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.

How Powerful is the Federal Government?

As I mentioned last week in my Introduction to American Law course, questions concerning federalism in the United States are really now questions about how powerful the federal government can be. The New York Times ran a great piece this past weekend about this question of government power in the context of President Obama's effort to provide all Americans with health care. Give it a read and see if you can follow the arguments being made.

Juries in the Age of Facebook

The Chicago Tribune recently ran a fascinating piece about whether a juror's blog postings impacted the fairness of a trial.

Judges have long instructed jurors not to talk about their jury service with anyone, including fellow jurors, and to avoid reading newspaper stories about trials. The fear is that jurors might develop a bias from information that's not been admitted in court. The right to an impartial jury is one of the principles of the American justice system.

But that right is threatened in a digital age when people post personal thoughts onto the Internet, whether on a blog or social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter. It's also become second nature to satisfy curiosities by searching for immediate answers on the Internet.

The article goes on to discuss issues like jurors using Google Street View to visit the scene of a crime, something they are physically prohibited from doing, but virtually? It gives an example of a murder conviction being overturned because a juror consulted Wikipedia as part of the deliberation process. The questions raised in this article are numerous and important!

Too Much Independence?

The main purpose of the 2005 constitutional reforms in the United Kingdom, which created a new Supreme Court, was to increase the independence of the judiciary. But now some three years into this constitutional experiment, some are questioning whether the Court has become too independent. The Guardian has more.

Finding a Rational Basis to Prohibit Gay Marriage

The struggle of gays and lesbians to obtain full marriage rights is now a legal battle being fought in the courts. The questions facing the court are numerous and all grounded in the U.S. Constitution. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized an implied constitutional right to marry. So does this also apply to gays and lesbians. So far the courts have said no. Does prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying violate the Equal Protection Clause? Well, it depends how you analyze it. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the question must be analyzed using the Rational Basis Test. Under this test the plaintiff must prove that the government does not have a legitimate interest in passing the law and/or the means used to achieve the government interest are not rationally related to the interest itself. The primary argument used by opponents of gay marriage is that the government has a legitimate interest in encourages only those partnerships where procreation is possible. But as this article in Slate magazine points out, perhaps prohibiting gays from marrying is not rationally related to this interest.

When Will They Learn?

Hardly month goes by without the news reporting some case of a person being arrested and charged with a crime for swearing in public. Time and time again the courts throw these cases out on the basis of the First Amendment's free speech protection. It makes me wonder whether prosecutors have ever read the Constitution. This recent case out of Arizona is a nice example.

Judicial Review Under Review

Dahlia Lithwick of Slate Magazine recently asked whether legal arguments over President Obama's health care reform should make us question the role of the courts in our system of government. The article is really about the politicization of America's "independent" judiciary, and provides one view how American courts are being impacted by outside influences, and whether this development (if in fact it is something new) should make us reconsider judicial review.

Can Private Parties Enforce Federal Regulations?

As with most questions in American Administrative Law, the answer is it depends. It depends on what the enabling statute (the statute either creating the agency or the agency's task) says. The law blog JURIST has a good example of a statute that allows private parties to enforce regulations and an instance where a federal judge found that environmental groups had standing to sue to enforce the regulations:

A federal judge on Tuesday permitted two environmental groups to sue a Texas refinery owned by ExxonMobil Corp. [corporate website] for failing to enforce federal environmental standards. The Sierra Club and Environment Texas [advocacy websites] filed the lawsuit [Reuters report] in December in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas [official website] against ExxonMobil's Baytown, Texas, refinery and the adjacent chemical plant for allegedly releasing over 8 million pounds of pollutants beyond the levels permitted under the CAA in the last five years. The Clean Air Act (CAA) [materials] contains a provision permitting private individuals to seek enforcement of federal pollution laws when the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [official website] fails to do so.

you can read the rest here.

Senate Vote Thresholds

Students in my U.S. Constitutional Law course were recently perplexed by the number of different vote thresholds the Senate needs to accomplish various tasks. One student bravely asked if I would put together a list of the various thresholds. Sure, why not.

Votes need to conduct business (quorum) - a majority of seats currently filled by elected, living members.

Votes to pass a bill - a majority of members present for the vote.

Votes needed to end a filibuster (Cloture Vote) - 3/5 of the full Senate, i.e. of seats not vacant. Remember, the filibuster only exists in the Senate.

Votes needed to confirm a Presidential Appointee - majority of members present for the vote. Remember, only the Senate as confirmation power.

Votes needed to ratify a treaty - 2/3 of Senators present. Remember, only the Senate has ratification power.

Votes needed to convict and remove - 2/3 of Senators present. Remember, the House, by a simple majority, begins this process by impeaching the person.

Votes needed to override a veto - 2/3 of Senators present (House of Representatives are also needed).

Votes needed to propose an Amendment to the Constitution - 2/3 of member present. (House must also vote).

How Important Are Oral Arguments

Students in my Conversation and Presentation Skills for Lawyers course just finished a moot court exercise. For those of you not familiar with mooting, the exercise is essentially modeled on an appellate court proceeding. As I point out to students, these oral arguments in real life give appellate judges the opportunity to ask questions they may have on points of law, but more specifically it gives judges the opportunity to think about how their decision might impact future cases. As I like to point out to students, many of the questions asked by Supreme Court Justices during oral arguments are hypothetical in nature for the very reason that they are struggling with trying to determine how a particular rule they develop could be used in the future. But how important are these oral arguments? After all, both parties submit detailed legal briefs outlining their legal arguments. One sitting Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, has famously not asked a question during oral arguments for several years now. His position, apparently, is that these oral arguments aren't worth very much. Now it appears that at least one other Justice feels the same way.

Our Aging Judiciary

Is giving judges lifetime appointments a good idea? Not really according to this recent piece in Slate Magazine.

