6 Burst results for "David Burstein"

"david burstein" Discussed on The Dork Forest

The Dork Forest

07:30 min | 1 year ago

"david burstein" Discussed on The Dork Forest

"From from the bad guys. I've been trapped here drop trapped here by Snidely Whiplash since I could thing right there's a sense of exploration is what you're talking about. I miss exploring like there's a real sense of discovering something when it's like right in front of you and and and yeah, it's very it's more than anything else. It's just a lot of fun. Like there's the value of this for me is completely play oriented like there's real play at this age people should know that I am using an old tiny. I mean calling Cowboys and Indians. Yeah. I'm sure there's something going nobody's going at that anymore Jackie well fair enough, but but what I mean is when I was a young child couple of things would happen in regard to Adventure in regard to exploring things that we had a quarry in South Milwaukee, Wisconsin and every I mean the people who died the Quarry, they've been right off. Mean people are who are guiding you through these tours have been to these things. But when I went as a child, I was discovering them for the first time and it's that kind of Discovery and then Thursday we play this thing I would essentially in my there would be an imagination angle to it where I would make up some sort of dialogue and narrative or bad guys good guys or off on an adventure, right? And so when even on a guided tour you're going through a Slot Canyon or your shimmying on your back through the chasm of coffin assorted of the chasm of Doom and and it's it's your own exploration. It's your own discovery of something. So I mean everything I know about canyons and Hiking off like cuz I like to walk I don't particularly like to hike up hills and through canyons and stuff like that, but I used to walk a lot and Before I lived in the San Fernando Valley and it was ninety-seven degrees and and plus it's Los Angeles and you're like, well if I walk somewhere I better get a cup of coffee when I get there. And so but the other thing that I that loved and I mostly know about Canyons is from Louis L'Amour novels which to our Cowboy novels. Yeah from the fifties sixties seventies and eighties. I think Ronald Reagan's favorite author. It's you know, it makes so much sense. Yeah. Yeah and but then when he was the are our hero was consistently not constantly would often trapped in a Box Canyon or a Slot Canyon with water coming down fast and and he usually had to jump as high he could change his fists jam it into a crack in the wall. And then and that would be the first that would be his first handle hold and then he could sort of muscle himself up to grab another and then get out of the Canyon Club. Build a Slot Canyon. Yes, but only by accent like my friend David Burstein a really funny smart political consultant whose when I restaurants from New York, he flew to La okay, and we drove 8 hours to Antelope Canyon and on the way we stopped in Mecca to go to ladder and rock ladder and rub Canyon Brown and David got stuck somewhere in so to get him. I had to climb the side of a canyon up in a way that wasn't the trail right and and so often but and by the way, there was a real sense of danger for the for it I took I took a friend of mine. I took my girlfriend into the chasm of Doom and afterwards she which is not a euphemism in afterwards all these. Yes. She said I would want a hundred percent not have done that if I knew what it was going to be and I'm so dead. And I did it and so that's how it feels like doing these Canyons. They're like really it's like it's as close you can get your scuba diving without going underwater. They are these real there's a sense of of a cave a cave to it. And and yeah you climb you climb in and out and like in ladder and rope Kenyans, they're literally ropes that you have to there's a rope that you have to climb thirty feet up you get to the next part of a trail. If you can't do it then it's hard to it's hard to get back still like these are fairly like really nice. Yeah, the US has some really Advanced Home of hiking trails like in some of these trails are like Angels peak in Zion or the Narrows, which is also in Zion and for my money is like the granddaddy of all slot canyons. It's got a river walk along the base. So you have to hike in the river for hours with these with these walls on either side of you and it's really hard and arduous and and glorious. Apparently. It's my dream to go off. Okay, and this is in Zion National Park? Yeah, and like a lot of like there are a lot of hikes all over the United States that are like hard. They're like really hard hikes where you could God forbid like really get hurt or lose life is you're not careful and like in your I need to do that when there's something appealing about that like right now especially Jackie like we both feel trapped, right? This is a pandemic. We're both like in are fucking house and like share of this fan has been on for you know for six weeks. I couldn't could lose my mind now and like to to risk my life. I'm dying to every day and like you said, I want to dive a hundred feet into a pool now like that's what I miss. miss my sense of adventure and like this really caters to it you okay? Well, that's this is this I was going to say there are ways right now to risk your life. I don't know if you were a threat to Portland somebody spit in my face. Just yeah just go meet some Halliburton guys that are that don't have any idea on them. And if you would like to do really hurts your life, but not as pretty that's pretty that's right. Oh, there's no rock formations are different rock formations are very different and Arthur you ever done any camping. Is there a way to stay overnight in these things are mostly Day activities. Yeah. Well, here's the thing. I love to hike and I love Adventure. I also love with a passion. I never knew had indoor plumbing. Oh, yeah indoor plumbing. It's one of those things. You don't know that you really miss until you don't have it and I do love my sense of adventure and I love to hike and I like to Camp less than I like to shower twice a day. I love showering and and so I waited a do you like to shower a day morning and night baby? All right. Well, it's a it's glorious. It's a it's a that's a that's a sweet gift. I like to bait. I'm alone other people like your sim. Dirty water and I'm like, that's how I feel. That's how I feel about themselves. It's it's baffling two people that I liked to bathe and I like to say then don't do it. You shouldn't you should totally not do it and absolutely no doubt says that I smell so I calm down you do your best thinking in the shower or the bath. I always do my best thinking they're the one of reasons I like to bathe is because it slows me down minimum wage and the thing is I will take a 20-minute bath. But if I'm smart, I'll take an hour and half bath and wait till it cools off and then get the hell out of it because then I've done nothing wrong. Except for maybe.

