The New York Times this morning runs a front-page news story and an editorial about a potential federal prosecution of two New Jersey state troopers. A state judge in New Jersey this week dismissed attempted murder and aggravated assault charges against the troopers, who have been caught up in the debate over "racial profiling"; now the federal Justice Department is stepping in, with the encouragement of the Times. Both the Times news story and the editorial, however, omit any reference to an important constitutional point that bears on any such federal prosecution following a state acquittal. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." This is the prohibition on double jeopardy, and it is part of the bedrock of the American legal system. It has, unfortunately, been eroded in recent years by both the federal prosecution of the Los Angeles police who beat up Rodney King and by the federal prosecution of the perpetrators of the anti-Semitic riots in Crown Heights. Never mind the merits of the original charges in each case; according to the Constitution, the prosecutors only get one run at the accused. If the state prosecutors want to appeal the New Jersey judge's ruling, they can go ahead, but if the state prosecutors lose, having the troopers then hauled up on federal charges arising from the same incident is unconstitutional. Even if the Times doesn't agree with this interpretation of the Constitution, it would be nice if the newspaper at least grappled with the point.
Them Apples: In the middle of apple season -- actually, nearing the end of apple season -- the Times today runs a front-page dispatch on the apple industry and the plight of apple farmers. The Times is, of course, based in New York state, which is home to some of the most lovely apple orchards on Earth. The editor of Smartertimes.com has been making twice-weekly stops at a farmer's market in Brooklyn over the past month to pick up apples of the Empire, McIntosh, Northern Spy and Winesap varieties, as well as some Cortlands for pie-baking. So where does the Times send its reporter to find out how the apple industry is faring? Washington state. It's as if the Times ran a front-page feature on the bagel datelined Los Angeles, or a front-page feature on the corned-beef sandwich datelined Miami. It's this sort of thing that is enough to make a reader regret the Times' ambitions as a national paper and wish the newspaper would just aim to cover New York well.
Puddle: An editorial in today's Times runs under the headline "A Judicial Threat to Clean Water" and comments on arguments made before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Leave aside the Times' typically slow response time -- event happens on Tuesday, editorial appears Saturday. The editorial comes down in favor of the federal government having the power to regulate "wetlands" that serve as "habitats for migratory birds." This power is a nightmare for landowners, who wind up having to file environmental impact reports of hundreds of pages with the Environmental Protection Agency if there is a parking lot on their property that has a puddle in it where a Canada goose happens to stop once a year. But the Times, of course, is unconcerned about the effects of expanded federal regulation on private landowners. The Times says the federal regulation should be acceptable because the puddle at issue in the Supreme Court case is being threatened by a landfill. "What is being regulated here is waste disposal, an economic activity plainly within the scope of Congress's commerce power," The Times writes. This is a doozy of a test-principle to apply to federal environmental regulations. We wonder where the Times would come down if the wetlands and migratory birds were being threatened by something the Times thinks the federal government has no power at all to regulate. Say, an abortion clinic, or a Hollywood recording studio churning out filthy rap lyrics.
Unwed Motherhood: The Times manages to run a lead story in its Arts & Ideas section today about unwed motherhood without mentioning that the growth in the phenomenon has been leveling off in recent years. Instead, the beginning of the article portrays it as a runaway trend: "The statistic has not lost its power to shock: about a third of the births in this country each year are to unmarried mothers. By almost any measure, the rise in the proportion of babies born outside marriage, from less than 1 in 20 in 1960 to 1 in 3 now, has been among the most profound changes in American society." But that rise has mostly subsided. According to the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the percent of live births to unmarried mothers among blacks declined to 69.1 percent in 1998 from 70.4 percent in 1994. The percent of live births to unmarried mothers of Hispanic origin declined to 41.6 percent in 1998 from 43.1 percent in 1994. Among Asians and Pacific Islanders, the percent of live births to unmarried mothers declined to 15.6 percent in 1998 from 16.2 percent in 1994. These statistics are offset slightly by increases in unwed motherhood among non-Hispanic whites, but for all Americans, the 1998 statistic was 32.8 percent of live births to unmarried mothers, up just slightly from 32.6 percent in 1994. The government breaks the statistics out by race, and 1998 is the most recent year for which the statistics are available. Some of the decline may be the result of the 1996 welfare reform act, which reduced the financial incentive that had been provided by the government to women who bore children out of wedlock.
Fuzzy Math: A story in the national section of today's Times reports unchallenged President Clinton's accusation that "The surplus is supposed to be $2 trillion." In fact, Congressional Budget Office estimates of the ten-year surplus are now closer to the $4 trillion range, which makes Mr. Clinton's complaint about the size of George W. Bush's tax cut seem less credible. But the Times just passes along Mr. Clinton's assertion about the size of the surplus as if it were undisputed.