The Right to Academic Freedom

Like many conservatives, the anonymous blogger who goers by the name of his high school, likes to limit individual rights. Regarding the Virginia Attorney General’s chilling harassment of a reputable climatologist, Mr. High School writes:
“There has never been a right to academic freedom. There is no right to academic freedom. And, God Bless, there will never be a right to academic freedom. So, any criticism of Ken Cuccinelli’s Civil Investigative Demand against Michael Mann as violating the right of academic freedom is null and void.”
He provides absolutely no explanation for this bold and bizarre statement. But since a commenter asked “what is academic freedom” I volunteer to take one for the team.
Back in 1940, “academic freedom,” defined as the RIGHT of professors and students to pursue academic inquiries without interference from external and political groups or authorities, was first put forward by the then Association of American Colleges and the American Association of University Professors. They stated that teachers have a right to freedom discuss their subjects in a classroom although some institutions can restrict those rights if they are religious institutions.

Note the date of the statement — 1940. At that time Nazi Germany had invaded much of Europe and had been on a rampage over the previous decade ridding German universities of Jewish professors and other “undesirables,” revamping curricula so it would reflect the views of national socialism, burning books (see photo) and generally terrorizing academia.

In the U.S., the “right” to academic freedom stems from the Constitutional right to freedom of speech. America’s universities have taken academic freedom very seriously over the past 70 years. It is part of a college’s accreditation consideration. AAUP keeps a list of colleges that fail on academic freedom.

So, you have a right based directly on agreement among universities and professors and, indirectly, from the U.S. Constitution. Other countries’ constitutions do make academic freedom an explicit right, such as France, Germany, South Africa and others.

Granted, the U.S. concept of academic freedom has been tested quite a bit since 1940. It comes from all sides. University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill wrote that the 9/11 attacks were justified because of U.S. foreign policy. The school withstood calls for his removal. Obama adviser Larry Summers got into hot water when he stated that women’s genetic makeup may make them less likely to do well in math.

And on it goes.

My personal experience with academic freedom, albeit indirect, happened when I was an undergraduate at Tufts University. Just down the street from my dorm, Tufts has a graduate school with Harvard known as the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Although I have no association with Fletcher, I used their library and became friendly with some of their professors

Its dean at the time was a former Foreign Service officer named Edmund Gullion who had experience as a diplomat in South Vietnam. This was during the highpoint of the Vietnam War and left wing radicals at school lambasted Fletcher for having as students military, CIA and foreign service officers. One night someone launched a bomb into Gullion’s office and the explosion caused extensive damage. It knocked me out of bed.

Now that is a violation of academic freedom. So is Cuccinelli’s witch hunt.

Peter Galuszka





Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

34 responses to “The Right to Academic Freedom”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    yup..I was taken aback also and hopeful that the statement(s) might be rethought.

    The last think in the world that we need is for govt to be getting involved in academic discourse.

    Talk about the Big CHILL.

    This is the way they do business in CHINA where what you write had better not run counter to what the govt wants to hear – or ELSE!

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    c

  3. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    "Mr. High School writes…".

    Why is it when liberals are losing arguments they engage in ad-hominum attacks? The Tea Party Movement becomes the Teabagger Movement. I become "Mr. High School". Sad, just sad … especially from a professional journalist.

    Yet, when ad hominum attacks are insufficient Peter moves to reducto ad absurdum arguments by equating the bombing of a campus facility with Mr. Cuccinelli's Civil Investigative Demand.

    Peter completes his unfortunate post by calling the investigation launched by our elected Attorney General a witch hunt. We are all left to wonder if the Penn State initiated investigation was also a witch hunt.

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Do you REALLY WANT – govt investigating Academia for the content of their work product?

    Mr. Cuccineli's "examination" of the financials of the grants is so illegitimate in it's intent as to be laughable.

    everybody and their dog knows what he is doing.

    He's challenging the veracity of the work product of Mr. Mann.

    No doubt about it.

    Do we REALLY want to become like CHINA where "scientific" thought is a govt controlled activity?

  5. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Isn't Groveton, the high school? It's not ad hominum. I didn't say anything bad about the high school or you. You do choose to go by an anonymous moniker. With me, at least people know where to dliover the punch.