Slot Canyon Jackie United States Canyon Club Box Canyon Snidely Whiplash David Burstein Antelope Canyon Canyon Brown Louis L'Amour Zion National Park Ronald Reagan Los Angeles Milwaukee Zion Wisconsin San Fernando Valley consultant Portland
"david burstein" Discussed on WORT 89.9 FM

WORT 89.9 FM

15:41 min | 2 years ago

"david burstein" Discussed on WORT 89.9 FM

"Hour. My name is Ellen roof. The topic for today's program is one that is owned many minds worldwide that is would would appears to be escalating. US wardrobe in the Middle East aimed at a run. Denounce of right off bed did one of our guests was scheduled for today. Ray McGovern unable to be with us. You can make it with us on the phone for the first half hour is journalist David Burstein young and we'll be joined later in the hour by Middle East. Observer, Jennifer Lowenstein David is a tireless wide ranging investigative journalist in critic of US imperial policy, especially in the Middle East and South Asia. He's the founder and director of the widely syndicated weekly radio program, alternative radio and edited numerous, edited numerous collections of interviews with movement notables, including Noam Chomsky bell. Ahmed Howard, zinn Tareq, Ali. Richard wolf are in Dante ROY and many others. He also writes, lectures, on world of fears, imperialism propaganda systems in the media, the crises of capitalism and global rebellions. He's the recipient of numerous awards. In recognition for ceaseless work as a voice for global democracy in human rights. David, it's my pleasure to welcome you back to W. R T shallan. It's great to be with you. You know. I picked up the phone and called you because I read your recent counterpunch article Iran notes appeared on may fifth. So let's see let's deconstruct or discuss that excuse me. I'm gonna just have Sipa water here. Hold on. May seventeenth actually. A Mason teeth. Yeah. And so you've been a long time observer of use middling and intervention of US foreign policy toward Iran dating back, web decades. And, and of course, you noted that the top of your piece, the counterpunch piece that the vast region is probably the most unstable part of the world thinks lergy to US policy that often gets lost in, in the treatments here, certainly in the mainstream media that the stay -bility seems to be Zoff portrayed as inherent. But we know there's a history there sent centered upon US interventions. It's a long history and on our gear comrade radical historian Howard zinn used to say we ignore it at our peril, and I think this accounts for a tremendous amount of ignorance about your. Iran and the Middle East. In general, in the American populace ish simply no context, or background full what's going on? It's just seems that, you know, people in the Middle East are bloodthirsty and violent by nature and they hate Americans so there's really no discussion of the history and the background of US intervention, which is quite extensive and Iran. Acutely it begins in nineteen fifty three. When the she a opperations Ajax along with the British intelligence service, m I six stage day Pettah, overthrowing a pop popular democratic leader. Muhammed Musset DHEC, who main crime in the eyes of the Eisenhower administration and Winston Churchill in London. Was that he believes that Iranian the revenues from Iranian oil should benefit the Iranian people rather than the British Anglo Iranian oil corporation, which was taking much of the profit out of the country show? He was overthrown was a huge event by the way, also became a template for subsequent data's Visu overthrows. I mean just in individually next year, the US moved against huckabee'll, bend in Guatemala overthrew that democratic government. But staying with Iran and the consequences of his day. Tom it brought the Shah back into power. It put him onto peacock throne for the next twenty six years, a period in which Iran became a kind of attack dog for the US. And in the middle. East in the words of Nixon's Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, the US needed local cops on the beat to maintain order and Iran was one of those cops Pakistan, and Turkey were the other two as well. And during this period when the show was ruling between fifty three and seventy nine. There was an increased repression. There was development of Savak, which was the secret police trained by the Shii. Andy Israeli Mossad enormous human rights violations and American military corporations were getting, which feeding at the trough because the Shah was taking a lot of that oil, money and buying weapons from the United States incidently Allen. It's really curious. You've heard the term blowback the actual, I use of that term was the very next year after the coup in Iran, overthrowing Melissa deck. When the Shia did a what they call like a situation report summary of what happened the pluses and the minuses and it for the first time used that term blowback and notice shape, the unintended. Unintended consequences of US foreign policy. And in the report, it predicts that there could be a possible blowback, which would be very negative for the US. And indeed. That's what that's what happened our support for the Shah led directly to the Slavic revolution. And you know, since nineteen seventy nine we're now forty years of the Republic, and as you said, in your introduction, the drumbeats of war are increasing their getting, louder and louder. And you know, whether it's as Giovanni Riefqi Iranian Foreign Minister, who's really brilliant diplomat, and help negotiate with carry the Iran deal the joint comprehensive plan of action, which of course. The Trump regime, a pulled out of in may of two thousand eighteen just a year ago. And