JONATHAN TURLEY

Below is today’s column on a growing national trend of parents taking bullying cases to court after receiving no action from school officials. This may be a case where litigation is needed to concentrate the minds of some school officials (and parents of bullies) on the costs of such violence in schools.

Continue reading ‘Bullies in the Dock: Some Parents Take Their Complaints from the Schoolhouse to the Courthouse’

In light of this week’s settlement in the NBC Dateline case, this past column on talk show liability may be of some interest. From cop shows to talk shows, reality television can suddenly throw average citizens into highly stressful or embarrassing situations. In the recent Dateline case, such actions were alleged as the cause of the suicide of a prosecutor who was accused of sexually explicit communications with an adult posing as a child in a chat room.

Continue reading ‘Talk Show Torts’

Hillary Clinton’s superdelegate strategy has highlighted the flaws in our electoral college system — and the need to finally embrace democracy in its truest form in the selection of the President of the United States. The column below explores the controversy.

Continue reading ‘De-Accrediting the Electoral College: The Real Costs of a Constitutional Relic’

2008: The year of principles? 

With Iowans going today to their caucuses, the beginning of a new year and the presidential primary season dangerously collide for voters. Distraught voters can now couple their prior unrealized weight-loss resolutions with their unrealized political resolutions like finding a new party or moving to Canada. Yet, every four years, we end up fatter and madder by the year’s end. Continue reading ‘The 2008 Presidential Primaries Begin: Will Candidates Be Forced to Try Principle in the Desperate Search for Popularity?’

HEADLINE: A liberal’s lament: The NRA might be right after all

This term, the Supreme Court may finally take up the Voldemort Amendment, the part of the Bill of Rights that shall not be named by liberals. For more than 200 years, progressives and polite people have avoided acknowledging that following the rights of free speech, free exercise of religion and free assembly, there is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Continue reading ‘A Liberal’s Lament: The NRA Might Be Right After All’

Washington is all atwitter over who will replace outgoing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The more relevant question, however, is who would want to step over the chalk outlines of his two predecessors on the office rug to sit in that seemingly cursed chair.

Indeed, of all of the famous curses from King Tut’s tomb to the Hope Diamond to the Monkey’s Paw, the Bush Curse of the Juris Doctors (or the J.D. Curse) appears the most lethal. With John Ashcroft or Gonzales as the most vivid examples, bad things happen to attorneys who go to work for this administration. Continue reading ‘Be Afraid, Very Afraid — The Bush Curse’

When the Supreme Court created the Feres Doctrine in 1950, it barred all injuries that are “incident to service,” a prohibition that effectively blocked any negligence lawsuit by a servicemember against the military. This doctrine extends to a wide array of businesses maintained by the military - from movie theaters to bowling alleys to restaurants to gasoline stations. Many are profit-making enterprises operated by civilians under contract with the military, yet they are still immune from lawsuits by military personnel.

Consider just a few of the dismissed cases from the Feres follies: Continue reading ‘The Feres Follies: Sacrificing our Soldiers to Protect Military Incompetence’

Published 7/30/03

When he became governor of Alaska, Frank Murkowski had to decide who should finish the two years remaining on his U.S. Senate term. After a supposedly exhaustive search, Murkowski appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski.

Although the first U.S. senator appointed by a father, Lisa Murkowski is hardly unique among the children and spouses of politicians. For example, Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, and his son-in-law, Philip Perry, were appointed by President Bush to high-level positions: deputy assistant secretary of State and chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget, respectively. Continue reading ‘Nepotism and Congress: Don’t Let Jobs Grow on Family Trees’

With the start of the trial of accused Washington, D.C., sniper Lee Malvo, the public is being introduced to America’s most troubled teen. Unlike his father figure, John Muhammad, who was found guilty Monday of murder in one of 10 sniper killings, Malvo is not denying his role in the murders. Instead, his attorneys are developing an insanity defense that bears striking resemblance to other cases involving infamous criminal duos. Indeed, his insanity plea may be more of a tactical device than a legal defense: The lawyers for Malvo, now 18, may be using the claim to convert the guilt phase into a trial over the proper punishment of a boy-killer. Continue reading ‘Lee Malvo and the Jury Decision’

Published 12/17/2003

I recently received a note from one of the few husbands who knows just what his wife wants as a holiday gift. The Army sergeant (who asked to remain anonymous) e-mailed me from Iraq asking my help in finding him a store to buy body armor for his wife.