    As for Penn State, you argued that Mann was (mostly) exonerated. If so, why does a PSU probe justify Cuccinelli's witch hunt? As for "our elected Attorney General" you can bet I did not vote for him. And yes, I think it is a witch hunt. Sorry if you disagree but no matter.

    By the way, schools do internal reviews all the time.

    PG

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    LarryG

    I am not going to rethink anything. I do not extend and special status to colleges and universities. I do not believe that professors should be given special treatment under the banner of academic freedom.

    When you are using public funds you are subject to public oversight. Penn State found sufficient cause for concern to launch an investigation into the activities of Dr. Mann. AG Cuccinelli seems to agree with Penn State in thinking that Dr. Mann's activities deserve further scrutiny. Yet, the same liberals who have no problem with Penn State finding cause for concern can't fathom why our elected Attorney General feels the same way.

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Personalizing my use of a blogging name with the moniker "Mr." is very much ad hominum. Sorry Peter but you know that's true and so does everybody else.

    OJ Simpson was acquitted of the criminal charges in connection with the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Then, he was convicted in civil court for denying those two victims their constitutional rights.

    Just because you have been "cleared" by one review doesn't indemnify you from further review. This is especially true when the "exoneration" was granted by what is effectively a trade organization of universities.

    Mr. Cuccinelli is doing his job. There is adequate cause for concern regarding Dr. Mann's use of public funds while a professor at the University of Virginia.

    If Dr. Mann were a researcher at a defence contractor I doublt the liberals would accept the findings of a tribunal of defence contractor executives as an acceptable substitute for the government. However, Dr. Mann wokrs for univerities, not defence contractors. And universities are, per the liberal argument, immune from public oversight, even when they are public universities using public funds.

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Groveton – do you not see the difference between the scientific and academic community reviewing the CONTENT of the work product verses the Government doing that?

    Do your REALLY want Mr. Cuccineli "warning" someone that they need to re-write their conclusions?

  9. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Also, Peter – I missed your explanation of how bombing a campus facility is equivalent to Mr. Cuccinelli's Civil Investigative Demand.

    Would you also consider editorial criticism of President Kennedy equivalent to assasinating him? Or, can your arguments draw some sort of line somewhere?

  10. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    LarryG:

    Here is what Penn State was investigating (from Penn State's report):

    "Begining on and about November 22, 2009 The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (e-mails, phone calls and letters) having accused Dr. Michael E. Mann of acts which included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding in order to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthpogenic global warming from approximately 1998.".

    Manipulating data?

    Destroying records?

    Hampering scientific discourse?

    If these allegations are true then Dr. Mann misused public funds.

    Penn State saw sufficient cause to investigate Dr. Mann for more than the content of his research. They were investigating charges which sounded a lot more like fraud than a simple academic disagreement.

  11. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Groveton I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with Penn State investigating this.

    I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM with Govt investigating it if the issue is not criminal law.

    you should too.

    was Mr. Mann …ACCUSED of breaking the law?

    if he was and is then I expect Mr. Cuccineli to also go after situations like VCU and the Cigarette companies "grants".

    no?

  12. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton,
    Actually, not that this necessarily applies in this case, but in criminal law, there is what is called "double jeopardy" in which one found innocent of a crime cannot then be retried for the same crime.

    As for Cuccinelli doing his job, who defines what his job is? Cuccinelli? Why aren't attorneys general from many other states likewise jumping onboard with probes related to East Anglia? The Cooch seems to have found a unique mission here.
    And Larry is right. Would Cooch probe VCU's once-highly restrictive contracts with Philip MOrris USA?
    You missed my explanation about the school bombing because I dind't provide one and probably won't.
    Thanks "Mr." High School. And it's not an ad hominum. I have nothing against Groveton — the man or the school.
    You need to learn not to take things all that seriously. And develop the skin of a crocodile.

    PG

  13. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Groveton write:
    "Why is it when liberals are losing arguments they engage in ad-hominum attacks? The Tea Party Movement becomes the Teabagger Movement. I become "Mr. High School". Sad, just sad … especially from a professional journalist."

