S.C. Lt. Governor Bauer Compares Poor People to Stray Cats

South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer is being ridiculed for a recent speech where he appears to compare poor people to stray cats and connect having “ample food supply” to increasing welfare demand.

Here is the key quote:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better.”

Perhaps his grandma should have also told him not to quote her on this one.

Almost sixty percent of kids in South Carolina participate in free or reduced cost lunches. Bauer insists that those free lunches appear to be driving down test scores:

“I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.” … “You go to a school where there’s an active participation of parents, and guess what? They have the highest test scores. So what do you do? You say, ‘Look folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don’t attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits.’”

I just hope that he does not read this blog and see the availability of haggis in a can for lunchroom cafeterias, here.

By the way, have you noticed that the number of truly moronic statements goes up dramatically with the free availability of microphones. I can show you a bar graph where politicians near free mics have the worst ideas in any state.

For the story, click here and
here.

212 thoughts on “S.C. Lt. Governor Bauer Compares Poor People to Stray Cats”

  1. Let me correct this.

    I said “wouldn’t that make the district court, the “supreme court”.”

    I meant wouldn’t that make the CIRCUIT court, the “supreme court”.”

    I’m spending too much time in the state. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the states had the same terms for jurisidictional hierarchy?

  2. Bob Esq.,

    Thanks for responding.

    “If congress felt so inclined, it could pass a law forbidding SCOTUS to hear any cases based in diversity jurisdiction.”

    Has this ever been done before? The idea scares the hell out of me. Wouldn’t it completely remove the checks and balances from our system of government?

    I was under the impression that diversity jurisdiction was to prevent bias? In addition, if Congress was to create a statute that limited appeal to only the district court (assuming you’re not suggesting that the right of appeal be eliminated), wouldn’t that make the district court, the “supreme court”.

    Article III, Section 1 “The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, [AND] in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” If the word OR was there instead, I might be able to see it.

    I see a significant problem with Congress thinking that they can eliminate SCOTUS from having either original or appelate jurisdiction. I think that sort of interpretation is a direct result of Marbury. The purpose of the exception clause of Article III, Section 2 was to permit Congress to assign the Supreme Court with original jurisdiction in some cases where expediency and nationwide controlling authority were deemed necessary. I disagree with the Marshall Court’s interpretation of that clause. (But I’m not tasked with also riding circuit)

  3. Duh:

    “Are you suggesting that Congress cannot, not only grant SCOTUS original jurisdiction (Marbury), but that Congress can also eliminate the Supreme Court from having any jursidiction?

    I never liked the Marbury dance to begin with, but I would have a real problem with Congress making a determination that would give them the final word in a dispute. I think that should be left to the people by Amendment.”

    Article III, clause 2: “In all the other Cases before mentioned, [i.e. not those of ORIGINAL JURISDICTION] the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    IOW, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is subject to “exceptions and regulations” prescribed by Congress.

    Example: If congress felt so inclined, it could pass a law forbidding SCOTUS to hear any cases based in diversity jurisdiction. However, it could not ban SCOTUS from hearing cases of original jurisdiction (as stated in sentence preceding the one I quoted from Article III).

    One other thing; Congress can not ban the Court from hearing an entire class of cases. Thus the legislation would need to be drafted quite carefully to clearly show that it is not banning an entire ‘class’ of litigation.

  4. Buddha,
    Here’s looking at you kid, non-sexually of course. Moving is a bitch and I don’t envy you.

  5. BIL,

    Glad to see the Green Monkey is back. Like rain on a beach or sand in your face. To see the green avatar brings a grimace to my face.

  6. To My Well Wishers and the Casually Curious,

    I intend to catch up on the blog sometime this weekend. All is well but I may be scarce (spotty posting at best) for the next month. At the moment, I’m juggling enough balls to be envious of Shiva.

    Thank you all for your concern.

    As ever, one lives to be of service.

    Yours at the Whim of the Great Magnet,

    BIL

  7. “You don’t get this on Legal Satyricon, now dooo youuu?”

    No. And I think the civility of late has provided an environment that will attract more of the same in the future. Kudos to all.

  8. Oops, in my haste I got the centuries mixed up. The Industrial Revolution was a product of the late 18th and 19th Centuries, not the 17th & 18th. Lincoln, of course, made his famous observation in 1864 during the 19th Century.

  9. Duh:

    You don’t get this on Legal Satyricon, now dooo youuu? (As Lewis Black would say).

  10. This has been, and probably will continue to be, one of the most interesting threads to grace the Turley Blawg. Thank you to all of the contributors. Even Byron. :>)

  11. Byron:

    “From what I am reading it doesn’t appear that they were worried about corporations created by individuals for the purpose of doing business. They were worried about corporations derived by the fiat of a sovereign with an exclusionary franchise.”