he said that the policies to be driven US policy issues to be driven by what he called the four Bs that would be Bolton BB that's the nickname for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister been giant, who is the Oman emier United Arab Emirates, and bin Salman that great, you know, Parag paragon of human rights and decency in Saudi Arabia. So those four four Bs, according to foreign minister, jihad city driving, US policy, but, you know, it's like, what Chomsky says jaundiced US foreign policy just have to use the, the godfather model. You know, the mafia. Who insists on obedience you know, speak when spoken to don't look, don't make eye contact and do what you're told. And if you stray from that as Iran did because Iran was, you know, a key part of the US hegemony in the Middle East. And once it pulled out of that stopped performing that role it, you know. Became the kind of a ferocious enemy of the United States. I mean how ferocious is you're on. It's really interesting. Kind of rhetorical question on the high end. It's considered that thirty Iranian military. Budget is thirty billion dollars. But according to the Stockholm institute that deals with arms and on spending. It's actually somewhere less than half of that. So fifteen billion dollars will fifteen billion dollars. Could get you one of those Ford class aircraft carriers in this case ABRAHAM LINCOLN that is, you know, moving now positioned off the Persian. Persian Gulf along with other US warships. David in your piece you turn the phrase I like very much that is you said that Iran is a. Currently a pin yada for the current regime in Washington. But what I want to get to here is because, you know, so many people fetish is our have narrow vision that it's all all Trump all the time, but I wanna get to here is long range. Malevolence really toward Iran. At the time of the invasion of Iraq in two thousand three it was seen as a prequel as a preview as a necessary step to the invasion counter revolution a regime change. In tehran. You turn the phrase that talk about the boys, go to Baghdad. The real men go to Tehran. Well at the height of the war hysteria, drummed up by the bourgeoisie and two thousand and two thousand three of which John Bolton was very much a part of along with Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith and Kenneth Adelman and, and Kenneth Pollack and Condoleeza Rice and all of them. I mean it's now, you know, like legendary epic of catastrophe and war crime in world history Iran in two thousand and one after nine eleven and incidentally, the great prevaricators. Donald trump. You know, said that he had seen Muslims in the streets of Jersey City celebrating of the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. Of course, that was just one of his many fabrications and lies. But actually, what was really interesting was at that very moment in Iran in Tehran. And other shitty people came out into streets in solidarity with the tragedy that befell the United States on that day. Zoa candlelight vigils that barely was reported here in December of two thousand and one Iran was instrumental in helping the United States. Get a Hamid Karzai as the president of Afghanistan because Iran had considerable influence with different groups inside of Afganistan. It turned the heat up on those grew. And Karzai became a president. Now, one would think that there would be some kind of an opening there for rapper. Schmos is Iran did this not to call it a favourite was in their interest, as well. That would be some kind of reproche Mon, but what did Bush do within a month at the state in the state of the union address? He listed Iran as part of the axis of evil. And this was a huge blow to the president of Iran, at that time, Mohammad Fatemi, who was considered a moderate. He was a he's a cleric, but a moderate cleric who wanted better relations with the United States. And after this access of evil designation the opposition to any rep Rochelle within, Iran was emboldened, and they would telling them she you can't work with the American. They doubled cross you. They keep moving the goal posts. And, you know, they became a Cendant, and we've seen the same thing happened right now with the abrogation of the Iran deal the joint comprehensive plan of action, which was signed after painstaking negotiations over over at least a year, if not longer by the five, permanent members of the UN Security Council, plus Germany, to limit Irani and centrifuge development. And in fact, Iran, according to the a that International Atomic Energy agency, the U N, Vienna-based agency, Iran was subject. I'm quoting here, the world's most robust verification regime, and the I E A can. Firm that Iran is in compliance. So Iran was totally on board with this deal. They wanted to release from the punitive sanctions that, that the US had unilaterally imposed upon it and again, by this kind of, you know action of very push it petition. I think, you know, a quite disastrous action, the US pulling out of the deal. The hardliners were were strengthened Iran and the president today, whose name is a Ruhani. He has been weakened because it was part of his vision to get relief from the sanctions and to restore a modicum of good relations with the United States. But again, once the people in opposition who want to confront US policy are saying, you see we told you, so you cannot work with the Americans in, of course. David the. Sanctions that were in place from the actually from the previous administration from the Obama administration if enough before are now of course, wretched up, I want to get to we have you just for a few minutes more. I want to get to discussion of why why now, of course,.

