We ceded so much of our children’s lives to the Department of Education and the Department of Everything-Else that we forgot what responsibility felt like.
- Liberty for Britons: David Conway reviews this week in our Books section Gary Charter’s Au Revoir, Europe. Conway notes Charter doesn’t sugarcoat things:
None of Britain’s future options are easy, argues Charter. Without declaring a preference for any one of them, he leaves it clear that, in his opinion, Britain must shortly leave the EU, but that there will be life after its doing so, albeit probably a slightly less prosperous one than it might otherwise have enjoyed had it remained a member.
- Arnold Kling contemplates a de-schooled world at Econ Lib.
- The real costs of college group-think: Judith Grossman, an attorney in New York, writes in the Wall Street Journal this week about the show trial her son endured on campus because of a bogus sexual assault allegation by a former girlfriend that allegedly happened years earlier. Her son was presented with no evidence, no specific allegations, or allowed to confront his accuser or other “witnesses.” The standard of guilt for this crime owing to the Obama Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is preponderance of the evidence or 50% + a whisper. Yes, you read that right. Why are college panels trying these cases to begin with? DOE tied the implementation of these changes for conviction (50% and a whiff) to a college campus’ continued receipt of federal funding. Practical. Grossman’s son had a lawyer mother with means who protected him. It goes without saying that many others will not be so fortunate. Harry Lewis and Jane Shaw have a similar report @UNC. Apparently, it’s no good for the accusers either.
- Down go the Transnationalists! Here’s Michael Greve’s earlier post on the Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which held that the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 does not apply extraterritorially. Ed Whelan also weighs in at Bench Memos:
Beyond making clear that “mere corporate presence” in the United States will not suffice, the Chief Justice’s opinion observes that “even where the claims touch and concern the territory of the United States, they must do so with sufficient force to displace the presumption against extraterritorial application.” That observation (and its supporting citation) ought to signal that there will not be ATS jurisdiction over claims based predominantly on, or focused on, foreign conduct, but future cases will have to sort out the precise lines.
- New Fed Soc operation: Executive Branch Project. This is greatly needed. I look forward to many excellent contributions.
- It’s always fee simple: Terry Anderson explains how economic growth is stifled in Indian Country