TAXPROF ROUNDUP: The IRS Scandal, Day 719.

THE FADING OF THE PAX ANGLO SAXONICA:

On the way to work at the Library of Congress during the year just past, I was stopped on more than one occasion by activists from the Lyndon LaRouche movement. Among the many interesting theories they regaled me with one sunny Spring morning, one stuck out: Queen Elizabeth II, through dastardly means, exerted a secret and nefarious influence on American foreign policy, manipulating it to serve British imperial interests. This, they said, explained America’s recent wars in the Middle East. Informing these activists that I was British and therefore delighted to hear this news, I added that to have such influence over the world’s most powerful state must be a testament to the hidden genius of British foreign policy. After all, I reminded them, it was only 200 years ago—August 24, 1814, to be precise—that British troops had burned this town down, marking the only time that a foreign power had captured and occupied the U.S. capital. I then continued merrily on my way.

The reality is, of course, more disheartening. The United Kingdom’s stock in Washington, DC, is diminishing. Foot-dragging and defense-cutting Britain is not the ally to America it once was. It is not even the ally it was earlier in this young century when it stood staunchly beside the United States after September 11, 2001, and in the two wars that followed. The United Kingdom is now handwringing about its role in the world in a way not witnessed for many decades. Caught in a peculiar posture of fealty to feckless UN resolutions and deferring dangerously to ponderous parliamentary prerogatives, Britain risks corroding its “special relationship” with the United States—something that, in various incarnations (and under different appellations), has been a pillar of British foreign policy for the past century. . . .

The British condition has not gone unnoticed in Washington, where even the most Anglophilic voices have expressed disquiet about recent developments. Yet even that disquiet, however well intentioned, usually rests on a rather shallow and hence unstable basis of understanding. It thus risks causing anxiety over the wrong things. The “special relationship” may or may not be in jeopardy, but one needs to take a step back from this debate to see the bigger picture. Of greater significance are shifts in the underlying worldviews that have bound Anglo-Saxon political cultures together for a very long time indeed. If you’re in a fretting mood, here is a subject truly worthy of your energy. Indeed, if you’re concerned about “world order”, you have to remember that this very notion is an inherently Anglo-American one.

Our current President is famously hostile to all things English, most things Anglo-American, and — not to put too fine a point on it — American. So he’s not troubled by this trend and in fact has worked to accelerate it.

BOTSPIRACY IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE: When Robots Collude: Computers are adopting a legally questionable means to crush the competition. More press on my colleague Maurice Stucke’s paper, coauthored with Ariel Ezrachi of Oxford, on robot collusion.

NOT ALL STATES CAN BE AS PROGRESSIVE AS TENNESSEE, YOU KNOW: Freddie Gray Arrest Exposes an Antiquated Knife Law Similar to New York’s.

Funny, because the Tennessee lefties saw the new knife law as a bit of redneck weapons-fetishism. Little did they know that it’s actually a progressive cause, endorsed by the Village Voice! Want to help young black men in the city? Support Knife Rights!

ANOTHER EXCUSE CRUMBLES: The Clinton Foundation Is Wrong: Canadian Law Doesn’t Prohibit Donor Disclosure. Love the update: “After this article was initially published, the Clinton Foundation sent The Federalist two links (here and here) allegedly supporting its contention that federal law in Canada prohibits public disclosure of the names of charitable organization donors. Unfortunately for the Clinton Foundation, neither link supports the organization’s rationale for deliberately withholding donor information from the public. In fact, one of the links actually includes information that directly contradicts the Clinton Foundation’s assertion.”

Related: In 2013, The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent Of Its Budget On Charitable Grants.

AT AMAZON, fresh deals on bestselling products, updated every hour.

Also, coupons galore in Grocery & Gourmet Food.

Plus, Kindle Daily Deals.

And, Today’s Featured Digital Deal. The deals are brand new every day, so browse and save!

WHAT IS “MARRIAGE”?:  The Supreme Court will be asking this question today, as oral arguments in Obergefell v. Hodges begin at 10 a.m.  The arguments involve four consolidated cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee and raise two distinct questions:  (1)  Is there a constitutional right for two people to marry?; and (2) Must states recognize a marriage recognized by a sister state, if the marriage is between two people of the same gender?