Iran US Middle East Jennifer Lowenstein David founder and director Shah Ray McGovern Noam Chomsky bell David Burstein Howard zinn Richard wolf president Ellen roof tehran Persian Gulf Donald trump Ahmed Howard Obama
"david burstein" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

11:10 min | 2 years ago

"david burstein" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Is the John Batchelor show. Professor, Richard Epstein senior fellow at the Hoover Institution writing into finding ideas is commenting on an address at the federal society, national student symposium. Topic on the surface of economic liberty. Now before you all run to corners of the room to look up economic liberty. This turns into be a melodramatic case of supreme court decision Lochner versus New York which was decided in nineteen zero five and is now the source of enmity by the present chief Justice of the United States. John roberts. Puzzling. You bet that's why we need Richard a very good evening to you. Now, I've read Lochner summary, and it has to do with a bakery in New York and a law passed by the New York legislature. This is nineteen o five meaning that was heavily influenced by Tammany, but in any event a law that forbade bakeries to employ workers more than ten hours a day and sixty hours a week. The supreme court came in one thousand nine hundred five and on Horst that law and very much in the in the guise of claiming that it was economically. Liberty that they were in at that. They were endorsing liberty. John Roberts reviles that decision. Locked in versus New York any group said, and I'm following your reporting with three others supreme court decisions over the last two hundred years, which I think we can uniformly agree. Are repulsive one is dread. Scott fifty eight hundred fifty six plus versus Ferguson that's separate but equally ninety six and the car Matsuo decision of nineteen forty four that permitted the concentration of Japanese American citizens during World War Two, but what doesn't belong. And why in your argument is Lochner versus New York. What about Lochner upsets the chief Justice? And what about Lochner is vital for us to understand economic liberty? Good evening to you. Well, let's go back to the beginning. Lock know didn't quite stated exactly it was only some kinds of baker's not all kinds of bakers and this was treated as evidence that it was a political deal at state in the state legislature to protect certain Baker. From competition by certain other kinds of baker's. So historically the way the decision goes is it starts with the case called Allegheny in about eighteen ninety six which the supreme court uniform. We hold that. When you talk about the rights of individuals have onto the due process clause, the phrase liberty for the word liberty has the meaning to cover liberty of contract with freedom of contract. Well, obviously, if you're going to cover freedom of contract, you cannot cover it. Absolutely. So as to say if you and I entered into a contract. A murderer third person is protected by the due process clause of the constitution. So the moment you commit yourself to this definition of liberty you necessarily have to read into this particular provision of the constitution, a police Powell limitation, and that limitation was predictably defined in more ways. It has to do with the safety health, the general welfare, and the malls of the population are the two heads that really matter here, I health and safety. And the argument was made that the restrictions in this particular case designed to protect the health of the bakers from the aggressions of their particular employers. And so what happened is you? Now have to ask the question is that what's really going on is this a health and safety regulation, or is it something else? And so in his opinion Justice, Rufus Peckham spent an enormous amount of time and asking whether or not this was within the police power or whether it's felt without it. And if it's falling without it. There are two possible ways that you could explain the case, it's a paternal regulation telling people, we know what's better for you than you know, what for yourself, and he said, that's not acceptable. Or it was an anticompetitive regulation, which says the rubber bakers out there who are not going to be affected by this statute. And so therefore when you put it on these bakers, oh what you're doing is. You're essentially tilting economic tables in one direction rather than another. And that actually turns out to be the correct explanation. The modes of production and locker was a small Baker. He had one group of workers. They came in the late afternoons baked the bread went to sleep got up in the morning and collected the bread and they won the job for about fourteen or fifteen hours they slept in the middle. And if you look at the statute, which has the maximum hours provisions, it also has an adequate ventilation sleeping quarters provisions just before which is health regulation that was not challenge. And so as he looks at this thing often, Peckham them says all you're trying to do is to drive these bakers out of business because the standard union baker's. I'm had a very different system of production. They had one crew come in the afternoon and another crew coming in the morning. Neither of these foods worked over ten hours. So there was a disparate impact. All this was very nicely explicatives by a man named David Burstein who wrote a book called reconstructing lock. And you turn it not from a situation where the government is essentially trying to protect people against helpless, aggressive employees. Your turn it as a state making an anticompetitive statement. Why do we know that this is true? The name of the cases locked against New York. It's a criminal prosecution. This is not a case where an angry work comes up and quit and says I want more money than I was given because I was oppressed. And it was exactly that particular feature which described how the case was worth. Now, I suppose the next thing is why Justice, but Justice Roberts, someone happy about what would lock MS stands for is an age in which it turns out that economic regulation of market behavior is now subject to serious constitutional scrutiny. And if you're gonna do that with locked the entire new deal. Progressive agenda is all. And therein lie. Therein lies the critical nature of this case, Richard because one more time in a presidential contest. Where to see the major candidates clash over the presumption of the new deal new best. We can see the new green deal echoes of that period in the nineteen thirties. Where if I follow your general argument, these last years economic liberty was abridged. Yes. And so what happens is if you look at the National Labor Relations act that was clearly unconstitutional under lock how do we know? Because in a case called a day or decided in nineteen oh eight and in another case called Coppedge in Kansas decided in nineteen fifteen what happens is the supreme court strikes down. I federal and then state law both of which say in effect that it's criminal to insist that workers agreed not to be a member of the union in order to get a job. And the so called yellow dog contract, then becomes the? The industry standard. And what that means is you can tell an employee you wanna work for us. You can't have dual loyalties. You cannot be a member of the union. You can't promise to be a member of the union if you want to quit and then join a union, that's fine. Why are they so insistent upon this, absolutely solid reasons? The typical situation you had in the minds and minds are very heavy source of contention because there's no way if you don't like the business climate in the state of West Virginia, you could take all your coal out of the state and moved down to Tennessee. And what happens is that coal sits in the grant. And what you do you start to get it up. And then you want to get it out. And if all the workers on the particular job can pull off without a moment's notice and call a strike, you had a huge expenditure. The coal is left. Idle inside the mind, and you go back unless you cut a very strong deal. And so the whole point of the dog contract was to make sure that that hold up would not happen. You trying to five hundred workers individually for breach of that. The contract. But if you can enjoy the union, but pulling them off for breach of contract each whole the union responsible in damages for the loss you stop this stuff in its tracks. So nineteen Eighty-three when we conference celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the new deal. I defended the yellow dog contract in no uncertain terms before hey somewhat surprised audience at Yale Law School and was greeted with shrieking opposition most notably by men named Julius who could not believe that anybody who was sane. And so, but could ever think that he dot contract made sense? And he said I was hopelessly obsolete in my thinking, and I told him economics. Amusing is quite up to date. What happens is all the economics that was used in the nineteen thirties to justify union was essentially all based upon a kinda odd notion of inequality of bargaining power where it was said that the big employees had a necessary advantage over the small employees are the general rule is if you've got competition and you're on. Paying somebody in the wages. There's going to be a mind that's gonna open up next door some unrelated business. It's gonna hire those workers the way, and if you actually look at the wage path in the first third of the twentieth century with all this injustice was set to be taking place. It turns out to say you uniform upward trend consistent with the increases in the level of worker productivity. And in fact, one of the things I like to say about Lachmann and particularly era is between eighteen seventy and nineteen forty roughly speaking, the lock near and supreme court jurisprudence, that's the area of greatest human progress in the history of the world in any particular country anyway, and so the idea that somehow or other when you actually look at lock it has adverse social effects. That's crazy. The point about this is unions are real job killers under these circumstances. They don't make any more sense. They do today than they did. Then the big difference today. It's much harder to organize workers because it turns out their jobs, much, more variegated. So they're not as willing to join. A collective bargaining ago. She, but there's never been a time where union organization has actually made sense. If you're trying to concern yourself with us a social welfare function rather than the benefits of the individual workers who joined the union who take the hide out workers who cannot get jobs out of employers and shareholder profits and out of their customers. And so I've always said if you're a radical individualism, but doesn't care about anybody else, you support union if you're interested in overall, social welfare, you support the employers because they are in favor of a competitive system, and that is much more, socially optimal. If the employee wanted to collude against the workers, that's an antitrust violation. And you want to have no part of that. However, the supreme court chief Justice continues to identify Lochner as one of the four was decisions based upon his presumption that we're allowing our own feelings our own preferences in in place of the law. That's a puzzling term it has to do with the cultural assumptions of the moments that when we come back. We'll put the chief Justice test on this Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution writing a defining ideas about Lochner and economic liberty. I'm John Batchelor. This is.

