Share This Episode
Carolina Journal Radio Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai Logo

Carolina Journal Radio No. 919: Year-end program highlights key issues from 2020

Carolina Journal Radio / Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai
The Truth Network Radio
December 28, 2020 8:00 am

Carolina Journal Radio No. 919: Year-end program highlights key issues from 2020

Carolina Journal Radio / Donna Martinez and Mitch Kokai

On-Demand Podcasts NEW!

This broadcaster has 213 podcast archives available on-demand.

Broadcaster's Links

Keep up-to-date with this broadcaster on social media and their website.


December 28, 2020 8:00 am

As we look forward to a new year, Carolina Journal Radio reviews some of the most interesting topics from 2020. Amy Coney Barrett has joined the U.S. Supreme Court as its 115th justice. She has said her judicial philosophy mirrors that of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and supporters characterize her as an originalist. Jon Guze, John Locke Foundation director of legal studies, analyzes Barrett’s record. He discusses the new justice’s likely impact on the nation’s highest court. As Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden relied on advice from U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known popularly as AOC, in developing policies related to energy and the environment. John Locke Foundation CEO Amy O. Cooke, “The Right AOC,” explains why the other AOC’s policy proposals would be wrong for America. COVID-19 has created challenges for everyone, including leaders of the University of North Carolina System. President Peter Hans recently briefed his Board of Governors on budget and access issues linked to the pandemic. If you follow the U.S. Supreme Court and constitutional law, you’ve likely heard the term “originalism.” Until recently, it’s been hard to find a book-length introduction to the concept. Ilan Wurman, visiting assistant professor at Arizona State University’s law school, attempts to fill that gap with the book A Debt Against The Living. Wurman explains why he wrote an introduction to originalism. He also shares its key themes. North Carolina taxpayers would pay the price if the state changes its law against public-sector collective bargaining. Terry Stoops, John Locke Foundation vice president for research and director of education studies, highlights a new report that tallies the potential costs.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

From chair to current tack and the largest city to the smallest and from the statehouse into the schoolhouse Carolina Journal radio your weekly news magazine discussing North Carolina's most of public policy events and issues welcome to Carolina Journal radio why Michiko got during this special year-end edition Donna Martinez and I revisit some of our most interesting topics from a very interesting year on the campaign trail, President-elect Joe Biden based much of his energy policy on ideas from the left-wing member of Congress known as AOC Alexandria Garcia Cortez, North Carolina's Amy O. Cook the right AOC challenges those ideas go with 19 is created challenges for everyone, including the University of North Carolina system. The systems president spells out some major challenges affecting University access and the budget North Carolina's ban on public sector collective bargaining would cost state taxpayers dearly. Learn why bus will take a closer look at the legal theory known as ritualism in speaking of a ritualism that topic crops up as Donna Martinez joins us with the Carolina Journal headline Notre Dame Law school graduate and mother of seven Amy Kony Barrett has now become only the 115th person to be sworn in as a member of the United States Supreme Court Justice Barrett is 48 years old and the fifth woman to serve on our country's highest court. So how will she change the court and will she change the court for now we turn to the director of legal studies for the John Locke foundation John Gazette who is been taking a look at some of her previous rulings and joins us to talk about the new Justice John, welcome back to the show. Thank you. She is young young, just in general and young for a member of the court and potentially John, that's 30 to 40 years of Amy Kony Barrett on the United States Supreme Court. You know you is a generation of impact on pretty interesting. So you why. Well, I'm hoping everything she said or written up to this point makes me believe that she's going to be a diehard originalist like her mentor Anthony Scalia and lifeguard Clarence Thomas and Lisa till recently, new courses, which is just what we need on the US Supreme Court in all the courts in this country.

Why do we need that because unfortunately it's a long story how it happened but the courts have advocated what ought to be there job which is to enforce the law and they become super legislatures. They make law now are some situations where that's okay but it's not okay when they make law by reinterpreting and changing the meaning of duly enacted statutes and that's certainly not okay when they do it by reinterpreting and changing the meaning of the U.S. Constitution you have listened not only read some of her rulings but you listen to some of the things she said during her nomination hearing. She made some comments after being sworn in what you make of her philosophy. How does she really explain to people how she views her role as a judge in our justice.

