The Wire

  • New tunnel, premium RV section at Talladega Superspeedway on schedule despite weather

    Excerpt:

    Construction of a new oversized vehicle tunnel and premium RV infield parking section at Talladega Superspeedway is still on schedule to be completed in time for the April NASCAR race, despite large amounts of rainfall and unusual groundwater conditions underneath the track.

    Track Chairman Grant Lynch, during a news conference Wednesday at the track, said he’s amazed the general contractor, Taylor Corporation of Oxford, has been able to keep the project on schedule.

    “The amount of water they have pumped out of that and the extra engineering they did from the original design, basically to keep that tunnel from floating up out of the earth, was remarkable,” Lynch said.

  • Alabama workers built 1.6M engines in 2018 to add auto horsepower

    Excerpt:

    Alabama’s auto workers built nearly 1.6 million engines last year, as the state industry continues to carve out a place in global markets with innovative, high-performance parts, systems and finished vehicles.

    Last year also saw major new developments in engine manufacturing among the state’s key players, and more advanced infrastructure is on the way in the coming year.

    Hyundai expects to complete a key addition to its engine operations in Montgomery during the first half of 2019, while Honda continues to reap the benefits of a cutting-edge Alabama engine line installed several years ago.

  • Groundbreaking on Alabama’s newest aerospace plant made possible through key partnerships

    Excerpt:

    Political and business leaders gathered for a groundbreaking at Alabama’s newest aerospace plant gave credit to the formation of the many key partnerships that made it possible.

    Governor Kay Ivey and several other federal, state and local officials attended the event which celebrated the construction of rocket engine builder Blue Origin’s facility in Huntsville.

4 weeks ago

The future is coming: What do you want it to look like?

Alabama State Flag (Photo: Raymond M.)

The future is on its way to Alabama. That is inevitable.

What the future will bring is not.

But there is a potential future that many people want to bring to Alabama. Though it is sold as a future of freedom and equality, it is not a future in which people flourish.

Call it the Future of Conformity.

925

You have likely seen images of this future on television and the Internet. Perhaps you found those images baffling: Biological men demand to be referred to as women. Children are assigned birth certificates listing two mothers and no fathers, or two fathers and no mothers. Polyamorous throuples seek public approval of their relationships.

The Future of Conformity promises diversity, but it delivers uniformity and centralized control.

Everyone must approve of all lifestyle choices and family structures, by coercion if necessary. Central governments promise to solve problems that central governments helped to create, such as unresponsive and failing schools, transportation infrastructure that fails to meet local needs, housing shortages caused by land-use regulations and rising health care costs.

Worst of all, the Future of Conformity is ideological.

Students who are privileged enough to enroll in the most prestigious colleges and universities in the world object to hearing ideas that they find uncomfortable. Young people speak well of socialist ideals. Some even wear totalitarian symbols, such as images of Che Guevara (think of Berkeley) or variations on Nationalist Socialist symbols (think of Charlottesville).

We are told that the Future of Conformity is inevitable, and that those who resist it will end up on the wrong side of history.

And indeed, many of the cultural trends making their way toward Alabama are logically entailed in a certain conception of human freedom, a freedom to be affirmed in one’s identity and to satisfy one’s desires, whatever they happen to be. The Supreme Court of the United States expressed this concept of freedom in its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Court’s opinion asserted, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.”

Someone must pay the cost for such a radically unconstrained freedom.

Most often, the bill passes to children.

The cost is paid not only by the unborn, who exit abortion clinics by the back door in refuse containers, but also by children deprived of legal and personal connections to one natural parent (usually their father), and all those growing citizens who will someday inherit our debts and obligations.

People of faith and good conscience also pay a price.

The Future of Conformity has no tolerance for those who perceive the inherent value of natural marriage and the unique dignity of man and woman. It has little use for religious schools and tax-exempt religious assemblies. It demands freedom to expose young people to drugs and obscenity that corrupt.

Communities would also suffer.

All of the various and plural domains of civil society that have supplied the vitality of American exceptionalism from the beginning are likely to be supplanted by government in the Future of Conformity.

Alabamians and other Americans have always done their best work in small businesses and innovative startups, charities and aid groups and education societies, private and parochial schools, service clubs and volunteer organizations, and the other groups and associations that stand between the individual and the state, and which generate knowledge and new goods. The Future of Conformity has no place for them, except perhaps as useful vehicles for dispensing acceptable dogmas.

Anyone who has lived in the elite corridors of cultural power on America’s coasts has already experienced the Future of Conformity. If they are not indoctrinated in its ideologies, they will tell you that the Future of Conformity is stifling, not liberating.

It is a future in which people refrain from speaking obvious truths for fear of losing their jobs and reputations. It is a future without manners. It lacks understanding, yet, accuses the faithful and the knowledgeable of bigotry.

Here is the good news: The Future of Conformity is not inevitable.

We get to choose.

But we must choose something else. It is not enough to reject the Future of Conformity. We must offer our young people a different, brighter future.

A more attractive future would embrace the best aspects of our traditions while also advancing the genuine improvements we have made in achieving knowledge and justice. It starts with the primacy of religious faith, human reason, and natural rights. It would affirm our founding principles and celebrate those moments when we vindicated them, yet it would also candidly acknowledge that we have not always lived up to them and call us to do better.