Both the sergeant and his wife are serving in Iraq, and both have seen action. But, like thousands of U.S. soldiers, his wife was not given the vital ceramic plates for her Kevlar Interceptor vest to protect her from bullet wounds. Instead, he said, she had to scavenge to find plates left behind by Iraqi soldiers — plates of inferior quality that do not properly fit her vest. Continue reading ‘Body Armor: U.S. Soldiers Lack Best Protective Gear’

Published 2/11/2004

At a time when efforts to reform the corporate world are getting all of the attention, there is another group of chief executives who remain insulated from the effects of scandals at Tyco, WorldCom and the like. They are America’s not-for-profit profiteers: the executives who cash in at universities, foundations and other tax-exempt organizations. Continue reading ‘Non-profits’ Executives Avoid Scrutiny, Valid Reforms’

Published 3/16/2004

While lawyers often are valued for such canine-like attributes as aggression, persistence and even viciousness, loyalty is their most essential attribute. With confidentiality, it represents a type of legal Hippocratic oath: that we will do no harm to our clients.
Two disturbing trends that reduce confidentiality guarantees have surfaced recently: a rise in the number of exceptions to attorney-client confidentiality and an increase in lawyers discussing cases at the expense of their former clients. Continue reading ‘Attorney-Client Confidentiality: Valued Bond Between Client, Lawyer Eroding’

Published 5/17/2004

My father is dying from an American political disease. In a nation divided evenly between red and blue states, governmental policies have long been distorted by the gravitational pull of the extremes of the two parties.

For President Bush, policies often have been shaped by his fundamentalist and conservative religious base. While controversial, many of these policies are largely symbolic, such as his unheeded call for an amendment to ban gay marriage. The president’s policy opposing stem-cell research, however, presents a far more deadly concession — one that might secure votes, but at a prohibitive cost of human life. Continue reading ‘Bush’s Stem-cell Politics Leaves Dad to Wither’

Published 8/8/2004

The soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company recently came home from Iraq — and some are pretty angry. Made infamous by the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, they have been caricatured as a bunch of thuggish yahoos from the hills of West Virginia and Maryland. Now their entire unit may be deactivated.
They seem, however, unwilling to go quietly, taking their infamy into self-imposed exile. Continue reading ‘372nd Unit Deserves Better Homecoming’

Published 10/3/2004

Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law. Continue reading ‘Polygamy Laws Expose Our Own Hypocrisy’

Published 11/22/2004

It is the most glaring contradiction in our Constitution: a nation of immigrants that excludes anyone who is not born in the United States from becoming president. While long criticized, it went largely unchallenged until Arnold Schwarzenegger became governor of California and his fans discovered that he couldn’t become “The Presinator” because of his Austrian birth.
It is hardly the stuff that inspiring constitutional movements are made of, but, then again, one takes what one can get when it comes to constitutional reform. Continue reading ‘Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Constitutional Ban on Foreign Born Presidents’

published 12/27/2004

Orientation week can be a daunting and confusing process for any freshman, particularly for the nine new senators and 38 new House members of the 109th Congress. During the recent orientation week on Capitol Hill, one freshman, Representative-elect Al Green, D-Texas, noted “as a neophyte trying to find his way, you need as many people to direct you as you can.”
Indeed, that education is about to begin in earnest, starting with the ethics book included in their orientation kits. On their face, the ethics rules would seem to bar any self-dealing or profit-taking by members. In reality, they actually legalize conduct that would be viewed as grossly unethical or corrupt in the other government branches. For Green and the other neophytes, therefore, the following are four easy lessons on how to earn millions on a government salary. Continue reading ‘It’s All Legal in the Bizarre World of Congressional Ethics’

Published 1/30/2005

By Jonathan Turley
Have you heard about the guy who injured himself while using his lawn mower as a hedge clipper, and then won $500,000 in a lawsuit against the lawn mower company? How about the woman who threw a soft drink at her boyfriend, slipped on the wet floor, and then won $100,000 in a lawsuit against the restaurant? These are only two of the common examples of lawsuit abuses that are fueling the call for “litigation reform.” They are also completely untrue — part of a growing collection of legal mythologies that are appearing widely in the national media. Continue reading ‘The Lawn Mower Guy and Other Legal Myths in the Tort Reform Movement’

Published 2/21/2005

For the past month, a detective has been trying to arrest me in New York. Most people in such a position would be highly distressed, but I am frankly delighted. Perhaps an arrest will bring an end to a criminal life that began for me in December, when I started buying luxury cars for friends in the Bronx.
Of course, when I first learned that I was on the lam, I was more than a little surprised because I was in Washington at the time, driving a beat-up green Volvo wagon. I had become the latest victim of identity theft, joining tens of millions of other victims across the country. Continue reading ‘The Other Jonathan Turley: How My Identity was Stolen and I Brought Two Luxury Cars’

