prior probability

A Penrose triangle is an “impossible object” or optical illusion. Although this type of triangle can be depicted in a drawing, it cannot exist as an actual solid object. (Hat tip: @pickover.)

My fellow constitutional law scholars have offered a wide variety of comments about the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump, but none have asked or attempted to answer the following fundamental question: what level of proof must the managers of the House of Representative meet during Trump’s trial in the Senate? In brief, a simple majority of the U.S. House of Representatives has charged President Donald J. Trump with two high political crimes: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these forms of political misconduct are impeachable offenses. (Are they?) If so, what burden of proof must the House managers meet during the Senate show trial in order to prove that President Trump committed either of these political crimes? Should it be “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (i.e. the highest burden of proof in our common law system of justice), or should it be “preponderance of the evidence” (or “more likely than not,” a much less demanding evidentiary standard), or should it be an intermediate standard like “clear and convincing evidence”? Also, who decides what the burden of proof for impeachment trials should be? The Senate or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?

What lessons does the ill-fated 1970 guaranteed income bill teach us today? What timely takeaways, if any, can we obtain from this legislative debacle? After all, this political theater took place several generations ago; the leading players are all dead. Below are excerpts from the epilogue of my latest work-in-progress “Guaranteed Income: Chronicle of a Political Death Foretold”: Continue reading →

I have been posting excerpts from my latest draft “Guaranteed Income: Chronicle of a Political Death Foretold.” Here is an excerpt from Act III, the concluding act of my political morality tale, which also introduces the villain of my story–another Southern Democrat, Senator Russell B. Long (pictured below below the fold): Continue reading →

In previous posts, I shared excerpts from the Prologue and from Act I of my political morality tale “Guaranteed Income: Chronicle of a Political Death Foretold.” Here is an excerpt from Act II (footnotes below the fold), which describes how an old school Arkansas Democrat (Wilbur D. Mills, pictured below the fold) made common cause with conservatives like Milton Friedman to shepherd Richard Nixon’s controversial guaranteed income bill through the House of Representatives during the 91st Congress:

Continue reading →

Yesterday, we posted a link to our most recent work-in-progress entitled “Guaranteed Income: Chronicle of a Political Death Foretold,” which revisits the rise and fall of The Family Assistance Act of 1970. Had this historic bill been enacted into law, it would have provided every poor family with children a guaranteed minimum income. My history of this guaranteed income bill is structured as a three-act play. Here is an excerpt from Act I of my legislative morality tale: Continue reading →

Along with Earth, Wind, & Fire’s classic song “September,” Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” (released in 1987) was one of my favorite songs when I was growing up. Now, check out this “Oral History of Rickrolling” by Brian van Hooker (via Digital Culture), which documents the recent revival of Astley’s classic single. Here is an excerpt:

Paul “Pawl” Fisher, video editor: “When I did that video (see below), I was in college and I was working for the athletic department of Eastern Washington University. That was when Rickrolling was just hitting the Internet …. I controlled all the cameras during the games back then, and I was basically bored at work, so I saw the potential to pull this off. My boss at the time, Davin, he looked like Rick Astley, so we went and got ourselves a trenchcoat and took it from there.”

Davin Perry, Rick Astley impersonator in the EWU video: “It was all Paul’s idea, but I was a pretty good fit to play Rick Astley. At the time, I’d just graduated and was working for the athletic department as my first full-time job, which I eventually thought I might lose because of this whole thing, but Paul asked me to play Astley in the video and I did ….”

That is the title of my latest scholarly essay, which will be published in a special issue of The Chapman Law Review this spring. Below is an excerpt from the prologue of my paper (footnotes are below the fold):

“This symposium issue of the Chapman Law Review is devoted to various landmark laws enacted by the 91st Congress …. This Article, by contrast, will explore what could have been: “The Family Assistance Act of 1970” (H.R. 16311). Had this historic bill been enacted into law, it would have authorized a negative income tax, thus providing a minimum guaranteed income to all poor families with children.[a] In the words of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, ‘Family Assistance was income redistribution, and by any previous standards it was massive.’[b] Although it passed the House by a wide margin, and although there were sufficient votes to clear the Senate, the guaranteed income bill never made it to the floor of that august body.[c]

“Given that the 91st Congress enacted so many historic laws, why did H.R. 16311 end in failure? The history of the Family Assistance Act has received a great deal of scholarly attention. Previous studies have surveyed the legislative history of the guaranteed income bill,[d] scrutinized the economics of the bill,[e] dissected liberal and conservative opposition to the bill,[f] and emphasized the spillover effects of the Vietnam conflict on the bill.[g] This Article, by contrast, will narrate the fate of H.R. 16311 in the form of a three-act legislative morality play. To this end, this Article is structured as follows:

“Act I will introduce the hero of our story, the idea of a guaranteed income via a negative income tax and retrace the intellectual origins of this idea. Next, Act II will spotlight the shrewd tactics of the second-most powerful man in Washington, D.C., Representative Wilbur D. Mills, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who skillfully shepherded the guaranteed income bill through the House of Representatives. Last, Act III will introduce the lead villain of our story, Senator Russell D. Long, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. I make no apologies about casting Senator Long as the villain. This pro-segregation Dixiecrat, who once referred to welfare mothers as ‘Brood Mares,’[h] used his position of power to thwart the bill at every turn. A brief epilogue concludes.

“Although the hero of our story is an idea, not a person, its fate will be no less dramatic than that of a traditional flesh-and-bones protagonist. Back in 1970, many social liberals and welfare advocates complained that the bill’s proposed annual stipend was too low,[i] while at the same time many fiscal conservatives and so-called Dixiecrats (Southern Democrats) argued that the plan was too costly. Moreover, how can a guaranteed income bill help the poor without distorting work incentives or increasing taxes on everyone else? These are, of course, mutually incompatible goals. Hence, with apologies to the late Latin American author Gabriel García Márquez, the title of this legislative play.[j]”

I will post additional excerpts from this paper later this week.

Yeah, but who pays?

Continue reading →