    **********************

    I think your understanding is accurate. Modern private corporations rose during the Industrial Revolution of late 17th & 18th Centuries with Watt’s perfection of the commercial steam engine and the invention of concrete in 1756. (The American Constitutional system was just getting a foothold at this time and most corporations in America were remnants of British crown grants.) One of the prime benefits of the corporation during the First Industrial Revolution (along with ease of formation of capital)was as a means of insulating factory owners from injury claims by their employees. Debts in those days could mean debtor’s prison and they were inherited by descendants so insulation from liability (debts) meant quite a lot. Those boilers had a nasty habit of blowing up every so often.

    The Founders were confronted with privately-held, but publicly chartered and supported, corporations granted monopolies by acts of (usually foreign) governments. They caused quite a bit of hindrance to US trade as Jefferson noted in his writings from France.

    Lincoln, during the mid-18th Century, foresaw the evils associated with capital-heavy private corporations. He said, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. … corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.” That view, likely being shaped by the war profiteering so prevalent during the Civil War.

    I can find no such similar sentiments in the words of the Founders, so I must conclude that your take on the history is the most sound. Your reasoning differs from Mike A’s in that, in your view, the State has limited power to revoke the contractual relations of the corporation’s founders much in line with CJ John Marshall’s reasoning in the landmark case of Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 518 (1819). Mike & Bob, Esq. take the opposite position that the corporation exists at the whim of the state; the parties’ rights in contracting to form it be damned. While the contract clause has fallen into disfavor as a constitutional basis, the tension between these two schools of thought remains a viable issue as we have seen in Citizens United v. FEC.

  12. Mike A:

    “The Founding Fathers distrusted corporations because they feared the accumulation of wealth in a few hands.”

    At the time of the founding they were worried about charters given to a handful of individuals by the sovereigns of Europe. Also when Madison spoke of them he was worried about charters given to a single person to run a toll road or a coach service for example. He was worried that a single entity would lead to a monopoly because of a lack of competition.

    From what I am reading it doesn’t appear that they were worried about corporations created by individuals for the purpose of doing business. They were worried about corporations derived by the fiat of a sovereign with an exclusionary franchise. In my mind 2 totally different things.

    From the readings I have done so far it appears that most of the problems with corporations have come about because of special favors that have been given to them by government. Fascism/socialism appears to be the problem, not corporations engaged in free and fair trade and competition.

    There is still a good deal to read on the subject, so I wont say my conclusions are final at this point.

  13. On Lieutenant Governor Bauer: The principal effect of feeding homeless people is that homeless people get to eat. Mr. Bauer is a moron.

    On corporations: Byron, my mother, when particularly annoyed, would sometimes remind her five kids, “I brought you into this world, and I can take you out.” So it is with corporations. We are the Creator; therefore, corporations have no inalienable rights. The Supreme Court’s decision the other day was the continuation of an absurd concept dating back to a decision in 1868 that has been wrongly interpreted to grant corporations the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Founding Fathers distrusted corporations because they feared the accumulation of wealth in a few hands. I believe they would have been strongly opposed to laws granting corporations perpetual life. But the point is that all of those laws can be changed. Bob, Esq. has accurately explained to you the distinction between a corporate entity and the indivduals who form it. Think of it this way. Were I to ask you to find Microsoft Corporation, you would be unable to do so. You might find its corporate headquarters and regional offices. You might find its officers and directors, its shareholders and employees. You might find its books and records and bank accounts. But you could never find Microsoft Corporation. That’s because it is an entity whose legal existence is conferred by law. It is a bundle of rights and liabilities, but lacks a physical existence. The phrase “legal fiction” is not of recent origin. The idea of a corporate entity separate and apart from the individuals who provide its capital goes back as far as Roman law. If the current Supreme Court were more interested in legal integrity rather than political ideology, they would have done something a bit more radical and issued an opinion confirming once and for all that the Santa Clara County case has been miscontrued for over 125 years and that the Fourteenth Amendment has no application to legal entities. Until that happens, restrictions will have to come in the form of changes to the various corporation statutes to reduce corporate power.

  14. BobEsq:

    not being a lawyer, I am at a disadvantage. How does the 5th amendment pertain to a corporation?

    In reading the 5th amendment it seems to me they were doing everything they could to protect an individuals rights.

    Part of those rights are for an individual to incorporate for the purpose of doing business. I don’t even know why a state should have the ability to grant a corporate charter, they seem to be more about control than anything else.

