This morning three different law professors sent me this video of U.S. Senate Candidate and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren claiming to be the first nursing mother to ever take the bar exam. One of the professors, who is a liberal academic, noted that she knows that claim to be untrue from personal experience. However, as noted by Winnie Comfort of the New Jersey Judiciary (which administers state’s bar exam), the bar does not track nursing habits and women have been taking the New Jersey bar exam since 1895. This was not a claim to be a nursing Cherokee mother, but the question remains why Warren is making such controversial boasts when she has a great financial expertise record to run on. Worse still, Warren today admitted that she did in fact claim minority status at Penn and Harvard — after insisting that she was unaware of the claims.
Obviously, the running of a law professor has made the Warren race a focus of law professors around the country. With these issues becoming part of the campaign, that fascination has grown to unprecedented levels. Warren has enjoyed overwhelming support in the academy from what I have seen. That support remains strong, though law professors are still chattering about these controversies.
These distractions however cannot be simply blamed on conservative publications, which are running the stories. Warren does not need such claims to distinguish herself. It could not come at a worse time when she has been unable to support her claim to be Cherokee In one of the most bizarre twists on the story, there are now accounts that great-great-great grandfather may have been a member of the Tennessee Militia who rounded up Cherokees and pushed them into the horrific Trail of Tears. Of course, even if true, that would not alter the fact that his wife was a Cherokee. However, the Boston Globe has confirmed that there is no documentation to support the claim.
With today’s admission that she did in fact repeatedly claim minority status at both law schools, I am again left perplexed why she would take so long to admit her claim. As I noted earlier, I could not imagine any way that such a claim, let alone repeated claims, unless it was made by the law professor.
On the merits, there is significant doubt about the claim. Warren’s bio lists her as becoming pregnant in 1976 before graduating from law school. By that point, the chances that she was the first woman to be a nursing mother during the bar seems doubtful, but more importantly it is not clear how she would know.
Once again, this is not an issue of importance, but it is one that Warren raised. While the claim of being a minority does have significant aspects for law schools and academics, nursing is not a matter that seems particularly relevant. However, what is fascinating is that I would have been impressed with Warren noting that she nursed during the bar exam – reflecting the challenges of female lawyers. No need to be first. I was trying not to hyperventilate at the time. I would be impressed even if she was the latest in a long line of nursing mothers during bar exams.
Nevertheless, she still looks good in comparison to 13 Senatorial candidates who are now accused of having backgrounds that include criminal convictions or tax violations.
I wonder if any of our attorneys have accounts to share of challenges that they faced during the bar examination. I know of one professor who was caught in a broken elevator in a hotel during his break from the bar. I know of another lawyer who was under cancer treatment and had to leave to throw up from the medication (he passed).
bfm,
“To be a bit glib about it, I think there is much truth to the characterization that we are rapidly building a system where citizens have constitutional rights and the protection of the courts unless and until someone in the administration signs a paper that claims the citizen is some kind of enemy of the state.
That ought to trouble everyone.”
If it is any consolation bfm, I’m not being glib at all (having put quite a bit of thought to the matter) when I say that not only is the much truth in it and everyone should be troubled by this encroaching tyranny, we are setting the stage for Peru under Pinochet style state where people can and will be “disappeared” on a regular basis. People should be troubled, concerned and outraged at the steady and growing stream of civil rights abuses the government is giving itself the power to commit under the guise of “national security” and with the weak promise of “but the President would never use that on a citizen . . . unless they’re a ‘terrorist’ (read: undesirable)”. Were Jefferson and Madison alive today, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say they’d probably be at or near the top of the DHS list of undesirables. In our pursuit of security theater, pols and corporations with bad intentions have slowly been subverting our system of government into the very kind of tyrannical despotic organ of state that Jefferson addressed in the Declaration of Independence.
Elaine M., The TPM site casts the letter in a much more stern light than Maddow’s spot on the matter. Good, as it should be. One of the remedial acts that should be performed (assuming Florida doesn’t just bullheadedly forge on) is to send follow up notices to all of the people told that they may be/are ineligible to vote that they are eligible to vote and the first notice was an error and it should do that in plain language that anyone can understand. I hope Florida/Scott folds with all due haste.
lotta,
ThinkProgress provided a link to an article at TPM. Here it is:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/justice_department_demands_florida_stop_purging_voter_rolls.php
Elaine, thanks, I shall visit them and read the details.
lottakatz,
I just read the good news on ThinkProgress.