    Excuse me–"Dear Leader"? "ass clown", etc? Why can you play but no one else?

  14. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Here is what many educators think academic freedom entails:
    > Ensures the space for critical inquiry and academic debate
    > Entails the responsibility to keep that space open in the classroom
    > Is not the positive right to be able to teach whatever one wishes however one wishes
    > Is not the positive right of a student not to have challenges to their pre-conceived beliefs.
    So, academic freedom allows professors to exercise their professional judgment in teaching and research, but it is not unrestricted free speech rights.
    Free speech and academic freedom are similar but not exactly the same, and most professors understand and acknowledge that.
    Academic freedom has a long tradition and history, dating from the 1920s. It is under attack all the time, particularly under certain administrations. Example, and I'm sure this will be a BIG surprise to everyone: the Arizona Gov just banned all courses in African-American, Mexican-American and Native American studies.
    However, to state that "academic freedom is not a right" is not accurate. There may be measures, such as the one Arizona just passed, that encroach on academic freedom. However, in 2006 alone, bills representing the ideas in the so-called "Academic Bill of Rights", a bill which RESTRICTS academic freedom, have been defeated in Arizona, California, Hawaii, and South Dakota.

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    GOP unveils 'You Cut' program to suggest spending targets

    12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 12, 2010
    By TODD J. GILLMAN / The Dallas Morning News
    tgillman@dallasnews.com

    WASHINGTON – House Republicans are taking their push to cut federal spending to a new level: Today they'll unveil a project that lets the public rank its priorities for showdowns over "wasteful or unnecessary spending."

    The "You Cut" program is one part election-year gimmick, one part direct democracy, and it's intended to spotlight the spending side of the federal deficit problem.

    How many times have I sugested a similar program here and been roundly laughed at?

    I see no reason why those providing the funds should not have some direct input as to how the funds are spent.

    Legislators could still ignore the input, but we would have no more blind claims about "what the public really wants."

    So, how about a new right, the right to real and meaningful input, with your own dollars attached?

    RH

  16. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Mimi:

    There is a difference between commenting and blogging. I have not used the term Dear Leader in my blogs. There is also a difference between satirizing a public figure and directing an ad hominum attack at the person you are debating.

    When have I ever called anybody an ass clown?

    As for what educators consider academic freedom … I could care less. Our attorney general is charged with enforcing the law, not various "educators".

  17. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Groveton,
    So you are compartmentalizing your status as blogger distinct from commenter, even though we all know you are one and the same. Hmmm, and they say women are supposed to be illogical. You can talk this way when you're blogging, but that way when you're commenting. Hmmm.

    Sorry–not "ass clown". You've used the term "Clown Show". I guess I somehow connected the dots.

    You made the statement "academic freedom is not a right". It is a tradition and a value among the citizens of the United States, so I think it DOES matter. Cuccinelli isn't defending Virginia. He's an overzealous, partisan, grandstanding, looking-for-trouble-like-Ken-Starr-was-looking-for-trouble. And look how that turned out–millions of dollars wasted, people's lives ruined–and for what? Nothing! Even Ken Starr regrets it now. Cuccinelli is doing the exact same thing, he is wasting my tax dollars, and honestly, I think he's nuts. As in screw loose.

  18. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Yesterday, I wrote a blog entitled, "Cuccinelli Gets Gas". Mr. Cuccinelli has an interesting request for opinion on his desk. He has to decide whether a new law sponsored by Terry Kilgore is sufficient to let the Virginia Oil and Gas Board arbitrate disputes between landowners and big energy companies. If he says "yes" – his opinion will help the landowners at the expense of the energy companies. If he says "no" the opposite situation will continue until a new law is written.

    I expect him to say "yes".

    I expect this not because I am a lawyer but because I expect our elected attorney General to take some risks in support of the people of Virginia. The law was clearly intended to expedite disputes between landowners and energy companies. It lets the landpwners get their money out of the escrow accounts without incurring large legal fees.

    Will Mr. Cuccinelli take the risk of being proven wrong in court by supporting the legislation?

    I hope so.