Lochner New York Richard Epstein baker John roberts John Batchelor Hoover Institution New York legislature supreme court Rufus Peckham United States Tammany Horst Justice Roberts Allegheny Professor senior fellow
"david burstein" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

11:22 min | 2 years ago

"david burstein" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Yes. I'm John bachelor. This is the John Batchelor show. Professor, Richard Epstein, the senior felt the Hoover Institution riding into finding ideas is commenting on an address at the federal society, national, students symposium. Surface of economic liberty. Now before you all run to corners of the room to look up economic liberty. This turns into be a melodramatic case of supreme court decision Lochner versus New York which was decided in nineteen o five. And is now the source of enmity by the present chief Justice of the United States. John roberts. Puzzling. You bet that's why we need Richard resin, a very good evening to you. Now, I've read Lochner summary, and it has to do with a bakery in New York and a law passed by the New York legislature. This is nineteen o five meaning that was heavily influenced by Tammany, but in any event a law that forbade bakeries to employ workers more than ten hours a day and sixty hours a week. The supreme court came in in one thousand nine hundred five and on Horst that law and very much in the in the guise of claiming that it was economically. Liberty that they were in at that. They were endorsing liberty. John Roberts reviles that decision. Locked in versus New York any groups that and I'm following your reporting with free other supreme court decisions for the last two hundred years, which I think we can uniformly agree are volts one is dread. Scott fifty eight hundred fifty six plus versus Ferguson that's separate but equal eighteen ninety six and the car Matsuo decision of nineteen forty four that permitted the concentration of Japanese American citizens during World War Two, but what doesn't belong. And why in your argument is locked versus New York? What about Lochner upsets the chief Justice? And what about Lochner is vital for us to understand economic liberty? Good evening to you. Yes. Well, let's go back to the beginning. Walk note, you've been quite stated exactly it was only some kinds of baker's not all kinds of bakers, and this was treated as evidence that it was a political deal at state in the state legislature to protect certain bakers off from competition by certain other kinds of baker's. So historically the way the decision goes is it starts with the case called Alexander about eighteen ninety six which the supreme court uniformly hold that. When you talk about the rights of individuals having to the due process clause, the phrase liberty for the word liberty has the meaning to cover liberty of contract with freedom of contract. Well, obviously, if you're gonna cover freedom of contract, you cannot cover it. Absolutely. So is to say if you and I entered into a contract. A murderer third person is protected by the due process causes the constitution. So the moment you commit yourself to this definition of liberty necessarily have to read into this particular provision of the constitution a police Paolo limitation. And that limitation lisp. Additionally defined in bore wave. It had to do with the safety health, the general welfare, and the malls of the population are the two heads that really matter here, I health and safety, and the argument was made that the restrictions in this particular case, which is to protect the health of the bakers from new directions of their particular employers. And so what happened is you? Now have to ask the question is that what's really going on is this a health and safety regulation, or is it something else? And so in his opinion Justice Ruth is packing spent an enormous amount of the time and speaking whether or not this was. Within the police power or whether it's felt without it. And if it's falling without it. There are two possible ways that you could explain the case, it's a paternal regulation telling people, we know what's better for you than you know, what for yourself, and he said, that's not acceptable. Or it was an anticompetitive regulation, which says the rubber bakers out there. We're not going to be affected by this statute. And so therefore when you put it on these bakers, oh what you're doing is. You're essentially tilting economic tables in one direction rather than another. And that actually turns out to be the correct explanation. The modes of production and locker was a small Baker. He had one group of workers. They came in the late afternoons bake the bread went to sleep got up in the morning and collected the bread and they won the job for about fourteen or fifteen hours they slept in the middle. And if you look at the statute, which has the maximum hours provisions, it also has an adequate ventilation sleeping quarters provisions just before which is a health regulation that was not challenge. And so as he looks at this thing often, peck them says all you're trying to do is to drive these bakers out of business because the standard union baker's. I'm had a very different system of production. They had one crew come in the afternoon, then another crew coming in the morning. Neither of these foods worked over ten hours. So there was a disparate impact. All this was very nicely explicatives by a man named David Burstein wrote a book called reconstructing Lochner, and you turn it not from a situation where the government is essentially trying to protect people against helpless, aggressive employees. You turn it as a state making an anticompetitive statement. Why do we know that this is true? The name of the cases locked against New York. It's a criminal prosecution. This is not a case where an angry work comes up and quitting