Pubished 3/22/2005
By Jonathan Turley
During the drafting of the Constitution, the Framers often spoke of the interests of the “body politic” — a term that took on a new and chilling meaning this week in the fight over Terri Schiavo. Laying in a persistent vegetative state in Florida, Schiavo has literally become the body politic — a transcendent symbol claimed by rivals in an ongoing cultural war. Ironically, as each side has struggled to embrace her cause, she has become less real, more personification than person. Continue reading ‘Terri Schiavo and How Temptation Can Top the Constitution’

Published 4/6/2005

If, like me, you hate sequels, stay away from the Senate floor this month. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., may soon try to change one of the longest congressional traditions in the nation’s history — the 200-year-old right to filibuster. However, unlike the original movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, this modern sequel has the makings of neither good viewing nor good politics.
For many Americans, Frank Capra’s 1939 classic work was their first introduction to the filibuster and contains perhaps the quintessential American film scene. Standing alone on the floor of the U.S. Senate, young Sen. Jefferson Smith refuses to yield to the corrupt plans of his powerful colleagues. Against all odds, he invokes the filibuster — the right of a single person to hold the floor against the world — as long as he can continue to stand and to speak. Continue reading ‘Mr. Frist Goes to Washington — and the Art of the Filibuster’

Published 5/2/2005

It is perhaps the first legal rule that children learn: “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” It is not just a catchy phrase, but a fair reduction of a legal principle: Words alone are generally not actionable as forms of assault or crimes.
Last week, a jury in Alexandria, Va., offered a new addendum to this childhood axiom. Muslim scholar Ali al-Timimi was convicted of, among other crimes, incitement — encouraging followers to train with terrorist organizations and to engage in violent jihad. He now faces life in prison in a case that even the U.S. attorney called “unusual” based on speech. His appeal may now help define when violent speech crosses the line from free expression into criminal advocacy. Continue reading ‘Dr. Ali Al-Timimi and When Violent Speech is Free Speech’

Published 6/26/2005

It is a true sign of desperate times when liberals are fretting over of the expected retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It is not that they have come to love Rehnquist — once called the “Lone Ranger” for his strident conservative dissents on the Warren Court. Yet, liberals have learned that there are actually judges to the right of Rehnquist, a number of whom are on the short list to replace him. It is like Luke Skywalker celebrating the demise of the Emperor only to learn that he was considered the mild-mannered runt of the litter. Continue reading ‘The Supreme Court and the Possibility of a Hard Right Turn’

Published 6/26/05

With the anticipated retirement of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, speculation is rife on the possible nominees on President Bush’s short list. Fortunately for Supreme Court handicappers, Bush has only a couple of simple known criteria. First, he wants ideological consistency. Second, he wants longevity. Short of nominating an embryonic stem cell, the White House would prefer a baby boomer with long-term potential. A few candidates have emerged as leading short-listers. For simplicity, each will be rated below based on the gold standard for conservative purity: Karl Rove. On the Rove-o-meter, five Roves represents the purest conservatism while one would represent marginal conservatism. Continue reading ‘Candidates for the Supreme Court: Judging the Short ist’

Published 8/30/2005

Imagine dating someone for a couple of weeks before you have to decide whether to make a lifetime commitment. That is precisely the situation of senators in confirming a Supreme Court justice. Because a confirmation is rarely a case of love at first sight, it usually comes down to the testimony of the nominee, who is invariably told by White House chaperones to say little and smile a lot.
John Roberts may be the ultimate example of the judicial blind date. Continue reading ‘John Roberts: The Before and The After’

Published 10/5/2005

In his announcement of the nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to be an associate justice of the Supreme Court, President Bush concluded with a simple and direct statement to Congress: “I ask the Senate to review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly.”
On its face, it seems straightforward enough. Like the president, most senators speak of “qualifications” as if the term is self-defining or obvious. Yet, after more than 200 years, neither the Senate nor law professors have agreed on what constitutes a “qualification” for the nation’s highest court. Indeed, looking over the past 157 nominations (and 42 unsuccessful nominations since 1789), there is little consensus on what constitutes a truly qualified person to sit on the court. Continue reading ‘What Qualifies One for the Supreme Court?’