Elaine M.: 1, May 31, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Matt, Down in Florida, Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen are doing their best to see that thousands of Democrats and minorities won’t have an opportunity to vote in federal elections this year
———-
Some good news Ms. Elaine:
Maddow had an exclusive tonight- the Justice Department sent Florida a letter this evening stating that Florida did not request pre-clearance on it’s plans to purge voter rolls and that Florid is likely in violation of Federal law. The JD requests that Florida stop its purge and seek pre-clearance.
WOOOOHOOOOOOOO! ‘Bout damn time. There’s what, about 14 states playing fast and loose with the right of citizens to vote? The JD needs to step up in all of them IMO.
10 Reasons The U.S. Is No Longer The Land Of The Free
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/
mespo,
Obama’s Kill Policy
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/03/07/obamas-kill-policy/
Excerpt:
Holder’s new definition of “due process” was perfectly Orwellian. While the Framers wanted an objective basis for due process, Holder was offering little more than “we will give the process that we consider due to a target.” And even the vaguely described “due process” claimed by Holder was not stated as required, but rather granted, by the president. Three citizens have been given their due during the Obama administration and vaporized by presidential order. Frankly, few of us mourn their passing. However, due process appears to have been vaporized in the same moment — something many U.S. citizens may come to miss.
What Holder is describing is a model of an imperial presidency that would have made Richard Nixon blush. If the president can kill a citizen, there are a host of other powers that fall short of killing that the president might claim, including indefinite detention of citizens — another recent controversy. Thus, by asserting the right to kill citizens without charge or judicial review, Holder has effectively made all of the Constitution’s individual protections of accused persons matters of presidential discretion. These rights will be faithfully observed up to the point that the president concludes that they interfere with his view of how best to protect the country — or his willingness to wait for “justice” to be done. And if Awlaki’s fate is any indication, there will be no opportunity for much objection.
Already, the administration has successfully blocked efforts of citizens to gain review of such national security powers or orders. Not only is the list of citizens targeted with death kept secret, but the administration has insisted that courts do not play a role in the creation of or basis for such a list. Even when Awlaki’s family tried to challenge Obama’s kill order, the federal court declared that the cleric would have to file for himself — a difficult task when you are on a presidential hit list. Moreover, any attorney working with Awlaki would have risked being charged with aiding a terrorist.
When the applause died down after Holder’s speech, we were left with a bizarre notion of government. We have this elaborate system of courts and rights governing the prosecution and punishment of citizens. However, that entire system can be circumvented at the whim or will of the president. The president then becomes effectively the lawgiver or lifetaker for all citizens. The rest becomes a mere pretense of the rule of law.
Holder was describing the very model of government the Framers denounced in crafting both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. James Madison in particular warned that citizens should not rely on the good graces and good intentions of their leaders. He noted, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” The administration appears to have taken the quote literally as an invitation for unlimited authority for angels.
Of course, even those who hold an angelic view of Obama today may come to find the next president less divine. In the end, those guardian angels will continue to claim to be acting in the best interests of every citizen — with the exception, of course, of those citizens killed by them.
mespo,
Post @ 11:36pm … good info, thanks. Wish I’d had it two hours ago when I was discussing, okay … arguing, with my T-Party neighbor.
There’s always tomorrow.
Scary legislation Elaine.
Be deported where? American traitors are kept in American prison for life.
Elaine:
You can’t strip anyone of citizenship by administrative process. it violates the Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Justice Goldberg held that penal expatriation effectuated solely by administrative determination violated due process because of the absence of procedural safeguards.
@mesp727272 “Due Process Clause. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144 (1963). Justice Goldberg held that penal expatriation effectuated solely by administrative determination violated due process because of the absence of procedural safeguards.”
I think what you claim is exactly Elaine’s concern. Besides I think the concern is broader than citizenship, but goes to constitutional rights and access to the courts.
I think her remarks are that the legislation seems to circumvent or contradict what you cite as protection.
If there is a contradiction then doesn’t it fall the to courts to decide which legislation or decisions actually control?
And haven’t the courts spent much of the past decade flat on their collective backs for the administration?
So what ever the law was in the past, doesn’t it stand to reason that citizens might have concerns regarding legislation like this and about the administrations stated understanding of the meaning of the legislation as expressed in the form of a signing statement?
To be a bit glib about it, I think there is much truth to the characterization that we are rapidly building a system where citizens have constitutional rights and the protection of the courts unless and until someone in the administration signs a paper that claims the citizen is some kind of enemy of the state.
That ought to trouble everyone.
Could laws like these be applied to foreign policy experts who council peace with Iran? What about activist who champion the cause of Palestinians? Could a mayor like Bloomberg designate the leaders of a protest group like OWS and have them held with out access to the courts? I don’t think anyone can give definitive answers to questions like these. That ought to be troubling to everyone.
