Angus wonders whether primogeniture laws are unconstitutional. He says that they are probably fine, but I am skeptical.

Consider Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, striking down an Illinois law that forbade illegitimate children from inheriting from intestate fathers. The Court agreed with Angus that the class was not suspect but nonetheless discerned no legitimate state purpose for the law. I suggest that if the state has no interest in making sure that the illegitimate child does not cut into the other heirs' shares, then it most certainly has no interest in trying to cut out legitimate children in the same way. Q.E.D.

[Incidentally, then-Justice Rehnquist dissented from the decision, accusing the Court of using the equal protection clause "as a cat-o'-nine-tails to be kept in the judicial closet as a threat to legislatures which may, in the view of the judiciary, get out of hand."]

UPDATE: A reader doubts:

Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762 (1977), strikes me as related to, but not on all fours with, Angus's hypothetical primogeniture statute.

You note that the law "forbade illegitimate children from inheriting from intestate fathers," but did not mention that it allowed those same illegitimate children to inherit from intestate mothers. The difficulty of proving paternity was forwarded as one of the state's interests in allowing inheritance from intestate mothers, but not fathers. The Court then noted that the link between the state's proferred interest--that of "assuring accuracy and efficiency in the disposition of property at death"--and the statute failed to consider a middle ground approach:

"For at least some significant categories of illegitimate children of intestate men, inheritance rights can be recognized without jeopardizing the orderly settlement of estates or the dependability of titles to property passing under intestacy laws. Because it excludes those categories of illegitimate children unnecessarily, § 12 is constitutionally flawed." Trimble, 430 U.S. at 771.

At its core, Trimble rests on the notion that the state statute was, in fact, drawing differences between legitimate and illegitimate children, without a sufficient state interest to sustain this policy under the Equal Protection Clause. A primogeniture statute, though, would avoid this problem. Rather than being passed to "cut out" other legitimate children from inheritance, the hook of the statute would need to be eliminating any inheritance by more than one person. Thus the protection is not of the property of the eldest child, but rather of a state interest in unitary inheritance. Of course, a state interest in such must be proferred, but as Angus noted, preventing the break up of property could be one such interest. Another possibility is ease of administration.

I found myself reading United States v. One Book Entitled Ulysses, 72 F.2d 705 (1934) today, and was struck by this exchange between Augustus Hand (holding that the book was legal, on statutory grounds) and Judge Manton, in dissent.

Hand:

It may be that Ulysses will not last as a substantial contribution to literature, and it is certainly easy to believe that, in spite of the opinion of Joyce's laudators, the immortals will still reign, but the same thing may be said of current works of art and music and of many other serious efforts of the mind.

Masterpieces have never been produced by men given to obscenity or lustful thoughts -- men who have no Master. Reverence for good work is the foundation of literary character. A refusal to imitate obscenity or to load a book with it is an author's professional chastity. Good work in literature has its permanent mark; it is like all good work, noble and lasting. It requires a human aim -- to cheer, console, purify, or ennoble the life of people. Without this aim, literature has never sent an arrow close to the mark. It is by good work only that men of letters can justify their right to a place in the world. (Emphasis added).

In 1928, a panel headed by Chief Judge Martin Manton of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a 2-cent increase. That decision was later overturned by the United States Supreme Court, and the nickel fare lasted until 1948.

Mr. Chadbourne acknowledges in the deleted material that he discussed the fare case with Judge Manton, who was subsequently imprisoned for accepting bribes while on the bench in one of the worst scandals in the history of the American judiciary, The bribery investigation revealed that Mr. Chadbourne had been, in effect, a business partner of Judge Manton in the 1930's and that he had helped arrange a $250,000 loan to the judge while his firm was arguing a case in his courtroom. After Mr. Chadbourne's death, one of his law partners was disbarred for ties to the judge.

Once he has read a book, Tyler Cowen likes to throw it away. Even if I will never read them, I prefer to hoard.

Professor Cowen's question is what the best way to dispose of the book is. I am tempted to say "give them to me!" but in fact that is quite wrong. I believe that my tendency to hoard library books is justified but for any given book there might be a higher-value user. Cowen therefore (brilliantly) suggests leaving the book in a bookstore; somebody will have to buy it, which means that if it finds a home it will be with a user who significantly values it.

This is pretty good, although there is a nontrivial risk that the book will sit on the shelves for a while-- this can be a loss because even though nobody values the book at list price, there are people who value it somewhat. So it seems to me a clarification is in order; the best place to leave the book is probably a high-traffic used bookstore (like Powell's). The price and search costs will still make sure the book finds a loving home, but probably get it off the shelves more quickly. The optimal price for making sure a book finds a good home is almost surely lower than the market-clearing price, unless Cowen is also trying to help bookstores maximize profits.

Of course, finding a used bookstore can be hard when one is traveling. An alternative is to buy some "50% off!" stickers and leave the book near the sale rack.

Jabob Levy takes an online quiz in response to this post of Amber's, and kicks off an argument about De Gaulle airport over at John and Belle's.

For those of you who remain mystified by who this Jacob Levy character is, I do promise to explain soon.