Published 10/31/2005
The indictment of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, has given the Valerie Plame scandal the pre-requisite indictee, a face for this ongoing drama. What is more troubling, however, has been the absence of a heroic or even positive figure.
On its face, this affair had all of the elements of a blockbuster political drama. An embattled president is accused of lying to the American people to take the country to war. Shadowy political operatives launch a campaign to punish the man who uncovered the lie by destroying the career of his wife, a covert CIA operative. Indeed, even the name — the Valerie Plame affair — carried a certain sexy and intriguing appeal. By this point, Washington should be crawling with book and movie agents except for the one missing element: a single redeeming character. Continue reading ‘The Plame Scandal and a Story In Search of a Redeeming Character’

Published 9/11/2005

With the formal end of the Rehnquist Court, John Roberts will by definition hearken a new era on the Supreme Court if confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States. Before there is a “Roberts Court,” however, there must first be a clearly defined Chief Justice Roberts. With the start of his Senate hearings today, Roberts will begin the transformation from a circuit judge to chief justice. In doing so, he might want to consider the models left by 16 great and not-so-great predecessors. Continue reading ‘Role Models for Roberts: Chief Justices and the Legacies’

Published 12/5/2005

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, a case concerning the right of parents to be notified on abortions given to minor children. The case is seen as a bellwether on the court’s shifting majority on abortion as well as the future of parental notice and consent laws in 43 states.
Cases like Ayotte are produced by a collision of two powerful interests: The right of parents to participate in major medical and moral decisions affecting their minor children vs. the right of children to have abortions. Continue reading ‘Parental Rights and Abortion’

Published 12/21/2005

This week, President Bush is struggling to deal with rising accusations that he committed federal crimes in ordering the eavesdropping on hundreds, if not thousands, of people without court orders. It is a scandal that raises troubling questions not just for the presidency but also for the president.

In some ways, it was inevitable that we would find ourselves at this historic confrontation. Bush has long viewed the law as some malleable means to achieve particular ends, rather than the ends itself. In this sense, there is an eerie similarity between the views of Bush and two of his predecessors: Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton. Continue reading ‘Bush and Domestic Spying: A Threat to Our Principles’

Published 1/9/06

Despite my agreement with Alito on many issues, I believe that he would be a dangerous addition to the court in already dangerous times for our constitutional system. Alito’s cases reveal an almost reflexive vote in favor of government, a preference based not on some overriding principle but an overriding party.

In my years as an academic and a litigator, I have rarely seen the equal of Alito’s bias in favor of the government. To put it bluntly, when it comes to reviewing government abuse, Samuel Alito is an empty robe. Continue reading ‘Troubling Times for a Troubling Nominee: Samuel Alito’

Posted 2/27/2006

It is a classic American tale: Boy meets stripper, boy marries stripper, stripper goes to court to get the dead boy’s estate. Of course, in this case, the “boy” was 90-year-old oil magnate Howard Marshall and the stripper is the buxom reality-TV star Anna Nicole Smith. The court is none other than the U.S. Supreme Court, where Anna’s appearance Tuesday will draw more coverage than it would if Chief Justice John Marshall returned from the dead for the argument.
In the case of Marshall v. Marshall (Smith’s legal name is Vickie Lynn Marshall), the characters are more interesting than are the issues. Continue reading ‘Lap Dances, Wills, and You — The Legal Legacy of Anna Nicole Smith’

Published 4/2/2006

With mid-term elections approaching, politicians are once again returning to one of their favorite themes: protecting the sanctity of marriage. When same-sex marriage is raised, citizens quickly forget about rampant corruption in Congress, towering budget deficits, or even the Iraq war. Not surprisingly, therefore, a constitutional amendment has been cited as a legislative priority by both President Bush and Republican leadership. The message is clear: What politics and religion have joined, let no one pull apart.
The fact is that the same-sex marriage fight is one that advocates on both sides would hate to end. Money is pouring in, membership rolls are expanding, and advocates have an issue that borders on obsession for many Americans. Continue reading ‘How to End the Gay Marriage Debate: Civil Unions and You’

Published 5/16/2006

This month, Congress is faced with a most inconvenient crime. With the recent disclosure of a massive secret database program run by the National Security Agency involving tens of millions of innocent Americans, members are confronted with a second intelligence operation that not only lacks congressional authorization but also appears patently unlawful. In December, the public learned that the NSA was engaging in warrantless domestic surveillance of overseas communications — an operation many experts believe is a clear federal crime ordered by the president more than 30 times.
What is most striking about these programs is that they were revealed not by members of Congress but by members of the Fourth Estate: Journalists who confronted Congress with evidence of potentially illegal conduct by this president that was known to various congressional leaders.

In response, President Bush has demanded to know who will rid him of these meddlesome whistle-blowers, and various devout members have rushed forth with cudgels and codes in hand.

