Constitutional Limits Be Gone
J.D. Vance's disregard for the Constitution and its limitations must be soundly rejected by conservatives.
First and foremost happy birthday to my lovely wife, Alexa. Her only birthday wish was for more people to subscribe to this very newsletter. She’s selfless like that. If you would like to make her birthday wishes come true, then please subscribe!
J.D. Vance
J.D. Vance rose to prominence during the Trump presidency after writing a book called Hillbilly Elegy that many people pointed to as helping to explain the rise of Trump. Vance grew up in Ohio but had family members that lived in poverty-stricken Appalachia and the book depicts their circumstances along with their culture. I have not read the book nor have I done a deep dive on Vance’s life outside of a couple of interviews I have seen of him, but I do know that he has come to represent the “new” ideas of the Republican Party.
He is not merely a representation, though, as he is, according to reports, planning to run to represent Ohio in the Senate in 2022. Since this is the case, I think his ideas are worth discussing because, if he is elected, he will attempt to translate these ideas into policies. This is particularly noteworthy when his ideas go against traditional (and I believe right) conservative orthodoxy. At the risk of being too ranty, his ideas are not merely contrarian to traditional conservative dogma but are utterly unconstitutional and should be outright rejected by conservatives.
The ideas of Vance that I particularly believe are egregious relate to his beliefs surrounding Big Tech. Vance has a particular disdain for some of the most successful and powerful companies in the United States, such as Google, Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Apple, etc. His disdain is not unfounded since these companies have demonstrated their own disdain for anybody that holds any positions that are not Left/liberal orthodoxy and their willingness to use their power to shape the political discussion. I don’t knock Vance for his lack of love for Big Tech or even his thinking of new ways to constitutionally combat their use of power in this way. However, I do knock Vance when he steps beyond the pale and starts to suggest that constitutional constraints should be done away with for the sake of curtailing the power these companies have.
Private Property Still Matters
Vance started with this gem of an answer on Tucker Carlson Today:
When asked how he responds to the reality that Big Tech companies are indeed private companies, Vance’s response is “I just don’t care that they are.” It would be at least defensible if Vance mentioned a need to regulate Big Tech in order to protect the free market. I still don’t think I would agree with him, but anti-trust law has been established for just that reason. However, the blatant disregard for the private property rights of the Big Tech companies is astonishing (not to mention Carlson’s response of “good for you” while laughing).
Surely Vance gives a reasonable explanation for having such a disregard for their private property rights, right? Well, they “just have too much power” according to Vance so that’s why the government should ignore their constitutional rights. I certainly understand the fear of power being concentrated in the hands of few (it’s part of the reason I believe in limited government) but who gets to determine when a company has become “too powerful”? The government would be tasked with creating some sort of limiting principle in the form of a law which it would inevitably screw up or the government would use an arbritary standard (probably designed by the courts) that would be ripe for abuse. In other words, the power concentrated in the hands of Big Tech would be transferred to the hands of the government which possesses the power of the gun. This is not a trade I am willing to make.
Let’s say the Big Tech companies conspire together and completely wipe me off the map under the guise of “violating their terms of service.” I would not be able to tweet, Google anything, have a functioning iPhone, watch YouTube, and whatever else they could muster up. Now, I would not be happy about any of this but people couldn’t do anything of this 20 years ago and seemed to survive just fine. Yes, my voice would be shut off from the digital world and removed completely from online discourse. This is how the vast majority of people receive information now so I would be pretty much irrelevant. But, I would still be free. I could still work a job, have a family, eat out, go on a vacation, and all kinds of other activities I do on a regular basis.
Now, let’s say the government can disregard the private property rights of individuals and/or businesses that it deems to hold too much power as Vance seems to suggest is okay. The government, either through passing a law or a judge’s ruling, could set a standard for “too powerful” that I met. In order to enforce this, the government would have the right to tell me what I had to do and if I refused they could arrest me and put me in jail.
I use these two extreme examples, not because I believe either of them are likely, but to show that if the concern is power being concentrated in too few hands then it’s better to make sure those hands aren’t the government’s. Vance, again who is supposedly running for Senate in Ohio, is saying that he does not care about the private property rights of the Big Tech companies. He would rather the government have the power to determine when a company has too much power than worry about private property rights. That is a dangerous trade-off.
The Power to Tax
Vance continued his streak of carrying little about the Constitution in the name of punishing large corporations with a series of tweets. First, Vance proposed raising taxes on more than 100 corporations because their leaders met to discuss how to respond to state voting law proposals.
Vance’s reason focused on the immense power that these corporations have and their apparent rule in a “global oligarchy.” Again, it’s one thing to propose regulations of companies because they are restricting the free market and hurting consumers or to propose raising the corporate tax rate for all corporations. It is an entirely different idea all together to specifically tax corporations, and those corporations alone, for their political activism.
Yet again, I understand the frustration that Vance feels. Just check out last week’s newlsetter to read about my frustration at the MLB for moving the All-Star Game out of Atlanta. However, corporations have a First Amendment right to have and express political opinions thanks to the (rightly) decided Supreme Court case Citizens United v FEC. Taxing corporations as a direct response to how they express themselves politically is about as anti-First Amendment as one can get.
David French, a First Amendment advocate and enthusiast, aptly responded to Vance’s tweet laying out the constitutional problems with such a proposal.
Did Vance, who went to Yale Law School so should know the law, respond by showing either how French was wrong or how his proposal was actually constitutional? Well, no he didn’t.
French was wrong, according to Vance, because he was refusing to act even if that action is unconstitutional. The very point of the Constitution is to act as a bulwark against the government from *action* that enfringes on the rights of American citizens. Vance’s failure to understand this or support this is deeply troubling for someone who wants to run for office.
Constitutional Limits
The first question that any politician should ask themselves before they even suggest doing something is “is this Constitutional?” If the answer to that question is no then the politician should immediately drop it as an option or determine whether it would be prudent to propose a constitutional amendment. This is necessary because the Constitution serves as the ultimate limiting principle to ensure liberty is maintained. Without the Constitution as a limiting principle, power would be used at the whim of the rulers and/or the majority without concern for whether the action promoted liberty.
The reality is that politicians and majorities often want to do actions that seem absolutely necessary in the moment (i.e. limit the power of Big Tech) but do not consider whether it is the most prudent action. The framers of the Constitution understood this and decided that a written Constitution that limited the power of majorities and ruling authorities was essential to maintaining liberty.
While this is not unique to Democrats or Republicans, in recent history (we’'ll say since Reagan) it has been conservative Republicans (generally speaking) that understood this and condemned progressive Democrats for refusing to accept Constitutional limits. However, Vance demonstrates that Republicans are beginning to reconsider the necessity of having a high regard for Constitutional limits because “Leftist corporations and Big Tech are just too powerful.” Whether Democrat or Republican, and no matter how pressing an issue seems, a disregard for Constitutional limits must be resoundly rejected by conservatives and anyone who refuses to do so ought to stop calling themselves conservative.
God Bless,
Hunter Burnett
Braves Breakdown
Ronald Acuña Jr. is really good at baseball and Alec Bohm was out. Braves are 6-8.