wasserman: “The named block is actually not the block on which Carlin grew up, because the church there (where Carlin went to school) objected; the compromise was to move it across to Amsterdam Avenue.” [Source: go here]

  The dedication ceremony will begin at 1:00 PM.

Current line-up of speakers

The following speakers have yet to confirm:

220px-Seven_Dirty_Words_WBAIEvening Event

Tomorrow night at 7:30 PM, at Carolines on Broadway, there will be a very special night of laughter to pay tribute to the dean of counterculture comedians and to celebrate his newly minted status as a man of the streets. (I will be in NYC and plan to be at Carolines.)

Colin Quinn will host, with performances by Ted Alexandro, Kevin Bartini, Eddie Brill, Jim Norton, and special surprise guests.

For details, go here.

→ Hat tip to Josh Wheeler 

For a memorable passage from Justice William Brennan:

I find the Court’s misapplication of fundamental First Amendment principles so patent, and its attempt to impose its notions of propriety on the whole of the American people so misguided, that I am unable to remain silent.

→ Related News Item: November 4, 2014 marks the 50th anniversary of Lenny Bruce’s New York obscenity conviction, for which he was posthumously pardoned on December 23, 2003.

0

University of Toronto Law Journal – Volume 64, Number 5, Fall 2014

utlj-logo

University of Toronto Law JournalVolume 64, Number 5, Fall 2014

Strange bedfellows
Robert Leckey

Two logics of authority in modern law
Arie Rosen

Authority, justice, and public law: A unified theory
Jacob Weinrib

REVIEW ARTICLES
The work of Lon Fuller: A promising direction for jurisprudence in the twenty-first century
Wibren van der Burg

List and Pettit on group agency and group responsibility
Vincent Chiao

Full text of the University of Toronto Law Journal is available online at UTLJ Online, Project Muse, JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, Westlaw-CARSWELL, LexisNexis and Quicklaw.

1

FAN 36.2 (First Amendment News) Corn-Revere on the FCC & Redskins Controversy

Robert Corn-Revere

Robert Corn-Revere

In case you missed it, yesterday Robert Corn-Revere had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. The piece was titled, “Free-Speech Foes Call an Audible — Bringing the FCC into the ‘Redskins’ debate is an invitation for First Amendment mischief.”

Here is the petition to the Federal Communications Commission, the one that gave rise to the FCC controversy.

 Here is how Mr. Corn-Revere began his WSJ op-ed:

“However you may feel about the name of the National Football League franchise in Washington, D.C., do we really want the Federal Communications Commission to step into the Redskins controversy as the nation’s culture police?”

“That’s what George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf III is seeking by asking the FCC to deny the broadcast license of WWXX, the FM radio station in Washington licensed to team owner Dan Snyder. The petition, filed in September, asks the FCC to yank the broadcast license because the station “deliberately, repeatedly, and unnecessarily broadcasts the word ‘R*dskins’ during most of its broadcast day.”

“That’s right, in lieu of the team name, the petition uses ‘R*dskins.'”

“This is a publicity stunt, not a serious legal argument. It is well beyond the FCC’s statutory or constitutional authority to prohibit speech merely because some find it offensive. But the idea gained some political traction after a Sept. 30 meeting when several FCC commissioners said they would consider the issue. Such consideration should not take long if the FCC is serious about following the law.”

Corn-Revere, former chief counsel to former FCC Chairman James Quello, then proceeded to lay out his case as to why Professor Banzhaf’s petition should be denied. In the process, Corn-Revere drew on FCC precedents and experience with regulations of this general type. In the end, he predicted:

“Without even getting into the frailties of the petition’s legal arguments, it doesn’t take a seer to predict what would happen if the FCC started canceling broadcast licenses because some people in the audience may be offended by something they had heard or seen. It would be a national version of college ‘speech codes,’ which have devolved into an offended-ness sweepstakes.

“There is no doubt about the sincerity of those who object to the name Washington Redskins. But asking the FCC to silence broadcasters who disagree with them is not the solution.”

Note: Professor Banzhaf has accepted my invitation to respond. I will post it as soon as i can. Stay tuned. 

1

7 Member Supreme Court Votes 4-1 to Suspend One of its Own

This is ugly.  PA Supreme Court has voted to suspend one of its members for various infractions, including the dissemination of pornographic emails from work computers.  The suspension order issued per curium, but apparently only attracted the votes of 4 of 7 possible justices.  One justice, dissenting, would have sent the matter to a judicial conduct board. The suspended justice didn’t vote, and neither did a justice who just accused the suspended justice of trying to blackmail him over yet more pornographic emails.  One of the four votes comes from a justice appointed by Pennsylvania’s governor, to replace another justice who had been suspended after being indicted.