Now, it appears Congress is finally acting — not to end alleged criminal acts by the administration, mind you, but to stop the public from learning about such alleged crimes in the future. Members are seeking to give the president the authority to continue to engage in warrantless domestic surveillance as they call for whistle-blowers to be routed out. They also want new penalties to deter both reporters and their sources. Continue reading ‘Down to the Fourth Estate: The Failure of the American System to Protect Liberty’

Published 5/29/2006

In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham’s Sacrifice.
It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.

In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law’s greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense. Continue reading ‘The Insanity Defense and the Future of Faith-Based Killings’

Published 7/5/2006

With the end of the first term of the Roberts court, some liberals seemed to give a sigh of relief that the new conservative majority had not returned the nation to an antebellum legal system. But on closer inspection, the past term was no cause for hope, let alone celebration, for uneasy liberals, moderates or libertarians.
To the contrary, the only comfort these groups should take from the past term is that it will likely prove far better than the coming term when the court is poised to hear cases involving affirmative action, abortion, environmental law and other hot-button issues. Continue reading ‘The Roberts Court: Seeing is Believing’

Published 8/16/2006

Dan Frazier seems an unlikely sort to spark a national firestorm. The soft-spoken former journalist runs a left-leaning website in Flagstaff, Ariz., offering political T-shirts and other items with such slogans as “Be Nice to America or We’ll Bring Democracy to Your Country.” It was one T-shirt, however, that made Frazier the Thomas Paine of the ready-to-wear rebel set. Last year, Frazier produced a T-shirt that read “Bush Lied … They Died.” He then listed the names of the fallen in Iraq: at the time 1,700 names (more than 800 short of the latest total).
One of those names belonged to Marine Cpl. Scott Vincent, who was killed in April 2004 by a suicide bomber. When his mother, Judy Vincent, saw her son’s name on the T-shirt, she was outraged and demanded legislative action in her state of Oklahoma. Various state legislators promptly made it a crime to use a soldier’s name or likeness for commercial gain without consent. Louisiana followed suit, and other states are considering such bills. Now, U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., has introduced a federal bill that would prohibit the use of the name or image of any current or former member of the military without permission.

The federal and state legislation raises serious constitutional questions.

In direct conflict with the First Amendment, the federal law would effectively prevent war critics from personalizing the true costs of the war. It is far more powerful for Frazier to say “Bush Lied … They Died” than the more common “Bush Lied … People Died.” It is precisely the type of personalization that war advocates have tried to prevent. Continue reading ‘A War With All Flags and No Faces: Cracking Down on War Protesters’

Pubished 10/18/2006
In its waning months, the 109th Congress has finally achieved a status in politics that the 1919 Black Sox achieved in sports: It is a symbol of utter corruption. Over the past two years, the congressional scandals have traversed the universe from the gross to the grandiose to the grotesque: visits from call girls, gifts of Rolls Royces and fancy commodes, sweetheart deals for contractors, high-paying lobbyist jobs for underachieving children, free vacations for members and their families.
Yet, if the young boy saying “say it ain’t so, Joe” to Shoeless Joe Jackson perfectly summed up the betrayal of the 1919 World Series, the young male pages pursued by former GOP congressman Mark Foley of Florida perfectly summed up the betrayal of the 109th Congress. The public clearly suspects that, in dealing with Foley, House leaders were more concerned with protecting a House seat than a House page. In a CNN poll, 75% of Americans say the Republicans failed to act responsibly, and 52% believe a coverup was attempted.

If the page scandal captures the raw depravity that is the 109th Congress, the proposed solution captures its raw audacity. Faced with the abuse of children, some lawmakers have called for the removal of the children. First voiced by Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., some members have indicated that they would terminate the page service after almost 200 years of tradition. As LaHood explained, “We should not subject young men and women to this kind of activity, this kind of vulnerability.” When asked whether he was suggesting that his colleagues cannot be trusted with children, he responded, “Well, that’s pretty obvious.” Continue reading ‘The Page Scandal and a Congress That Simply Can’t Resist’

Published 11/13/2006

In her first statement after the Democratic takeover of the House, the presumptive new speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, pledged that her party would create “the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history.”
History, however, should give citizens pause before they celebrate the dawn of a new day. Pelosi’s promise is eerily similar to the vows of her two predecessors. Continue reading ‘Cleaning Up Congress: Ethics and Reform’

Published 12/5/2006

On Monday, the Supreme Court once again ventured into the quagmire of affirmative action. In two cases, the court will decide whether it is permissible to use race as a criteria in the selection of students on the elementary or high school levels — three years after the court barely sustained the use of such policies on the university level.
Even after many decades, affirmative action remains one of the most contentious issues in our society. Yet, like abortion, there appears to be less, not more, true dialogue. Many people who are uncomfortable with these programs remain silent in fear that their concerns will be misconstrued or mischaracterized. Continue reading ‘Afffirmative Action and the Use of Race in Government Regulations’

