It has been years before anyone seriously in the Administration has claimed that it is “the most transparent Administration” ever — as President Barack Obama once pledged. The Obama Administration instead has set new lows for its pursuit and prosecution of whistleblowers and reporters as well as classifying and withholding information on potentially embarrassing actions or programs. For that reason, there was not much surprise that the White House chose this week — with the National Freedom of Information Day and the Sunshine Week — to remove a federal regulation that subjects its Office of Administration to the Freedom of Information Act.
Category: Constitutional Law
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw) Weekend Contributor
The Obama Administration has been pressuring members of Congress to pass the bill that will give President Obama the “fast track”  authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership(TPP) agreement without any debate in Congress. Fast track authority would not allow for any amendments and the bill would remain secret until just before it is voted on.
“President Obama is currently pressing members of Congress to pass Fast-Track authority for a trade and investment agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). If Fast Track passes, it means that Congress must approve or deny the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments. Astonishingly, our lawmakers have not seen the agreement they are being asked to expedite.” Nation of Change Continue reading “If The TPP is Such a Great Idea, Why Keep it a Secret?”
Like many people, I was disappointed by the effort at University of California at Irvine to ban the American flag. Yet, as a university professor, I have seen some senseless efforts by students who can bring more heat than light to some issues. The response has been a bit overblown, including a call for a state constitutional amendment, when the ill-conceived and insulting resolution was vetoed by a later school board. Moreover, the resolution never involved a ban on the American flag from the school but just from one area of the school. However, the report of a letter from some UC faculty has left me baffled in its suggested support in among academics for the premise of the resolution. While we all have different political and philosophical viewpoints, the flag represents first and foremost the protection of such differing viewpoints and the right to express them. We clearly have our problems and historical regrets, but the flag is a unifying symbol of our values, including the free speech rights that allow us to criticize our government and our history.
If the allegations are true, Diego Chaar is a horrible anti-Semitic person. He is accused to yelling Allahu akbar outside of a synagogue and saying that he would cut the heads off the congregants. Yet, the case presents a potential free speech issue after Chaar is facing charges of stalking and assault.
Criminal defense attorneys have long objected to “experts” produced at trials by the Justice Department who often seem to closely follow trial theories rather than scientific or forensic data. I have handled cases where experts used by the Justice Department gave almost laughable testimony filled with errors in national security cases but courts continue to admit their testimony. This week, one such expert, FBI Special Agent Steven Kimball, fell apart on the stand when confronted with clearly conclusions over basic and easily ascertainable facts.
Continue reading “FBI Agent’s Testimony Shredded In Boston Bomber Trial”
The brutal character of Sharia criminal law was evident in Iran this week after a man was forcibly blinded in one eye after being convicted for an acid attack that blinded another man. It was the literal application of the concept of “an eye for an eye.” We discussed the Iranian judicial ruling on blinding people for such crimes ten years ago. In this case, the man was blinded in his left eye and will later be blinded in his right eye unless “blood money is paid.”
Continue reading “Iran Blinds Defendant Under Sharia Law’s “Eye For An Eye””
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Idaho Liquor Licensees who show movies have been served with notice demanding that they not show the blockbuster Hollywood hit “Fifty Shades of Grey” while serving alcoholic beverages. The agency claims that doing so violates Idaho law prohibiting the display of sexually explicit movies while serving alcohol.
Many are wondering why the ABC singled out Fifty Shades of Grey and not various other R-Rated movies having sexual situations that dominate the movie industry.
As expected, the Justice Department announced Wednesday that it will not prosecute former Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. The case followed the same pattern that we saw him the Zimmerman investigation: a premature entry into the case, Attorney General Eric Holder making public comments assuring a federal response, a long investigation, and a leak from the Justice Department preparing people for the rejection of any charges. In both cases, some of us questioned the timing of the entry of the federal investigators and the weak basis for a civil rights investigation. (For a prior column, click here) In the end, the Justice Department found much of the same inconsistencies detailed by the grand jury and the police in the Ferguson case.
The Supreme Court has decided to wade back into the controversy over the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or “Obamacare” today with the granting of review of King v. Burwell, No. 14-114. I have previously written about the King case as well as the parallel case in the D.C. Circuit in Halbig. Today, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King and there appears a rather transparent effort by the Administration to give justices sticker shock in considering the challenge, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts. [For full disclosure, I am lead counsel in the challenge filed by the United States House of Representatives to different ACA changes ordered unilaterally by President Obama in House of Representatives v. Burwell.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Hears ACA Challenge Amid Dire Warnings From The Administration”
We have previously discussed the common criminalization of speech found in Muslim countries (and the increasing criminalization seen in the West). The most recent victim is Ryan Pate, a civilian helicopter mechanic who was arrested for a derogatory comments made on Facebook in the United States toward his employer in the United Arab Emirates, Global Aerospace Logistics. After he returned to the United Arab Emirates, he was promptly arrested at the request of the company. This again is one of our closest allies that denies the basic protections of free speech not only to its citizens but even to Americans speaking in the United States.
There is a deeply troubling case out of Massachusetts where prosecutors have charged Michelle Carter, 18, with the death of Conrad Roy, 18. What is different about the case is that there is no dispute that Roy killed himself. Carter is being charged for text messages encouraging Roy to go through with the suicide. If true, Carter played a despicable role in this death but the question is whether it should be treated as a crime when it was Roy who made the decision and took the action to take his own life. I have previously written how such cases should be handled by civil litigation as a general rule.
Continue reading “Massachusetts Teenager Charged With Manslaughter For Encouraging Suicide”
Another blogger has fallen victim to Islamic extremists. Avijit Roy, a Bangladesh-born U.S. citizen, was hacked to death during a walk with his wife in Dhaka as both were returning from a book fair at Dhaka University. How did he insult Islam? No, it wasn’t a cartoon or a satirical poem. He wrote about religious intolerance so they hacked him to death.
Continue reading “American Blogger in Bangladesh Hacked To Death By Islamic Extremists”
The Obama Administration previously filed its Motion to Dismiss in the challenge by the United States House of Representatives v. Burwell. As many of you know, I am lead counsel in the action. The Obama Administration is seeking to block the court from hearing the merits of our Complaint and below is our filing today in defense of the right of the House of Representatives to be heard in the federal court. The case is before Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Yesterday, the Justice Department closed the book on the George Zimmerman case with the announcement that it will not file federal civil rights charges. When Attorney General Eric Holder ordered in federal investigators soon after the shooting of Trayvon Martin, some (including myself) questioned the legal basis for entering the case based on the still developing evidence. The Justice Department usually allows state or city prosecutors and police to finish their investigation before entry into a case. Holder was viewed as responding to political pressure in ordering the premature entry in the case. That investigation will now end shortly before Holder leaves his very controversial tenure as Attorney General.
Continue reading “Justice Department: Zimmerman Will Not Be Charged With Federal Crimes”
Musallam al-Barrak, an outspoken former member of the Kuwaiti parliament, appears to have his answer. Al-Barrak appealed to Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah (right) in a 2012 speech not to impose “autocratic rule.” He was later arrested and has now been sentenced to five years in jail.