Under the U.S. Supreme Court: The president makes war in Libya

After pressure from England and France, President Barack Obama finally agreed to send U.S. war planes into Libya. But did he have the power to do so without permission from Congress? Back in March, shortly after the first U.S. planes were seen over Libya, United Press International ran an informative piece on this question. Students in my U.S. Constitutional Law course may want to check this short piece out.

Jury Selection

The Orlando Sentinel has a great article and video about the jury selection in a Florida case that has received nation-wide attention. The piece begins by stating basically what I have been telling students about jury selection in America, at least in high profile cases:

Experts say trials are won and lost in jury selection.

This is why an entire jury-consulting industry is devoted to reading the body language of would-be jurors, profiling them based on personal characteristics and learning as much as possible about these individuals to sift out the "dangerous jurors."

The rest of the story and the video are worth your time if you are interested in getting a better look at jury selection in high profile cases.

The Rise of the States

To fully understand the constitutional argument surrounding President Obama's attempt to provide health care to all Americans, one must also understand how federalism works in the United States. The struggle for power between the states and the federal government has been a part of the political debate in the U.S. since its founding. And even today the States are looking for ways to increase their power, including this proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution in a way that would allow the States to veto federal law.

Biden Called to Serve

No one is too important to serve on a jury in the United States. At least that was the message that Vice-President tried send this week when he appeared in a Delaware courthouse after being summoned to serve on a jury. The Los Angeles Times has a nice short piece on what happened when the Veep showed up as well as a nice little anecdote about what happened last year when the President of the United States was summoned to serve on a jury in Chicago.

More on Racial Preferences

Students in my Race and Equality in America seminar recently engaged in a discussion concerning the controversial topic of Affirmative Action. And wouldn't you know it, a day later Affirmative Action is in the news with the U.S. Court of Appeals' ruling on the University of Texas admission policy, which takes race into consideration as a factor for admission. The Statesman newspaper has more.

Courts of Appeals in the States

So here is a quick quiz. How many states do NOT have a court appeals in their judicial system?

Students in my introduction to common law courses are by now familiar with the basic structure of court systems in the United States: trial court, appeals court, supreme court. As I mentioned, many states deviate from this basic structure in one way or another. For instance, the highest court in New York is not called Supreme Court but Court of Appeals, while one of the lower courts is called Supreme Court. A bit confusing. Wikipedia has collected a few more differences that exist between state court systems.

But a more substantial deviation from this basic structure is the absence of a Court of Appeals. In these states one finds a trial court and a Supreme Court with nothing in between. In some of these states losers in the trial court have the right to have their appeal heard by the Supreme Court!

The Las Vegas Sun recently published an editorial urging the Nevada Legislature to create a Court of Appeals in Nevada. Because Nevada is a state where one has an appeal as of right to the Supreme Court, the system is inefficient with a bottleneck of cases at the top of the pyramid, at least so argues the Sun.

So back to my question. How many states do not have an intermediate court? The answer: 10! Wow. More on the various differences between the state systems regarding appeals can be found here.

A Split in the Courts

A nice little review of students in my law classes. The Dallas Morning News has a nice short article today emphasizing the how precedent works in a country like the United States, which has multiple judicial jurisdictions. The article concerns how courts in various parts of the country have dealt with the issue of whether police need a search warrant to search a cellphone. The take-away lines from the article:

A recent California Supreme Court decision says police do not need search warrants to examine the cellphones of those under arrest. But local judges and a deputy chief for the Dallas Police Department say officers should obtain warrants before reading the contents of cellphones. . . . "The safer way would be to get a warrant until the [Texas] Court of Criminal Appeals rules or the [U.S.] Supreme Court rules," said Adams, presiding judge for the felony courts.

Indeed. A case in California has no binding effect on courts in Texas. Only the U.S. Supreme and top court in Texas, in this case the criminal court of appeals, can create binding precedent that lower Texas courts must follow.

The House Over Time

Just to follow-up on yesterday's post. The Washington Post has a really interesting interactive map showing how the composition of the House of Representatives has changed over the past 100 years. Choose a year. Then move your cursor over a given state. It will show you how many representatives that state had during the period you have chosen. It will also show you how many people each member of the House represented in a given period. Looks like the average number of people per member of Congress was about 290,000 in 1910. Today it is over 700,000 people per representative!

Census Numbers Are In

In each of my courses, at some point or another, we touch upon how the membership of House of Representative is apportioned, and reapportioned every ten years. As students in my courses this semester have heard me say a number of times, this year reapportionment will once again take place because the United States just completed its census. Well, the numbers are in. Politico has more about which states were the winners and which the losers when it comes to membership in the House.

Tweeting from the Jury Box

Reuters recently had an interesting article on the impact social media is having on juries. The article begins:

The explosion of blogging, tweeting and other online diversions has reached into U.S. jury boxes, raising serious questions about juror impartiality and the ability of judges to control courtrooms.

The article not only explains how this new media is threatening fairness in jury trials, but also provides numerous examples of instances where a judge ordered a NEW TRIAL because of a juror's online conduct during the trial.

Advise and Obstruct

The New York Times recently ran an editorial with the same caption as my post here, which is clearly a play on the "advise and consent" language in the U.S. Constitution. As students will recall, while the President has the power to nominate federal judges, he must also obtain the consent of the U.S. Senate. As I mentioned in class, this process has become increasingly political to the point where the federal judiciary's ability to efficiently function is being threatened. Or at least so argues the New York Times.

A very rare event

As I have mentioned in class, it is quite rare for a judge to be removed via the impeachment process. So yesterday's vote in the U.S. Senate wad rather historic.


