Harkening back to the days when Massachusetts was known derisively as "Taxachusetts," a liberal coalition is pushing to amend the state constitution to impose a 9 percent tax on incomes above $1 million. The amendment would override the state constitution's current prohibition on graduated income taxes.
Putting aside the question of whether the proposed amendment is good policy — and in a highly competitive national and international economy struggling with weak growth, it's not — the effort actually warms my heart.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's denial of Tom Brady's appeal from his Deflategate suspension might never become a regular topic of study in our nation's law schools. And whether Tom Brady takes the Patriots' first snap this season won't affect the legal system, apart from Boston lawyers holding tickets to those first few Patriots games.
But the Deflategate decision, with its talk of witness tampering and evidence destruction, does raise important questions about how non-judicial decisionmakers resolve issues normally decided by courts. These decisions can have life-altering consequences: whether people, like Brady, are allowed to work; whether they can attend college; even what they can say. Yet these decisions are often made without the due process guarantees or impartiality found in a court of law.