and says I want more money than I was given because I was oppressed. And it was exactly that particular feature which described how the case was work. Now, I suppose the next thing is. Why is Justice, but Justice Roberts someone happy about what would lock stands for is an age in which it turns out that economic regulation of market behavior is now subject to serious constitutional. And if you're gonna do that with locked the entire new deal. Progressive agenda is all and therein lies. Therein lies the critical nature of this case, Richard because one more time in a presidential contest. Where to see the major candidates clash over the presumption of the that the new deal new best. We can see the new green deal echoes of that period in the nineteen thirties. Where if I follow your general argument, these last years economic liberty was abridged. Yes. And so what happens is it do look at the National Labor Relations act that was clearly unconstitutional under the how do we know because in a case called day or decided in nineteen oh eight. And in another case called Coppedge in Kansas decided in nineteen fifteen what happens is supreme court strikes down. I federal and then the state law both of which say in effect that it's criminal to insist that workers agree not to be a member of the union in order to get a job. And the so called yellow dog contract, then becomes the industry standard. And what that means is you can tell an employee you wanna work for us. You can't have dual loyalties. You cannot be a member of the union. You can't promise to be a member of the union if you want to quit and then join a union, that's fine. Why are they so insistent upon this, absolutely solid reasons? The typical situation you had was in the minds and minds are very heavy source of contention because there's no way if you don't like the business climate in the state of West Virginia, you could take all your coal out of the state and moved down to Tennessee. And what happens is that coal sits in the ground. And what you do. But you start to get it up. And then you want to get it out and all the workers on the particular job. Can pull off without a moment's notice. And call a strike, you've had a huge expenditure. The cold is left idle inside the mind and you go bankrupt unless you cut a very strong deal. And so the whole point of the dog contract was to make sure that that hold up would not happen. You trying to five hundred workers individually for breach of that contract. But if you can enjoy the union, but pulling them off for breach of contract each hold the union responsible in damages for the loss. You stop this stuff in its tracks. So nineteen Eighty-three when we had a conference celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the new deal. High defended the yellow dog contract in no uncertain terms before a somewhat surprised audience at the law school and was greeted with shrieking opposition most, notably by men named Julius who could not believe that anybody who was sane and sober could ever think that he don't contract made sense. And he said I was hopelessly obsolete in my thinking, and I pulled him. Economics amusing quite up to date. What happens is all economics that was used in the nineteen thirties to justify union was essentially all based upon it kind of odd notion of inequality of bargaining power where it was said that the big employees had a necessary advantage over the small employees. The general rule is if you've got competition, and you're on the paying somebody in the wages. There's going to be a mind that's gonna open up next door some unrelated business. It's gonna hire those workers the way, and if you actually look at the wage path in the first third of the twentieth century with all this injustice was set to be taking place. It turns out it's a union uniform upward trend consistent with the increases in the level of worker productivity. And in fact, one of the things I like to say about Lochner, and that particular era is between eighteen seventy and nineteen forty roughly speaking, the lock near and supreme pours prudence, that's the greatest human progress in the history of the world in any particular country anyway, and so the idea that somehow. Other. When you actually look at lock it has had risotto facts. That's crazy. The point about this. As unions are real job tillers under these circumstances. They don't make any more sense. They do today than they did. Then the big difference today. It's much harder to organize workers because it turns out their jobs, much, more variegated. So they're not as willing to join in a collective bargaining ago. She, but there's never been a time where union organization has actually made sense, you're fine. It's concern yourself with us a social welfare function rather than the benefits of the individual workers who joined the union who take the hide out of work who cannot get jobs out of employees and shareholder profits and out of their customers. And so I've always said if you're a radical individualism, but doesn't care about anybody else, you support union if you're interested in overall, social welfare, you support the employers because they're in favor of a competitive system, and that is much more, socially optimal. If the employers wanted to collude against the workers, that's an antitrust. Violation. And you want to have no part of that. However, the supreme court chief Justice continues to identify Lochner as one of the four was decisions based upon his presumption that we're allowing our own feelings our own preferences in in place of the law. That's puzzling term it has to do with the cultural assumptions of the moments when we come back. We'll put the chief Justice to test on this Richard Epstein of the Hoover Institution writing a defining ideas about Lochner and economic liberty. I'm John Batchelor. This is the John Batchelor show..