The US House of Representatives [official website] voted unanimously [JURIST report] in March to impeach Porteous. After an investigation [report text, PDF] by a special committee, the Judicial Conference found "substantial evidence" that Porteous had signed false financial disclosure forms, falsified statements in a personal bankruptcy proceeding, made false representations to secure a bank loan and violated criminal laws [text] and ethical rules by soliciting and receiving "cash and other things of value" from lawyers in a bench trial over which he was presiding. Porteous' decision in that case, In re Liljeberg enters v. Lifemark Hospitals, was later partially reversed [opinion text] by the Fifth Circuit, which earlier this year reprimanded Porteous [text, PDF]. A House committee began investigating Porteous [JURIST report] in 2008.'>Senate votes to remove federal judge from bench

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

Originalism

How one should interpret the U.S. Constitution is a hotly debated topic in the United States. At the heart of this debate is whether the Constitution should be interpreted in a manner consistent with how the founders back in the 1780s would have interpreted it, or whether the Constitution should be interpreted to reflect changes in modern society. This idea of looking back 230 years to find the proper interpretation of the Constitution is called originalism. Prof. Lawrence Solum has an excellent primer on what originalism is and what all the hubbub is about.

Cameras in Courtrooms

Should hearings before a high court be televised? American academics, jurists and members of the media have been discussing this for several years now. The Brits have actually said yes to this question, and have allowed their new Supreme Court to hold hearings before the camera since last year. And now the head of the German Constitutional Court has entered the fray (see Spiegel's "Voßkuhle will Fernsehkameras im Gericht zulassen").

Gone

A few days ago I wrote about the effort in Iowa to remove three judges through the retention process because they voted to recognize gay marriage. My point was that usually judges are not removed through this process of retention . . . unless they make a controversial decision. Iowa provides us with yet another example. All three Iowa Supreme Court Justices who were up for retention and voted in favor of gay marriage were removed by voters on Tuesday. My question is, does this prove that supporters of judicial elections are right? Shouldn't judges reflect the majority view of society, and when they don't, they should be removed? Or do we want a system where judges can make rulings that do not reflect the so-called "will of the people?" Does an election like this actually help us truly determine what the will of the people is?

The Passive Voice

For my American Studies students, although my law students could benefit from this as well:

I came across a short, concise description of how the passive voice is used, and not used, in English. I have to admit that I found it while trying to understand how the passive voice is used in German, something with which I am still struggling.

More on Electing Judges

Advocates of judicial elections claim that electing judges make them accountable to the people. Even in those states where judges do not run against opponents, but instead stand for retention, advocates claim that while the people cannot select a new judge, at least they can throw the bums out when warranted. The modern reality is, though, that judges usually do not get removed by retention vote unless they have handed down a controversial decision that angers groups with the financial resources to run an ad campaign seeking their ouster. There is no better example of this than the retention vote taking place this year in the State of Iowa where the Iowa Supreme Court recently held that prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying violated the Iowa State Constitution. Outraged, groups on the religious right have poured all kinds of money into removing these judges from office. The Associated Press has more.

Electing Judges

With elections just around the corner in the United States, some commentators are once again lamenting the increasing politicization of selecting judges in some states. While electing judges is nothing new in America (many states have been selecting their judges in this manner for decades), the money that has been poured into these judicial campaigns as well as the harshness of the negatives ads put out by candidates has increased substantially in the past decade.

Richard Hansen and Dalia Lithwick over at Slate write:

If you're a fan of The Exorcist and Carrie, if you like sex and violence and ominous music, you've come to the right place. Because we have gathered some of the most spine-chilling Halloween footage you will ever see—all produced in an effort to influence state judicial elections.

Be sure to take quick look at some of these campaign ads for judges.

Would Make You Think Twice

As my students in both my introduction to law courses (in Osnabrück and Münster) are or will be finding out, law school in America is an entirely different proposition than what students here are faced with. For starters, law school in America is a graduate degree. One cannot begin studying law without first having a bachelors degree. Then there is the cost. While students here in Germany take to the streets as a result of having to pay €1000 per year in tuition, law students in America are faced with five, sometimes even six, digit loans upon completion of their legal education. Slate Magazine has an interesting piece on the American lawyer market (supply has outstripped demand) and the trials and tribulations of new lawyers just starting out.

He Means Business

Television ads and American politics go hand-in-hand. Some ads are better then others. And then some . . . well, some just are in a class of their own.

Nine Old Men

With one of the nine current Supreme Court Justices announcing his retirement, the American press is once again interested in the Court. Good timing for us as we begin to learn about how the Court functions and impacts American society. The Christian Science Monitor has an excellent piece on the composition of the Court, which begins:

Like a starting lineup in baseball, the US Supreme Court has nine members. The number seems immutable, as if it’s always been that way. Didn’t they used to call the court “The Nine Old Men”? Isn’t nine justices a requirement written in the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence?

read the rest of the article here.

Still An Issue

Students in several of my courses will study the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case. While forcing school districts to desegregate their schools via a court order seems like something from America's past, it turns out that such orders are still needed and handed down by courts in the United States. The law blog Jurist reports:

A judge in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi [official website] on Tuesday ordered [DOJ press release] a southern Mississippi school district to end its practice of allowing students to transfer from their assigned schools and classroom groupings, resulting in a segregated school system.

You can read more about this case here.

Is Obamacare Unconstitutional

Obamacare, the derogatory word used by critics to refer to Pres. Obama's attempt at reforming America's health care system, has been in the news quite a bit lately, even here in Germany. But part of the story that is somewhat under-reported is an attempt by opponents of Obama's plan to convince legislators, the public and ultimately the courts that the President's plan is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional? How so? Glad you asked. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has a very short and well-written piece in the Los Angeles Times on this very topic. His verdict: Obama's proposal is perfectly constitutional. Students in my Introduction to American Law class should read through Prof. Amar's piece as it discusses some constitutional issues that will form the basis of much of next semester's American Constitutional Law course.