  19. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    Cuccinelli's track record in defending ordinary citizens thus far has not been great. To whit:
    > "protecting" Virginia against having many more of its citizens insured;
    > rolling back sex discrimination language thereby reducing the rights of gays and lesbians;
    > an attack on a university professor who has been exonerated, and as a university professor has little power, and is probably underpaid.
    Not a big champion of the little guy, is our Cucinelli.

  20. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton,
    The only difference between a "blogger" and a "commenter" is that the "blogger" initiates the conversation and works without a net.

    Peter Galuszka

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Groveton – welcome to the world of blogging.

    😉

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mimi – you are making ends justify the means arguments. If you like the result (health care reform or treatment of gays and lesbians), you don't care about how those results are obtained. The problem with that is the next regime can get where they want to be without regard to the means either. Ultimately, the means devolve towards who has the most and the biggest guns. Without a rule of law, we would wind up with government by gun and execution.

    I think health care reform is the worst program ever enacted by Congress and I think the basic policies of UVA towards protecting gays and lesbians is reasonable. But those are different issues than does Congress have the constitutional authority to force individuals to participate in interstate commerce through mandatory purchase of insurance. And does UVA have the statutory authority to enact protections based on sexual orientation?

    Those are legitimate questions that should be decided by the court system. That's what we do in this country, settle our disputes over the exercise of government power in the courts and not with bullets. I think it's reasonable for a state AG to do this, just as it's reasonable for a state AG to challenge the actions of any federal agency or law. For example, a number of state AGs challenged the EPA's air and water quality rules. States have challenged rulings of the FCC as usurping state authority, etc.

    Personally, I may agree or disagree with the merits of the position, but it's part of the American system.

    The health care challenge is even more justified because the General Assembly passed a law guaranteeing the right of Virginia citizens to refuse to purchase health care insurance. The law passed with bipartisan support. I think the AG can make a pretty strong case that his health care challenge raises legitimate legal and constitutional issues, and has legal and political support.

    I don't agree with the merits of his challenge to UVA's policy, but I am aware that the state supreme court struck down a similar ordinance from Alexandria as beyond the City's authority. Perhaps, a state university has broader powers, but perhaps not. It's for a court to decide. I'd rather live in a place with the rule of law, even when I don't like many of the laws, than live in a place where those temporarily in power are unchecked by any procedural or jurisdictional requirements.

    TMT

  23. Mimi Stratton Avatar
    Mimi Stratton

    TMT, I am most definitely not a believer in the ends justify the means. I too am a believer in law; although I also believe the law is an ass; we interpret the law based on our belief systems. Obviously there is some logical argument that can be made on both sides of many of the issues we discuss here.

    I happen to believe in the process that healthcare reform took. It was messy, and it was long, but historically this same bumpy path was travelled in passing Medicare and Social Security, two great pieces of legislation that vastly improved people's lives.

    I am not fooled by Cuccinelli's actions. He is acting in a self-interested manner. It's not about the law. It's all about him and his plans for his glorious projection into his next position. He has stumbled and bumbled into the cases he's become involved in over the last few months. If he feels strongly about these things–why doesn't he explain his actions to the public? Why doesn't McDonnell?

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Mimi- you say that you believe there are two sides to these issues, but then object to one side being argued. You don't want a rule of law. You don't believe that people who feel differently than you do should have access to the courts.

    Irrespective of one's beliefs on the merits of the Arizona law on illegal immigrants, most people accept the validity of filing a challenge to that law. The US Attorney General is considering a challenge. It's part of the system. We want courts, not armies to decide these issues.

    But you don't want the Virginia AG to challenge any law that you like even when, as you admit, there are two sides to the argument. Yes, Congress has the authority to require citizens of the US to buy health insurance because ….. No, Congress does not have the authority to require citizens of the US to buy health insurance because ……

    Both supporters and opponents of health care reform have generally admitted that there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the jurisdictional issue. The Virginia House (controlled by the GOP) and the Virginia Senate (controlled by the Democrats) voted to enact a law that says no Virginian can be forced to buy health care insurance. Yet, because you think health care reform is a good law, the Commonwealth of Virginia may not/should not challenge the authority of the federal government to compel with the force of law Virginians to do just that. And you claim to be believe in the rule of law and not believe the end justifies the means.

