By Mark Warren

The first two months of the new year have seen Tunisia’s government toppled, Jordan’s regime in a state of crisis, Bahrain’s military firing on demonstrators, Libya’s factions beginning a civil war, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s resignation, with protests from Tahrir Square to Harvard Square. The entire region has plunged headlong into revolution, with longstanding political allies of the United States falling victim to popular unrest.

And what is the Obama administration doing about it? Virtually nothing.

They misjudged. They didn’t see it coming. They acted too late. They hedged their bets. Such were the criticisms of the Obama administration, which sat idle and mute while Egypt came to a standstill, its citizens protesting autocratic president Hosni Mubarak. They didn’t stand up for their ally, they didn’t demand his ouster, they didn’t intervene to resolve the situation on America’s terms. A week or so into the crisis, the State Department called for a peaceful transition of power in Egypt and sent an ambassador to Cairo with the same message, but did nothing more than make empty statements.

After sixty years of American geopolitical puppetry, it is surprising and refreshing to see an administration that allows nations to determine their own fate without US intervention. We no longer need to contain the spread of communism; we’ve seen that oppressive rulers (Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan, for example), however friendly to America, often turn their subjects against the United States, much to our long-term disadvantage.

This is not to advocate a twenty-first century isolationism; on the contrary, the United States’ expanding global reach is inevitable and has the potential to be beneficial for all parties involved. There are ways of promoting and protecting America’s global interests that do not involve military or political interventions, though those intrusive means seem to have been the most popular options of the last century and the start of the present one.

The United States has been so busy spreading freedom and democracy by military means that it has forgotten that the most successful and durable democracies are those not “liberated” by a foreign power but created by their own people with their own interests in mind—the United States of America, for example.

And so, despite criticism from all fronts for not decisively picking a side and for not passionately supporting either the Egyptian president or the Egyptian people, Obama and his administration have done the right thing—nothing.

It is hard to tell at this point what will happen in Egypt, in Libya, in the other Middle Eastern nations undergoing political and social upheavals. New governments and new rulers may not cozy up to the United States’ global aegis or support its agenda the way that Mubarak often did. But in the long run, steps toward true democracy in the region are certainly in every nation’s best interest.

By Michael Cotter

The count is now even.  Two federal judges have upheld the Health Care Reform bill’s constitutionality, and two have struck it down.  It may come as no surprise that so far all the judges’ decisions are perfectly in line with the party that appointed them.  The most recent ruling, issued by Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola Florida, held that Congress could not “regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause.”  He argued that such a statue would mark “a radical departure from existing case law.”

Conservatives and Constitutional Originalists (rarely a meaningful distinction) maintain that the Constitution gives Congress no right to regulate individual actions that do not explicitly involve interstate commerce.   Furthermore, they argue, inactivity of any kind is un-regulatable and therefore un-punishable.

Regardless of what one may think is the correct interpretation of Congress’s powers under the Constitution, it is just factually inaccurate to claim that the Health Care bill’s individual insurance mandate would mark a “radical departure” from our legislative and judicial tradition.  In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court upheld a law fining a farmer for producing more wheat than was legal under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, even though the excess product was for personal use.   Justice Robert Jackson, in the majority opinion asserted that an activity may “be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’.” Even in 1942, when Americans were far less interconnected than they are today, the Court acknowledged that personal activity can have a demonstrable impact on national markets.  In the case of Wickard, even though the defendant was producing the excess wheat for the consumption of his chickens, he was affecting national prices by not purchasing feed in the open market.

Even more relevantly, in the 1982 case, United States v. Lee, the Supreme Court upheld Social Security as a mandatory program, for any “voluntary coverage…would undermine the soundness of the social security system.”

You can disagree with both of these cases; you can call them unjust overextensions of judicial power in direct conflict with the Constitution.  But you cannot deny that they establish a precedent for broad interpretation of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.   Given the clear judicial tradition in support of the individual insurance mandate, the only coherent opposition to the statute is one that ignores the entire body of legal precedent that stands between us and the Constitution.  This theory, Constitutional Originalism, is a legal trap-door: it has the illusion of being stable, but is both dangerous and hollow.

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, the philosophy’s highest ranking adherent, Constitutional Originalism means rendering decisions “on the basis of what the Constitution originally meant.”  That is to say, interstate commerce should be interpreted only as broadly as those alive in 1787 would have intended.  Clearly, the appeal of such a philosophy is its apparent stability and immutability.  There is no room for argument and certainly no room for judges to insert their personal opinions.  What is on the parchment is the law, and it is simply the judge’s responsibility to apply it consistently.  To its adherents, it is the only genuine legal application of the Constitution.  Other theories somehow diverge from the law, allowing opinions to be based on judge’s likes and dislikes rather than sound reasoning.

