Foto de l'autor

Philip Hamburger (1) (1957–)

Autor/a de Separation of Church and State

Per altres autors anomenats Philip Hamburger, vegeu la pàgina de desambiguació.

6 obres 220 Membres 2 Ressenyes

Obres de Philip Hamburger

Etiquetat

Coneixement comú

Data de naixement
1957-02-19
Gènere
male

Membres

Ressenyes

It seems that for years, Americans have noticed and been a little uncomfortable with some of the tactics of the federal government. Yet they have consistently dismissed those concerns, because surely some authority had blessed them, right? Philip Hamburger, Columbia Law Professor, is here to call the bluff: this is not merely not all right, it combines to be a massive violation of the Constitution. It is altering the very fabric of the United States. Illegally.

His book, Purchasing Submission, describes in fine detail exactly how government suppresses free speech, implements policy without going through Congress, and even extorts what it wants, at will. To have come this far without anyone putting the pieces together is flabbergasting, even to him.

It starts with Congress, which has abandoned its constitutional duty to make laws, and manage the purse strings of the nation. It has instead chosen to offload its powers and its duties to government agencies. Which it does not have the power to do. Americans have seen skimpy laws handed over to agencies to write the actual rules, the parameters and even the penalties. This wolf-in-sheep’s clothing scenario has puzzled many Americans, but no one seems to have recognized it is in direct violation of the constitution and tried to stop it. But this is nothing.

Agencies actively buy off constitutional rights with their (taxpayer) money. In exchange for research grants, they will require recipients not to criticize the government, publish papers questioning its acts or authority, or speak out against it. In other words, it requires them to consent to give up freedom of speech, something no government body can do under the constitution.

For human research, such as psych studies by the thousands, the health department requires schools to install an IRB, an Institutional Review Board, charged with ensuring no one at the university breaks these free speech restrictions. It doesn’t apply to just the grant recipients, either. It applies to the whole institution. Anyone caught exercising those rights could cause the government to demand a return of all the money, even though it has already been spent. It could result in no more grants. It could result in massive reputational damage. So the school polices itself and everyone in it on behalf of the government, and it doesn’t cost the government a thing. Sweet deal.

The result is a powerful if neurotic parallel management system, watching everyone and everything for the slightest blooming of free speech. Everyone and everything must be controlled and disciplined, for fear of jeopardizing government largess. This is the very opposite of the founders’ vision, and goes directly against the constitution they so laboriously hacked together. They didn’t want government interfering in operations, and they didn’t want speech to be an issue anywhere. Today, America has both problems, nationwide.

It’s an impossible situation for the university, because in a campus of say 50,000, it simply isn’t possible that absolutely no one has ever broken those rules, if they even knew about them. So the agency has them in an illegal chokehold. They hold these breaches as nuclear weapons. They can shut down the schools at any time, for the slightest disagreement. A personal animosity could do it. “HHS thus no longer needs to make such threats overt. All it has to do is have a conversation with university officers, and the university will grovel,” he says. No one authorized these superpowers, but worse, no one is reining them in either.

A similar scenario plays out for churches, which give up the right of free speech in exchange for donations being tax deductible. The church ensures parishioners don’t criticize the government or play party politics, on pain of losing their precious 501(3)c status as a charitable organization. Same goes for charities and NGOs.

The poor are, as usual, the most hard done by under this regime. In exchange for subsidized housing, they might be required to allow warrantless searches of their homes at any time, a direct violation of the constitution’s ban. Hamburger calls these acts “vesting of powers where the constitution does not.”

This creates a “hierarchy of rights”, he says, in which the rich can walk away without pleading guilty, and the innocent poor lose their constitutional rights precisely and only because they are poor.

Reaching out farther, agencies make up regulations and implement them themselves, without congressional approval. Regulations can make it easier or harder to carry on, but they serve the purpose of the agency to command and control. Think of all the agencies doing this: the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and Hamburger’s bête noir, the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS. He says: “The use of conditions to adopt such regulations can be more dangerous than the problems thereby addressed. Although administrative regulation raises its own constitutional difficulties, even that would often be better than the pecuniary mode of regulation that ends up privatizing regulatory decisions.”

Worse, agencies farm it out to agents. For example, the IRB at a school is essentially a government agent, unpaid by the government. The government authorizes agents to license permission for things that require none under the constitution. First they make whatever the victim seeks out of the question. Then, they offer portions of it magnanimously, as if they could legally, in exchange for massive payments that can go to totally unrelated uses. Victims give up the right to sue, and freedom of speech in the process. In Hamburger’s assessment, agencies actually license the degree of freedom of speech they want in a contract. This despite the fact the constitution permits no such thing, and no one can sign away anyone else’s freedoms. Having an agent working for an agency of a federal department does not shield the government from the constitution. It is an abusive nation within the nation supposedly of the free. Hamburger says:
“This system of wholesale control, including its system of using agents to do the licensing, was the most salient example of what the First amendment forbade. Nonetheless, the government is once again asking universities and other agents to license speech and the press, thereby allowing the government to suppress speech without the accountability of retail proceedings in court.
“This revival of wholesale suppression confirms the larger point here, that the use of regulatory agents multiplies the threat to rights. Through conditions, independent states and private institutions have become instruments for profoundly abridging the freedom of speech and other rights.”

