Engel v. Vitale at 50

Students in any of my courses that have touched upon religion in the United States are familiar with the case Engel v. Vitale, one of the most important or at least controversial Establishment Clause cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. In fact, students in my American Constitutional Law course looked at the case in depth yesterday. Unbeknown to me, yesterday was also the 50th anniversary of the Court's decision. The Desert News has a nice piece reflecting on the importance of the decision and how 50 years later it is still at the center of controversy.

When Government Breaches for Non-Payment

What happens when the federal government enters into a contract with private parties to provide some kind of services for the government, and then Congress refuses to allocate money to cover the costs of these services, or put a different way, refuses to give the government the money needed to pay for the services under the contract? Breach? You bet, said the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday.

Apparently Congress has created something called a "Judgment Fund" to cover costs related to court judgments issued against it. The Court determined that when the government breaches a contract, it must dip into this fund to make good on the promises it made under the contract.

Why? Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS blog sums up the Court's rationale nicely:

In stressing that the government must live up to what it promises its contracting partners, the Court majority said that this would actually benefit the government’s overall contracting operations, because more partners will be willing to join in contracts with the government if they know that the government has to meet whatever obligations it commits itself to satisfy.  Those who would enter a contract without such an assurance, the Court added, are likely to insist that the government pay a premium to “account for the risk of nonpayment.”

The Court is an Issue

Every four years Americans are reminded by the press about just how important the Presidential Election is to the U.S. Supreme Court, or at least to the composition of the Court. A recent piece in the U.S. Today begins by stating that "[t]his presidential election year, the most important numbers at the court could be 79, 76, 75 and 73. Those are the ages" of four of its members. Put a different way, up to four Justices might be retiring in the near future. Now might be good time for students in my American Constitutional Law and Common Law Legal System courses to reflect on our discussions about the Court and how its members are selected.

No One is Popular

The popularity of Congress is at an all-time low, according to many polls. President Obama is not very popular, but his opponent Mitt Romney is even less popular, although that might change. And now we are being told that the U.S. Supreme Court approval rating is at an historical low. The New York Times has more.

Time for a Fix?

Recently I came across a series in Slate Magazine that has somehow escaped my attention: How Can We Fix the Constitution. This is certainly not a new topic. Heck the founders were talking about how to fix the Constitution even before they ratified it. Remember, the Bill of Rights was basically a concession to anti-federalists who feared the strong central government being created by the new governing document. Put a different way, the Bill of Rights was kind of a fix to the new Constitution.

Last week, U.S. Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse weighed in on the question of whether there should be term-limits, like those that exist for member of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, for members of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is an interesting, and yes short read. Check it out.

As an aside, the Slate series was inspired by the new comedic book by Kevin Bleyer, a writer for the very popular fake news program The Daily Show entitled  Me the People.

Not Again

I touch upon freedom of speech in several of my courses. When I do, I always like to point out that even offensive speech like swearing or flipping someone the bird is protected speech under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. I also like to point out that not a year goes by that I fail to see some news article about some city who has tried to punish someone for swearing in public. And right on cue comes an Associated Press piece about a small town in Massachusetts who just passed a local ordinance banning "loud, profanity-laden language." Incredibly, or maybe not, I wrote a similar post a year and one day ago about another local government punishing someone for swearing.

Election Time is Fast Approaching

The SZ recently published two interesting articles concerning the upcoming elections in America. One looks at the influence of the 24-hour cable news network Fox News, while the other explains how a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling has led to even more reliance on campaign contributions and created a situation where outside, so-called Political Action Groups may have more influence on the elections then the candidates themselves. The articles should be of interest to anyone interested in the American political system, which I assume some of you studying American law are.

Supreme Court declines to hear 'So help me God' lawsuit

The Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, or least the way the Court has struggled with it, is not an easy concept for students to grasp. What makes it most confusing is that America is perceived as an über-religious country, and then students read about the wall of separation and are left totally confused. I assume most religious conservatives in America share their plight.

But if there really is this wall separating church and state in America, why are references to God seemingly everywhere: on money, in the national motto, in the pledge of allegiance, said by the President after almost every televised speech, as so on. Recently the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider the same question in the context of an Establishment Clause challenge to the taking of the Presidential oath whereby the Chief Justice finishes the oath by asking the soon-to-be President to repeat "so help me God."

Time for a Change?

Judicial elections in the State of Michigan have become some of the most expensive and downright nasty in the country. In a recent guest commentary published in the Detroit Free Press, several judges suggest it is time to fix a system where:

2010 candidates for the Michigan Supreme Court raised a total of $2.6 million. The political parties and state-based interest groups reported spending another $2.5 million. But data collected from the public files of state television broadcasters and cable systems showed that an additional $6.3 million was spent by the political parties and interest groups.

 Among the ideas suggested: scrap elections of judges!

Do Away With Life Tenure?

The United States Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior," which put another way means they are appointed for life. Is that a good idea? Not really claims one law professor.

