A response to The World of the Framers – A Christian Nation?

Professor Geoffrey Stone’s Essay, The World of the Framers: A Christian Nation?, seeks to state “the truth about . . . what [the Framers] believed, and about what they aspired to when they created this nation.” Doing so will accomplish Professor Stone’s main objective, helping us to understand what “the Constitution allows” on a host of controversial public policy issues. Regrettably, Professor Stone’s effort is unsuccessful. Although he clearly tried to be fair in his historical account, the Essay ultimately presents a misleading view of the Framers’ perspective on the proper relationship between religion and the state.

A response to Getting the Framers Wrong: A Response to Professor Geoffrey Stone

Professor Samuel Calhoun insists that my thesis is “wrong,” that I “overstate” the evidence, present “a misleading view,” “distort” the authorities, argue by “assertion,” offer “no convincing corroborating evidence,” “mislead my readers,” and defend a “historically indefensible” position. In short, Professor Calhoun accuses me of failing to meet the “no distortion” standard. Whew!

Revealing my gracious side for just a moment, I must acknowledge that some of Professor Calhoun’s observations are both constructive and interesting. For example, some of his insights about American deism, the decline of Christianity, the Declaration of Independence, and George Washington identify useful points of historical uncertainty and disagreement. Too often, though, Professor Calhoun’s criticisms miss the mark, not only because he exaggerates their significance, but also because he seems not to have noticed that he was critiquing a lecture, rather than a formal scholarly article. A lecture, to succeed, must be clear, concise, easy to follow, and readily accessible to a general audience. It will not do for a lecturer to inflict upon his audience too many subtle qualifications, complex asides, and convoluted clarifications. Professor Calhoun’s criticisms are primarily of the dotted-i and crossed-t variety, though he obviously thinks they add up to something more. I think not.

A response to Priceless? The Economic Costs of Credit Card Merchant Restraints

In Priceless?: The Economic Costs of Credit Card Merchant Restraints,
Adam Levitin argues that credit card systems violate the U.S. antitrust laws by
prohibiting merchants from surcharging credit card transactions and refusing
to accept high-priced reward cards. If merchants could engage in these practices,
he contends, they would effectively combat credit card system market power and
drive down acceptance fees. This Essay criticizes Levitin’s proposal, arguing that
surcharging and selective refusal would be ineffective tools in the fight against
anticompetitive credit card acceptance fees, because merchants are unlikely
to increase their prices by the amount necessary to counteract anticompetitive
overcharges without also stifling efficient card use.