Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Showing posts with label Buckeye Institute. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Buckeye Institute. Show all posts

Thursday, September 18, 2025

Can we keep the American way of life? It hinges on our Constitution.

By David C. Tryon September 17, 2025 @ The Columbus Dispatch

Editor's Note.This was sent to me from the Buckeye Institute today.  RK

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government the American framers had created, he wryly replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” This Constitution Day, on the brink of celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is fitting to wonder whether we have, in fact, kept what the Founders gave us — and how.

In July of 1776, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed the revolutionary idea that governments derive their “just powers from the consent of the governed.”

A guard against a 'long train of abuses and usurpations.'

After winning the War of Independence, the young nation’s Constitutional Convention of 1787 then set out to enshrine that fundamental concept in a rule of law that would preserve the rights envisioned by the Declaration and establish a government in which “We the People,” not lords and kings, are sovereign: the U.S. Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson’s famous Declaration had accused England’s King George III of a “long train of abuses and usurpations.” The Constitution was designed to prevent our own government from one day repeating them.

The king, for instance, had dissolved colonial “Representative Houses” and undermined local legislatures. In response, the Constitution vests legislative powers in a regularly elected, bicameral Congress of the people’s representatives.

Instead of an authoritarian monarchy in which virtually all power resided with a king, the Constitution gave us a presidency required to “faithfully execute the laws” enacted by the people’s Congress.

Whereas European monarchs routinely exerted control over judges and nullified juries, the Constitution insulates federal judges from overt presidential pressure, granting them lifetime appointments and putting Congress in charge of their salaries.

Affirmation that 'all men are created equal'

And to reassure states that the new Constitution aligned with the Declaration and would secure our “unalienable rights,” the Convention quickly ratified the Bill of Rights in 1791.

Decades later, as civil unrest tore the American fabric in two over the issue of slavery, Abraham Lincoln wisely explained that America had embraced the Constitution and its Bill of Rights not to destroy or replace the Declaration of Independence, but to adorn and preserve its ideals.

After Lincoln’s death, the Union again amended the Constitution to better comport with the Declaration’s self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.”

Mr. Jefferson had asserted our God-given rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and in the wake of the Civil War the 14th Amendment echoed his great claim in its equal protection clause safeguarding “life, liberty, and property” with due process of law.

Such echoes have continued to reverberate down through our history. In the 1890s, the Supreme Court declared that “it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.” And its Reynolds v. Sims decision in 1964 it did just that, tracing the “one person, one vote” principle back to the Declaration.

More recently, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard again read the Constitution through the Declaration’s lens, noting that “the Constitution’s colorblind rule reflects one of the core principles upon which our Nation was founded: that ‘all men are created equal.’”

The genius of the American republic lies in part in the close relationship between its two founding documents.

Its first lays claim to the rights of a free and independent people to choose their own governors, and the second frames a three-tiered political structure specifically designed to check and balance government power in order to protect those sacred rights.

Imbued with the spirit of the Declaration, the U.S. Constitution has survived, enduring as the bulwark of our republic that we still endeavor to keep — perhaps to Mr. Franklin’s pleasant surprise.

David C. Tryon is the director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute

Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution – a think tank – whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.  Donate Today!

Friday, February 7, 2025

Buckeye Institute on DEI

 The Buckeye Institute

The Wall Street Journal, Andrew M. Grossman, a senior legal fellow at The Buckeye Institute, and Kristin A. Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum, demonstrate that the next step in restoring meritocracy is to reject the theory that proportionate outcomes equal fairness. 

DEI and Disparate Impact

The next step in restoring meritocracy is to reject the theory that proportionate outcomes equal fairness.


The Wall Street Journal

By Andrew M. Grossman and Kristin A. Shapiro

February 5, 2025


On day two of his administration, President Trump ordered federal agencies to terminate “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs in the government and combat them in the private sector. The order follows through on his promise to forge a colorblind, merit-based society and to end the engineering of race and sex into every aspect of American life.