Still with me? Here’s where the fun starts.  Pennsylvania’s Chief Justice, who has been long-involved in a heated fight with the newly suspended justice over control over Philadelphia’s court system, concurred in the per curium opinion. His “concurring statement,” destined for the headlines, contains the following astonishing paragraph:

wowThat, friends, is what it means to vent your spleen.

1

“Be careful of those that meet you at the train…”

Every now and then, a fortune cookie dispenses with advice that is so spot-on you just have to keep the little sliver of paper tucked away.  Here is my fortune cookie keeper of all time:

“Be careful of those that meet you at the train for they know where they want you to go…”

It was 2007 and I had just accepted my first job teaching.   And the faculty at the time was in a bit of turmoil.  The dean had recently resigned and it was unknown who the future dean would be.  As a visitor setting foot on campus I was a bit blurry eyed and knee deep in figuring out how to teach, be productive and all the things you do to start yourself off right.  Many of the faculty who remain very good friends today reached out to me to be reassuring about the the stability of the faculty etc….  But one person reached out to me to tell me who on the faculty not to trust.  What was particularly interesting was they named names!  This person was actually one of the first people to reach out to me when I arrived.  So when about six months later I read this fortune cookie sliver, I took the waitress’s pen and wrote their name on the back.

In my experience, the people on a faculty who you should be most leery of are those that will tell you either the people or the kinds of people you should be careful of.  What sounds as if it comes from experience and insight most often comes from places of fear, mistrust, manipulation, and insecurity.  What it can tell you, if you did not already know it, is that there are fault lines on the faculty for which a subterranean battle for the institution’s soul may be playing out.  As a young faculty member, don’t choose sides without carefully understanding what is at stake.

When you are new to a faculty, there are some traits to be “eyes wide open” on.  One is the “do not trust” this person or group of people conversation.  Most of time, when people offer this advice it is rarely for your own well-being, but rather because of their own motives.  Likewise, advice about faculty members that reduces them down to one quality or another or suggests that they are one dimensional in their views of the world (i.e., this person only cares about scholarship, so you should talk to them about your work often; or this person is only a teaching faculty member and doesn’t really care about scholarship) is rarely accurate and should be taken with equal caution.  I recall, being told at one stop “this professor doesn’t do scholarship so you shouldn’t waste your time talking to them about yours.”  As I found out, that was some of the worst advice I had received.  That person did not write, true, but they were very interested in the scholarship I was working on.   Had I not been willing to talk about my passions to this faculty member, I would have missed the chance to build a great relationship with this person — who frankly was glad that people like me were interested in writing our voice into scholarship and wanted to be supportive of that for the good of the college.

Anyone that suggests that faculty members are one dimensional and will only care about X, whether X is how you teach or what you write, means that the person dispensing with the advice doesn’t know the faculty member they are dispensing advice about well at all.  If we know anything about people — whether they are faculty members, scholars or administrators — it is that they are rarely one dimensional and regularly surprise us with the way they see the world if we open our eyes to see from time to time.

The people that make the best mentors on faculties are those that do not spend as much time worrying about who else you are taking advice from or attempting to characterize others, as they do about what you are up to and how your year or writing is shaping up.  In other words, when you find someone that is spending far more time offering comments about others on the faculty (particularly when you are new) understand that you are not their primary interest.  Their interest is to shape you to be aligned in their view of what the law school should be doing.  And most often, after you have served your purpose, they will dispense with you as well.

A final anecdote on this line — at one of my many stops (I have had four)  a colleague had the “do not trust this colleague,” conversation with me.  Fortunately I had experience in these matters and took the advice with a heavy dose of caution (of the advise dispensing colleague) and with eyes wide open. As it turned out, the person I was told not to trust was also told not to trust me by the same colleague.  Had I listened, I would have been deprived of a person who has become one of my greatest friends in the academy, but also a really great mentor.

So now, my little Chinese fortune cookie sliver, has two names written on the back, and still sits in my office today..

0

Formal Bills of Rights vs. Instrumental Ones

Below the fold I will post the Introduction of my revised paper, which I’m tentatively calling “The Bill of Rights Reconsidered.”  (It’s not a great title, but it’s good enough for now.)  As some readers may recall, last year I drafted a paper that focused on how Franklin D. Roosevelt elevated the status of the Bill of Rights in the 1930s.  Once I decided to turn this project into a book, I realized that my draft was inadequate.  It noted that most people did not call the first set of amendments a bill of rights until the 1890s, but did not offer an explanation for that curious fact.  I also did not explain why the terminology starting changing around 1900.  Those were pretty significant holes, but now I think that I have got them covered.

A theme of the paper is that our understanding of a bill of rights moved from a formal definition in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to a practical one in the twentieth and twenty-first.  Alexander Hamilton anticipated this change in Federalist #84, which I think has been misread for a long time.  (More on that later this week.)

Read More