    Your position seems more consistent with Joe Stalin than with the American tradition. These matters raise important issues that, under the American constitutional system, are decided by courts of law. A system whereby you (or any other person for that matter) would prohibit important legal and constitutional issues from being decided because you don't like the idea that your position on the merits of a law or policy scares me more than a room full of Tysons landowners. They, for all their warts and contempt for the average citizen, have never suggested important issues cannot go to the courts.

    For example, there is a constitutional challenge to the special tax district that is funding part of Dulles Rail. If the case is successful, the landowners' ability to redevelop Tysons and associated profit potential is at risk. They don't like the lawsuit, but they have never suggested the small landowner who has filed suit should not have a day in court.

    With all due respect, I think you don't want anyone who disagrees with you to be able to take that disagreement to court. That is, IMHO, very scary.

    TMT

  25. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    TMT,
    Saying Mimi is Stalinist is way over the top.
    The U.S. is probably the ONLY advanced industrialized DEMOCRACY that up until now has not required that citizens have health insurance or provides a public option.
    The reason they do so is to bring down health care costs for everyone. If Joe Blow doesn't have health insurance for whatever reason — he's homeless, laid off or is simply a Cato-loving libertarian — then why should he be allowed to get free med care in emergency rooms at the expense of everyone else?
    Ther U.S. has millions of such Joe Blows. Combined with a backwards business model of private, pro-profit companies that charge the healthy out the wazoo and then try to deny all the coverage they can to the truly sick, the insurance-less Joe Blows throw the system off.
    Once again, we are the only advanced DEMOCRACY that does it this way.Jolly Joe Stalin as nothing to do with it.
    Regarding the "Cooch", he can play to the dissatisfied right wing populists all he wants. But he's not offering any reasonable alternative. He's offering no ideas. He's like the prosecutors in the old black and white movies getting his name in the paper (or on Tweets) by making a big show of going after the "mob." In time the Cooch will find that such antics run out of steam. He's oferingno solutions here

    Peter Galuszka

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The U.S. is probably the ONLY advanced industrialized DEMOCRACY that up until now has not required that citizens have health insurance or provides a public option."

    Peter, you are not addressing the constitutional issues. We don't have a parliamentary democracy or single unified government. The federal government has certain power and lacks certain others (e.g., prior restraint of the media – See Near v. Minnesota). There is a legitimate constitutional issue as to whether or not the federal government has the authority to require individuals to purchase insurance. Further a majority of the Virginia General Assembly, Democrats and Republicans, voted for a law that says just the opposite — the federal government cannot compel this behavior. But neither Mimi nor you want the Commonwealth to raise these issues or to defend the state statute. To me, that's an over-the-top position.

    Also, like it or not, the Dillon Rule is the law in Virginia. Instrumentalities of the state have only those powers given to them by the General Assembly. If I were in the General Assembly, I would vote for a bill authorizing UVA and other state colleges to grant the protections for gays and lesbians that UVA wants to grant. I'd vote for a law that gave the same authority to cities, counties and towns. But unless and until such enabling legislation exists, instrumentalities of the state lack the authority to grant such protections. UVA argues that it has such authority. The place to determine that question is a court. But neither Mimi or you want a court to decide the issue.

    You both appear to want federal, state and local government to be able to exercise whatever power they want to exercise, but probably only when the policy result matches what you want. What would you do if you liked a policy result and Mimi didn't, since your government has no limits to its power? Who wins?

    I like the American system of checks and balances. I often dislike the results that such system provides, but I like the system.

    BTW, glad to see everyone busily blogging again.

    TMT

  27. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT. What if Virginia passed a law saying that Virginians cannot be "forced" to pay FICA – social security and Medicare on the same basis claimed on this issue?

    I'm not seeing the distinction.

    I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that FICA and things like it are legal.

    Let's put it another way.

    What if Cuccineli prevails in his case – what are the implications for SS and Medicare?