Well, much of the same way that some of our best Supreme Court justices have. She says that her job. Ironically, this is something that Chief Justice Roberts said when he was being interviewed and when he was horny, but she really will do it. I think she's not she's going to call balls and strikes. She's going to apply the law as it's written and she's not going to let her personal policy preferences get in the way, let alone anything like party affiliation. You just said something really interesting and I want to talk about that sheep you mentioned Chief Justice John Roberts and you may, a reference to some things that he said in his confirmation hearings and he is a nonattorney myself at my interpretation of what he said the balls and strikes comment was that he was not going to bring his preferences or views to his decisions, he was gonna call balls and strikes. Of course some. Then when he essentially wrote the opinion that said that the affordable care act Obama care was constitutional lot of folks kind of went back on their heels and said hey that's not exactly what you told us how you would view your job in your confirmation hearings gets me to this John which I think is a really interesting discussion as it relates to new Justice set Barrett because in his confirmation hearings a few years ago. John Roberts essentially said look you know I'm gonna call balls and strikes. My views don't matter here but then he made a controversial ruling in the majority opinion on the affordable care act Obama care, saying that it is constitutional. So what you make now of when you hear a judge and now Justice Barrett say I'm not going to do that can can we take stock that she won't. Well, you certainly may we learn this the hardware you can't assume that they're going to do what they said they would do no think we should assume it's because they were lighter being hypocritical of the time.

There seems to be something about power. The changes people. And we seen it happen over and over again were justice moves to the left or at least to the center once again on the Supreme Court.

I think part of what happens is they start to see themselves not so much as judges but a statesman they're responsible for the total well-being of the country and sometimes you gotta make some compromises to their judicial principles could happen to Justice Barrett, but I hope what won't. I don't really think it will. She's had good role models. Anthony Scalia a good role model is clear and everything she's written makes me think she's sincere.

So my hope is that you will stay the course. Some of them have most notably Clarence Thomas for year after year and is been there 30 years now, but he has consistently adhered to a ritualism and textualism. Chief Justice John Roberts has been seen by a lot of folks over the past few years as as these swing vote really sure is a gonna go with the liberal wing or with the originalist conservative wing. Now that justice Barrett is on the court. What does she do what is her philosophy due to the so-called back-and-forth or is there a swing vote anymore.

Yeah, that's I've been thinking about this is good interesting to see how it plays out. He certainly isn't going to be the swing vote in the sense that you have two groups equally for each on the left and on the right.

That will give them put them in the position to be able to make the call dropping the case just interesting to see whether he continues to side with the left on controversial cases or whether he decides back. I can't. I can't determine the outcome. Either way, so I might as well go with my conscience and my best judicial thinking.

I've seen some analysts say. Well, the court now is really 6236 some more conservative people and three more liberal people is that how you see it not really mean this is it's true. Certainly that we've got three Democratic appointments and six Republican appointments and in terms of their political philosophies. I think we can we can say for certain that all three of those Democratic appointees are liberals and favored Democratic policy in general and you say the opposite for the other six. What's been interesting over the years.

While that both the three Democrats and three liberals tend to vote in lockstep along ideological lines on these controversial cases that really hasn't been true of the other six. And the reason is a ritualism if you adhere to the philosophy that my job is to apply the law as it's written that makes it much harder for you to just go with your ideological preferences. So I think it'll be interesting to my hope is that with six originalist or because I originalist case of Judge Justice Roberts on the court. We might start to see the whole court change its tighter and stop being so political stopping so ideological and start really thinking about what the law says and how should properly be interpreted so will be watching to see how the justices behave in rule, etc. but John there is already backlash from Democrats and people who believe that a Amy Connie Barrett should never been nominated at the point she was nominated never been confirmed and also they don't like her philosophy of a regionalism there's been talk of what's called packing the court what you make of that.

