Below is today’s column exploring the growing anger of voters and the possible linkage of controversies ranging from the bank bailouts to immigration to the BP oil spill.
As soon as Arizona passed its recent immigration law, some reporters and commentators were quick to cast the story with the usual actors: “Tea Partiers,” race activists, conservatives and liberals. Like our politics, much of our news media coverage has become a clash of caricatures — easily categorized groups with one-dimensional motives for mass consumption. Some commentary even suggested that supporters of the law are either open or closeted racists. Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., recently called the law both “fascist” and “racist.”
Though I am a critic of the Arizona law, I do not view its supporters in such one-dimensional terms. Indeed, I do not view the public response in purely immigration terms. Whether it is illegal immigration or the mortgage crisis or corporate bailouts, there seems to be a growing sense among many citizens that they are expected to play by the rules while others are exempt.
With polls showing about 60% of people supporting the Arizona law and almost half supporting similar laws in their states, it is implausible to suggest that all these people are racists or extremists — let alone fascists. Notably, a majority of Americans also opposed the bank bailouts and mortgage forgiveness. In each of these controversies, there is a sense that the government was stepping in to protect people from the consequences of their actions.
In the mortgage crisis, tens of thousands of people accepted high-risk, low-interest loans while other citizens either declined to buy homes or agreed to higher monthly payments to avoid such deals. When Congress intervened with mortgage relief, some of those who had acted responsibly wondered whether they acted stupidly by rejecting low rates and later federal support.
Bailouts and immigration
Then there were the corporate bailouts. For citizens to secure a loan, they have to meet exacting terms and disclosures. Yet, when banks and firms concealed risks or engaged in financial wrongdoing, Congress bailed them out and allowed their executives to reap fat bonuses. The laws on fraud and deceptive practices simply did not seem to apply to them. Just as several companies were declared “too big to fail,” many of their executives appeared too big to lose money — unlike the millions of citizens burned by their business practices.
Those prior controversies coalesced with the immigration debate. The last time Congress granted amnesty to illegal immigrants was 1986 — and it was criticized at the time for rewarding those who had evaded deportation. Complaints over the lack of federal enforcement had been percolating for years but exploded along Arizona’s long desert border. When a law mandated state enforcement of federal laws, the Obama administration moved to block it.
Indeed, high-ranking Obama officials such as John Morton, head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have suggested that they might refuse to deport those arrested under the Arizona law. While we continue to tell millions around the world that they must wait for years to immigrate legally, Congress and the White House are considering a new amnesty proposal to benefit an additional 11 million illegal immigrants.
In each of these areas, the perception is that the law says one thing but actually means different things for different people. It is a dangerous perception, and it is not entirely unfounded. Such double-standards have become common as Congress and presidents seek to avoid unpopular legal problems.
•Torture: While acknowledging that waterboarding is torture and that torture violates domestic and international law, President Obama and members of Congress have barred any investigation or prosecution of those crimes.
•Pollution: While citizens are subject to pay for the full damage they cause to their neighbors and are routinely fined for their environmental damage for everything from dumping in rivers to leaf burning, Congress capped the liability for massive corporations such as BP and Exxon at a ridiculous $75 million. Though BP is likely to spend much more in litigation (particularly if prosecuted criminally), the current law requires citizens to pay the full cost of their environmental damage while capping the costs for companies producing massive destruction.
•Privacy: When the telecommunications companies found themselves on the losing end of citizen suits over the violation of privacy laws, Congress (including then-Sen. Obama) and President Bush simply changed the law to legislatively kill the citizen suits and protect the companies.
An arbitrary system
The message across these areas is troubling. To paraphrase Animal Farm, all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others.
A legal system cannot demand the faith and fealty of the governed when rules are seen as arbitrary and deceptive. Our leaders have led us not to an economic crisis or an immigration crisis or an environmental crisis or a civil liberties crisis. They have led us to a crisis of faith where citizens no longer believe that laws have any determinant meaning. It is politics, not the law, that appears to drive outcomes — a self-destructive trend for a nation supposedly defined by the rule of law.
Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
USA Today: June 15, 2010
I agree with the professor (and it seems most everyone else) that the law needs to be consistent and not only apply to some because of politics.