Original Jurisdiction

So the Attorney General of the State of Michigan is filing a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court in order to protect the Great Lakes from Asian carp. Students in at least one of my classes (you know who you are, students in Introduction to American Law) should immediately be asking themselves a few questions here, and it has nothing to do with fish. This lawsuit is BEGINNING in the U.S. Supreme Court. Wait, didn't we learn that the Court is the highest appeals court in the U.S.? Remember our discussion about something called "original jurisdiction"? Article III of the Constitution specifically gives the Court "original jurisdiction" to hear a variety (albeit limited variety) of cases. One such case is when a state sues another state, which is what we have here: the State of Michigan v. the State of Illinois. In short, such a case begins in the Supreme Court, which is what we mean by "original jurisdiction." Of course, the case ends there too.

Is Adultery a Crime?

Leaving aside the moral implications of my question, what I am really asking here is does the act of adultery violate a criminal law. At the turn of the century . . . the 19th century . . . all states had laws punishing adultery. The punishment ranged from flogging to imprisonment. But today no one talks, for instance, of charging Tiger Woods with a crime. But could we? Apparently, the answer is yes, at least in some states. The Associated Press has more.

The CSI Effect

For years now prosecutors in the United States have been saying that crime shows such as CSI create unrealistic expectations as to what forensic evidence can prove in a criminal trial. Academics have dubbed this the "CSI Effect," and some wonder whether the fictional depiction of the court system is now negatively impacting how the real court system functions. So it should not be surprising that criminal defendants now also feel that fiction may be interfering with their right to fair trial. This was the argument that was made last week before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, where a man convicted of murder claimed that the jury that convicted him was unduly influenced by the CSI Effect. The Boston Globe has more, but here is a hint as to how the justices responded to this appeal:

Margaret H. Marshall, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, expressed frustration while hearing an appeal in a Lowell first-degree murder case in which the defense claims a trial judge committed an error when he referenced the television show “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation. . . .’’

Marshall, however, noted from the bench that a 2006 Yale Law Journal study concluded the “CSI effect’’ was legal fiction and that jurors were not influenced to be against prosecutors. As such, she said, talk about “CSI’’ should be banned in courtrooms across the state.

A Forgotten Civil Rights Warrior

Yesterday's New York Times has an interesting piece on an important figure in the early history of the civil rights movement: Claudette Colvin. Who, you might ask. You and anyone else who has casually studied the American civil rights movement. Rosa Parks we know. It was her unwillingness to move to the back of the bus that sparked the modern civil rights movement. But Ms. Colvin did the exact same thing almost nine months earlier! Furthermore, her actions were also planned and defended by civil rights activists like Martin Luther King. The Times has more. It is well worth a read.

Is A Lawn Mower A Vehicle? Nope.

Earlier this month I posed an odd question: Is a lawn mower a vehicle. As you may recall, the Georgia Supreme Court was forced to face this question because someone had been sentenced to a long prison term for stealing a lawn mower. The prison term was only possible because the law makes a distinction between stealing motor vehicles and simple garden tools. Thus, if a riding lawn mower is considered to be equivalent to, say, a car, the longer prison term was justified. However, if the riding mower is nothing more than a garden tool, the longer prison term could not be justified. A few days ago, the Georgia Supreme Court finally cut through this legal Gordian knot. The Associated Press reports:

A riding lawn mower may have four wheels, a powerful engine and can cost as much as a used car. If it's stolen, however, the Georgia Supreme Court concluded Monday that it's not a motor vehicle.

The 4-3 decision overturned the conviction of Franklin Lloyd Harris, who was convicted of felony motor vehicle theft after he loaded a Toro riding mower in 2006 from a Home Depot in Dalton into his van and sped away. Because Harris was a repeat offender, he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

This is clearly not an easy call, as the 4-3 split indicates. The case can be found here. It is an interesting read.

A True Groundbreaker

Brown v. Board of Education is often viewed as being the first major victory in court in the fight to end legal segregation of the races in America. While it most certainly did change the legal landscape concerning racial discrimination, it was not the first victory in this battle. That distinction goes to Lloyd Gaines. The New York Times explains that:

On Dec. 12, 1938, the Supreme Court ruled that the segregated University of Missouri Law School had to admit Lloyd Lionel Gaines, who was qualified except for the color of his skin, if there was no comparable legal education available to him within Missouri — and there was not.

The New York Times has more on this fascinating individual and case.

When Must A Judge Step Aside?

Can a United States federal court judge hear a case in which he or she may have an interest in it's outcome? For instance, what if the judge happens to be a hunting buddy of the defendant in a case. Or the judge's son works for the law firm representing the plaintiff. Must the judge step aside? The simple answer under current law is no. But that may change if some members of Congress have their way. Law.com notes:

Under the current system, federal judges get to decide on their own whether to disqualify themselves from cases. Among the proposals being discussed are requiring a second judge to rule on a recusal motion -- rather than leaving the motion to the "targeted" judge -- and making substitution automatic if any party to a case swears an affidavit alleging prejudice. Some lawmakers, including Conyers, have also said in the past that they want a system to review recusal decisions by U.S. Supreme Court justices.

More on this can be found at law.com.

Suing Judges

In interesting article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal begins by saying:

People who believe they have been wronged by a judge can ask the judge to reconsider, appeal to a higher court or, if they suspect judicial wrongdoing, ask a bar association to investigate. But one thing people can't generally do is sue. The rationale behind the notion -- called absolute judicial immunity -- is straightforward: Judges shouldn't have to defend themselves in court whenever they issue a ruling that makes someone unhappy.

Two recently filed lawsuits in the state of Pennsylvania are trying to pierce this immunity. For more on this, I highly suggest reading the full article.

Judges Reject Rendition Suit

Extraordinary rendition. This is the program used by the U.S. government shortly after September 11, 2001, whereby terrorist suspects were kidnapped and sent to third countries where they could be interrogated using torture. One such victim, a Canadian who was picked up in Kennedy International Airport in New York and whisked off to Syria where he was detained and tortured for a year, was told by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals that he cannot sue the U.S. government because Congress did not authorized such a suit. Ben Weiser, of the New York Times writes:

In saying that he could not sue officials involved in his rendition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled by a vote of 7 to 4 that Congress could always create a civil damages remedy for harms suffered through rendition, but it had not done so.