If Mr. Trump is serious about his goal, he also needs to repudiate disparate-impact theory, which prohibits facially neutral practices that have a disproportionate impact on a protected group. In practice, it often harms the people it’s supposed to protect. And it’s unconstitutional.


Disparate-impact theory was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits racial discrimination by employers. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission applied this prohibition to any policy that had a disparate impact on racial minorities—even absent intentional discrimination. The EEOC argued that the purpose of Title VII was to “accomplish economic results, not merely to influence motives or feelings.” The justices agreed and blocked Duke Power from requiring a passing score on a standardized test and a high-school diploma as conditions of employment, as these requirements disqualified black applicants at a higher rate than whites.


Griggs limited aptitude testing by employers, but not the need for aptitude. Many businesses found a proxy in college-degree requirements, which seemed legally safer given that colleges widely engaged in racial balancing. But applicants with ability but not credentials were blocked from positions.


Griggs was limited to employment law, but disparate-impact theory has since infected many levels of the federal government. It applies to federally funded programs under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, creditors under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, landlords under the Fair Housing Act, and broadband providers under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. It has been used to block criminal-background tests on rent applications, school-discipline policies and underwriting criteria for home insurance. Landlords successfully sued the city of St. Paul, Minn., for “aggressively” enforcing its housing code because it required landlords to respond to rodent infestations, broken smoke detectors and other hazards, which could increase rent and disproportionately affect black tenants.


The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that racial balancing is “patently unconstitutional,” as in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). Yet as the justices explained in Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), disparate-impact theory dictates that policies with an “undesirable racial effect” are invalid. If a race-neutral policy affects racial outcomes—or appears to do so—the burden falls on the employer to prove that the policy is essential, a daunting standard.


In practice this means that employers, landlords and other businesses must track and plan for racial outcomes to maintain racial balance. Before adopting policies such as drug tests, they must assess the racial impact and consider alternatives that might achieve a more desirable racial balance. Race must be constantly monitored to identify potential liabilities. As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his concurring opinion in Ricci, disparate-impact theory places a “racial thumb on the scales” and requires employers to make decisions “because of” racial outcomes.


Mr. Trump accordingly should direct his administration to reverse all rules and cease enforcement based on disparate-impact theory, and he should support litigation challenging its constitutionality. Scalia warned in Ricci that one day the Supreme Court “will have to confront the question: Whether, or to what extent, are the disparate-impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection?” Mr. Trump should bring forth that day of reckoning.


Mr. Grossman is a senior legal fellow at The Buckeye Institute. Ms. Shapiro is a senior fellow at the Independent Women’s Forum. Both practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington.

Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution a think tank whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.
The Buckeye Institute | 88 East Broad Street Suite 1300 | Columbus, OH 43215 US

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Press Release From the Buckeye Institute

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

January 14, 2025

Lisa Gates, Vice President of Communications, (614) 224-3255

In New Report, The Buckeye Institute Offers Policy Solutions to Transform Higher Education in Ohio


Columbus, OH – In a new policy report, Transforming Higher Education in Ohio: Reforms Needed Today to Prepare for Tomorrow, The Buckeye Institute offers eight commonsense policy reforms that lawmakers should adopt to ensure that Ohio’s higher education system is preparing graduates to meet the demands of the 21st century job market.

“The reforms outlined in The Buckeye Institute’s report will foster competition in higher education, reduce academic overhead, and encourage students to pursue studies that yield stable incomes after graduation,” said Greg R. Lawson, co-author of the report and a research fellow at The Buckeye Institute. “Ohio’s future depends on change.”