However, I’m a little appalled how quickly these comments degenerated into political wrangling and extremism (i.e. “caste system”, “lawful secession”, originalism or bust, Reagan & Ron Paul, “traitor Cheney”, etc.). Don’t you all think that highly polarized political attitude might be part of the problem?
(P.S. There were also some great comments, I don’t mean to paint everyone with the same brush — just off the top of my head mespo and Mike both stand out as constructive, thoughtful, non-politically charged comments)
Buddha,
Coffee, another creation of the birth of modern civilization. I wonder if the true racist drink coffee. If so, they should be aware that the first reported use was in Ethiopia.
@Swarthmore:
Precisely; I have no faith in the Supreme Court, and I will have less than none when Kagan takes her seat (meaning I suspect they will be doing even more the opposite of what they are charged with doing, protecting our Constitutional rights).
@Buddha:
That proves what you say, and proves something else about us: Holy cow can we be conned! After reading Obama’s biography and books I was convinced there was finally a candidate that would do what he said; I thought his (verifiable) community service was proof that he walked his talk. I thought the millions he made from his books would make him immune to lobbyists and the rich. I thought his law degree and teaching the Constitution meant he would respect it.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
Holy SHIT! Could we have been any more taken in?
“that I rarely issue.”
There is only one law in the morning: more coffee.
I have nothing to add in re two-tiered legal systems as the Prof has summed up nicely the meat of this entrée and Tony, Mike and mespo have seasoned the dish appropriately . . . except this one small statement that rarely I rarely issue.
I told you so.
The day it became apparent that Obama wasn’t going to incarcerate the traitor Cheney, following the law became optional.
Tony I would not put much faith in the current Supreme Court. They recently ruled 5-4 to gut Miranda and they ruled 5-4 on Citizens United.
Our Constitution no longer matters, first Bush and now Obama violate Constitutionally assured civil rights with impunity. We violate treaties that require us to investigate ANY accusation of war crimes. The president now has the right to assassinate American citizens abroad by executive order alone. Drug offenders have their property seized and sold without trial. Accused terrorists languish in prison without charges, without trial, without attorneys, and without hope.
We have become a nation ruled by scofflaws; they violate the most basic laws against physical torture and gleefully admit to it (See GWB, Cheney), and dare us to do something about it. Our politicians no longer give a crap about the Constitution when it comes to laws, they will do whatever they want and it is somebody else’s job to stop them. Perhaps the Supreme Court, but they have no police force to order an arrest, so screw them — If they strike something down we will pass it again with different wording, and again, and again, until we finally get a Robert’s court willing to fuck over the serfs.
We are a plutocracy; ruled by the rich, for the rich.
Mike A.,
How can you have respect for the Laws (Government) when the lawless are in charge?
I am of the Vietnam era. They stopped the draft the year before I graduated High School. I was in ROTC until 2Bird and I agreed that it was not a good fit. lol
I actually find myself in agreement with Tootie that Prof. Turley’s commentary is brilliant. If she had only stopped after the first sentence.
The law is all that we have. Respect for the rule of law promotes voluntary compliance. When laws are perceived to be arbitrary, discriminatory or class-based, respect for the rule of law, and compliance with its obligations, diminishes. When that respect diminishes to the extent that non-compliance becomes widespread, a free society is at risk of becoming a police state. Draconian enforcement measures enacted in response to widespread non-compliance serve only to increase popular anger until the fragile threads in the social fabric are finally ripped apart and anarchy ensues.
Dear Tootie:
I am sure the people in the Gulf are not troubled by the intrusion of BIG GOVERNMENT in their lives at this point. They are screaming for more Big Gov’t and hoping the Big Gov’t will bail them out when it becomes apparent that even BP doesn’t have enough assets to compensate the millions whose livelihoods will be destroyed by this disaster.
The problem isn’t big government, it’s dysfunctional big government.
It’s the MMS who were bought and sold (literally, call girls and all) by Big Oil. MMS allowed BP to fill in the MMS inspection reports in pencil, so the MMS could erase the comments and replace them with ink. MMS waived a number of safety requirements for this rig and accepted an environmental impact statement that discussed the impact of a spill on walruses and seals.