Before you sneer that we are talking about federal laws and a mayor is well a mayor, you ought to consider that police departments already have the ability to enter individual names on federal list in federal databases based on nothing more than an accusation. These lists have real consequences in the lives of individuals. And there does not seem to be any systematic way for a citizen to challenge the legitimacy of the listing or to demand removal for inappropriate listing.
One might consider how these laws would have played out in the last century during the civil rights movement. During that time there were claims that the civil rights movement was infiltrated by communists. It was a given that communists and the communist party were enemies of the state. And in the ’60’s there was real civil unrest with riots, property damage, parts of NW DC and other cities actually burned.
I don’t think one has to be an alarmist to wonder if the availability of legislation like this in the past century would have put thousands behind bars without recourse to the courts.
As bad as the social situation was during the past century, I do not believe that legislation like this would have made anything better. On the contrary, I think history proves conclusively that the federal government had all the legal tools it needed to handle the situation.
So in conclusion, I have to wonder if this legislation is necessary or does it overreach. Does this legislation solve a real problem. Or does this legislation run the very real risk of creating much more serious problems.
I am definitely concerned with any legislation which seems to limit constitutional rights or access to the courts. I am very concerned with any legislation that would seem to be easily abused by federal prosecutors.
Matt:
“You can’t strip them of their citizenship if they were born here. Where are they going to go?”
*********************
Don’t know where you got the idea you can’t strip a traitor of citizenship just because they were born here. That’s not the law. See Nationality Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 1169.
To answer your question: Like most other federal criminals to the most suitable Federal Correctional Institution to serve out their sentence and then to be deported.
Matt & mespo,
Government could strip citizenship from Americans under Enemy Expatriation Act
13 January, 2012
http://rt.com/usa/news/expatriation-act-citizenship-ndaa-737/
When Barack Obama inked the National Defense Authorization Act on New Year’s Eve, the president insisted that he wouldn’t use the terrifying legislation against American citizens. Another new law, however, could easily change all of that.
If the Enemy Expatriation Act passes in its current form, the legislation will let the government strike away citizenship for anyone engaged in hostilities, or supporting hostilities, against the United States. The law itself is rather brief, but in just a few words it warrants the US government to strip nationality status from anyone they identify as a threat.
What’s more, the government can decide to do so without bringing the suspected troublemaker before a court of law.
Under the legislation, “hostilities” are defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war” and does not explicitly state that charges against suspects go to court.
When Obama signed NDAA on December 31, the president said that his administration “will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.” Added the president, “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.” But by breaking off ties between citizens — American-born or otherwise — the harsh realities of NDAA can be forced on anyone in the US if Washington decides that it is in the country’s best interest.
The National Defense Authorization Act drew widespread opposition despite a lack of media cover due to the capabilities in bestows in the administration. Under NDAA, the government can indefinitely imprison anyone deemed dangerous by Washington and hold them without trial. After criticism led to massive online campaigns and protests, President Obama addressed the issue and said specifically that his administration would not understand the law as such. Instead, said Obama, “My administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.”
Some are now saying that Obama’s attempt at discrediting the NDAA by insisting that he would not use it against American citizens came only as a precursor to the latest Act. By adding his signing statement to the NDAA, the president insured that legislation such as the Enemy Expatriation Act would surface to strike any limitations that would have kept Americans free from military detainment. “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans,” Stephen . Foster, Jr. writes on the AddictionInfo.org website. “Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”
You can’t strip them of their citizenship if they were born here. Where are they going to go? And what you’re talking about is a very miniscule percentage.
Matt:
“If the government starts taking citizenship away from people who were born here, that’s when the sky falls.”
********************
Do you really care if they strip citizenship from those convicted of “engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States”? Haven’t they already given up their citizenship by their conduct? Treason has always been deemed a relinquishment of citizenship. Is this really different?
@mespo727272
I think it is always a matter of concern when the government takes a power that it did not have before.
And there seems to be some concern that overzealous prosecutors might try to construe material support to include speech.
So yes, I do have some problems with this.
In the past we have always seemed to be able to prosecute the enemies of the state, especially during time of war, with out this.
So I have to wonder (1) is it necessary (2) does it over reach and infringe on important rights.
I am not offering a conclusion. I wish I could. But I believe some of the questions are obvious and important.
Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen better be careful.
Matt,
I’m not in the habit of visiting Florida. I couldn’t say. I’d hazard a guess that there are many more than you’d find up here in my neck of the woods. They have lots of hanging chads down there too.
How many rednecks with guns are there in Florida?
Matt,
Down in Florida, Governor Rick Scott and his henchmen are doing their best to see that thousands of Democrats and minorities won’t have an opportunity to vote in federal elections this year.