“We decline to create, on our own, a new cause of action against officers and employees of the federal government,” Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs wrote in a 59-page majority opinion joined by six other judges.

Judge Jacobs said that it was for the executive branch to “decide how to implement extraordinary rendition, and for the elected members of Congress — and not for us as judges — to decide whether an individual may seek compensation” from government officials for a constitutional violation.

Setting aside the question of how Congress could have created a remedy for violations arising from a program about which it was not informed by the Bush Administration, there are some very interesting points to take away from this article.

First, in class students are told that hearings in the Court of Appeals are presided over by a three judge panel. So how do we get a 7 to 4 vote here? The decision was actually one made by an "en banc" panel. See here for a full discussion of this.

Second, boiled down to its simplest form, the argument being made by the majority here is they do not have jurisdiction to hear this case. Remember, Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to create lower federal courts and determine the courts' jurisdiction.

Finally, one could argue that this is an example of there being no common law in American federal courts. Many scholars argue that the only sources of law in the federal courts are statutes and the Constitution, not common law. When the judges say "we will not create a remedy," what they are really saying is we will not create a common law (judge-made) remedy.

Is A Lawn Mower a Motor Vehicle?

This question, as hard as it may be to believe, is currently before the Georgia Supreme Court. Why? Because people who steal "motor vehicles" in Georgia can be sentenced to long prison terms. So can someone who steals a riding lawn mower be eligible for one of these long prison sentences? The answer to this question hinges on whether a lawn mower is a motor vehicle. If so, then the defendant in this case can be sentenced just like he would have had he stolen an automobile. In the end, this is a classic case of statutory interpretation where the court's primary objective is to determine the intent of the legislature when it enacted the law. Law.com has more on this particular case. Once the Georgia court rules, I too will have more.

Case Before the Court

We are now a full month removed from the First Monday in October, which, as many American know, is the first day of new U.S. Supreme Court term. There are several very interesting cases on the Court's docket this session, ranging from whether films depicting the brutal death of animals are protected by freedom of speech to whether juveniles can be sentenced to life in prison without violating the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent piece on the new term last month. It can be found here.

Vote or Appoint?

Judges in the United States come in all forms. Some are appointed for life (all federal judges and some state judges), some are appointed and then face the electorate for a retention vote. Put another way, if the public doesn't like the judge, they can vote him or her out of the judiciary. And some become judges through open, partisan elections. Supporters of the later form of selecting judges claim that allowing the citizens to chose the judges makes the courts more accountable. But critics say that making judges run for election requires them to raise campaign funds, making them beholden to special interest groups who gave them money. The critics may have one more example to justify their opposition to judicial elections: the race for an open seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The Associated Press has more on this ugly race for the high court and how many in the Keystone State are now questioning whether this is the best way to select a judge.

Time to Retire

Answering the question of how long one can serve as a judge in the United States is not easy. First, one must distinguish between the federal and state systems. In the federal system, the answer is as long as the judge wants. Federal judges are appointed for life and many serve until they die. In the states, the question is somewhat more complicated. Only a handful of states appoint their judges for life. A majority of states elect their judges by popular vote. Thus, one sits as a judge as long as one can continue to get elected. But a recent Associated Press piece sheds some light on the question of whether states who do not appoint their judges for life force their judges to retire at a certain age. To be honest, I had never given this question much thought. Turns out that over half of the states have laws or constitutional amendments that require their judges to retire at a certain age. In most of these states, 70 is the age of retirement. In Vermont it is 90!

Get a License or Else!

The lawyer plays a central role in many of my classes. In my Introduction to American Law class, we learn what it takes to become a lawyer. What I generally do not cover is this questions: What happens to people who practice law without a law license? Usually cases dealing with this question involve instances where one is actually engaged in the practice of law is questionable. Put another way, we are usually not talking about someone who shows up in court pretending to be a lawyer. Normally, we are talking about non-lawyers offering services, such as drafting wills or trusts, that are legal in nature. One company in Ohio recently found out what happens when one crosses the line between simple consulting and the practice of law. The Columbus Dispatch has more.

A Peek Inside the Court

During a recent visit to the University of Alabama, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clearance Thomas gave UA law students and audience members a glimpse inside the otherwise secretive decision making process of the Court. As students in most of my courses learn, appellate arguments in the United States usually involve judges asking the lawyers of both parties numerous questions. A typical hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court looks more like an question and answer session than an argument being presented by lawyers. But according to Justice Thomas, this Q&A is at best unnecessary and at worst downright bothersome. The Associate Press reports:

Thomas - who hasn't asked a lawyer a question during arguments in nearly four years - said he and the other eight justices virtually always know where they stand on a case by reading legal briefs before oral arguments.

"So why do you beat up on people if you already know? I don't know, because I don't beat up on 'em. I refuse to participate. I don't like it, so I don't do it," Thomas said during an appearance before law students at the University of Alabama. . . .

Thomas scoffed at the idea that the justices try to use questions to influence the opinions of fellow members of the court. "All nine of us are in the same building," he said. "If we want to sway each other we know where we are. We don't need oral arguments to do that. It doesn't make any sense to me.

The Tuscaloosa News has more on Justice Thomas' visit.

Still On The Books

Fresh on the heels of our discussion in my course "The Law and Social Change" comes this piece from the First Amendment Center in the United States:

Watch your language out there, because profanity and blasphemy could lead to criminal charges. We might hope that First Amendment-protected free speech lets us utter profanities, blasphemies and other choice phrases that occasionally slip from our intemperate tongues. After all, the U.S. Supreme Court protected a man who wore a jacket into a Los Angeles County Courthouse bearing the words "Fuck the Draft." That led to the famous Cohen v. California (1971) ruling in which Justice John Marshall Harlan — a conservative during the Warren Court years — uttered a phrase that has become First Amendment lore: "One man's vulgarity is another's lyric." But hold on. Yes, in a free society adult citizens outside of special contexts (jobs, military, school) can speak their minds in the open air. But if you think old laws punishing profanity and blasphemy no longer exist, you're wrong — a surprising number of state laws still prohibit such speech. Even though the laws are rarely enforced, they are still on the books.