Well, it's kinda horrified to be honest I I'm I'm not worried, but I'm not terribly worried is a lot of institutional inertia. A lot of me. I think almost across the board, academic lawyers and judges. All parties will probably stand up and say this is a mistake time expanding the court adding people talk about judge packed court documenting adding seats to get the ideological balance you want and this goes back to the administration of of of Pres. Roosevelt when he threatened to pack the court and got the court to change some of its decisions, but if this happens and everything is up for grabs. I don't know how to play out over to me a watching going forward. Of course sent to see exactly how the new Justice Amy Connie Barrett in separate ruling in somebody's consequential cases in our guest John Coetzee will be writing about all of those decisions are many of them atleast@johnlocke.org John, thanks for joining us to sing with his folks much more Carolina journal radio to come in just a moment tired of fake names tired of reporters with political axes to grind. What you need to be reading Carolina journal, honest, uncompromising, old-school journalism, you expect and you need even better, the monthly Carolina journal is free to subscribers sign up@carolinajournal.com you'll receive Carolina journal newspaper in your mailbox each month. Investigations into government spending revelations about boondoggles who the powerful leaders are and what they're doing in your name and with your money. We shine the light on it all with the stories and angles. Other outlets barely cover but there's a bonus print newspapers published monthly by our daily news site gives you the latest news each and every day lot onto Carolina journal.com once, twice, even three times a day won't be disappointed. It's fresh news if you'd like a heads up on the daily news sign up for daily email do that Carolina journal.com Carolina journal rigorous unrelenting old-school journalism.

We hold government accountable for you bookbag Carolina journal radio I Muskoka I Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is getting many of his ideas about energy and the environment from Alexandria, a Conseil Cortez, the first-term US representative from New York who's known popularly as AOC. We thought it might be a good idea to get a different perspective on these issues from a different AOC the right AOC that is the nickname of Amy O.

Cook, who is CEO of the John Locke foundation and Amy you have been paying attention to the other. AOC ever since she got on the national scene and when it comes to energy and the environment.

She's very wrong. Energy and environmental policy was or always has been one of my policy loves. I was actually before I before I came here, I directed the energy and environmental policy at the dependence Institute in Colorado. Colorado, of course, when it was seventh largest energy producing states in the country, so it was a huge deal.

Plus we had seemed a plethora of very active far left environmental groups. I'm starting to see similar groups move into North Carolina so I might be picking this topic back up a little bit more, but to your point about AOC and the wrong AOC. She couldn't be more wrong on energy and environmental policy. The policies that she is espousing will not help with energy, nor will they keep the environment clean courses famously known for her green new deal. Joe Biden introduced her as his energy policy advisor in May of this year so she is going to be advising him on the campaign trail every single American should be worried about that. Let me just share a couple of things.

First, about what degree new deal would do.

According to AOC by 2030.

She wants the country to be editing net zero carbon emissions. No cars, no note planes, no travel, no cows, so forget your nice juicy burger your great steak she's not going to allow that. But of course I'm sure she'll have all of those things will be for for the rest of us. This net zero green new deal is heavily reliant on wind and energy.

These intermittent unreliable sources their whole bunch of problems with it costs what it does to the environment but three things to focus on right now. What is it's just an impossible standard, and then the other one is, it will dramatically decrease our quality of life and it also really shackles us to China. So what do I mean by those three things. So the first one is it's an impossible standard carbon is life CO2 emissions which you want that net zero. It's what we exhale being we are here we're literally talking about eliminating people so it's impossible impossible standard states. By the way, what we about 16, 17 tons of carbon emissions per capita I think was the last figure I saw now here's what we do with that we contribute roughly 25% of the world's GDP. We are incredibly efficient in creating wealth creating a quality of life that people in many other countries want to enjoy as well and AOC and this green new deal would destroy all of that because let me just give you an idea of what zero carbon emissions look like. Think of places like chat Congo even places like countries like Somalia and Afghanistan have some carbon emissions in Chad.

I lifted up actually there living on about two dollars a day that's about what their wages are. You can't get a cup of coffee here for two dollars a day.