 

By adopting The Buckeye Institute-recommended reforms, Ohio policymakers will make the state’s higher education system more flexible and responsive to students and families, and they will reward cost-effective instruction that prepares graduates to meet the demands of the 21st century job market. Policymakers at the state and federal levels should:

  • Allocate Funding to Reward Student Outcomes: Allocate a greater share of public funding to reward schools for low debt-to-income ratios, high job placement, and low loan default rates.
  • Spur Higher Education Competition: All higher education institutions—4-year colleges and universities, and community colleges—should compete using outcome-driven metrics for a share of public funding.
  • Expand the Ohio College Opportunity Grant Program: Allow grants to cover non-tuition costs at community colleges and short-term credentialing classes to help non-traditional and lower-income students earn an associate’s degree or job credential.
  • Cap Administrative Spending: Limit non-instructional and administrative expenses at public universities and colleges and reduce the state share of instruction for any school that exceeds the cap.
  • Reevaluate Tenure at State Schools: Reform policies to better align tenure to academic performance.
  • Reform Occupational Licensing and Degree Requirements: Eliminate unneeded bachelor’s degree requirements, especially for government jobs.
  • Expand Pell Grants for Workplace Credentials: Expand eligibility to students seeking short-term certificates, credentials at for-profit schools, certifying entities, community colleges, and industry associations.
  • Lower the Cost of Higher Education: Require colleges and universities to guarantee student loans and share in the risk of the student loan investment.

The Buckeye Institute’s recommended funding allocation for community colleges and four-year universities are as follows:

Click on the charts to view interactive versions and for embed codes.


Greg R. Lawson, a research fellow at The Buckeye Institute, and Logan Kolas, director of technology policy at the American Consumer Institute and a former economic policy analyst at The Buckeye Institute, co-authored Transforming Higher Education in Ohio.

# # #

Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution a think tank whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.
Donate Today! Support The Buckeye Institute
Facebook  X  LinkedIn  YouTube

The Buckeye Institute | 88 East Broad Street Suite 1300 | Columbus, OH 43215 US

Saturday, November 16, 2024

Buckeye Institute Press Release

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 14, 2024

Lisa Gates, Vice President of Communications, (614) 224-3255

The Buckeye Institute Investigation Results in Law Schools Ending Discriminatory Legal Programs


Columbus, OH – On Thursday, The Buckeye Institute announced that its investigation into unconstitutional race-based programs at Ohio’s public law schools resulted in all of the law schools ending their discriminatory programs—a victory for the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.

 

“Federal law and the U.S. Constitution prohibit discrimination based on race,” said David C. Tryon, director of litigation at The Buckeye Institute. “Although the goals of these programs were laudable, it is a victory for the Constitution and the rule of law that all of the law schools ended these discriminatory programs or opened them to all applicants.”

 

Earlier this year, The Buckeye Institute sent public records requests to investigate whether Ohio’s public law schools operated or participated in unconstitutional race-based scholarship or internship programs. Letters were sent to:


 

The results of Buckeye’s efforts are that all of the law schools removed illegal and unconstitutional race-based requirements for their scholarships and internship programs.


# # #

Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution a think tank whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.
Donate Today! Support The Buckeye Institute
Facebook  X  LinkedIn  YouTube

The Buckeye Institute | 88 East Broad Street Suite 1300 | Columbus, OH 43215 US

Friday, September 20, 2024

Minimum wage amendment backers pulled bait-and-switch

By Robert Alt September 19, 2024 @ The Columbus Dispatch

One Fair Wage, the sponsor pushing Raise the Wage Ohio— the proposed constitutional amendment that would artificially raise the state’s minimum wage — seems poised to pull an audacious switcheroo on early amendment supporters and unsuspecting Ohio voters. And the consequences, if they get away with it, could be catastrophic.

Amending the Ohio Constitution is a big deal.

Unlike statutes, constitutional amendments cannot be undone with a simple majority in the General Assembly and a willing governor’s signature.

To get an amendment on the ballot, sponsors must first submit 1,000 signatures of registered voters for certification by the attorney general and ballot board and then submit a petition signed by at least 10 percent of votes cast for governor during the last gubernatorial election — just under 443,000 signatures, currently.

They must also collect signatures in at least 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties, equal to five percent of votes cast for governor in the previous election.

It’s a difficult process by design.

Given any amendment’s staying-power, sponsors should be careful to accurately explain what a proposed amendment will do and refrain from bait-and-switch tactics that mislead petition-signers or the public.