    The more I read about this the more confused I become. The founders were sparing with corporate charters because they were worried about the corps in Europe which were granted by the kings or lords. They were worried about monopolies in trade. Once you had many people engaging in trade it really becomes a moot point as to whether a state charter is granted if one is worried about monopolies.

    I am actually starting to wonder why a corporation is even necessary to do business. You buy insurance anyway and you can put your assets in trust to protect them so what does a corporate charter even do for you? You are still responsible for unlawful acts.

    Looking at this another way couldn’t you say that the corporation is the individual and the individual is the corporation? I don’t need a corporate charter to raise money, I can make individual agreements with whomever I want. In almost every way a corporation is not necessary to conduct business, individuals can do it all themselves.

    So based on that what is the difference if I as an individual spend 100 million on advertising or my corporation does? I guess I may get a small tax break if I do it through my corporation but that is really all it is.

  15. Bob,Esq.

    Not sure what you meant by “ring and run” with respect to the Bellotti case, but Justice Lewis Powell (writing for the majority) clearly says that corporations have free speech rights both for their benefit and the benefit of the public at large:

    “As the Court said in Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966), “there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect the free [435 U.S. 765, 777] discussion of governmental affairs.” If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, 11 and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual. 12 The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”

    The Court in Bellotti specifically rejected your “free speech instrumental to business approach” (in your example, the New York Times) as held by the lower court finding that, “We thus find no support in the First or Fourteenth Amendment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation that cannot prove, to the satisfaction of a court, a material effect on its business or property. The “materially affecting” requirement is not an identification of the boundaries of corporate speech etched by the Constitution itself. Rather, it amounts to an impermissible legislative prohibition of speech based on the identity of the interests that spokesmen may represent in public debate over controversial issues and a requirement that the speaker have a sufficiently great interest in the subject to justify communication.”

    You also know full well that the First Amendment rights are construed to protect corporate political speech. NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429, and while the State has compelling interests in limiting the free speech rights of say foreign corporations, no such interest was shown in either Citizens United or Bellotti.

    As for your implicit argument that corporations are disqualified by virtue of their formidable abilities to persuade in excess of the rather limited individual’s ability to do so (“Only John Yoo would argue that the Founders envisioned corporate empires wielding their great financial influence so as to stifle the will of the people.”), the Court says it will play no favorites:

    “We noted only recently that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order [435 U.S. 765, 791] to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment . . . .” Buckley, 424 U.S., at 48 -49. 30 Moreover, the people in our democracy are entrusted with the responsibility for judging and evaluating the relative merits of conflicting arguments….”

    Basically, the Court says if you want a participatory democracy you have to participate and not merely sit in the bleachers waiting for the next giant “crowd wave” to come through and thereafter bitching that you don’t have as much money, power, or influence as the big guys. You are needed on the field.

  16. Bob Esq.,

    Am I misunderstanding your statement; “The state of the law is that Congress can and should reverse SCOTUS on this and curtail its appellate jurisdiction on same”?

    Are you suggesting that Congress cannot, not only grant SCOTUS original jurisdiction (Marbury), but that Congress can also eliminate the Supreme Court from having any jursidiction?

    I never liked the Marbury dance to begin with, but I would have a real problem with Congress making a determination that would give them the final word in a dispute. I think that should be left to the people by Amendment.

  17. Mespo: “Not to be flippant, but the SCOTUS says, in most meaningful regards they do. You impeccable logic notwithstanding, that is the state of the law after Citizens United v. FEC.”

    How obedient minded of you. And what is the state of the law after Bush v. Gore? May SCOTUS ignore all four corners of of justiciability to hear any case it wants now? Remember, when they said their reasoning was limited to “this one case,” they were discussing the Equal Protection argument; they never addressed their very power to render the decision.

    And with regard to you attempt at not being flippant, perhaps you can explain your little game of ring and run here:

    http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/21/supreme-court-rules-5-4-against-campaign-limitations-in-the-hillary-the-movie-case/#comment-106589

    Afraid to admit you cited a case that ran counter to your own argument?

    Is that the best argument you’re capable of forming; cite the state of the law after SCOTUS hands down its decision? Had you lived in the time of Plessey v. Ferguson and made a remark identical to the one above, it would bring your thinly veiled ignobility, not to mention disregard for logic, into specific relief.

    The state of the law is that Congress can and should reverse SCOTUS on this and curtail its appellate jurisdiction on same.

  18. Bob,Esq.:

    “Simply because a corporation is the basic tool for your free market system, it doesn’t follow that corporations have the same rights as you.”

    **********

    Not to be flippant, but the SCOTUS says, in most meaningful regards they do. You impeccable logic notwithstanding, that is the state of the law after Citizens United v. FEC.

Comments are closed.