I just don't think most Americans want to live like that. Their quality of life would be dramatically decreased in carbon emissions. By the way you plants need carbon we exhale it. Plants need it. That's how you execute its life is life, but this is zero carbon emissions.

You have to go to some places that have a very very low quality of life to see what zero carbon emissions. Looks like I can remember, this is reliant on this intermittent, unreliable these unreliable sources like wind and solar. If you want to know what this transition is gonna look like, look no further than California right now we have heard that the West Coast is experiencing dramatic heat waves and there had been rolling blackouts in California because they are heavily reliant especially on solar and as peak demand for solar drops late in the afternoon early evening. People are getting in from work or they might be home already there working order from home air conditioning needs you. The demand doesn't drop just because solar stops producing candle makers may may have a market in California right now.

In fact I was.

I saw this on Twitter last night, Michael Shellenberger, who is head of environmental progress, which is a think tank dedicated to improving the human condition globally as well as providing safe, clean, affordable, reliable, abundant electricity, he tweeted Kamala Harris last night and hit it. It was very pointed. He said hi Kamala Harris you know Michael Shellenberger here Berkeley residence three days into a rolling blackout question. Why should the country follow California's lead.

It's a legitimate question as especially if you're sweltering or sitting in hundred degree heat that that's a good question. Why should I not have access to affordable, reliable, clean, safe, abundant power. Not only that California has some of the highest rates of electricity so you have you have quality of life in impossible standard, and the third one is China. I think were all pretty clear on the fact that China's openly hostile to us and yet China controls 95% of the world's supply of these things called rare earth elements rare earth elements are in everything from you know your smart phone to the camera to the equipment were using here today, your TV, your computer there, and weapon systems.

There are also used Sigg, there is a significant use in wind turbines and solar panels. They need those rare earth elements United States imports roughly 80% of that supply from China. Why, because the same environmentalists don't want us using any fossil fuels also won't let this extract rare earth elements here in the United States. So we have to import those elements now you take those things you take quality-of-life dependence on China in impossible standard and you can throw in cost and everything else what to do to to the American people and you can you compare that to Pres. Trump and Pres. Trump even as he has. He was campaigning when he was candidate Trump was saying we can develop our natural resources responsibly and we can be energy independent and have clean air and clean water be good stewards of our environment was never this mutually exclusive that you have to choose between the economy and the environment.

Amy O. Cook is the right AOC. She is also the CEO of the John Locke foundation. Thanks much for joining us. Thank you for having me Mitch will return with more Carolina drone radio in just a moment if you love freedom we got great news to share with you now.

You can find the latest news, views, and research from conservative groups across North Carolina all in one place North Carolina conservative.com it's one stop shopping for North Carolina's freedom movement and North Carolina conservative.com.

You'll find links to John Locke foundation blogs on the days news Carolina journal.com reporting and quick takes Carolina journal radio interviews TV interviews featuring CJ reporters and Locke foundation analysts, opinion pieces and reports on higher education from the James Dean Martin, Center for academic renewal, commentary and polling data from the scimitar's Institute and news and views from the North Carolina family policy Council. That's right, all in one place North Carolina conservative.com that's North Carolina spelled out conservative.com North Carolina conservative.com. Try it today. North Carolina is changing not just day-to-day but outward to our minute to minute.

Even 2nd to 2nd, how can you keep up with the changes, especially the ones that affect you, your family, your home, your job, make the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal part of your social media diet on Facebook like the John Locke foundation like Carolina. Journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in the sea and at Carolina journal news, insights and analysis you'll find nowhere else.

Thanks to the experts of the John Locke foundation and thanks to the first-class investigative reporting of Carolina journal.

Don't wait for the morning newspaper. Don't wait for the evening news if it's happening now it's happening here the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal. Have you covered with up to the second information like us on Facebook the John Locke foundation and Carolina journal follow us on Twitter at John Locke in the sea and at Carolina journal. Who knew you could shop and invest in freedom at the same time it is true online shopping is now a great way to support the John Locke foundation just shop using the Amazon smile program and designate the John Mott foundation to receive a portion of your purchase amount that's right you shop Amazon donates money to pass the John Locke foundation. Here's how long. Time to smile.amazon.com Amazon smile is the same Amazon you know same products same prices. But here's what's better. Amazon donates 0.5% of the price of your eligible Amazon smile purchases to the John Mott foundation to try it. Be sure to designate us as the nonprofit you want to support.