Yet, the theory has several serious faults.  The first is the near impossibility of so-called original intent ever truly being ascertained.  Certainly each founder had a unique vision for what each Constitutional provision would one day become.  Even if you believe that a monolithic original intent did exist, in some general sense, then what methods should be used to decipher it?  Most originalists acknowledge the irrelevance of personal correspondence, like a letter between James and Dolly Madison, in discovering original intent.  Yet they accept such writings as the Federalist Papers, which were penned with the explicitly political motive of supporting the Constitution’s ratification.  How is one supposed to decide which words a politician says in earnest, and which he says with motives other than truth?

Furthermore, even if original intent were possible to ascertain, it is impossible to actually implement.  Scalia admits that neither he nor other originalists would administer “public flogging” as reasonable punishment under the Fourth Amendment, despite the clear evidence that it would have been classified as such in 1791. Originalists concede that they neither could nor should overturn such precedents as the 1870 ruling legalizing the issuance of paper money—widely considered to be unconstitutional, but necessary—because the consequences would be too detrimental to our national wellbeing.

If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and if even originalists acknowledge that some allegedly unconstitutional precedents are too essential to overturn, these cases must be considered at least part of our practical constitution.  The question of the Health Care Reform Bill’s constitutionality is open-and-shut.  American fundamental law has evolved incrementally, as generations of judges have expanded and expounded on the meaning of the Constitution.  What results is a Constitution that owes as much to accumulated tradition as to any piece of parchment.  The Health Care Reform Bill, which conforms to our national body of precedent, is constitutional.  Any philosophy that denies this necessarily denies most of American law.

By Channing Spencer

It might surprise some to know that the Mississippi state flag still contains the image of the Confederate flag. Nearly 150 years after the Civil War ended, Mississippi Governor and potential Republican presidential candidate for 2012, Haley Barbour, set off a firestorm with his refusal to denounce a proposed state license plate that would honor Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest. The Sons of Confederate Veterans, who refer to them themselves as the “guardians of Confederate History and Heritage,” is responsible for proposing the specialty license plate. As the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, Forrest is a particularly controversial historical figure. His status as the first leader of the most racist organized group in American history is appalling enough. However, his actions in 1864 at the infamous site of Fort Pillow, Tennessee are arguably still more abominable. During the Fort Pillow Massacre, Gen. Forrest’s troops massacred hundreds of black Union soldiers who had already surrendered.

Despite knowledge of Forrest’s notorious actions and pressure from the Mississippi NAACP, Governor Barbour has refused to publicly denounce the proposal. “I don’t go around denouncing people. That’s not going to happen,” he said.  Such a statement underscores Barbour’s hypocrisy, as denouncing people seems to be a favorite pastime of his: he recently denounced the Environmental Protection Agency as “out of hand,” and the Obama administration as “reckless” at a meeting of the Conservative Political Action Committee.

The issue of whether or not Gen. Forrest should be honored has clearly polarized Mississippians. Some argue in favor of the proposed specialty license plate on the grounds that he was a KKK leader for only two years–as though this somehow atones for the fact that he was a KKK leader at all, or as though it justifies his actions at Fort Pillow. Other supporters, such as Greg Stewart of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, argue that Forrest deserves the high distinction of being honored with a state license plate bearing his image because of his leadership and service during the Civil War.

Barbour’s own stance on racism has been notably unclear. Last December, he lauded the White Citizens Council in Yazoo City, his hometown, for its contributions to the fight over desegregation. However, Southern Citizens Councils notoriously supported segregation, often perpetuating subtle institutional racism to keep blacks at social and economic disadvantages. When asked about the civil rights movement and segregation in the South, Barbour said, “I just don’t remember it as being that bad.” After his comments drew fire from historians and other academics, Barbour quickly issued a statement to clarify his remarks.

The question remains, however: Why won’t Barbour take a definitive stance on the proposal to honor a former KKK leader and Confederate soldier? Perhaps his refusal to denounce the proposal is evidence of his desire to not alienate Southern voters who idolize their Confederate ancestors. Whether his reasons for refusing to denounce Forrest are strategic or not, Barbour’s silence on the matter appears to be a form of tacit approval of Forrest’s actions. In a state that still has the Confederate symbol on its own state flag, there can be no doubt that such an issue is a sensitive topic for Mississippians.

In Support of Unions and their Rights

Open warfare between capital and labor is hardly a new phenomenon. But in this age of intense political correctness and unceasing public scrutiny, rarely do representatives of government openly attack the fundamental rights of labor. And yet, this is the current state of affairs in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.