The Electoral College

Just in case my explanation of the way Americans choose their President was not clear, the Economist magazine has a very clear and concise one. The wonderful British accent of the narrator perhaps makes this explanation much more enjoyable to listen to than the one I provided in class.

Jury Nullification. Unlawful?

One concept that seems to boggle the minds of students learning about the common law jury system is jury nullification. As students have learned, generally this is the principle whereby jurors may ignore the law when reaching their verdict if they believe in good conscience that applying the law strictly in a case would be unjust. As I repeatedly tell students, most jurors have no idea that they have such power, and no judge in his or her right mind would instruct the jury about this right.

But would happen if a private citizen tried to inform potential jurors of this right on their way into the courthouse? Could that be considered tampering with the judicial system? Illegal? It should be, argued New York prosecutors in a case they brought against an 80 year old retired professor who stood outside courthouses and distributed information to people about jury nullification. See here for the result.

The Veepstakes

Yes, even the selection process for choosing a potential Vice-President of the United States has been boiled down to some catchy, made for TV tagline. Today we refer to the selection of a running mate for a presidential election as the "Veepstakes." Probably not what the founders had in mind when they created the position in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, as students in my American Constitutional Law course should already know, the founders set forth a different means for choosing a Vice-President than the one we have today. It was changed by the 12th Amendment.

But my real point here is not rehash what we learned in class, but to direct you to an in-depth article in Die Zeit about the current speculation as to who GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will select as his running mate. The article goes into why this choice may be important, and gives examples of how a bad choice can hurt the presidential candidate. A good, albeit long, read. At least its in German.

Kiffen gegen die Staatskrise

Well actually "Kiffen gegen Schmerzen" is the name of a very informative Die Zeit article on California's medical marijuana law, although the article also notes that "Kiffen gegen die Staatskrise" may be equally applicable as the State of California receives over $1 billion dollars annually in tax revenue from the sale of medical pot. But I digress.

Students in any of my courses where we have discussed the American version of federalism should immediately know why this law is of interest to us. Students currently in my American Constitutional Law course will learn why next week. Either way, anyone interested in learning more about California's somewhat controversial law should take a look at the article in Die Zeit.

Tweeting in the Courtroom

Does the use of Twitter by reporters to send out real-time reports of a courtroom proceeding endanger the rights of criminal defendants? According to one Chicago judge presiding over a highly publicised case, yes:

The judge in the Illinois case fears that feverish tweeting on smartphones could distract jurors and witnesses when testimony begins April 23.

"Tweeting takes away from the dignity of a courtroom," said Irv Miller, media liaison for Cook County Judge Charles Burns. "The judge doesn't want the trial to turn into a circus."

Burns is allowing reporters to bring cellphones and to send e-mails periodically, a notable concession in a state that has only recently announced it will begin experimenting with cameras in court and where cellphones are often barred from courtrooms altogether.

There's also an overflow courtroom where reporters can tweet freely. But there will be no audio or video of proceedings in the room, just live transcripts scrolling across a screen.

The issue extends beyond journalists to jurors, whose tweets have raised issues of their own across the country.

Last year, the Arkansas Supreme Court threw out a death row inmate's murder conviction after one juror tweeted during proceedings and another slept. Juror Randy Franco's tweets ranged from the philosophical to the mundane. One read, "The coffee sucks here." Less than an hour before the jury returned with a verdict, he tweeted, "It's all over."

Using Google to Choose a Jury

The selection of a jury in the United States can be a complicated matter. In fact, it can at times look like a game. As more and more Americans make information about themselves available via social networks and the like, it was bound to happen sooner or later that clever lawyers would start conducting Google searches on prospective jurors. But is it OK for lawyers to google jurors during jury selection? Recently a New Jersey court answered the question affirmatively.

Stille Nacht an Currywurst mit Grünkohl

I forgot to post this link to an article that Die Zeit ran before Christmas about the revival of interest in German culture among Americans. Since then I have read a few more articles in Die Zeit along the same lines. Anyway, my students studying American law may find this short article to be a nice diversion.

Is A Disgraced Reporter Morally Fit to be A Lawyer?

This is the question currently in front of the California Supreme Court concerning the law license application of Stephen Glass, a former reporter for the New Republic magazine who was fired in the late 1990s after it was discovered that he fabricated most of the articles he wrote for the magazine. The San Francisco Chronicle has more on this fascinating question of how morally fit must one be to practice law in California.

TV's in the Courtroom

Whether TV cameras should be allowed in the courtroom during hearings before the Supreme Court (both UK and US) has been a hot topic in both America and England as of late. In America, it appears that Congress is trying to pass a law that would require the high court to televise its hearings. But can Congress really force the Court? A very good article in the Christian Science Monitor asks this question.

What They Don't Teach in Law Schools: Lawyering

The New York Times ran a piece this weekend with the above headline. This is a nice addition to our discussion in class (except for my Introduction to English Law course) about becoming a lawyer in the United States.