It's that easy. So now not only will you enjoy what you buy. You also support freedom.

Don't forget log on to smile.amazon.com today, something nice and help defend freedom, help support the John Mott foundation will go back Carolina journal radio I Mitch co-guy the COBIT 19 pandemic continues to impact the way the University of North Carolina goes about its business. During a recent meeting of UNC's board of governors Pres. Peter Hans discussed likely impacts on the university budget.

What we do know for certain is that your head will bring deep financial and operational challenges. We laid out state budget request for the University that recognizes reality. Protecting our core academic mission. In addition to her establish unified budget throughout the system for taking a disciplined approach tightly focused explanation of these were not asking objects or new initiatives are choices I had given the state of the economy. We owe them concise core needs, including to fully fund since one of the few universities in the country to add student continued support of NC promise, which is dramatically lower tuition and expanded opportunity was the city stating Western Carolina shoring up our building reserve can currently operate the public assets under care. This is not a moment for plans. This is a moment for keeping our most important promises to the students, and citizens of North Carolina, including identifying potential savings that can be carried forward into the next fiscal year, even as UNC looks to tighten its belt. Hans offered a warning about the needs of current and prospective students.

The same economic condition, stressing the state budget will also create an unprecedented need for access to our institutions. Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians will be seeking careers in we know from past experience that many of them will choose to start search for states community colleges must have transfer from community colleges to four-year institutions and for that matter, one pool to another, along with see that happen. There's an obvious economic case for but I believe we have a obligation in this time of deep need for options on the table for people seeking better unity and to never let administrative burdens come between student and the education they need to succeed.

When we fail to provide good options, flexible those students lined up in places with likely leave a lot of that and little to show for it and don't pursue further education at all. That's University of North Carolina system president's he's discussing some of the University's current budget challenges and axis priorities will return with more Carolina journal radio with about where doubling down on freedom at Carolina journal radio were proud to bring you stories that impact your life and your wallet. And now get twice as much freedom when you also listen to our podcast headlock available on iTunes and@johnlocke.org/podcast Locke is a little bit different. It's a no holds barred discussion that challenges softheaded ideas from the left and the right light. Carolina journal radio headlock is smart and timely but with headlock you'll hear more about the culture wars get some more humor as well.

We guarantee great information and a good time to double down with S.

Listen to Carolina journal radio each week and listen to headlock to remember, you can listen to headlock@johnlocke.org/podcast or subscriber download each week iTunes Carolina journal radio and headlock just what you need to stay informed and stay entertained both brought to you in the name of freedom by the John Locke foundation. Welcome back to Carolina journal radio I Mitch co-guy. If you follow the Supreme Court and constitutional law. You've probably heard about the concept of originalist. What's it all about where can you find a good introduction to it. Prof. Elana warming up Arizona State University has an answer.

It's his book a debt against the living.

So why did you write this introduction to originalist will.

The short answer is, there wasn't a book like this to the first question really is, why isn't originalist on this idea that we should interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning right that the way to words would have been understood by the framers rooted in the public that ratified it.

That's what this regionalism is wise and hot more than the law schools surprising right we have federal judges who are originalist, probably more than half the Supreme Court the moment is originalist, and so much of the public.

I think considers themselves to be originalist or they understand intuitively that we should care with the framers sentence one is not taught in law schools and the reasons for that we can go into that but so as a student as a law student I had to research this on my own eye to look into it on my own.

I had heard about this originals and thing it made sense to me and try to strike out on my own. I didn't find an introduction. I looked for one I could find one.

