Can an amendment to the Constitution be unconstitutional?

prior probability would rephrase the above question this way: what is the probability that a court will declare an amendment to the constitution unconstitutional?

We often assume that all the provisions within a country’s constitution are internally consistent. But is internal self-consistency always the case? What about conflicts between international law, natural law norms, and a country’s domestic constitutional order? Does international law or natural law trump constitutional law?

Yaniv Roznai, a PhD candidate in the Law Department at the London School of Economics, has just published a fascinating paper (“The Theory and Practice of ‘Supra-Constitutional’ Limits on Constitutional Amendments”) on these questions.  I saw Yaniv present a previous draft of this paper at the Third Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium at Loyola University (Chicago) last fall, and was very impressed with his thoughtfulness and erudition. If you care about the philosophy of constitutional law, or what I like to call “meta-jurisprudence,” I recommend his deep analysis of the different levels of “legal orders” and their relation to constitutional law.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Tyler Cowen asks, “How big is your chance of dying in an ordinary day?”

See Tyler’s post here or read “The Norm Chronicles: Stories and Numbers about Danger” to find out.

FYI, Tyler includes this quote from the book: “A Micromort can also be compared to a form of imaginary Russian roulette in which 20 coins are thrown in the air: if they all come down heads, the subject is executed.  That is about the same odds as the 1-in-a-million chance that we describe as the average everyday dose of acute fatal risk.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What do you think of the new Rolling Stone cover?

Here is a more interesting question: is your reaction based on moral grounds, emotions, aesthetic considerations, or something else? In addition, we would ask, what is the probability that this provocative cover will increase (or decrease) the sales of Rolling Stone magazine?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 3 Comments

Landsburg’s “Bayesian Riddle”

Economist Steven Landsburg recently posed the following Bayesian riddle here.

A murder has been committed. The suspects are:

  • Bob, a male smoker.
  • Carol, a female smoker.
  • Ted, another male smoker.
  • Alice, a female non-smoker.

You are quite sure that one (and only one) of these suspects is the culprit. Moreover, after carefully examining the evidence, you’ve concluded that the odds are 2-to-1 that the culprit is a smoker.

Now your crack investigative team, in which you have total confidence, reports that, on the basis of new evidence, they’ve determined that the culprit is definitely female.

Who’s the most likely culprit, and with what probability?

Here is his solution. 

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Time travel thought experiment

If you could go back in time and share one piece of scientific knowledge from today, what time period would you choose, what would you share, and how might that information change the course of history?

I am a big fan of Bayes’ Rule, so here is my response. 

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Time_Travel_Method-2.svg

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

What do juries maximize?

The great legal scholar Richard Posner once famously asked, “What do judges maximize?” Given all the publicity surrounding the “not guilty” verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin, I would ask a different question, What do juries maximize? Jurors have not studied the law and are not compensated the full market value of their time, and yet, in most cases, they seem to get it right. Put another way, why don’t jurors behave like self-serving bureaucrats or politicians? Could it be that more altruistic and civic-minded persons self-select into juries? What do you think?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Are patent trolls efficient?

David Segal has just published this fascinating feature on patent-troll extraordinaire Erich Spangenberg in the Sunday Times under the title “Has Patent, Will Sue.” 

In brief, a “patent troll” is someone who buys patents and then sues firms for infringing its patents. As Mr Segal puts it in his article, “There is debate about the definition of patent trolls, but the term broadly refers to people who sue companies for infringement, often using patents of dubious value or questionable relevance, and then hold on like a terrier until they get license fees.”

This tactic is especially effective when the price of the license fee is less than the cost of defending a patent-infringement lawsuit. So is this type of shake-down tactic by patent trolls a soft form of extortion (“pay me or else”) or a textbook example of “Coasian bargaining” in which legal rights are allocated to their highest-valued use?

Either way, this example illustrates a potential problem with the Coase theorem: what happens to economic efficiency when parties over-invest in the acquisition of legal rights (such as patents), or what I would call “Coasian rent-seeking,” for the sole purpose of selling those rights later?  In other words, if rent-seeking is inefficient in the domain of politics (such as subsidies for ethanol), it should also be inefficient in the domain of patent law as well. But at the same time, the fact that many firms are willing to settle with patent trolls to avoid litigation might be the efficient outcome if these shakedowns encourage inventors to invest in research. It’s hard to say in the abstract which effect will win out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Terry Anderson on “free market environmentalism”

Economist Terry L. Anderson has been lecturing on “Environmental Markets” these last two days at the Law & Economics Institute sponsored by George Mason University. His argument is simple: instead of treating the environment as an open-access commons, we are better off by assigning property rights to natural resources and letting people trade these rights. In essence, he extends the domain of the Coase theorem to environmental resources. In brief, the Coase theorem is the idea in economics that people will negotiate and enjoy gains from trade when there are no legal or economic impediments to trade. Is this wishful thinking or a tautology?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Is the FISA court constitutional?

Congress created this court in 1978, so the real question is, does Congress have the power under the Constitution to create such a secret court? Also, what does this secret court say about our commitment to the rule of law, or is this concept just an empty shibboleth with no real content? Is the FISA court even a “court” in the traditional legal sense of the word?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Tyler Cowen asks, “Where should Edward Snowden go?”

prior probability‘s second-favorite economist, Tyler Cowen, poses this question here, discussing the pros and cons of Bolivia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. For our part, prior probability  wonders whether this much-publicized list of countries is just a strategic ruse to divert attention from another possible escape plan, such as sneaking (via plane or train) into a country like Serbia, which has no extradition treaty with the U.S.

Update (1 August 2013) — NY Times reports “Defiant Russia Grants Snowden Year’s Asylum”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment