Hate Crimes Against Arabs Down

Students in my "Law and Social Change" class were treated this past Monday to a presentation on the war on terrorism in America. Part of the presentation addressed how Arabs and Muslims were impacted in the United States after September 11. According to the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, hate crimes incidents against Arabs and Muslims have been steadily decreasing since 2003. This should not be totally unexpected. As with all things related to September 11, the farther away we get from the attacks, the more reasonable the government and people seem to be in their responses to it.

In God We Trust

or maybe I should say to God we give credit. At least that is what legislators in the State of Kentucky say must be part of the Kentucky Department of Office Security's annual report. According to the Associated Press:

The law that organized the Homeland Security office first lists Homeland Security's duty to recognize that government itself can't secure the state without God, even before mentioning other duties, which include distributing millions of dollars in federal grants and analyzing possible threats.

This seems to raise the same question that I ask myself every time I see an athlete praise God after a sporting event. If both teams ask for God's help with winning, do members of the losing team blame God for the loss? In the instance above, if God gets credit for securing the State of Kentucky, might he be blamed should something terrible happen there? Probably not. Instead the blame will be placed at the feet of "abortionists" gays and the ACLU. (follow the link and see quote number one if you are unsure what this means).

Gay Marriage and Direct Democracy

Is the United States a direct democracy? Surely not, at least at the federal level. The President is not elected by "the people" but by an Electoral College. There is no ability for citizen referendum or other direct citizen input at the federal level. And judges are appointed by politicians for life. These are just a few features of the federal government that make it anything but a version of direct democracy. But many states, especially California, do have governments that make them look closer to a direct democracy. In California, citizens can amend their constitution by referendum. Their judges can be voted out of office at the end of their term by the people, and politicians (including judges) can be removed in the middle of their term by recall.

How this idea of direct citizen participation and individual rights co-exist could be put to the test soon in California. Last year the California Supreme Court ruled that laws banning gay marriage violated the California Constitution. In response, opponents of gay marriage were able to get an anti-gay marriage referendum on the ballot. This referendum, which a majority of voters supported in the recent November election, amends the Constitution to prohibit what the Supreme Court said had to be allowed under the Constitution: gay marriage.

So a showdown down between the court and the people appears to be on the horizon. Why? Because the California Supreme Court has agreed to review whether the people's amendment to the Constitution violates the Constitution. And so how have supporters of the people's amendment responded? By saying that they will try to recall any judge who votes to overturn the people's amendment. Confused?

Let's recap. The legislature banned gay marriage. The Court said the ban violated the Constitution. The people then amended the Constitution, overruling the Court. Now the Court is going to rule whether the people's action violates the Constitution. And if they do rule that way, the people are threatening to remove the judges. Simple. Which begs the question. Is democracy, as it is practiced in California, a good idea?

Using Foreign Law

Courts in the United States are often criticized by some when they cite to foreign sources in their decisions. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is probably at the forefront of this anti-foreign law crusade, and he usually has much to say on the topic when given the opportunity. At a recent event in Houston, Scalia fretted that the U.S. Supreme Court will use foreign law in its decisions at an ever increasing pace. But is it such a bad thing to look at how courts in other jurisdictions deal with issues that are universal? Is this anti-foreign law crusade simply futile? Micheal Dorf at Findlaw has more.

Is Clinton Barred by the Constitution?

There is an interesting question floating around the blogesphere about whether Hillary Clinton is barred by the Constitution from accepting the Secretary of State nomination (a nomination which technically has yet to be made official). You see, Article I of the Constitution basically prohibits sitting members of Congress from taking new jobs in the government if the salary for that job has increased during the current term of the member of Congress. The Secretary of State's salary has indeed increased during Hillary Clinton's current term as U.S. Senator. But this is probably just an academic question. As bloggers over at the Ecomonist point out, it seems unlikely that Republican Senators, after years of watching the Bush Administration play fast and loose with constitutional rights, will hold up Hillary's nomination because of such an obscure part of the Constitution.

Marriage Revisited

I have written in the past about the landmark decision of Loving v. Virginia in which the U.S. Supreme Court stuck down laws banning whites and blacks from marrying. I have also written about how the courts are becoming involved in the issue of gay marriage. But I have yet to suggest that these two cases raise the same issue, although I believe they may. Anna Quindlen of Newsweek has a nice short piece in this week's issue explaining how these cases are basically the same. Surprisingly, the question of whether this is a civil rights issue on par with issues raised by racial discrimination is somewhat controversial. And ironically polls show that a vast majority of African-Americans oppose gay marriage. So give this question some thought. Are laws prohibiting gay marriage the same as those which prohibited people of different races from marrying?

The Minnesota Senate Race Recount

Students who have been paying attention to the aftermath of the recent election in the United States probably know that some races for the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are still not decided. The Senate race in Minnesota is particularly interesting, as both candidates are challenging the validity of ballots cast by voters. How can this be, you might ask. Well, the Minnesota Public Radio website (this link will take you the pictures) has pictures of some of the ballots that are being challenged. It is fascinating. I encourage you to take a look.

Can Congress Subpeona Bush as Former President?

What happens if the Democrat-controlled Congress wishes to order President Bush, once he becomes former-President Bush, to appear before a Congressional committee to answer for some of the things he did while President? It is clear that the idea of separation of powers in the Constitution precludes Congress from ordering a sitting President to appear. But a former President? The New York Times addressed this question a few days ago, and dragged out this quote from former President Harry Truman:

If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.

Could it be that even former Presidents can exercise Executive Power? I see Truman's point, but could this apply equally to all of Bush's advisers? I have no doubt Bush would make this argument considering how expansively he has interpreted Executive Privilege.

Next in Line

Most people know what happens if the President of the United States dies in office: the Vice-President becomes the President. But what happens if both become incapacitated at the same time? Better yet, what happens if many of the leaders in government are incapacitated at the same time. How deep does the Presidential line of succession go? The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece in yesterday's paper about there very questions. In case you were wondering, federal law provides the order of succession:

1. President

2. Vice President

3. Speaker of the House

4. Senate President Pro Tem

5. Secretary of State

6. Secretary of the Treasury

7. Secretary of Defense

8. Attorney General

Of course, constitutional scholars believe this federal law is unconstitutional because the Constitution only talks about the Vice-President and then an officer (many believe this means member of the Cabinet) with regards to succession.

Access to the Court

After a long break, postings to this blog are now resuming. And I'll start with a question raised by students in my "Debating Controversial Landmark Court Decisions" class. This question actually should be of interest to students in all my classes, be it English or law. The question: are television cameras allowed to film oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court? The answer: No. I actually wrote about this topic about a year ago, but a case is currently before the Court that has made me want to revisit this issue.

The case, Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, concerns fines given out by the FCC to the Fox television network. The fines were were for "indecent" language on live television (here is one example from the Golden Globe Awards; at around 5:35 of the clip you can hear U2's Bono utter the "offensive" word).

In the lower courts, lawyers arguing in defense of Fox used the offending words as part of their arguments. One commentator described the arguments as being littered with the talk of seventh grade boys in a locker room. So as time drew near for oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, commentators began to wonder whether Fox's attorney would dare to utter these words in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court. So if televisions are not allowed in the courtroom, then what's the big deal?

Well, a few years ago the Court started allowing audio recordings of oral arguments to be released on the same day of the arguments. But in anticipation of this argument, Chief Justice Roberts has said the audio from this particular argument will not be available until the end of the term. This rather silly attempt to protect the public from naughty words was for naught. The lawyer for Fox decided against filling the hallowed chamber of the Court with F-words and S-words, so the audio of the arguments is "clean." Heaven forbid a few colorful terms be heard over the public airwaves or via mp3 download from the Court.

Ages of U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Students of common law are always surprised to hear about how long members of the U.S. Supreme Court stay in their positions. After all, these are lifetime appointments and many Justices take this seriously. Here is a list of the current and their ages along with a list of the 10 most recent former Justices and their ages:

The members of the current Supreme Court, by age:

John Paul Stevens, 88
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75
Antonin Scalia, 72
Anthony Kennedy, 71
Stephen Breyer, 69
David Souter, 68
Clarence Thomas, 60
Samuel Alito, 58
John Roberts, 53

The last 10 justices to leave the Supreme Court, with their age and date of retirement:

Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, Jan. 31, 2006
William Rehnquist, 80, Sept. 3, 2005
Harry Blackmun, 85, Aug. 3, 1994
Byron White, 76, June 28, 1993
Thurgood Marshall, 83, Oct. 1, 1991
William Brennan, 84, July 20, 1990
Lewis Powell, 79, June 26, 1987
Warren Burger, 79, Sept. 26, 1986
Potter Stewart, 66, July 3, 1981
William Douglas, 77, Nov. 12, 1975

Extending Presidential Privilege to the Limit

The words presidential privilege do not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the President has the right to engage in confidential conversations with his advisers, unless these conversations concern potentially criminal activity. The Bush Administration has pushed the idea of privilege to unseen limits. First, they claimed that discussions between the Vice-President and his advisers could be shielded by presidential privilege, even if the President himself was not involved in the discussions. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed. Then they claimed that internal e-mails between the Attorney General and his advisers enjoyed presidential privilege protection. This remains an open question. And now the Administration is claiming that the privilege allows the President to withhold documents from a congressional investigation into whether he pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to weaken decisions on smog and greenhouse gases. At what point does this idea of privilege interfere with the basic principles of checks and balances contained within the Constitution?

Puting the Cross on License Plates

The State of South Carolina will soon be offering a license plate to its drives with a Christian cross on it, as well as the words "I believe." Anyone who has been to the States might have noticed that one can find a variety of different license plates within a given state. While in Florida last year, I noticed license plates containing environmental themes ("protect our reefs" and "save the manatee"), sports themes (NASCAR, University of Florida, Florida State University) and family themes ("family first" or "family values"). click here for a complete list of Florida specialty license plates.

The question here isn't whether states can have specialty plates, but what happens when one of these specialty plates contains a message that may violate the Constitution. As students in both my classes this semester know, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution contains the Establish Clause, among other clauses. This clause has been interpreted by the Court to require some semblance of a separation of church and state. So when a state provides a license plate with an unmistakable Christian symbol on it, does this act violate the Establishment Clause? The courts will most surely be asked to decide this question in the near future.

What Free Speech?

A few weeks ago 34 demonstrators were convicted of violating a law that prohibits holding demonstrations on the grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court. The question this obliviously raises is doesn't such a law violate the First Amendment right to free speech? The answer is probably not. Our discussion in class concerning freedom of speech has dealt mostly with something called "traditional public forums". These generally include streets, sidewalks and public parks. People have an almost unlimited right to engage in speech in this type of forum. But the courts have uniformly held that not all government property can be considered a traditional public forum. In fact, most government property is not considered a public forum and thus speech on this property can be regulated far easier.

Why make a distinction between a traditional public forum and other government property? Generally because the Courts have been sympathetic to the government's position that allowing speech on all government property in any manner would interfere with workings of the government. Imagine if the government had to allow protesters onto military bases or into prisons. Clearly, this kind of expressive activity would interfere with the ability of government to carry out it's mission, whatever that mission might be on the property in question. For purposes of this class, students don't need to know this distinction, but I hope it helps explain why these protesters, who entered the grounds of the Supreme Court, were arrested.

Establishing Obscenity

The Tampa Tribune has a nice piece, which tries to explain how obscenity laws in the United States are enforced. The title of the article, Standards Of Obscenity Are Murky, says it all. As we discussed in Con Law class last week, trying to spot this form of non-speech is not easy. Unfortunately for a pornographer who calls himself Max Hardcore, a jury in Tampa recently was able to weed through this murky area of the law and find his films to be obscene. Which means Mr. Hardcore will soon be serving hard time for violating obscenity laws.

• see also Jurors in Max Hardcore Porn Trial Seek Clarification
• see also Adult Movie Producer Found Guilty in Obscenity Trial

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - An Update

During U.S. Constitutional law lecture a few weeks ago, I used the issue of gays in the military to illustrate how courts generally apply the rational basis test (as you recall, this is the lowest level of scrutiny applied to due process and equal protection claims). Well, it turns out that at least one court now believes that the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be judged using a level of scrutiny somewhere between strict and rational basis. Here's why.

A few years ago the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute that outlawed consensual homosexual sex. (see Lawrence v. Texas). According to many commentators, and three judges on the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the decision in Lawrence recognized "a protected liberty interest for adults to engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy and applied a balancing of constitutional interests that defies either the strict scrutiny or rational basis label." In short, the Court didn't use the rational basis test to deal with this law that classified gays and lesbians differently then heterosexual couples, which is how courts had always dealt with such classifications in the past.

But even using this "new" level of scrutiny that falls between strict scrutiny and rational basis, the First Circuit Court of Appeals still found the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy to be constitutional. How?

The court began it's analysis by noting that "Lawrence balanced the strength of the state's asserted interest in prohibiting immoral conduct against the degree of intrusion into the petitioners' private sexual life caused by the statute in order to determine whether the law was unconstitutionally applied." In short, the Lawrence Court weighed the "protected liberty interest" as noted above, against the state's interest in stopping "immoral conduct." In the end, the Lawrence Court felt that individual right was more important.

Lawrence truly was a departure from past reviews of laws that classified gays and lesbians differently, i.e. using the rational basis test. A rational basis analysis "does not permit consideration of the strength of the individual's interest or the extent of the intrusion on that interest caused by the law; the focus is entirely on the rationality of the state's reason for enacting the law," said the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In Lawrence, the Court most certainly looked at the individual interest at stake.

So the First Circuit Court of Appeals now had to use this new approach to judge the military policy at issue. And they did so rather quickly, saying basically that when it comes to matters of the military, courts have always shown deference to Congress because: 1) Congress is in a much better position than the courts to determine the proper workings of the military and; 2) the U.S. Constitution specifically gives Congress the power to raise and support armed forces. The Court then noted that the policy in question was created after a careful and thorough review noting that Congress:

focused explicitly on the effect that the Act could have on constitutional rights of homosexuals, concluding that "if the Supreme Court should reverse its ruling in Bowers and hold that private consensual homosexual acts between adults may not be prosecuted in civilian society, this would not alter the committee's judgment as to the effect of homosexual conduct in the armed forces. . . . Congress ultimately concluded that the voluminous evidentiary record supported adopting a policy of separating certain homosexuals from military service to preserve the "high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion" of the troops.

In short, concerning matters of the military, courts should basically defer to Congress, which is really what Courts generally do when applying the rational basis test. Which begs the question. Did the First Circuit really use something other than the rational basis test in concluding that the policy did not violate the Constitution? It doesn't appear so.

How Not to Conduct a Jury Trial

Students learning about common law sometimes question whether the jury system is an efficient and just way to run a legal system. News out of Sydney, Australia may support the proposition that in fact jury trials are a waste of time, not to mention a waste of money. At least this particular trial was. Yesterday a judge presiding over a three-month-long jury trial that cost the state over a $1 million dismissed the jury before they could reach a verdict because it was discovered that at least four members of the jury spent a good deal of time in the jury box playing Sudoku when they should have been paying attention to the trial. There is no law prohibiting jurors from being inattentive, even if the inattentiveness results in the judge ordering a retrial. Apparently, officials in the state of New South Wales are considering a rewrite of their jury rules that would, at the very least, prohibit jurors from playing games while sitting in the jury box. Probably not a bad idea.

Enforcing Medical Marijuana Laws

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.

So, under California law it is the local government (in this case county government) that must help carry out the medical marijuana law, but the counties are beginning to question whether this is wise (and lawful) in light of the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision. Ah, the joys of federalism.

UPDATE - A California court has ruled that California's medical marijuana laws do not violate federal law saying, "The purpose of the (federal law) is to combat recreational drug use, not to regulate a state's medical practices." It is possible that this ruling will be appealed to California Supreme Court.

Interpreting State Constitutions

As has been noted on several occasions in American Constitutional Law class, an individual state may grant more rights to people under it's constitution than are available under the federal constitution. But there may also be instances where a state constitution places more limitations government. For instance, the United States Supreme Court has held the giving parents vouchers (money) to help pay for tuition charged by religious schools did not violate the Establishment Clause found in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But many states, including Arizona, have a clause in their constitution that specifically prohibits state money from being used in any manner related to religion. So it was no surprise that the Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled that school vouchers given out by the State of Arizona violated the Arizona constitution. So, to review, the U.S. Supreme Court said this practice does not violate the U.S. Constitution, but the Arizona Supreme Court said that it DID violate the Arizona constitution. Federalism in the U.S. isn't always easy to comprehend.

Picking Judges

Students of American Constitutional Law are by now quite familiar with how federal judges are selected. Thus, it goes without saying that the upcoming President election is important not only because it will determine who the next leader of America is, but is also important because it will likely determine whether the U.S. Supreme Court becomes more liberal or conservative. Syndicated columnist Linda Chavez, with whom I rarely agree, has an interesting article arguing why the issue of judicial nominations should be, but is not, an important criteria for selecting the next President.