by Daniel Horwitz
 |
| Daniel Horwitz |
On January 16, 2013, Rod Williams posted this article criticizing State Representative Joe Carr (R-48) for introducing
House Bill 42. (For readers who have not
followed the lively debate concerning HB 42 that has taken place both on this blog and
elsewhere, the bill calls for the arrest and criminal prosecution of any
Federal agent who attempts to enforce certain Federal gun control laws here in
the state of Tennessee.) After noting –
correctly – that HB 42 would be a clear violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, Rod Williams was in turn subjected to sharp criticism from
several fringe members of his party. In
defense of Mr. Williams, I then posted two articles on this blog – “Rod
Williams is Right About the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution” and a response
to Tracy Tarum – in which I made the following three statements criticizing
Representative Carr:
(1) “There is absolutely no excuse
for disregarding the Constitution in order to score a few cheap political
points”;
(2) “If I were one of [Joe Carr’s]
constituents, I would consider his refusal to comply with [his oath to uphold
the Constitution] to be every bit as disqualifying as his belief that women who have been violently raped can’t become pregnant”; and
(3) In response to a hypothetical
alluding to Joe Carr, I suggested that he had “introduce[d] a bill calling for
the arrest of Federal agents in order to gin up support from his base in
anticipation of a primary challenge to a Congressman beleaguered by a recent
abortion scandal.”
As a result of these criticisms, I received several email
messages (copied below) from Representative Carr requesting that I refrain from
“impugn[ing his] integrity by commenting without having discussed” with him his
motives for filing House Bill 42. He
also asked me to “post a retraction in those publications that [I] opined about
[his motives] for filing House Bill 42.”
Representative Carr then informed me that my speculation that he had
introduced HB 42 solely in an effort to gin up support from his base was “more
than just unfortunate it is inaccurate,” not to mention “unfounded and
unsubstantiated.” Finally, he further
questioned why I had linked to “a liberal article from the Nashville Scene about a conversation [concerning the capacity of rape victims to become pregnant] that was taken out of context.”
In response to the above requests, I informed Representative
Carr that I would be happy to post a retraction if he would “explain to me the
actual reasons why [he] filed HB 42, as well as divulge the person or persons
whom [he had] consulted with respect to [its] constitutionality.” I also explained to him that I had not known
“that the conversation reported in the Scene was taken out of context,” and
that if he “would be willing to elucidate [his] position on the issue of rape
and pregnancy further so as to place it in its proper context, I would gladly
run that correction as well.”
Furthermore, I explained to him that I “seriously doubt that anybody is
operating under the false impression that I consulted with [him] about this
bill before questioning [his] motives.”
Finally, I noted that “[g]iven what I believe to be the obvious
unconstitutionality of [his] bill, and given that [his] decision to introduce
HB 42 coincided so closely with [his] announcement that [he] would seek the 4th
Congressional District seat, I think that my speculation regarding [his]
intentions was a far cry from “‘unfounded.’”
My requests for the above clarifications were each rebuffed,
and I was also accused of having “an ulterior motive apart from whether HB42 is
constitutional.” Representative Carr further
informed me that he hoped that I would “change [my] mind about the use of
tactics regarding politics of personal destruction.” Thus, in an effort to clear the record to his
complete satisfaction, I would like to offer the following clarification:
I do not know Joe Carr personally, and although I have
followed much of his work, I have never had any contact with him prior to our
recent email exchange. I also did not
speak with Representative Carr at any point before speculating about why he had
introduced HB 42. If anyone was
operating under the impression that I knew Joe Carr or had consulted with him
before criticizing him for introducing HB 42, I deeply apologize. To set the record straight, although I am certainly
not a fellow “conservative Republican” (as he put it), I also have no “ulterior
motive” in this matter. For the sake of
balance, I have also been sharply critical of the Democratic Metro Council in
this blog, the Tennessean and elsewhere for the protectionist regulations that
the Transportation Licensing Commission has imposed upon Nashville’s taxi and limousine industries,
and I have no intention of ending this criticism until the market is allowed to
operate freely.
