ShareThis Page
George Will

George F. Will: Kavanaugh & constitutional reasoning

| Saturday, Aug. 25, 2018, 9:03 p.m.
In this Aug. 7, 2018, photo. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, officiates at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington. The Senate will begin a confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh on Sept. 4, the Sen. check Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee says.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)In this Aug. 7, 2018, photo. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, officiates at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington. The Senate will begin a confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh on Sept. 4, the Sen. check Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee says.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
In this Aug. 7, 2018, photo. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, officiates at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington. The Senate will begin a confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh on Sept. 4, the Sen. check Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee says.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)In this Aug. 7, 2018, photo. President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, officiates at the swearing-in of Judge Britt Grant to take a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta at the U.S. District Courthouse in Washington. The Senate will begin a confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh on Sept. 4, the Sen. check Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee says.(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

WASHINGTON

Senate Republicans and Democrats are at daggers drawn over confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Instead, they should unsheathe some questions designed to illuminate the excitement of constitutional reasoning.

The Constitution vests in Congress the power to tax. Presidents, however, unilaterally impose taxes (tariffs) because Congress has delegated to presidents vast discretion in imposing protectionism. Should the court protect the separation of powers by enforcing on Congress a non-delegation doctrine?

In the 1905 Lochner case, the court struck down a state law limiting bakers’ work hours because it infringed workers’ and employers’ liberty interest in making consensual contracts. Assuming, as is patent, that this law was rent-seeking by unionized bakers and bakeries — that it was written to protect their interests, not public health and safety — was Lochner correctly decided? Dissenting in Lochner, Oliver Wendell Holmes said the Constitution “does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s ‘Social Statics,’” a book advocating laissez faire economic policies. However, because laissez faire is what freedom looks like in economic life, is there some sense in which the Constitution, the purpose of which is to enable a free society, does foster it?

In 1958, the court invalidated an Alabama law targeting the NAACP by requiring disclosure of organizations’ membership lists. The court said anonymity was necessary to shield NAACP supporters from dangers. Given today’s instances of individuals injured because of their political affiliations, are mandatory disclosure laws problematic?

Are there constitutional limits on the admissions policies that public colleges and universities can use to ensure “diverse” student bodies? The 1978 Bakke case involving racial preferences in admissions said that race can be a “plus” factor for certain government-preferred minorities. In 2003, when the court affirmed the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions, Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, hoped such preferences would be unnecessary in 25 years. So, do they become unconstitutional in 2028?

In its 2005 Kelo decision concerning the Takings Clause (“nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”), the court said government can seize property for the “public use” of transferring it to wealthier private interests who will pay more taxes to the government. Does this precedent merit much respect? Is it pertinent that Kelo was decided 5-4?

In 1995, the court ruled, 5-4, that a state cannot limit the number of terms members of the U.S. House of Representatives or Senate can serve because such term limits create “additional qualifications” for such offices beyond those enumerated in the Constitution. Clarence Thomas, dissenting, said: The Constitution, which only sets minimum eligibility requirements, is silent about the state’s power to set term limits, and its silence is no bar to actions by the states or people. Given the states’ reserved powers affirmed by the 10th Amendment, they “can exercise all powers that the Constitution does not withhold from them.” Was Thomas correct?

Finally, to serve the government’s interest in a healthy workforce, and its interest in minimizing the substantial effect of health care costs on the nation’s commercial vitality, could Congress, under its power to regulate interstate commerce, require Americans to eat their broccoli? If not, what principle limits Congress’ Commerce Clause power?

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me