  28. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    TMT,
    To be honest, there's something I dislike about government forcing everyone to buy something. But I was just trying to spellout the rationale for med insurance. And Larry has a point that Social Security is mandatory and has been for decades.
    I am aware of the political distinctions of the U.S. When one looks at how other countries around the world look at health care, one sees different approaches to health care that might be instructive. And, the U.S. does not compare well on a number of health care indexes such as infant mortality. That's s hame given the potential of this country.

    Peter Galuszka

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, good question. I don't know the answer. I see one difference in that Social Security is a federal tax levied by Congress, whereas HCR requires individuals to make a commercial purchase or pay a civil fine.

    Could Uncle Sam require individuals to purchase only automobiles manufactured in the US or pay a civil fine? Could Uncle Sam require businesses to hire only contractors with union labor contracts or pay a civil fine?

    I am not opposed to a strong federal government per se. But I do think that there are limits to its authority and power. Sometimes those limits are imposed by voters (See Senator Bennett and Congressman Mollohan.) Sometimes, those limits are imposed by courts.

    Question for my more liberal friends: Would it have been acceptable for the Virginia AG to have sued the EPA to challenge its protections for the Chesapeake Bay as being inadequate? If so, why is it not acceptable for the Virginia AG to challenge the EPA's regulations for "greenhouse gases" as overreaching?

    TMT

  30. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    TMT – is Cucinelli suing to determine the LIMITS of the Federal power and authority or is he suing for something else?

    The State of Va does not say you have to buy automobile insurance, but it basically accomplishes the equivalent.

    Are the Feds not allowed the same?

    When the Feds tell you that you cannot build something without a ramp – are they exceeding their powers?

    When the Feds say you cannot produce a car without it meeting Federal standards???

    Do you REALLY want each state setting it's own e-coli standards for food with some not having any at all?

    Cucinneli could well have sued on the Chesapeake Bay to tell the EPA to butt out.. right?

    why didn't he?

    seems like if he won on that issue, he would have put a crack in the EPA Federalism, no?

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, there is a difference between a state government's power and that of the federal government. Because Virginia (or California, or South Dakota) has the authority under its state constitution and statutes to regulate automobile insurance and make drivers show proof of insurance or make a deposit with the DMV, it does not follow that the federal government has the authority under the National Constitution to make everyone buy insurance or pay a civil fine. Nor is it relevant to the jurisdictional issue what Canada or Japan requires.

    If governments were fungible, there would be no argument that Arizona could not pass a statute to enforce federal immigration law. I don't know whether or not Arizona has this authority. I suspect that a court will decide. Unless there are no limits on the power of the states or federal government, shouldn't we have courts decide what those limits are? If the courts are not to decide, who does? The media? Bloggers? The side with the most deadly weapons?

    I don't have a problem with the FDA or the USDA setting standards for food sold in interstate commerce. That is what the Founders intended. I do think that those agencies do not have the authority to set standards for food grown in an Ohio field and that are sold in Ohio. I think that the state of Ohio has that authority.

    I don't think Congress has the authority to adopt a building code for Fairfax County. If Fairfax County accepts federal money to construct affordable housing, I am not troubled, as a jurisdictional matter, by Congress imposing strings on those funds.

    The feds should, as a jurisdictional matter, be able to set safety standards for cars sold in interstate commerce. But I don't think Congress has the authority to set a safety standard for a motorcycle that is manufactured in Alabama and that is only sold in Alabama. Sell the cycle in Mississippi and the answer changes.

    The Commerce Clause is broad and many items are sold in interstate commerce. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. But Congress does not have the power to regulate instate commerce. The states and Uncle Sam are different creatures, with different authority.

    TMT

  32. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'm in agreement that 1/3 of our system is judicial – on purpose but I think if the Feds can regulate health care as they already do with Medicare and EMTALA.. it's not that far a stretch ..but I'll await the courts.

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The right to academic freedom carries with it the obligation for intellectual honesty.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I do think that those agencies do not have the authority to set standards for food grown in an Ohio field and that are sold in Ohio. I think that the state of Ohio has that authority.

    Except the courts have decided that the probability that food grown and sold under Ohio statutes has a probability of ending up in interstate commerce.

    RH

Leave a Reply