Notice that the question presented isn’t whether the Constitution recognizes a right to same-sex marriage, per se.  Instead, the question posed is whether there is a right to marriage between two people.  And if marriage is defined as a union between two people, it is a foregone conclusion that the Court will conclude that it should be permitted between two people of the same gender.  The counter-argument is that “marriage” isn’t just a union of “two people,” but inherently and necessarily a union of “one man and one woman.”

The Supreme Court has long stated that “marriage” is one of the “fundamental” and “basic” rights protected by the word “liberty” in the Due Process Clauses.  In the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia (one of the great all-time case names, btw), the Court ruled that a state anti-miscegenation law violated the Equal Protection Clause because the law inherently involved a suspect racial classification (with no compelling justification for such classification).  It also violated the Due Process Clause:

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

One need only substitute “sexual orientation” for “racial” to see how the Obergefell Court will conclude that due process “liberty” gives any two individuals the right to marry.  And to make matters even clearer, the Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy (the “center” of the Court) struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), stating:

This status [marriage]  is a far-reaching legal acknowledgment of the intimate relationship between two people, a relationship deemed by the State worthy of dignity in the community equal with all other marriages. It reflects both the community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality. . . .

The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.  In determining whether a law is motivated by an improper animus or purpose, “ ‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’ ” especially require careful consideration. . . . The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.

The Windsor Court thus concluded that Congress’ “one man, one woman” definition of marriage for purposes of administering federal law was motivated by a “bare desire to harm” homosexuals and was thus discriminatory in purpose and effect.  While the Windsor Court gave lip service to States’ traditional power to define marriage, its conclusion was based upon its belief that the law was motivated by sexual orientation animus– a desire to keep “two people” from obtaining “dignity in the community equal with all other marriages.”

So once the Court accepts that “marriage” is a union of “two people,” the conclusion seems obvious.

While I do take issue with constitutionalizing the definition of marriage via edict of 9 unelected Justices rather than allowing the political process to continue to unfold– as it has very successfully done over the past decade or so–the marriage is “two people” definition, if accepted, will have some predictable consequences.

If marriage is “two people,” then presumably the next front of litigation will be adult, consensual incestuous relationships– probably first cousins, who are prohibited from marrying in 25 States.  Once this legal restriction falls, other adult, consensual incestuous relationship bans should presumably fall, too, such as parent/child (whether same- or opposite- sex), aunt/uncle- niece/nephew, etc.  Presumably, nonage laws limiting marriage of minors would continue to be upheld pursuant to States’ parens patriae power.

But why stop at “two people”?  Why not three, four, or fifty-six?  Would restricting marriage to “two people” be discriminatory animus directed at the polyamorous?  Or is it somehow “rational” for government to limit “marriage” to “two people”?  Once the word “marriage” is unmoored from the male-female sexual union, things start to get very complicated.  If Americans wish to limit “marriage” to “two people,” it may be advisable to begin thinking about a constitutional amendment defining it as such.

ASHE SCHOW: No such thing as evidence of innocence in campus sexual assault hearings.

If a student has been wrongly accused of sexual assault on their college campus, how are they supposed to prove their innocence?

I’ve asked a similar question to lawmakers and interested parties before — how is a student supposed to prove they obtained consent in a he said, she said situation? — but received no response.

One would think there might at least theoretically exist evidence that an encounter was consensual – outside of a videotape or recording, of course. Witnesses, for example, or subsequent messages between the two students.

And indeed, such evidence does exist in some situations, the problem is that college administrators either ignore such evidence or they twist said evidence to end up being used against the accused student who brought it up.

Take contact between the two parties after an alleged incident of sexual assault. Even if the accuser appears friendly toward the eventually accused, all they have to do is claim their messages didn’t accurately portray their feelings and suddenly, those messages are used against the accused.

This occurred in the Emma Sulkowicz vs. Paul Nungesser case. After what Sulkowicz claimed was a brutal rape in which she was pinned, beaten and choked before being raped, she sent Nungesser numerous messages asking to hang out, even telling him she loved him. Nungesser tried to get those messages introduced as evidence during his Columbia University hearing, but was denied. Nungesser, who has since become the victim of a public campaign of defamation by his accuser, was exonerated anyway.