Lochner New York John bachelor John roberts baker Richard Epstein Hoover Institution New York legislature supreme court United States Richard resin Professor Tammany Horst Justice Ruth Justice Roberts Paolo
"david burstein" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

Progressive Talk 1350 AM

10:46 min | 3 years ago

"david burstein" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

"Is free talk live. We're live with you like we are every night. And we want to have a conversation. Our number's eight fifty five four fifty free. That's eight five five four five zero. Four three seven seven free as in freedom. And that's what we want to talk about. And we're going to talk about a couple things related to the US constitution. You know, that piece of paper that is supposed to be supposed to be allegedly the way they wrote it. The ultimate law of the land. Though. The one thing that all other laws are always supposed to follow. And that all government officials are supposed to follow. So occasionally we bring in stories, and the we tonight is myself, Chris, Bob, and Melanie, and the first story we wanted to discuss a little bit was from reason, David bursting rights on the dangers of government by executive. So we've been talking about this problem of governing from the executive branch only the way the US constitution was set up with was the idea that the representatives of the people in congress since specifically in the house of representatives would come up with a law that they want to pass and assuming that it is constitutional for them to do. So then if it cleared the house. It would then go to the Senate. The Senate originally was a much more austere body than it is now originally state legislatures chose the senators that would go to Washington, the senators were thought to be more learned men, and they would serve a longer term. They would serve six years as opposed to the house of representatives which of two years, and assuming that the house and the Senate both approved a law, then it could go to I should say a Bill. See I forgot all my schoolhouse rock. But once Bill was passed by both both houses of congress than it would go to the president who could then choose to sign it into law or veto it go either way. That all sort of changed in our history with the passage of the seventeenth amendment which allowed popular vote to determine who your senators are. So again, when you selected your senators that wasn't really done by used by representatives in your state house and after the seventeen th amendment. It was just done by popular vote. It really isn't a popular vote. What it means is whoever raised the most special interest money gets to choose who is going to be your Senator in a few doubt me on that ask why? Forty million dollars was spent on a Montana Senate race, for example. David Burstein rights. There are lots of things one could say about Trump's invocation of an emergency statute to quote, build the wall other commentators, including Ilia have said most of them so all refrain but in short, it's a terrible idea. And I hope the court stops it. I did want to add one additional consideration that goes beyond the issue of the wall and goes to the general issue of presidents acting unilaterally on significant controversial issues, regardless of whether they have a technical legal authority under broad vague statutes during the Obama administration defenders of presidential unilateralism argued vociferously that a the president was elected to get things accomplished. We've got to get things done. Be congress be a Republican majorities in the house and later the house and Senate for being obstructionist and see therefore the president was within. His rights to use his authority to govern unilaterally even the face of long standing contrary. Norms, for example, Obama like Trump was stymied by congress on his preferred immigration policy, so he used his broad statutory authority under the immigration laws to resolve the quote, dreamers unquote, issue indefinitely using the authority far more broadly, more consequentially and in more direct defiance of congress than any president had previously. So this is what I find interesting. We we have a lot of people on the left going. You can't just exercise this broad use of executive power. It's unconstitutional. And then you have people on the right now, the Trump is being elected sane. Well, he has every red Obama. Did it? Oh, oh, Bama. Did it right? Of course. And then, of course, there are just going to go back and forth in the state will continue to grow, which is, you know, left wing right wing same bird, shoot it down. Right. But. It's it's almost like we're just we're just at this point. We're playing who was the original hypocrite, right? Is it the Democrats is the Republicans? What's what's your a difference or they just in collusion? That's a good point. You look like you have something to say, Melanie, I mean other than that. I am completely revolting you buy this topic. Not really there's I mean, they haven't paid attention to the constitution since John John Adams. So I mean before then. Yeah. And that's being generous. I guess. Yeah. They're breaking the law. They're going to continue the break the law, and that's about it. So why do you bring up John Adams? What our second our second president. What did he do that was so bad? Alien and sedition acts. That was a doozy. Wasn't it? Yeah. Watch tell us a little bit about that. What what was what was an alien? Anyone not born here. Very much. So does that that speaks to me of current topics too? The aliens and sedition, and we'll talk a little bit about sedition the aliens act, basically said if I'm correct, and I'm often wrong on these things. But he was specifically we were in a war with the French at the time, and anyone who was a French ancestry could be arrested for no reason whatsoever. And anyone caught helping the French for any reason or a French person that was considered to be violation of the law. And of course, before anyone thinks that that that was then and now it's an old thing. FDR did of course, did the same thing with the Japanese very much. So yeah, I mean that wasn't that long ago. George take gonna mess up his last name to Tahiti the guy who was in Star Trek was in George Takei was in a US concentration camp has nothing. But good things to say about it decide the point. He's a person who's alive today. And it's not like he's ninety. He was in a US concentration camp true. That's what they call Stockholm syndrome. But obviously we couldn't do that again today. Right. I mean that law must have been overturned, right? You can't just take Americans because of their national heritage or or their genetic makeup and throw them in. In a in a cell throw them in a concentration camp. You can't do that today. Right. Yeah. You can so one with thank that a something is horrendous as that is the US jailing people strictly because of their race because their genetic makeup. We couldn't do that today. But that law was challenged. It was challenger went all the way to the supreme court in core Matsu v US, I am astounded as to why the supreme court took that case explain so this there are certain cases that the supreme court has to take and those are cases about technicalities about font size on federal filings boring stuff to read because they are the court of rights for certain federal issues there the overseer of federal courts for those type of things as far as cases that make the news races. That are either come from a state court or maybe they come from a federal court, but you're arguing a constitutional issue or you're arguing. Broader legal issue, usually you're young a constitutional issue. They can they only have to take those if they feel like it. They can take your reject any case as they feel like it with or without reason. I mean, the denials of frit, basically, just say it's one sentence. We deny writ for this case. Right, right. That's it. And that's it. You have no recourse why they took that case. I've never gotten a good answer from. And I can't think of one myself because they were never they do not like to interfere with for obvious reasons. The kind of core state functions. Right. They're not going to interfere with middle military strategy. They're not gonna interfere with taxation. So why they took that to then just make a bad legal arguments for the conclusion that they had to come to when they could have just said, I'm not taking this case. I don't know why that's a great question. So what do you think on issues like US running concentration camps or our president deciding to work outside of congress? Pulling open a bag of formulated extruded process cereal bits that costs a ton of money. Anyway, how do you feed your dog to derive not only energy, but a good coach bright eyes and a great attitude come to diner bite for help. Y V. I T E dot com. I found is all meat diet on dinovite dot com with just a raw meat and the eggs and the and the super omega on top of it. Try supromega fish oil by to get one free ground beef white rice eggs, including the shells and the dynamite supplement, and then the Lickochops. Try Lickochops by to get one free balances out his body and his mind and spirit, adding dynamite. Their diet has every single dog on my kennel looking better than they had ever. Looked your skin is so much better. Now that they're on the raw diet. I don't even give them the Kibble anymore..

