Power, Responsibility, and Republican Democracy

A Review of Power Without Responsibility: How Congress Abuses the People Through Delegation by David Schoenbro

A Response to Professor Laycock

Almost a hundred years ago, the American Association of University Professors established guidelines for civility among scholars, saying that academic exchanges should be set forth with dignity, courtesy, and temperateness of language. I agree wholeheartedly with these principles, and I will not succumb to the temptation to respond in kind to Professor Laycock\u27s review. Tone is much less important than having a frank exchange of views. It is well known that Professor Laycock and I have very different perspectives on the proper interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. His review and my response should be an opportunity for us to explore our intellectual differences. In this brief response, I will focus on the two most important theoretical points from God vs. the Gavel: Religion and the Rule of Law that he attempts to disparage. The are the heart of my theory, so they are well worth debating

Art Speech

Although many scholars have been in favor of providing first amendment protection for art, no one has offered a justification for its constitutional protection suited to art\u27s singular capacities. Rather, commentators and courts have been inclined to place art under the rubric of general speech, which limits protection to ideas and content. Professor Hamilton argues that art offers significantly more than its content and deserves first amendment protection tailored to its particular potential. Art enables individuals to experience unfamiliar worlds and thereby to gain new perspectives on the prevailing status quo, including the government\u27s. It performs this function without exposing the individual to the risks inherent in actually experiencing a foreign world view. Moreover, its subversive potential not only occurs at the moment artwork is experienced but also can be stored, making art a powerful and immanent tool of critique. Professor Hamilton concludes that governmental funding of art projects should be examined with the closest scrutiny, because governmental involvement in the art market skews the market away from works that defamiliarize. Finally, public funding of arts education and appreciation should be a high priority so that students can build a storehouse of reorientation experiences that will protect them against the bewitchment of common sense posed by official power