Published 1/3/07
A HISTORY

The historical and legal basis for oaths is often misunderstood. As with many of our legal traditions, the role of the legislative oath was inherited from England, where its original purpose was anything but inspiring. In the 16th century, the crown used legislative oaths to disqualify any member who did not recognize the king as both the spiritual and temporal sovereign - an effective ban on any faithful Catholic serving in Parliament. Continue reading ‘Oaths and the Quran’

Published 1/3/2007

By Jonathan Turley
The newest member of the Minnesota delegation, Keith Ellison, would appear to be the very model of a god-fearing congressman whom conservatives have longed for. Yet Ellison has been denounced as a constitutional blasphemer after discussing his upcoming oath of office. The problem was not with Ellison’s oath, but with his god — Ellison is Muslim (our nation’s first in Congress) and intends to use the Quran today to pledge to serve faithfully before Allah.
Judging from the outcry, one would think that Ellison wanted to use the January edition of Penthouse. America’s permanently angry class of religious zealots has organized protests. Some have called for a law requiring that all members use the Bible — regardless of whether they believe a single word in it. They do not expect Ellison’s conversion, they just want him (and presumably the two new Buddhist members) to pay tribute to their faith system. Continue reading ‘The Truth About The Oath — Keith Ellison and the Quran’

Published 1/17/2007
Over the next week, Congress will vote on a non-binding resolution denouncing President Bush’s decision to send more troops to Iraq. Many people have already noted that with thousands of dead soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars lost, Congress might be able to manage more than a legislative “Dear John” letter. Yet, if you listen to the president and some Democratic leaders, Congress can do little to stop the hemorrhaging of lives and treasure.
The truth is that there is a lot that Congress could do. Among other things, it could stop the war. But neither the president nor many Democrats want to publicly entertain such a possibility. Indeed, the president has insisted, again, that he alone makes such decisions. When asked about what Congress can do if it opposes his build-up, Bush was dismissive and said, “Frankly, that’s not their responsibility.” Of course, the president acknowledged, “They could try to stop me from doing it … but I made my decision, and we’re going forward.”

Democratic leaders seem to be encouraging the same view of an unchecked executive. The new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and other members suggested last week that it may be unconstitutional for Congress to cut funds for an escalation. Continue reading ‘Can Congress Stop This War? You Bet.’

February 15, 2007 Thursday

As Americans have soured on the Iraq war, it’s easy to forget that armed conflict is sometimes the right course of action. In fact, a reflexive chant of ‘war is not the answer’ is a dangerous and amoral way of thinking. A child’s war-themed birthday party — and the ensuing meeting between members of the Greatest Generation and the next generation — brought this point home.

—

My wife and I recently watched as our three boys marched off to join Easy Company of the Army’s 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne Division. Their stoic faces belied their youth — ages 8, 6 and 4 — as they faced the horrors of dropping into Normandy 1944 as part of their best friend’s birthday party. There was plenty of action, of course, but nothing like what the parents would experience a few days later.

It appears that, as casualties and opposition rise with the Iraq war, even Liam Bowman’s 8th birthday party can become fodder in our national debate. Outraged parents complained that we were perverting the minds of children by glorifying war. Yet, there is something to learn from war — as we found out later with a visit to a small Veterans of Foreign Wars hall in rural Maryland. Continue reading ‘War - What is it Good For’

Posted 10/3/2004

Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy
By Jonathan Turley
Tom Green is an American polygamist. This month, he will appeal his conviction in Utah for that offense to the United States Supreme Court, in a case that could redefine the limits of marriage, privacy and religious freedom.
If the court agrees to take the case, it would be forced to confront a 126-year-old decision allowing states to criminalize polygamy that few would find credible today, even as they reject the practice. And it could be forced to address glaring contradictions created in recent decisions of constitutional law.

For polygamists, it is simply a matter of unequal treatment under the law.

Individuals have a recognized constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relationship with any number of partners. Thus, a person can live with multiple partners and even sire children from different partners so long as they do not marry. However, when that same person accepts a legal commitment for those partners “as a spouse,” we jail them.

Likewise, someone such as singer Britney Spears can have multiple husbands so long as they are consecutive, not concurrent. Thus, Spears can marry and divorce men in quick succession and become the maven of tabloid covers. Yet if she marries two of the men for life, she will become the matron of a state prison.