I had to read all of these very interesting books on particular theories of regionalism and so on. But there was no one single volume short narrative introduction to originals of its introduction to and defense of regionalism and the founding so I have done all the work for you in this short book as if you wanted introduction there wasn't one before and and now there is one that's what I thought at the you mention the founding. How important is the American founding to originalist there different kinds of defenses of regionalism, many of which don't talk about the founding I think that's wrong. I think a complete defense of regionalism requires also a defense of the founding way, the argument of my book works is one of the two-step argument right the first question is, look how do we interpret law in our legal system right. Ordinarily we first figure out what does this law actually say what does it mean what does it do right with the contractor statute or treaty or a Constitution and then there's the question of okay well are we bound by that law. Are we bound to this contract were bound even by Congress is bad laws right so the question is we interpret legal texts IRQ right the way we interpret any communication intended as a public construction right with its original public meaning right, not a secret meaning right now is to be pretty ineffective. Instruction, that's how we interpret these documents, but that doesn't answer the question of what should we be bound by that document all someone might say, well, okay, fine. I get that the original meaning of the Constitution is X, Y, and Z but we don't care we don't want to be bound. What a bunch of long since dead white men wrote to fully defend regionalism you have to argue that the Constitution is binding law the same way that the laws of Congress are binding such that we should care what it says and we should follow its original meaning because the best non-originalist will say were okay with judges updating the meaning and content of the Constitution. Over time, and so be it. We know we were there even okay distinguishing the Constitution from ordinary loss.

They just the Constitution is different. It's old and it's hard to change that's that's the premise right to the fully defend regionalism. I think the originalist has to defend the binding nature of the Constitution and that requires a defense of the founding and my claim is the Constitution is binding if it successfully balances self-government to liberty were chatting with Prof. Elana Borman of Arizona State University.

He's author of the book a debt against the living and introduction to originalist. Why should we care about either regionalism or the founding. Why not just say majority rules. In a free society like ours. We don't just care about what a majority of the people want what why do we have constitutions, why, what, what does a Constitution for free society have to accomplish in the answers to six. It has to successfully create a regime of self-government.

This is what you're getting at a regime by which we the people can choose who we want to be and govern ourselves and decide we want to be politically, morally, socially, culturally, economically, what have you but at the same time this exact same document. This exact same piece of paper also has to preserve a large measure of liberty, of natural liberty. Otherwise, why would we get out of the state of nature into this thing called civil society if we got a raw deal. If we give up too much of that freedom we had in this in the state of nature will never leave the state of nature, so a free Constitution has to balance these two things, self-government, liberty, and is a balance.

Why, because these actives are in tension with each other right is often popular majorities that infringe on the rights of minorities, so writing a Constitution that successfully balances these competing objectives is is no easy task and I argue that the framers were remarkably successful at achieving a balance between self-government and liberty, such that the Constitution is legitimate and binding today, even if it's imperfect right and here's here's here's the here's the point right this is the key take something must make a Constitution binding, it can't be that no Constitution is ever binding so that the society would fall apart. The But it also can't be the case that a Constitution is only binding if it says exactly what you personally wanted to say that's also crazy 300 million Americans might have a different opinion about that. There must be some middle ground. Something that makes a Constitution legitimate and therefore binding. Even if you think it's imperfect in certain provisions or particulars. My claim is the Constitution is legitimate and binding in the sense if it meets the threshold balancing self-government and liberty. These two objectives are free society.

Even if you would do things a bit differently on either side of the equation.

All of your research suggest to you that this Constitution, and ritualism are pretty good today. We have all of these movements to all we need to change the Constitution, right.

Why do we care about what a bunch of dead white men said, but the Constitution is insufficiently Democratic. They might say right. This is, here's what's so crazy and insidious about the people who want to change the Constitution within the Constitution is bad, some bad document they say two things they say it's insufficiently Democratic. We need better democracy. We need to get rid of the equal representation in the Senate.

We need to get rid of the electoral college right it's insufficiently Democratic but at the same time these same people want to make sure that Democratic majorities can do certain things right. You can decide on moral issues like abortion or gay marriage.