One Fair Wage assured petition-signers that Raise the Wage Ohio would be on the November 2024 ballot, and — if passed — the new minimum wage would take effect on Jan. 1, 2025. But One Fair Wage  failed to gather the signatures required. If the group does gather the requisite signatures going forward, the proposed amendment still wouldn’t appear on the ballot until November 2025.

For some amendments, a one-year delay might be inconsequential, but not this time. If adopted, the amendment increases the minimum wage as of Jan. 1, 2025 — even though the measure couldn’t pass until next November.

Imposing a retroactive wage hike will wreak absolute havoc

The increase would become retroactive and require employers to provide 11 months of backpay. Businesses, large and small, would face unexpected wage bills of up to $10,000 per full-time employee, plus “an additional two times the amount of the back wages” as statutory damages.

Those who signed the Raise the Wage Ohio petition earlier this year expected that the proposal would be on this November’s ballot, and any employer costs would be purely prospective — effective January 2025. These original petition-signers never agreed to a proposal with retroactive consequences.

But One Fair Wage insists that it will use the very same signatures it already collected and submit them along with its petition for the November 2025 ballot  - assuming that every one of those early signers now also supports retroactively hiking the minimum wage and hitting every Ohio business with an unexpected bill.

One Fair Wage does not deny that the amendment would apply retroactively, nor has it agreed to repoll the original petition-signers to confirm their continuing support for a new and very different amendment.

It is fair to suspect that if those petition-signers had been told that the amendment would trigger retroactive wage increases on unsuspecting businesses, at least some of them would not have signed on in support. For One Fair Wage to assume otherwise and to use signatures acquired under now-false representations to retroactively impose costs on Ohio businesses raises serious legal questions and risks setting a dangerous precedent.

As the Buckeye Institute has demonstrated previously, raising Ohio’s minimum wage will have negative and predictable consequences, but imposing a retroactive wage hike will wreak absolute havoc and devastate the state’s economy.

It seems only right that One Fair Wage should act in good faith and restart its petition effort. If not, the Buckeye Institute’s legal team stands ready to defend the interest of Ohioans and Ohio’s economy.

Robert Alt is the president and chief executive officer of the  the Buckeye Institute.. Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution – a think tank – whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.


The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.

Donate Today! Support The Buckeye Institute
Facebook  X  LinkedIn  YouTube

The Buckeye Institute | 88 East Broad Street Suite 1300 | Columbus, OH 43215 US

Tuesday, September 17, 2024

Meeting Notice in Cleveland From the Buckeye Institute

What is the state of taxation in Ohio? What are the notable tax trends in the nation? What will changes to tax policy mean for our communities and economy?

These and other tax policy issues will be the subject of discussion at a panel hosted by the historic City Club of Cleveland that will feature The Buckeye Institute’s Greg Lawson.

 

What’s At Stake? Examining Taxation in Ohio and the Nation

Friday, September 20, 2024

11:30 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

 

The City Club of Cleveland

1317 Euclid Avenue, Suite 100

Cleveland, OH 44115

Use the code BUCKEYE to receive 20% off non-member ticket and table purchases. Tickets are available until 12:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 18, 2024.

 

Joining Lawson on the panel are Amy Hanauer with the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy, Hope Lane-Gavin with the Ohio Association of Foodbanks, and Bailey Williams with Policy Matters Ohio. Karen Kasler with Ohio Public Media will moderate the panel.

 

Can’t attend in person? The live stream will start at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, September 20. Sign up to receive a reminder for the live stream. If you want to ask the panelists questions, text your question to (330) 541-5794.

Founded in 1989, The Buckeye Institute is an independent research and educational institution a think tank whose mission is to advance free-market public policy in the states.

The Buckeye Institute is a non-partisan, non-profit, and tax-exempt organization, as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. As such, it relies on support from individuals, corporations, and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. The Buckeye Institute does not seek or accept government funding.
Donate Today! Support The Buckeye Institute
Facebook  X  LinkedIn  YouTube

The Buckeye Institute | 88 East Broad Street Suite 1300 | Columbus, OH 43215 US