Call it the Future of Ordered Liberty.

In the Future of Ordered Liberty, knowledge is passed on to the next generation; ignorance is vanquished. Schools and universities resist ideologies and reject calls for censorship even as they teach time-tested ideas and human achievements. Not all opinions are equally valid. The objective is knowledge of truth. Educators should pursue truth and should recognize the difference between truth and their own dogmas.

The Future of Ordered Liberty is a future in which genuine and justified civil liberties are secured and celebrated.

Intentional racial and ethnic discrimination is remedied and sanctioned, and people have freedom to speak important truths and to obey their conscience. The government secures property rights instead of threatening them and allows the plural groups and associations of civil society to flourish and to do their good work. Religious groups enjoy liberty as a matter of right, not as a concession of privilege from government.

The future is coming to Alabama. That much is certain.

What will the future look like?

That is up to us.

Adam J. MacLeod is Professorial Fellow of the Alabama Policy Institute and Professor of Law at Faulkner University, Jones School of Law. He is a prolific writer and his latest book, The Age of Selfies: Reasoning About Rights When the Stakes Are Personal, is available on Amazon.

4 months ago

Alabama follows the law, history in forgoing marriage licenses

(CBS 42/YouTube)

For just over a month now, Alabama officials have not issued marriage licenses. They instead record certificates memorializing marital contracts, signed by married couples and notarized.

The law authorizing this change is a sensible and principled compromise. Indeed, it might be a model for other states. It accommodates both the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, expressed in its 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, that natural marriage can no longer be privileged in law and the rights of state officials who cannot in good conscience affirm a conception of marriage that they understand to be false.

720

Alabama probate judges have long had different legal obligations than Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who stopped issuing marriage licenses after Obergefell.

In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Davis infringed the rights of same-sex couples. Kentucky law requires a clerk to issue licenses. And the Supreme Court’s ruling in Obergefell requires that, if states license natural marriages then they must also issue licenses to same-sex couples.

Davis argued that she was not flouting Obergefell. She did not discriminate; she did not issue licenses to anyone. In the words of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, she did not deny anyone “equal protection” of the laws of Kentucky. But the Court of Appeals ruled that her refusal to issue licenses violated a right that was “clearly established” in Obergefell and grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The idea that the Due Process Clause requires states to issue marriage licenses is implausible.

So, the sensible interpretation of the Davis ruling is that, because Kentucky law requires clerks to issue marriage licenses, Davis shirked her duty by refusing.

That reasoning has no bearing on Alabama law. Even before Alabama abolished marriage licenses, its laws authorized but did not require county officials to issue a license.

The alternative — that the Due Process Clause requires marriage licenses — would be ludicrous.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. States did not begin issuing marriage licenses until the early 1900s. Union soldiers did not fight and die in the Civil War to obtain permission from the state to get married. Nor would it have occurred to anyone who voted to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment that “liberty” means seeking government permission to do what God and nature commend.

When states did begin licensing marriages, they did so in part for reasons that violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Some states created marriage license schemes and other vital records in order to improve public health data. But many did so to prevent intermarriage between the races (known as “miscegenation”) and to facilitate forced sterilization and other eugenics programs.

Proponents of marriage licensing laws were candid about these goals. The influential eugenicist Harry Hamilton Laughlin explained in a 1922 report to the Chicago Municipal Court: “[A]mong the most eugenical of [limitations on marriage] are those relating to certain types of miscegenation and those denying marriage to the insane, feebleminded and other constitutional degenerates or defectives.”
Marriage licenses empower states to control marriage.

Laughlin explained that marriage records are also important to enable eugenicists to identify “individuals personally defective,” who suffer “hereditary degeneracy,” so that they can be denied admission to marriage. “The location of such degeneracy is a difficult task,” he conceded, “but is necessary as a foundation for the intelligent purging of the race.”

Laughlin’s frank disclosure of the racist, social-Darwinian motivations behind marriage licensing laws might startle those who have never studied the history of legal concepts (a group that today includes most lawyers, unfortunately). But some judges and elite lawyers today seem to share his assumption that judges and other government officials have power to define what marriage is and to grant permission to marry.

Laughlin was candid about the implications of this assumption. The power to define marriage and to grant permission to marry is the power to prohibit real marriages between man and woman, which are capable of producing children whom the government deems undesirable.

Laughlin looked forward to the day when governments would not only prevent marriages between different races and by “defectives” but would also “limit marriage to persons who can demonstrate the possession in their family trees of socially valuable mental, physical and temperamental qualities.” Advances in scientific knowledge would, he hoped, eventually bring about “the limitation of marriage to persons of demonstrated natural worth.”

This is not to suggest that those who today advocate a statist conception of marriage do so because they are closet eugenicists. It is to expose the folly of the idea that marriage exists because of state law or the opinions of federal judges.

Marriage pre-existed the first state statutes and the creation of federal courts by several thousand years.

And the Constitution does not require states to attempt to re-engineer marriage for the purposes of dogmatic elites.

Adam J. MacLeod is Professorial Fellow of the Alabama Policy Institute and Professor of Law at Faulkner University, Jones School of Law.