Religion defines the issue

The difference between a polygamist and the follower of an “alternative lifestyle” is often religion. In addition to protecting privacy, the Constitution is supposed to protect the free exercise of religion unless the religious practice injures a third party or causes some public danger.

However, in its 1878 opinion in Reynolds vs. United States, the court refused to recognize polygamy as a legitimate religious practice, dismissing it in racist and anti-Mormon terms as “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” In later decisions, the court declared polygamy to be “a blot on our civilization” and compared it to human sacrifice and “a return to barbarism.” Most tellingly, the court found that the practice is “contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western World.”

Contrary to the court’s statements, the practice of polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims.

Deuteronomy contains a rule for the division of property in polygamist marriages. Old Testament figures such as Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon were all favored by God and were all polygamists. Solomon truly put the “poly” to polygamy with 700 wives and 300 concubines. Mohammed had 10 wives, though the Koran limits multiple wives to four. Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity. Polygamy is still present among Jews in Israel, Yemen and the Mediterranean.

Indeed, studies have found polygamy present in 78% of the world’s cultures, including some Native American tribes. (While most are polygynists — with one man and multiple women — there are polyandrists in Nepal and Tibet in which one woman has multiple male spouses.) As many as 50,000 polygamists live in the United States.

Given this history and the long religious traditions, it cannot be seriously denied that polygamy is a legitimate religious belief. Since polygamy is a criminal offense, polygamists do not seek marriage licenses. However, even living as married can send you to prison. Prosecutors have asked courts to declare a person as married under common law and then convicted them of polygamy.

The Green case

This is what happened in the case of Green, who was sentenced to five years to life in prison. In his case, the state first used the common law to classify Green and four women as constructively married — even though they never sought a license. Green was then convicted of polygamy.

While the justifications have changed over the years, the most common argument today in favor of a criminal ban is that underage girls have been coerced into polygamist marriages. There are indeed such cases. However, banning polygamy is no more a solution to child abuse than banning marriage would be a solution to spousal abuse. The country has laws to punish pedophiles and there is no religious exception to those laws.

In Green’s case, he was shown to have “married” a 13-year-old girl. If Green had relations with her, he is a pedophile and was properly prosecuted for a child sex crime — just as a person in a monogamous marriage would be prosecuted.

The First Amendment was designed to protect the least popular and least powerful among us. When the high court struck down anti-sodomy laws in Lawrence vs. Texas, we ended decades of the use of criminal laws to persecute gays. However, this recent change was brought about in part by the greater acceptance of gay men and lesbians into society, including openly gay politicians and popular TV characters.

Such a day of social acceptance will never come for polygamists. It is unlikely that any network is going to air The Polygamist Eye for the Monogamist Guy or add a polygamist twist to Everyone Loves Raymond. No matter. The rights of polygamists should not be based on popularity, but principle.

I personally detest polygamy. Yet if we yield to our impulse and single out one hated minority, the First Amendment becomes little more than hype and we become little more than hypocrites. For my part, I would rather have a neighbor with different spouses than a country with different standards for its citizens.

I know I can educate my three sons about the importance of monogamy, but hypocrisy can leave a more lasting impression.

USA TODAY
July 18, 2006 Tuesday

HEADLINE: The case for macroscopic humans;
The stem cell debate this time may be settled quickly with President Bush’s first veto. In doing so, he effectively will choose to protect microscopic masses of cells instead of actual living, breathing human beings. And that’s a travesty.

BYLINE: Jonathan Turley

BODY:

Once again, the nation has returned to the all-consuming debate over the fate of the embryonic stem cell. With the expected passage of a federal stem cell bill lifting President Bush’s harsh restrictions on federal funding, the White House has announced that he will veto the bill despite its overwhelming support among citizens and Republicans and Democrats in Congress. It will be the first veto of Bush’s presidency. All for the protection of the beguiling embryonic stem cell: a microscopic cell taken from a microscopic part of a barely perceptible mass of cells called a blastocyst, or early stage human embryo.

To get an idea of the size of the object of this controversy, consider the dot over the “i” in embryonic. I am told by Tim McCaffrey, a leading researcher of adult stem cells at George Washington University, that the dot would hold hundreds of stem cells, dozens of which would be suitable for research. It would also hold at least one blastocyst that contains the cells.

While imperceptibly small, the blastocyst is undeniably a step in the creation of life. This has turned the blastocyst into the poster (pre-)child for the movement to outlaw abortion. Abortion foes have taken the most extreme possible position in opposing any use of the blastocyst for research — converting the blastocyst into a type of “holy dot.”