Look at the Deepwater Horizon and see what capitalism generates without any effective and functioning restraints or regulation by government. Corporations are not people, they have no morals, and the people who run these corporations are solely interested in the bottom line and shareholder return. Of course, part of the bottom line involves avoiding situations which will generate fines, criminal prosecutions and massive damage claims, but essentially it all comes down to money. In retrospect, it is clear that a series of managers at BP seriously miscalculated the risk of the nickle and diming cost cutting it undertook in trying the finalize this 45 day overdue well cap.
I would recommend that everyone read a copy of the letter which Bart Stupak yesterday sent Tony Haywood, outlining the 5 serious mistakes BP made which caused the disaster, all of which were made to save time and money, were against best industry practices and objected to by Halliburton and Transocean. Schlumberger showed up at the rig the morning of the blowout to test the cement seal and BP told them it wasn’t necessary (because it would cost BP $400K). This testing is standard operating procedure on all wells, apparently, but BP to save $400K failed to undertake the test. Stupak’s analysis appears to exonerate Halliburton and Transocean. The letter’s available on the NYT website.
Teddy “Trust Buster” Roosevelt understood the problem of unrestrained corporate greed and he was at least for a while a Repubican. Ironically, he (by fiat apparently) established the bird sanctuaries which are now covered with oil. He did this by executive order without any legal basis whatsoever. I may be wrong but I also think he set up the FDA in response to Sinclair Lewis’s “The Jungle,” which brought to light the unsanitary conditions under which cows were slaughtered and meat processed.
As to Prof. Turley’s question: My belief is that if laws are perceived to unfairly favor special interests rather than the public good or are enforced unfairly, people lose respect for the law. I think what’s happening now with the T partiers etc. is a reflection of all you mentioned, the bailouts, the subprime mortgages, etc. All are perceived as unfair and foster the distrust of government reflected by Tootie and others. I guess I would have to add some of the Supremes’ recent decisions to the list of arbitrary applications of the law which reinforce lack of respect for the law. Cf Citizens United.
KF,
I am surprised you and I agree on something.
Tom Donaldson,
Well said.
The seemingly conflicting results of polls is perplexing at times.
The mechanism for pulling the wool over the populace is state “education”, one of the many forms of propaganda habitually used in the U.S. and Britain since about 1917 (Chomsky).
http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-doubles-down-on-propaganda-2.html
‘Government’: The manipulation of peasants by their monied masters via agents called ‘politicians’ in which the manipulated believe they are in control, and in which even politicians sometimes believe themselves to have power. Generally involves high theatrics to distract the peasants from the truth, and to keep them at each others throats.
Tootie: Why’d you leave out the fact under the 8 years of Reagan more family farms went paws up than in the entire previous 200 years combined? Ironic too since so many farmers voted for him. Reagan is directly responsible for the fact that over 80% of America’s aerable land is today owned by just 7 agribusinesses. If Ron Paul admires the Reagan Revolution then his supporters are in trouble as he was as big a deficit spender and deregulator as Bush, if not bigger.
We are vastly becoming a country of laws, used by and for the lawless- Anonymously Yours
Prof. Turley:
good essay. Not being a lawyer and not really understanding the history of decisions taken, isn’t what we see now the logical conclusion of a good many supreme court cases that have not followed the intent of the Constitution and the founders but rather the political/moral philosophy of individual justices or groups of justices? Those politically motivated outcomes undermine the law to the point where the law means nothing as you state above.
One of the Seven [wise men of Greece] was wont to say: That laws were like cobwebs, where the small flies are caught and the great break through.
~Sir Francis Bacon
Brilliant commentary Mr. Turley. Thank you.
The reason lawlessness by government officials is so rampant and unstoppable is because Abraham Lincoln set the Federal government on this course many years ago by abusing and trampling the Constitution. He concentrated power and set it on a path of becoming absolute power. What we see before us is an outworking of the absolute power Lincoln exercised to prevent lawful secession.
We somewhat backed off from Lincoln’s abuses and tried to stay the Constitutional course. But the pattern was set.
Then came FDR. He added many nails into the coffin housing the Constitution and its LIMITED (extremely limited) powers. FDR and his court ripped limited powers to shreds. And now, one in their right mind would say the federal government is exhibiting limited power today. It is all powerful, all invasive, ever oppressive, and growing more brutal by the minute.