In Wisconsin, Republican Governor Scott Walker has proposed a bill that would prohibit collective bargaining by public workers on issues other than wages, require unions to vote yearly on their continued existence, and increase workers’ contributions to pensions and benefits. Wisconsin’s Democrat representatives have left the state to withhold a quorum and prevent the bill’s passage. Popular protests have been raging in and around the Capitol in Madison since mid-February.

In Indiana, several measures are on the table that would cripple organized labor, including a bill prohibiting mandatory union membership as a prerequisite for employment in the private sector. All but three Democrats have left the state, as in Wisconsin.

A bill introduced in Ohio would end collective bargaining for state workers and allow the state to hire those willing to cross the picket line during a strike. A revision in the works would allow collective bargaining for wages only but ban strikes.

There is no question that the unions are losing popularity in the United States. Advocates for education reform, along with the film Waiting for Superman, have absolutely thrashed the teachers’ unions for their irresponsibility and recalcitrance, supposedly contributing to the failure of our public education system, according to critics. Unions are rarely mentioned when everything goes smoothly; it is when the transit workers go on strike and shut down public transportation, or when the sanitation workers strike and the trash piles up, or when the nurses strike and hospitals are left understaffed and patients unattended, that we hear about the unions.

Many Americans think of the unions as voting blocs or as inconveniences. We forget (or are not old enough to remember) the generations-long battles for fair wages, hours, benefits, &c. that have raised Americans’ standard of living so high that we have forgotten just how low it would be without the unions. We forget the protections against arbitrary or politically motivated firings and vindictive measures against workers and their rights. And perhaps most important, we forget that in our capitalist system the bottom line is everything, and that capital will always attempt to exploit labor to the greatest extent it can. The unions are the vital bulwark against this one-sided exploitation.

Let us leave aside for the time being the fact that it was reckless spending that got these states into financial trouble in the first place, mistakes for which they are now trying to put the burden on public employees. Let us leave aside that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker discussed his strategy to defeat the public employee unions during a twenty-minute phone call with a journalist pretending to be conservative billionaire David Koch, revealing that government may be less siding against labor and more thoroughly in bed with capital.

If states truly need to raise money quickly, and refuse to raise taxes, and refuse to cut spending in other areas, there are several acceptable options to take in dealing with the unions. They can negotiate to lower wages. They can negotiate to lay off workers. They can renegotiate contracts. The unions, in turn, can make their own bargaining priorities, taking economic realities into account. And if the members of the unions do not believe the newly negotiated conditions to be appropriate, they can strike, if the law permits. The current situation in the Midwest is not a case of the unions’ driving employers out of business with ridiculous demands (which, though stubborn and mutually destructive, is also permissible short-term stance for labor to take), but rather a case of states trying to balance their budgets by throwing their own employees under the bus, and not by negotiating economic concessions in good faith by collective bargaining, but by restricting unions’ rights. It is one thing to renegotiate terms; it is another entirely to strip away fundamental negotiating rights by eliminating collective bargaining. The desire to eliminate collective bargaining shows, above all, the states’ total disregard for their own employees, and may set the stage for completely arbitrary government action based on political views or considerations, or simply to fill budget shortfalls.

Wisconsin, Ohio, and Indiana are not the only ones renegotiating contracts with their employees: Harvard University’s food service workers are currently beginning their own contract renegotiation campaign. At a meeting on February 24, the leaders of Unite Here Local 26 called on the union’s members to “fight like our union brothers and sisters in Wisconsin” to prevent the Harvard Corporation from cutting more workdays and increasing the cost of benefits (including raising the standard healthcare co-pay from $15 to $40). Just as the burden for financial mismanagement and corporate tax breaks is falling on public employees in the Midwest, at Harvard, too, the unions are being forced to pay for the alleged corruption and imprudent investments of the Summers years, the union’s leaders claim. Truly perplexing is that the university’s endowment grew some $1.5 billion last year according to the union, while the union’s members earned an average of $3,000 less.

More than a demand for higher wages and better benefits, the food service workers union’s message is a demand for respect. They feel disrespected on a very personal level (inconsiderate Harvard University Dining Services managers, for example) and as a group of dedicated and vital employees who feel the University is ignoring their needs.

In these upcoming contract negotiations, Harvard has the opportunity to show its workers and community the profound respect that they deserve. Harvard must demonstrate that it supports the rights of labor, and in so doing send a message to those that oppose those fundamental workers’ rights in the Midwest, across the nation, and around the world.