You can read more here.

Welcome Back and Congrats to Medical Marijuana Users

After a long break, I will resume posting topics of interest to students in all of my classes on this blog. I'd like to start by revisiting a topic familiar to former students, and one that should be of interest to students in any of my classes where we discuss some aspect of the United States Government. As I wrote back in summer of 2008, medical marijuana users in states like California, where the use of pot for medical reasons was made legal under state law, were put in a bind several years back when the U.S. Supreme Court said that the federal government could arrest and prosecute people for using marijuana, a practice the Bush Administration was in favor of, because it violated federal law. Put another way, the use of medical marijuana was legal under state law but illegal under federal law. What was a medical pot user to do?

Unless you have been in a cave for the past year, you know that there has been a sea change in Washington D.C. with the election of President Obama, and it appears that this change is even reaching the medicinal pot users. How so? Well, the Department of Justice (the federal office responsible for enforcing the federal anti-pot laws) recently decided that the limited federal law enforcement resources may be better spent going after real criminals instead of people who are doing something perfectly legal under their state's law. They will no longer enforce federal law against medicinal pot users in states where the use of medical marijuana is legal.

For those new to this blog and/or this topic, this issue really illustrates: 1) how state and federal governments can have different laws, 2) how the laws can sometimes conflict, and 3) how a change in government can make a huge difference, among other things.

Back in October

I will resume posting after the semester break. Until then.

Can Non-Lawyers Judge a Judge?

Students in most of my classes have at some time or another become familiar with how the United States chooses its federal court judges. The short story: the President appoints and the Senate confirms. Students also know that there are no formal requirements needed to become a federal judge, other than being nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In theory, the qualifications of the judicial nominee are to be tested via the Senate confirmation process. However, many of the members of the committee who question the nominee are not trained lawyers. This begs the question: How can non-lawyers judge whether a nominee is qualified to be a federal judge? David Ingram at Law.com has more on this.

Sex Offender Registration Laws

Students in my debate and discussion class are familiar with laws in the United States that force convicted sex offenders to register with the county in which they live. Normally, the county publishes a list of convicted sex offenders living in the county. But some states have been taking this even further recently. Case in point: Florida, where state law says that a convicted sex offender cannot live within 2500 feet of a place where children might congregate. The impact of this law has created a real problem in larger cities like Miami. The Miami Herald has more (including a very fascinating video).

A Ritual Worth Watching

Tony Mauro of the National Law Journal has a short, interesting piece explaining why next week's Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings will be something to watch, or at least pay attention. Mauro's take can be found here.

A Remedy for Torture

There is a very interesting case working its way through the American court system concerning torture. An American citizen, who was recently convicted of planning a terrorist attacks, claimed that he was tortured during his pre-trial detainment. The torture, he claims, was a direct result of legal memos drafted by one of President Bush's legal advisors. And now the tortured wants to hold the person who instigated the torture process accountable. The question for the court: can a detainee who was tortured sue the person responsible for providing the opinion that torture is legal. The answer, at least so far, appears to be yes. More on the very interesting Padilla v. Yoo case can be found at the online magazine Slate.

The Rare Impeachment

Students in many of my classes have discussed at one point or another the process for removing the President, high executive officers and federal judges: impeachment. Between 1797 and 2008, only 17 individuals have been impeached, and of those only seven were removed. In short, this is a rare event in American history. Which is what makes last week's impeachment of U.S. Federal Court Judge Samuel Kent extraordinary. Judge Kent was recently convicted of obstruction of justice related to charges of sexual assault that were brought against him. Now in prison, Judge Kent remains a federal judge until he resigns or is removed. After last week's action in the House of Representatives, removal is looking increasingly likely. The Houston Chronicle has more.

UPDATE - According to the Associated Press, the process is now moving to the U.S. Senate.

Commercial Speech

Just how much protection does commercial speech have under the First Amendment? That is the question that is being raised after Congress recently passed a law prohibiting tobacco advertising within 1000 feet (304 meters) of schools. The law contains other speech restrictions as well. Wednesday's New York Times has an interesting piece on the legislation, which President Obama says he will sign, and the constitutional issues. As the Times points out:

Commercial free speech is not an absolute right, legal experts say. There are clear limits, for instance, on false advertising and on promotion of illegal activity. The issue grows more complicated if the advertising is both truthful and concerns a legal activity, like smoking by adults.

The Supreme Court in 1980 said such speech can be restricted only if it would directly advance a “substantial government interest” and the regulation was “narrowly tailored” to fit the interest. In the case of the new tobacco law, Congress specifically defined the government interest as a reduction in youth smoking.

But the tobacco industry denies that any of its advertising is aimed at young people.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also taken issue with the law saying that the legislation’s limits on commercial speech are broader than needed to accomplish the goal of reducing under-age smoking, i.e. the law is not narrowly tailored.

State Sovereignty

By now students in my constitutional law courses are likely sick of hearing me talk about the historical and on-going dispute concerning state sovereignty. As students will surely recall, this topic is the focus of our discussions concerning the Commerce Clause, Necessary and Proper Clause and the 10th Amendment. But rest assured that I do not drone on about this for nothing. This is a real and current debate, ever more so as this article in yesterday's Los Angeles Times points out.

It appears that some legislators in western states are not all that happy with President Obama and have decided that now is the time to challenge the power of the federal government. How do they intend to do this? Pass laws, especially dealing with gun control, that are in direct conflict to federal law with the hope that the courts will get involved in the dispute and overturn prior rulings that have given the federal government broad power. As the Times piece points out:

Supporters of the bill want the Supreme Court to eliminate gun controls and, eventually, curtail Washington's ability to set policy on a wide range of issues, including education, civil rights, law enforcement and land use.