After Sulkowicz began a mattress-carrying performance art project and publicly identified Nungesser as her attacker despite confidentiality rules, Nungesser released the post-alleged-rape Facebook messages.

Sulkowicz responded to the released messages by claiming she sent them because she wanted to have a “talk” with Nungesser about the encounter. Some people still buy it.

A similar situation played out at Vassar College when Peter Yu introduced Facebook messages showing his accuser apologizing to him for the evening. She apologized for leading him on and said that she had “a wonderful time” with him. But a year later, when Yu produced these messages for the disciplinary panel, his accuser claimed they “did not correctly reflect her feelings” because she was in a state of “shock and disbelief” about the encounter.

What we’ve learned so far: Women are too emotionally immature for college. They should be kept at home until a suitable man appears, ready to marry them and assume responsibility for overseeing their poor decision-making abilities.

ROLL CALL: Trade Fight Galvanizing the Left.

With the first round of appropriations bills and a possible budget conference report on the House floor this week, the chamber’s progressive contingent is looking farther down the road at the storm brewing over so-called Trade Promotion Authority, or “fast track.”

Legislation allowing President Barack Obama to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement would ordinarily be divisive within the House Democratic Caucus, but progressives say there’s even more at stake in this most recent fight: 2016.

If they can’t stop the TPA bill, the nearly 70 voting House members in the Congressional Progressive Caucus are determined to make such a ruckus that the party’s 2016 candidates — presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular — realize Obama’s middle-of-the-road approach to trade, or any major policy area, is not acceptable.

“I think if we were to keep fast track from happening here, then the message is pretty clear to the national campaigns, Hillary’s in particular, that this is an issue that’s going to energize the base,” said CPC Co-Chairman Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz.

“I think it kind of sets a tone nationally,” Grijalva said, “My point being, if the vast majority of the Democrats in the House are willing to confront their president, it only makes sense that any candidate for that position is on the line.”

Every candidate should be asked.

LORETTA LYNCH’S FIRST TEST:   She’s sending two DOJ officials to Baltimore to meet with community leaders.  That’s good.  But the real question is:  What will they do and say, once they arrive?  Will they mimic Erick Holder’s DOJ, and prioritize lectures about white privilege and racism?  Or will they provide a voice of calm and reason, and unequivocally condemn the random violence?

Lynch has a chance to break with the embarrassingly biased Holder past and start rebuilding trust in DOJ as a department interested in actual justice (for all).  Will she take it?

#WARONWOMEN: Clay Aiken: Rep. Ellmers is ‘an idiot.’ An idiot who beat you like a drum, Clay.

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Marco Rubio: You Deserve The Facts Before Taking Out Student Loans. “Students and their families need to be equipped with the information necessary to make well-informed decisions about which majors at which institutions are likely to yield the best return on investment. This is why Marco has authored and championed the ‘Student Right to Know Before You Go Act,’ which aims to give students reliable data on how much they can expect to make versus how much they can expect to owe.”

OUR LEADERS: As Baltimore Burns, O’Malley Speaks Out, Hillary Tweets About Bumper Stickers.

THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH: Georgetown University demands College Republicans edit video showing angry feminist protesters.

The controversy over scholar Christina Hoff Sommers’ lecture at Georgetown University last week is not over.

Lauren Gagliardi, the school’s assistant director for the center for student engagement, emailed two members of the College Republicans to request they edit the video to remove students who did not agree to be videotaped.

In the email, provided to the Washington Examiner, Gagliardi tells the students that the “edited version needs to be released without students who did not give permission to be taped.” She also says that if the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute, which sponsored the event, is “unwilling or unresponsive to the request, Georgetown will need to step in.”

The video that has Gagliardi so upset features feminist activists holding up signs accusing Hoff Sommers of being an anti-feminist or deny rape.

Yeah, well, if they didn’t want to be on video doing that, then they shouldn’t have done that. Here’s the video.

Much more here. “I wonder if Georgetown ever heard of the Streisand Effect?”