Below are the email exchanges:
On Jan 26, 2013, at 7:21 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:Mr. Horwitz,
I hope this email finds you doing well. To my knowledge you and I have never met nor spoke. You have on several different occasions felt it necessary to comment and opine on my motives for filing House Bill 42. You do not know my motives and you can only impugn my integrity by commenting without having discussed the issue with me first. I respectfully ask that you refrain from doing so further. Your comment that I was motivated by a desire to "gin up support from his base in anticipation of a primary challenge" is more than just unfortunate it is inaccurate.
I would be grateful if you would post a retraction in those publications that you have opined about motives my for filing House Bill 42.
Regards,Joe CarrState Representative District 48205 War Memorial BuildingNashville, TN 37243______________________________________On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Representative Carr,Thank you for your email and public service.If you would be so kind as to explain to me the actual reasons why you filed HB 42, as well as divulge the person or persons whom you consulted with respect to the constitutionality of this bill, I would be more than happy to post the correction if Rod Williams accepts it for publication.Thanks very much,Daniel HorwitzCornell University, BA 2010Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013___________________________________________On Jan 26, 2013, at 9:42 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:Mr. Horwitz,You posted comments about me and my motives before contacting me or speaking with me about the bill. I will be glad to discuss why I filed the bill and who I consulted with as soon as you publish an acknowledgement that your opinions were published without having contacted me first.In addition I have presumed you to be a conservative republican although I don't know this to be factually correct. None the less can you explain to me the relevance of you linking a liberal article from the Nashville Scene about a conversation that was taken out of context?Regards,Joe Carr
______________________________________
On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Representative Carr,You are an elected official, and I am merely a concerned citizen. For better or worse -- and I think for better -- public criticism comes with the territory of elected public service, and I seriously doubt that anybody is operating under the false impression that I consulted with you about this bill before questioning your motives. With respect, I will not pursue a correction until I have some reason to believe that my speculation about your intentions was inaccurate. As noted previously, however, if you would be so kind as to provide me with those reasons, I'd be happy to present them publicly for a larger conservative audience.For clarification, I am not a Republican, nor am I a conservative as that term is traditionally used today. I did not, however, know that the conversation reported in the Scene was taken out of context, which I think is important. Thus, if you would be willing to elucidate your position on the issue of rape and pregnancy further so as to place it in its proper context, I would gladly run that correction as well. I also think that a whole lot of voters would appreciate it if you would precisely detail your position on abortion in the case of rape, as well as explain the reasons why you take whatever position you hold.Sincerely,Daniel HorwitzCornell University, BA 2010Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013_____________________________________________On Jan 26, 2013, at 11:02 AM, Joe Carr <joecarr48@gmail.com> wrote:Mr. Horowitz,It was you who made an unfounded and unsubstantiated accusation as to my motives regarding HB42 and matters unrelated to the bill. It is not my responsibility to prove them wrong.It is obvious from your response that you have an ulterior motive apart from whether HB42 is constitutional. I don't know what your motives are and at this point it doesn't matter. I will say I did expect better from a obviously very talented 3rd year law student.I hope you change your mind about the use of tactics regarding politics of personal destruction.Blessings,Joe Carr
Sent from my iPhone
Daniel Horwitz is a third year law student at Vanderbilt University Law School, where he is the Vice President of Law Students for Social Justice. He can be contacted at daniel.a.horwitz@vanderbilt.edu.____________________________________________On Jan 26, 2013, at 12:10 PM, Daniel Horwitz <daniel.a.horwitz@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Representative Carr,I have no "ulterior motives." I simply take an interest in our state's politics, and I take seriously my elected representatives' obligation to comply with constitutional governance.Given what I believe to be the obvious unconstitutionality of your bill, and given that your decision to introduce HB 42 coincided so closely with your announcement that you would seek the 4th Congressional District seat, I think that my speculation regarding your intentions was a far cry from "unfounded." Again, I would welcome your clarification regarding any of the criticisms that I have levied against you, and I suspect that your constituents would as well.Best,
Daniel HorwitzCornell University, BA 2010Vanderbilt Law School, JD Candidate 2013
I extend to Representative Carr the opportunity to respond to this blog post should he so desire. Rod
Top Stories
Posts
When the federal government passes unconstitutional gun control laws, then the states should pass laws like this to protect Tennesseans' constitutional rights. "shall not be infringed upon" that can not be more clear
ReplyDelete