As an aside, don't you find it somewhat disturbing that the modern cases challenging federal power seem to only involve sex (U.S. v. Morrison), drugs (Gonzales v. Raich) and guns (U.S. v. Lopez)?

The Role of Bias in Jury Selection

The Baltimore Sun had a very interesting piece in yesterday's paper about the role that stereotypes play in jury selection:

Before a high-profile federal trial began in Baltimore last month, lawyers for the three black defendants filed a motion claiming that the prosecution deliberately - and illegally - dismissed black jury candidates to pack the panel with whites.

"They want a jury that may be sympathetic to the death sentence," defense attorney Archangelo Tuminelli said.

But the judge ultimately ruled that the allegation was wrong. And, it turns out, the stereotype might be, too.

I highly recommend reading the rest of the article here.

Same Sex Marriage

What is the future of same-sex marriage in America? Students in my American Constitutional Law courses learned that the federal courts have not been a very friendly place for gay rights advocates primarily because they have not been open to treating gay and lesbians as a "suspect class." Thus, federal courts have had no problem finding laws such as the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy or the Defense of Marriage Act to be perfectly constitutional. But lawsuits in state courts have recently been far more successful. Georgetown law professor David Cole has a wonderful piece in next month's New York Review of Books about the history and future of same-sex marriage in the United States. It is worth a quick glance. At the very least, students should consider the three reasons Cole says are put forth by the government as why laws banning same-sex marriage are rationally related to a legitimate government interest:

(1) the state is responsible for preserving the traditional conception of marriage; (2) limiting marriage to heterosexual couples furthers the state's interests in promoting procreation and/or healthy childrearing; and (3) the state has a legitimate interest in refusing to condone homosexual behavior that it deems immoral.

Should any of these reasons be enough for the state to pass the rational basis test under the Equal Protection Clause?

More in case you were wondering

A few days ago I posted a link to a Miami Herald story explaining why politicians do not want Guantanamo Bay closed. In short, no politician wants to be responsible for having these detainees moved onto American soil. Put another way, no one wants the detainees in their state or city. No one except a small town in Montana that is actually lobbying FOR the chance to house the detainees from Guantanamo Bay. CNN has more.

Pot Revisted

Last year around this time I posted a piece about the medical marijuana law in California. My constitutional law students should be familiar with the case the concepts discussed as we covered both in class:

One of the more important recently decided Commerce Clause cases dealt with whether the federal government could enforce federal anti-drugs in California after voters there decided to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes. (see Raich v. Gonzalez) The answer given by the U.S. Supreme Court was yes, the Feds can arrest people for using marijuana even if users are doing so pursuant to California state law. The question many students must have is: so is it still legal to purchase marijuana in California, under state law, for medicinal purposes? The quick answer is under state law YES, but people who use the drug still run the risk of being arrested by federal agents under federal law. But it gets even more confusing. The San Diego Union-Tribune newspaper recently reported that San Diego County is suing the State of California to repeal the medical marijuana laws. Lawyers for San Diego and San Bernardino counties will argue that the state cannot force counties to issue identification cards to qualified medical marijuana patients because the drug is illegal under federal law.

A few months later a California appeals court ruled that the federal law did not preempt the state law and ordered the two counties to issue medical marijuana licenses under the state law. The counties, of course, appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court (remember, because the federal law is at issue, the U.S. Supreme Court can have the final say). The Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court ruling stand. As the L.A. Times reminds us:

Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress and the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate the sale and use of marijuana under its power over interstate commerce. The 6-3 decision, in the case of Gonzales vs. Raich, rejected the claim that personal use of homegrown marijuana was off-limits to federal authority. But the court did not rule on whether a state's law allowing medical use of marijuana was void because it conflicted with the federal law.

By rejecting the case, the Supreme Court is not saying that no conflict exists. It is simply saying that it does not want to review the California appeals court case. Thus, the issue is "settled" until the U.S. Supreme decides to revisit the issue via another case, if it ever does decide to do this.

In Case You Were Wondering . . .

. . . why the U.S. Senate recently voted to withhold money from the President that could be used to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, this story from the Miami Herald does a nice job explaining why politicians are having cold feet over this issue.

Are Justices Too Powerful?

Back in February the Washington Post printed a provocative article, which began:

If we had it to do all over again, would we appoint Supreme Court justices for life? Allow the chief justice to keep the job forever? Let the court have the final word on which cases it hears and those it declines?

If you are interested in the answers that more than a few law professors in the United States give to these question, I encourage you to read the rest of the article.

Immunity from Criminal Prosecution

Students in my constitutional law courses know (or will know) that the President probably enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution while he is in office. Most legal scholars maintain that the President must first be impeached before he can face criminal charges. But as this post over at the always informative Jurist website notes, judges do not enjoy the same kind of immunity from prosecution. U.S. Federal District Court Judge Samuel Kent recently was convicted of obstruction of justice related to a sexual harassment complaint filed against him. He is now serving 33 months in prison. However, Kent is still a federal court judge. Remember, the only means for removing judges in the federal system is via the impeachment process. This process, as one would expect, has already been started for his removal.

Why Marbury Still Matters

Students of American Constitutional Law learn that Article III, the part of the Constitution that created the Supreme Court, did not actually give the Court the power to review the constitutionality of actions taken by the other two branches of government. This power was derived from the court decision, arguably the most important decision in American history, Marbury v. Madison. Newsweek recently had an interesting story explaining why Marbury is still relevant some 200 years later.

More of the Same, Part 2

A few days ago I wrote about how the Obama Administration is defending of surveillance practices it inherited from the Bush Administration. But it's not just spying that apparently will remain the same. The much maligned practice of extra-ordinary rendition (the prisoner transfer program the involves kidnapping suspect terrorists and moving them to countries that have a . . . well . . . different view of torture than most western countries) apparently will also remain the government's anti-terrorism arsenal. The Los Angeles Times has more.