JOURNALISM: CBS’s Bob Schieffer to Guest: You Shouldn’t Be On a News Program, You’re Controversial and Divisive! “After Walter Cronkite left CBS, he started speaking for up for increasingly nutty causes, such as “One World Government.” When Dan Rather left, Mr. Objectivity began hosting fundraisers for the far-left Nation magazine. Bob Schieffer is set to retire this summer; based on the track record of his former CBS colleagues, his columns and speeches after he’s free to go full Bullworth should be loads of fun to read.” It’s like they’re undercover lefty operatives, until they’re not undercover any more.

“BECAUSE THIS CAMPAIGN ISN’T GOING TO BE ABOUT ME”:   Oh, Hillary, bless your sweet little heart.  Clinton’s puff-piece op-ed in today’s Des Moines Register is a pitiful attempt to divert attention away from her abominable, treasonous behavior as Secretary of State.  It’s now all about Hillary and her ethics (or lack thereof).  The only real question is:  Who will take the mantle of the Democrat party when she is forced to drop out?  Somehow, I doubt it will be Martin O’Malley.  But then again, nominating a white male would be a smart move for a party that has shown absolutely zero interest in, and downright hostility toward, this segment of the population for the past 6+ years.

ROBERT WARGAS: How Long Does America Have? “Every week this country is consumed in a new distended orgy of polarized, mutual hatred, set against the backdrop of outrage mobs, race riots, shuttered businesses, scandals, Twitter-induced career ruination, gleeful smear parties, and partisan hackery. Admit it: You’ve asked yourself where America is going, and how long it can survive the trip. Admit it.”

It’s a Republic. If we can keep it. Keeping it requires effort. It may even require sacrifice of some sort.

BUT YOU WROTE A PIECE CALLED “IF HILLARY CLINTON WERE MALE,” YOU’D BE A SEXIST PIG. The Hill: If Carly Fiorina Were Male.

In truth, all Hillary ever did was marry well. But you’re not allowed to say that, because if you kept pointing it out, it might hurt the Democrats. Fiorina, of course, enjoys no such protection from the press, so she gets hit pieces like this one from reliable lefty hack Brent Budowsky.

KURT SCHLICHTER: Conservatives, Unleash the Awesome Power of “No.”

No, liberals, we refuse to go along and be complicit in the suicide of our culture and our country. Your long-term strategy has been to browbeat us into acquiescence, to pester, prod, and persecute us into silence and submission. And why? Because your only power over us is what power we allow you to have.

Unlike your leftist heroes elsewhere, American leftists have no army of willing murderers to enforce your sick vision at the point of a gun – except in Wisconsin, and the spotlight’s on that now, you scurrying cockroaches.

Just remember that most of you can’t even guess correctly which end of a gun goes “bang.” So you have to depend upon us normal people going along, of not resisting, of just giving up.

Well, we aren’t giving up. We’re on to you. We’re fighting back. And here’s our battle cry:

“No.”

An idea so crazy, it just might work!

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE, LEGAL EDUCATION EDITION: Burdened With Debt, Law School Graduates Struggle in Job Market. “Mr. Wang, who works in Manhattan as a tutor for the law school admissions exam, is living a life far different from the one he envisioned. And he is not alone. About 20 percent of law graduates from 2010 are working at jobs that do not require a law license, according to a new study, and only 40 percent are working in law firms, compared with 60 percent from the class a decade earlier. To pay the bills, the 2010 graduates have taken on a variety of jobs, some that do not require admission to the bar; others have struck out on their own with solo practices. Most of the graduates have substantial student debt.”

HIGHER EDUCATION BUBBLE UPDATE: Diversity Uber Alles At Chapel Hill. Universities like to focus on things like “sustainability” and “diversity” because they produce outputs for which they are unlikely to be held accountable.

AT AMAZON, today’s the last day to take 25% off Luggage.

Also the last day to take 30-60% off Women’s Dresses.

LIFE IN THE ERA OF HOPE AND CHANGE:

And this remains evergreen:

YOU KNOW, TOO MANY STORIES LIKE THIS AND PEOPLE WILL START TO THINK THAT LAWYERS RUIN EVERYTHING: Meet The Class-Action Lawyer Who’s Going After Uber and Lyft.