So we want better democracy, but only if it leads to progressive results. That's crazy. That's typically the approach and as I was reading about the founders and the political philosophy. It turns out that when you have these objectives right. First of all, it was itself an incredible achievement to say we want self-government and we want liberty, and it requires a balance right Republican remedies for the diseases most incidents Republican government as Madison says if Carlson stating the subjective and the understanding that the retention with each other.

These two objectives is itself innovation and were indebted to them for that and they did a pretty darn good job of striking this balance pretty amazing job through ingenious mechanisms that were novel at the time, separation of powers, checks and balances. The enumeration of power in this division of federal, state power, the representative mechanism itself was a novelty at the time enforce the provisions in the Bill of Rights were also a novelty more than that which so great about the Constitution of our founders is they wrote it in such a way that it would continue to strike a successful balance between self-government and liberty long into the future on both sides of this equation right. Look at the liberty side of the equation, the rights protecting provisions of the Constitution are written sufficiently broad terms to be applicable to changing circumstances. Why do you think the First Amendment applies to these speech made on the Internet.

Why do you think the fourth amendment, unreasonable searches and seizures right applies to GPS devices. The police officers put on carts right many things. The founders kind of conceived.

The book is a debt against the living and introduction to originalist the author is Prof. Elana Borman of Arizona State University. He spoke recently in Durham and Raleigh will return with North Carolina journal radio in a moment real influence. You either have it or you don't and at the John Mott foundation we have it, you'll find our guiding principles in many of the freedom forward reforms of the past decade here in North Carolina. So while others talk or complain or name call. We provide research solutions and hope our team analyzes the pressing issues of the day jobs, healthcare, education, and more. We look for effective ways to give you more freedom, more options, more control over your life.

Our goal is to transform North Carolina into a growing, thriving economic powerhouse, the envy of every other state.

Our research is how policymakers make decisions that ensure you keep more of what you are. Expand your choice of schools for your kids.

Widen your job opportunities improve your access to doctors. The recipe for stability and a bright future for truth for freedom for the future of North Carolina.

We are the John Locke foundation back to Carolina journal radio I'm Donna Martinez for more than 60 years, North Carolina has prohibited public-sector unions from collective bargaining at some North Carolina lawmakers are actually mowing the idea of repealing the collective bargaining law. Our next gases is urging caution on a move like that. He says it would cost North Carolinians big time. Terry stoops is the vice president for research. The director of education studies. The author of a new report on this issue and he joins us now to talk about it Terry, welcome back to the shelf. Thank you. You did really extensive analysis of extensive modeling on different scenarios of what would happen for North Carolina. If the law on collective bargaining were repealed and if that were made legal.

Tell us what it will cost it would cost between 889,000,001.3 billion and the reason why there's a ranges because there's different ways to collectively bargain some collective bargaining laws do not have rules that make it binding for the parties to collectively bargain for their pay and benefits there somewhere. It is binding, and of course I will cost a lot more. So, it would really depends on the scope of the law that the law of the Gen. assembly would pass and store the parameters that they would establish for the collective bargaining law. Now most of the laws that have been proposed to get rid of the collective bargaining prohibition simply get rid of the line it says you can't collectively bargain if you're public-sector employee, but I suspect that if that were to occur than there would be more added to the legislation that would perhaps change the cost of the potential cost to the state of allowing our public-sector employees to bargain collectively 60 years here of prohibition on collective bargaining.

So I guess the question is really why now, why is North Carolina now a target not only for unionization efforts, but for collective bargaining efforts will there's a belief in this belief actually been around for for decades that if you turn North Carolina into a union state than you can turn any state into a union state were really a bellwether for unionization. We have one of the lowest rates of private sector unionization in the nation and work were often identified with South Carolina as being places where unions have the least fortune so that is.

That's certainly one area where I think that there are national groups, national unions and employee associations. The looking at North Carolina and thinking that there could be inroads here and if you look at what happened in 2018 and 2019 went the red for Ed movement.