It doesn’t stop there. Government can require victims to give up the right to jury trials. It might be through plea bargaining, where the government threatens the victim with three times the sentence if they insist on their rights. It might be through consent decrees, whereby bad actors confess without confessing, and pay enormous fines (though not personally) to avoid further investigation. Notably, they do not plead guilty to anything, and once the government has the money, it calls off its investigators. Major examples include the tobacco settlement where the companies submitted to giving up freedom of speech in advertising their products (plus huge fines) and the opioid crisis, where it appears drug companies will walk away with no lasting damage. No jail time for anyone at those firms.

But wait; there’s more. The federal government requires states to raise the drinking age to 21 if they want funding for their highways to continue. It also insisted on states expanding Medicaid in order to receive healthcare funding. Local governments extort millions from would-be investors, by, for example, demanding huge amounts of money to finance the local golf course or swimming pool in exchange for spot zoning a piece of property they want to build on. Counties add fees to traffic tickets for prison facility improvements or a private gym for judges. It seems like the whole country is on the take. And no one is calling them on it. This is the new America; get used to it.

That brings up the issue of avoiding the judicial branch altogether. It is supposed to be backstop to constitutional rights. But deals are negotiated without the influence of a judge. No precedents are set, no jurisprudence recorded or even cited. If they’re big enough, (alleged) criminals can buy their way out of trouble directly with the government. Just pay up and promise not to do it again. Off you go then.

Then Hamburger adds the legal niceties to the mix. When is illegal spending not actually spending? It is not necessarily illegal spending when it is in contract negotiations. Nor in plea bargaining, generally. Or procurement contracts or licensing. According to the constitution, the federal government has little, if any spending authority outside of defense. That things have gotten far more complicated has occurred without anyone bothering to update the constitution. His chapter on government spending is most enlightening. The fine points of constitutional arguing take up a great deal of this often sharply worded book. But the bottom line remains abuse of constitutional rights is endemic and not even controversial.

Of course, there are “good reasons” for all this. For one thing, the total shambles that Congress has become means regulations and conditions would rarely, if ever find their ways into actual laws, the way the constitution specifies it should work. So politicians offload that responsibility totally. It seems that if electeds can task departments and agencies with creating the laws they can’t get through congress, then that is how to run the country. Agencies find themselves with a combination of legislative, prosecutorial and judicial power they were never meant to have. Or allowed to have.

Judges are culpable in this conspiracy against the constitution as well. They routinely give congress and the agencies a pass, citing a judicial doctrine that somehow dictates it is permissible to delegate responsibility to the agencies, if congress provides an “intelligible principle.” This magically makes it a “nondelegation” of power. Because they all know it is unconstitutional. One less thing for electeds and judges to do. But that’s not how it works. The president recommends what is necessary and expedient. Congress enacts laws necessary and proper - is what it says.

The book is not without its faults. Hamburger uses the same examples repeatedly, because he can show a slightly different angle, make a slightly different point, or demonstrate a further violation of the constitution in going back to the same story. It makes it a slower read than it should be. So does his penchant for being, well, a lawyer. His language is specific but not economical. He can say in one paragraph what others can say in one sentence.

But the absolute horror of the degradation of the whole country overwhelms such criticisms. The facts are the country is being run not as prescribed in the founding documents, but by civil servants and their agencies, out of control, unsupervised, running amok trampling every American’s specific rights: freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, the right against self-incrimination, search and seizure and takings, and more. Traveling the country, one would have no way of knowing who had more rights and who lesser. Anarchy reigns in governing the USA. One size no longer fits all.

The book is a result of a 20 year old conversation Hamburger had with a fellow scholar. He asked why he did not publish his new paper, and was shocked by the answer: “It was not publishable under the rules of his university’s institutional review board. He explained that he had forgotten to obtain prior permission for his research from the IRB and if he published without its permission, he would probably have difficulty getting permission to publish his future scholarship; he might even lose his job. He therefore explained that he was circulating his work only in manuscript, like Russian samizdat.”

This is more than likely the most important book of the year for me. If there is any justice left, it will raise not just controversy but strong activism among judges, who should finally take official recognition of the obvious, and reverse. Reverse their own judgments, upend past mistaken judgments, and restore the country to what its founders intended. The same must happen in congress; it must admit it has no right to delegate its assigned powers and duties, and get down to work. Because what it is today is essentially the opposite of what Americans blithely assume from what it says in their constitution.

David Wineberg
… (més)
 
Marcat
DavidWineberg | Jul 12, 2021 |
Hamburger makes the case that modern administrative law is the equivalent of perrogatives assumed by English kings which the American Constitutution carefully avoided by providing for separation of powers. It is now apparent that modern administratative agencies are acting as legistators, judges and issuers of executive decrees. I would have preferred analysis of modern law, especially Chevron and Auer Deference to accompany the detailed origins of super legal power grabs.
 
Marcat
cjneary | Sep 15, 2014 |

Premis

Potser també t'agrada

Autors associats

Estadístiques

Obres
6
Membres
220
Popularitat
#101,715
Valoració
½ 4.6
Ressenyes
2
ISBN
25
Llengües
1

Gràfics i taules