Watchful eye is needed

Despite my long support for stem cell research, I am not in favor of unrestricted use of human embryonic material. There are dangers of a slippery slope if researchers could use in vitro fertilization for the sole purpose of “harvesting” such material. But the federal bill would not create such a limitless environment. Rather, it would focus on thousands of stem cells that are the byproduct of genuine in vitro procedures — used with the permission of each donor couple. These stem cell lines are routinely discarded by clinics but could be used for important scientific research.

Stem cell research could ultimately produce cures or treatments for diseases and injuries affecting an estimated 130 million citizens, including people suffering from such ailments as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s, ALS and spinal cord injuries. Most treatments remain years away, but stem cell treatment has already begun in Europe for people with heart and nervous system ailments. Clinical tests with animals have shown astonishing success. For example, just last month, it was reported that stem cell treatment can not only repair damaged spinal cords but also regrow them to allow paralyzed animals to walk again.

Given such proven potential, most Americans oppose the president’s restrictions on research. Seven out of 10 Americans support fully funded stem cell research. Even ultraconservative leaders such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and conservative celebrities such as former first lady Nancy Reagan have opposed Bush’s ban.

Nevertheless, the president opposes even the use of discarded stem cells with the express consent of the couples. It is a position that is comprehensible only to the most extreme activists: Throw the blastocysts out but do not degrade them by extracting the cells for medical research or cures.

Treating these discarded blastocysts as if they’re some microscopic underclass is lost on millions of families with macroscopic loved ones suffering from fatal or crippling diseases. In 2004, I wrote an article on the personal costs of Bush’s policy for families such as my own. At the time, my father, Jack Turley, was fighting the rapidly advancing effects of Parkinson’s disease. On Feb. 19, 2005, time ran out for my father.

This debate is not about abstractions for millions of Americans. For me, it is about my dad. So I will not claim objectivity, nor would I want to. Once you go through the death of a loved one from one of these vicious diseases, you lose patience with the endless debate over the fate of discarded blastocysts.

A real life ended

My father was no abstraction of life. He was my best friend and the man whom I most admired in this world. With my mom and my oldest brother, Dominic, I held Dad as he died in a Chicago hospital room. In the end, he had lost so much weight that we had to bury him in one of my suits and shirts. It was the suit that I was married in — the day that we first suspected something was wrong with Dad, who suddenly could not tie his own tie. As my bride waited downstairs for the ceremony, I remember being slightly embarrassed for my proud father as I knotted his tie. It would be only the first of many increasingly degrading moments for this intensely private person.

Having gone through this nightmare, I cannot work up much sympathy for the holy-dot theory. Nor do I have much patience for the self-described “compromise” of Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., an unflagging opponent to embryonic stem cell research. Facing a tough re-election campaign, Santorum has proposed a bill that calls for more study into the use of non-embryonic cells or ways to remove cells without harming the embryos — which, in the case of the clinic embryos, would then presumably be thrown into the trash “unharmed.”

I know that the loss of five years under Bush would not have made a difference for my dad. But what made me angry — what still makes me angry — is that the president and his allies make the blastocyst, not my father or other ailing citizens, the object of their obsession. They are simply immaterial to the president’s faith-based politics. But these citizens were not some vague potential for life. They lived and, what should concern the White House, they left millions of newly minted single-issue voters.

May 18, 2004, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION

HEADLINE: Bush’s stem-cell politics leaves Dad to wither

BYLINE: Jonathan Turley

BODY:
My father is dying from an American political disease. In a nation divided evenly between red and blue states, governmental policies have long been distorted by the gravitational pull of the extremes of the two parties.

For President Bush, policies often have been shaped by his fundamentalist and conservative religious base. While controversial, many of these policies are largely symbolic, such as his unheeded call for an amendment to ban gay marriage. The president’s policy opposing stem-cell research, however, presents a far more deadly concession — one that might secure votes, but at a prohibitive cost of human life.

Stem-cell research is back in the news after former first lady Nancy Reagan’s call this month for Bush to drop his opposition to fully funded research. Former president Ronald Reagan has advanced Alzheimer’s disease and may benefit from stem-cell research. More than 200 members of Congress (including nearly three dozen abortion-rights opponents) responded to the call and asked Bush to lift his extreme limitations on federal funding in some instances. Former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton have also joined the chorus.

Such a change may come too late for my father. The immediate threat to him is an advanced-stage Parkinson’s disease that is sapping his strength, reducing his mobility and robbing his mind. However, it is not Parkinson’s, but politics, that has proved the greatest burden in our fight for his life.

In his self-described “compromise,” Bush said stem cells (microscopic clusters of cells often discarded by hospitals) must be protected as potential human life. The White House recently reaffirmed th