Then came the Socialists (who are Marxists). They filled the ranks of the Democratic Party (LBJ types). Great Society crazies abused one power after another in a steam-rolling welfare juggernaut. Nail after nail went into the coffin. Laws usurping the Constitution remained on the books for decades. Most still affecting us.
Enter stage right,the neocons. These big spending big government imperialists knocked out the Goldwater limited government republicans. There was no one to stop the power of the feds. The neocons killed the Reagan revolution before it began. They attached themselves to the dying Rockefeller Republicans and transformed the party.
The all powerful usurpatious federal government moved forward full steam with both parties driving it. Lincoln’s absolute power was revived and unleashed, but now with over a hundred years of abusive laws in place and the development of hitherto unknown technologies, weapons, and surveillance combining to form a police state monstrosity unknown to humankind or the American People.
Obama and the democrat leaders desire to unleash it. They do NOT dislike the police-state the neocons built the foundation Bill Clinton layed (according to Gore Vidal). They want to run it!
The Constitution binds no one in the Federal Government because who can keep up with the many abuses? There is no Galactic 911 call we can make to stop Washington from its usurpations. Who would want to live with the number of cops, lawyers, and judges it would take to make the whole country in full compliance with all our laws? We are talking about a totalitarian police-state to make that happen.
This is why there is talk of secession and nullification. It is our only hope against our power addicted and power crazed politicians. Our leaders want to do more than assault our young people when they ask them questions. They want to destroy us. We are in the way when we challenge them.
If you want to know who the bad guys are, look to the rank and file. Are dem rank and file for MORE government power or less government power? If they are for more government power they ARE the problem. There is too much government power already.
There are simply too many laws. All citizens are law-breakers by virtue of getting up and going about their business in an honest manner. That can mean only one thing: government is completely corrupt and out of control.
This is why you will not find the greatest statesman of our time, Dr. Ron Paul, in the Democratic Party. Democrats despise the freedom required for the effective working of rational and prudent laws.
P.S: Byzantine legal proceedings and requirements also favor the rich. Public defenders simply don’t get paid enough to mount a thorough defense pulling every legal trick in the book. This is obvious from the insane shenanigans and delays that go on for celebrities that can spend a million dollars on their team of attorneys, while public defenders show up at court unprepared and reading a brief on the way.
Celebrity gets different, and deferential, treatment in the court. When my sister was murdered by her ex-husband, we showed up at court for his murder trial only to discover, after two hours, that his trial would be delayed ANOTHER month because our judge had voluntarily taken an ’emergency’ hearing instead. The case? A city councilman had been arrested THE PREVIOUS NIGHT in the park having extramarital sex in his SUV with his female campaign manager. And when the cameras are rolling and the public is watching, justice be damned. We don’t have time to try a murderer when a politician is banging a hot chick!
You forgot drug laws. Paris Hilton serves less than one day in prison for a crime that lands an inner city black in jail for three years. Bill Mahr openly brags about his marijuana use, while just posessing $20 worth cost my niece $3500 for an attorney to get her on pee-probation for a year.
Laws do not seem to apply to the rich, or celebrities, or politicians, unless they happen to be breaking the law while doing or saying something embarrassing, especially if caught on tape.
THAT is why the laws are getting more explicit and more draconian; because
A) People want something that works god dammit, and
B) The laws don’t apply to the lawmakers or anybody they care about.
We have developed a caste system in this country. The rich and their pets (politicians) versus the serfs and their petty concerns.
The root of the problem is the money in politics. Our interpretation of the Constitution does not allow us to keep it out; it is impossible. The rise of the private lobbyist does it: They earn millions, and serve as an implicit promise of massive wealth to any compliant politician. And they pay off; the primary purpose of any former politician turned lobbyist, or ‘activist’ like Newt, is as a symbol, a proof-by-example, that the rich will pay the bill when the time comes.
No quid-pro-quo need be stated or agreed upon in any back room, the actions and cash of the rich speak louder than words: Become a friend of our firm and my job can be yours; and in-between we will do everything legally possible (or that we can get away with) to help you out along the way.
It is the politicians that set the laws, and the rich have found a way to buy them. Money finds a way.