US president congress Senate Senator John John Adams Obama executive David Burstein Melanie Montana Trump George Takei FDR Stockholm Washington Lickochops
"david burstein" Discussed on Liberty Talk FM

Liberty Talk FM

09:09 min | 3 years ago

"david burstein" Discussed on Liberty Talk FM

"That's eight five five five zero four three seven seven free as in freedom. And that's what we want to talk about. And we're going to talk about a couple things related to the US constitution that piece of paper that is supposed to be supposed to be allegedly. The way they wrote it the ultimate law of the land though. The one thing that all other laws are always supposed to follow. And that all government officials are supposed to follow. So occasionally we bring in stories, and the we tonight is myself, Chris, Bob, and Melanie, and the first story we wanted to discuss a little bit was from reason, David Burstein rights on the dangers of government by executive. So we've been talking about this problem of governing from the executive branch only the way the US constitution was set up. With was the idea that the representatives of the people in congress since Pacific in the house of representatives would come up with a law that they want to pass and assuming that it is constitutional for them to do. So then if it cleared the. The house. It would then go to the Senate. The Senate originally was a much more austere body than it is now originally state legislatures chose the senators that would go to Washington, the senators were thought to be more learned men, and they would serve a longer term. They would serve six years as opposed to the house of representatives which serve two years, and assuming that the house and the Senate both approved a law, then it could go to I should say a Bill. See I forgot all my schoolhouse rock stuff. But once the Bill was passed by both both houses of congress than it would go to the president who could then choose to sign it into law or veto it go either way. That all sort of changed in our history with the passage of the seventeenth amendment which allowed popular vote to determine who your senators are. So again, when you selected your senators that wasn't really done by used by your representatives in your state house and after the seventeen th amendment was just done by a popular vote. It really isn't a popular vote. What it means is whoever raised the most special interest money gets to choose who is going to be your Senator in a few doubt me on that ask why forty million dollars was spent on a Montana Senate race, for example. David Burstein rights. There are lots of things one could say about Trump's invocation of an emergency statute to quote, build the wall other commentators, including Ilia have said most of them so all refrain but in short, it's a terrible idea. And I hope the court stops it. I did want to add one additional consideration that goes beyond the issue of the wall and goes to the general issue of presidents acting unilaterally on significant controversial issues, regardless of whether they have a technical legal authority under broad vague statutes during the Obama administration defenders of presidential unilateralism argued vociferously that a the president was elected to get things accomplished. We've got to get things done. Be congress be a Republican majorities in the house and later the house and Senate were being obstructionist and see therefore the president was within. His rights to use his authority to govern unilaterally even the face of long standing contrary. Norms, for example, Obama like Trump was stymied by congress on his preferred immigration policy, so he used his broad statutory authority under the immigration laws to resolve the dreamers unquote issue indefinitely using the thirty far more broadly, more consequentially and in more direct defiance of congress than any president had previously. So this is what I find interesting. We we have a lot of people on the left going. You can't just exercise this broad use of executive power. It's unconstitutional. And then you have people on the right now that Trump is being elected sane. He has every right Obama. Did it? Oh bomb. Did it right? Of course. And then, of course, there are just going to go back and forth in the state will continue to grow, which is, you know, left wing right wing same bird, shoot it down. Right. But. It's it's almost like we're just we're just at this point. We're playing who was the original hypocrite, right? Is it the Democrats is the Republicans? What's what's your there? Even a difference or they just in collusion. That's a good point. You look like you have something to say, Melanie, I mean, other than I am completely revolting you buy this topic. Not really there's I mean, they haven't paid attention to the constitution since John. John adams? So I mean before then. Yep. And that's being generous. I guess. Yeah. They're breaking the law. They're going to continue to break the law. That's about it. So why do you bring up John Adams? What our second our second president. What did he do? There was so bad. Alien and sedition acts. That was a doozy. Wasn't it? Yeah. Why don't you tell us a little bit about that? What what was what was an alien? Anyone not born here. Very much. So does that that speaks to me of current topics too? The alien and sedition, and we'll talk a little bit about sedition the aliens act, basically said if I'm correct, and I'm often wrong on these things. But it was specifically we were in a war with the French at the time, and anyone who was a French ancestry could be arrested for no reason whatsoever. And anyone caught helping the French for any reason or a French person that was considered to be violation of the law. And of course, before anyone thinks that. That was then. And now, it's an old thing. FDR did. Of course, did the same thing with two Japanese very much. So yeah, I mean that wasn't that long ago, George I gonna mess up his last name to Tahiti the guy who was in Star Trek was in to George Takei was in a US concentration camp. He has nothing but good things to say about it. That's beside the point. He's a person who's alive today. And it's not like he's ninety. He was in a US concentration camp true that that's what they call Stockholm syndrome. But obviously we couldn't do that again today. Right. I mean that law must have been overturned, right? You can't just take Americans because of their national heritage or or their genetic makeup and throw them in a in a cell throw him in a concentration camp. He can't do that today. Right. Yeah. You can. So one would think that a something is horrendous as that is the US jailing people strictly because of the race because their genetic makeup. We couldn't do that today. But that law was challenged. It was challenger went all the way to the supreme court in core Matsu v US, I am astounded as to why the supreme court took that case explain so the supreme there are certain cases that the supreme court has to take and those are cases about technicalities about fought size on federal violence boring stuff to read because they are the court of rights for certain federal issues there the overseer of federal courts for those type of things as far as cases that make the news cases that are either come from a state court or maybe they come from a federal court, but you're arguing a constitutional issue or you're arguing. Broader legal issue, usually your own young and constitutional issue. They can they only have to take those if they feel like they can take your reject any case as they feel like it with or without reason. I mean, the denials of writ, basically, just say it's one sentence. We deny for this case. Right. That's it. And that's it. You have no recourse why they took that case. I've never gotten a good answer from. And I can't think of one myself because they were never they do not like to interfere with for obvious reasons. The kind of core.

US congress president Senate executive David Burstein Obama John adams Senator Melanie Trump Pacific George Takei Montana FDR Chris Obama administration Washington