These were walkouts coordinated by the North Carolina Association of educators where thousands of teachers and advocates came to Raleigh to protest the general assembly. There's a belief that that might be a signal that North Carolinians are ready for public sector unionization to expand and and way to expand that of course would be to allow collective bargaining. What you just brought up is really interesting because the North Carolina Association of educators calls themselves an association but they have been moving closer and closer to that line of union they are the state affiliate of the biggest teachers union right that's right. And they want to be called union. They have advertisements that say join our union so there is a real push to not only identifies a union but to get the powers that unions have one of the most obvious powers that unions have is to collectively bargain and that is something that they seek and that's something that is really part and parcel with their efforts to get certain individuals elected to public office is to make sure that you that they have pro union legislators and Council state members that will be there to begin dismantling North Carolina's wise prohibition on collective bargaining for public sector employees. Elections have consequences as as we all know, but this is just one more aspect of what potentially we could see in North Carolina.

Should the legislature, for example, turn on itself. Political ideology and and the leadership there right now it's under Republican leadership if it turns to Democrat leadership, things could be different. Your report is really interesting because it's not limited just to looking at the education sector in North Carolina.

You explore the whole field of unions help us understand the union situation in our state. Sounds likely that private sector unions, public-sector unions, but collective bargaining is something different than that of the collective bargaining that were talking about is for our public-sector employees which are mostly teachers and state employees and there are some other sectors in the public with firefighters and police. There some some employee associations there so so that's really the dynamic that were talking about this more than just teachers.

It's it's public employees in general and there's really two mechanisms by which the cost of the collective bargaining prohibition repeal would would impose itself. The first of course is that the public-sector employees would bargain with their employer. You know, you think about what collective bargaining is its negotiation between the employee's employer dealing with working conditions, salary and benefits, but the other part about it and this is something that highlight in the report is the accumulation of political power. That's that's really where the cost increases arise because as these unions get the ability to collectively bargain. They are able to accumulate more money and then secure political power that allows them to later on accumulate more money from their employers.

This is something that's distinct from the private sector where it's all about bargaining with the employers and there's really very limited benefits to accumulating political power. If your private sector employee union.

If you're in the public sector.

It means everything to make sure that not only do you have the ability to collectively bargain but to use that money to elect people that will continue to feed the beast continue to feed money to the union members and to provide more expansive benefits and and improve working conditions in a course. Once that occurs, if that does occur in North Carolina that is so difficult. The clawback once Sam that bargaining power has been instituted and the political power has has built up and that's one reason that you're highlighting all of this, some in your report. It's called big government, big price tag. Collective bargaining equals more power unions and higher costs for North Carolinians political power. That is fascinating in your report and encourage folks to go to John Locke.org and read this about the history of unions in North Carolina and interestingly enough, it was actually Democrats in North Carolina who are behind the push to outlaw collective bargaining. Yeah that's right first. When you look at the history of unionization in North Carolina. People believe that there hasn't been much unionization. But if you look in the early 20th century.

For example, private sector unions were pretty powerful and there in the textile industry and and various industry suspects in the western part of the state. So unionization is been part of North Carolina's history for a long time, but looking at the public sector unionization in the prohibition on collective bargaining that was coordinated by a Democratic member of the Gen. assembly from Mecklenburg County who was fearing that the Jimmy Hoffa would organize the police in charlottes and there were some efforts to do that. The courts got involved in, rather than in try to do something in the courts. They just said were going to ensure that this can happen through an act of the Gen. assembly, and in 1959 they passed that Dr. Terry stoops Terry thinking that all the time we have for the program this week on behalf of Mitch. Okay I'm Donna Martinez hope you'll join us again next week for another edition of Carolina general radio related journal radio is a program of the John Locke to learn more about the John Locke foundation donation support programs like Carolina journal radio send email to development John Locke called 66 jail left 166-553-4636 Carolina journal radio is the John line foundation airline is maintaining an Carolina broadcasting system, Inc. all opinions expressed on this program are solely those did not merely the station.

For more information about the show. Other programs and services of the foundation toll-free at 866 JL would like to thank our wonderful radio affiliates across Carolina and our sponsors. Carolina journal radio. Thank you for listening. Please join us again next week


Get The Truth Mobile App and Listen to your Favorite Station Anytime