1 in 7 return to "terrorism"

The New York Times had a fascinating article in yesterday's paper about an internal U.S. Department of Defense report that claims 1 in 7 of the former Guantanamo detainees returns to "battlefield" against the United States. The article also talks about the dilemma facing the Obama Administration over what to do with the rest of the detainees still at Guantanamo. Some, according to experts, cannot be released and will have to face trial. But now members of Congress are balking at the idea of bringing some detainees back to the U.S. mainland for trial. In the article, F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, said that moving detainees to American prisons would bring with it risks including “the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States.”

This quote left me wondering. How can moving people into American prisons increase the potential for individuals to undertake attacks in the U.S.? Does he mean the individuals who would be put in prison might engage in attacks? Or does he mean that now terrorists will have even more incentive (hard believe that is possible unless one thinks that people like Bin Laden have gone soft on the U.S.) to attack the U.S.?

Apportionment

During a recent Constitutional Law lecture in Münster, a student asked who was counted for purposes of determining a state's population with regards to apportionment of the House of Representatives. As students in most of my classes have learned (or been reminded of) at some point or another, the number of representatives each state has in the House of Representatives is determined by the population of a given state. Most students are surprised to learn that every ten years a recount of the entire U.S. population is conducted via something called a census (this recount, incidentally is required by the Constitution). But I digress.

So who counts when determining a state's population? Everyone. That's right, citizens and non-citizens, legal residents and illegal residents, registered voters and non-registered voters, adults and children. Everyone. More information is provided here by our friendly Census Bureau (the fine folks who conduct this decennial recount).

As an aside, as part of my search for this answer, I came across information concerning a movement here in Germany back in the late 1970s to introduce a census. Apparently a planned census in 1983 was halted by the Bundesverfassungsgericht. More can be found here.

The End of Affirmative Action?

The election of Barack Obama as President has some people wondering the whether programs that give preferences to racial minorities to correct for past discrimination are still necessary. National Public Radio recently hosted a half-hour discussion on the topic of Affirmative Action in the aftermath of the historic 2008 Presidential Election.

How Big Must A Jury Be?

Popular culture has ingrained the belief in us that all juries have 12 people serving on it (the classic film "Twelve Angry Men" being the prime example of this). But the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly made it clear that having 12 people on a jury is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Two American law professors explain why it should be required.

Obama Nominee Blocked by Senate Republicans

Today's Washington Post contains an article about how members of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate were able to block President Obama's nominee for Deputy Secretary of the Interior. The article provides a nice illustration of a few things that I have already addressed in many of my courses. First, that the President has the power to appoint officers of the Executive Branch. Second, that this power is not absolute because the U.S. Senate must confirm the President's choice. Third, that because of special rules that exist in the U.S. Senate, rules that are not found in the Constitution itself, a minority of Senators can block action in the Senate using something called a filibuster. As students may recall, the filibuster is basically non-stop debate. The Senate cannot vote on the matter at hand until the debate is finished, and under the rules of the Senate a filibuster can only be stopped if at least 60 Senators vote to stop it. The Democrats in the Senate were only able to muster 57 votes in favor of ending debate and thus the fillibuster worked in stopping the full Senate from voting on the confirmation. Take a look at the Post article for more.

The More Things Change . . .

the more they stay the same, so the old saying goes. But is that true when it comes to spying on Americans? Put another way, did the election of Barack Obama as President change the surveillance tactics of the U.S. government? Not really, according to Wired's David Kravets.

Banning the Flag

Can a public high school prohibit students from wearing T-shirts bearing the Confederate Flag? According to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the answer is yes. The court's decision, which is relatively easy reading, can be found here.

Court Says Florida Cannot Make Foreign Policy

Understanding who has what power in the United States can sometimes be confusing. Determining which branch of the federal government has what power is the easy part (O.K., not really). But more complicated are questions like: When does Congress have the power to regulate activity and when does that power belong to the states? But there is one area that the courts have been pretty consistent on when it comes to the question of who has the power: foreign policy. A recent case out of Florida provides a very nice example.

Local Currency

Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government sole authority to print money. But that isn't stopping local businesses in cities like my hometown of Detroit from printing their own (il)legal tender. USA Today has more.

Trying To Keep Up

It has been a busy few weeks for critics and defenders of the Bush Administration as numerous memos and reports related to the use of torture by U.S. officials have been released to the public. Trying to keep up with this flurry of information is daunting . . . but not impossible. Thanks to Foreign Policy Magazine's Passport Blog, you too can try to keep up with the latest news on the "war on terror" and torture. Take a look and remember, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

UPDATE - the Economist's Democracy in America Blog also has a torture news round-up. It seems as though torture is all anyone can talk about these days.

Torture Docs Released

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) released documents yesterday related to torture techniques used by the prior Administration. The follows on the heals of the release of several legal memos by Attorney General Eric Holder that served as the legal basis in justifying the use of torture. ABC News has more.

After the Fall

A while back I wrote about the impeachment of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. In the last week the former Governor has been indicted AND signed on to star in an American reality show. I guess that answers the question of what happens to a person once they have been impeached.

Parting Thought

Posting has been light because of the semester break. I will resume posting in early April. As a parting shot, I wanted to share a little something from the website of my local paper, which recently had an insert on Barack Obama. The following survey question was on the website for the newspaper:

Gibt Obama auch Ihnen Zuversicht?

	Ja. Ich glaube, dass er überzeugende Antworten auf die globalen Probleme des 21. Jahrhunderts hat.
	Nein. Er wird sich wie fast alle US-Präsidenten um amerikanische Interessen kümmern - um nichts weiter.

So let me get this straight, Obama and all past Presidents are judged by how well they have tackled global problems? If they have instead opted to tackle the problems facing the people who actually elected them, they are seen as merely protecting American interests and nothing more? Is this really a fair question? Not surprisingly, 85% of respondents opted for "Nein."