As a law professor, I am often called into disputes over the original intent of the Framers — most recently in testimony over the recess appointment clause in the House Judiciary Committee. In the Florida House of Representatives, however, this dispute became particularly intense as Rep. Alan B. Williams and Speaker Dean Cannon disagreed on the specific words and intent behind that legal paragon Jay-Z:
Continue reading “The Original Intent Debate Turns To James Madison . . . Jay-Z”
We have previously discussed Afghan President Hamid Karzai stated inclinations toward the Taliban and harsh treatment of women. Karzai now appears to be moving more aggressively to this Sharia-based vision for women — a vision that expressly devalues their worth and endorses beatings by their husbands. This week, Karzai endorsed an edict from the Afghan Ulema Council — Afghanistan’s highest Islamic authority — that women are worth less than men and supporting “Sharia-compliant” beatings of women. That is the model government that we have created with the loss of both our men and women as well as hundreds of billions of dollars. We are still spending billions on the country as it embraces the Taliban and harsh Sharia principles.
Continue reading “Karzai Approves Edict Stating Woman Are “Secondary” And Worth Less Than Men”
This week we have been discussing Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent speech at Northwestern University Law School detailing the claim of President Barack Obama that he has the right to kill American citizens based on his inherent authority and the ongoing war on terror. I previously wrote a blog and a column on the issue. Those pieces noted that Holder limited his remarks by referring to targeted killing “abroad.” However, I noted that the Administration’s past references to this power are not so limited. Indeed, the only limits stated by the Administration have been self-imposed standards and what Holder calls “due process” — expressly excluding “judicial process.” Now, FBI Director Robert Mueller has entered the fray. On Wednesday Mueller was asked in a congressional hearing whether the current policy would allow the killing of citizens in the United States. Mueller said that he simply did not know whether he could order such an assassination. It was the perfect moment to capture the dangerous ambiguity introduced into our system by this claim of inherent authority. I can understand Mueller deferring to the Attorney General on the meaning of his remarks, but the question was whether Mueller understands that the same power exists within the United States. One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
Continue reading “Mueller: I Can’t Say Whether I Now Can Kill Citizens In The United States Under Obama’s Kill Doctrine”
The New York Times has an interesting article on the continuing debate over whether lies are protected under the first amendment — a debate that we discussed earlier in relation to the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of the Stolen Valor Act. Mark W. Miller, however, is fighting this issue in a different context — challenging a law that makes it a crime to lie in a political campaign. I have always viewed these laws as inimical to free speech and contrary to the First Amendment. The Supreme Court could resolve the question in the Alvarez case — or reinforce the ability of states to prosecute people for falsehoods utterly in political campaigns.
Continue reading “Ohio Case Challenges Law Criminalizing “Lies” In Political Campaign”
Below is today’s column in Foreign Policy magazine on Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech at Northwestern University Law School. UPDATE: FBI Director declines to answer whether the new doctrine allows the killing of citizens in the United States.
Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University Law School yesterday explaining President Barack Obama’s claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport.
Continue reading “Holder Promises To Kill Citizens With Care”
U.S. District Judge Benson Everett Legg has struck down Maryland’s handgun law to the extent that it requires residents show a “good and substantial reason” to get a handgun permit. While he is being criticized for the opinion, I believe that Judge Legg is on sound legal ground in light of the Supreme Courts decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). The case does enter into largely unmapped territory on what standard of scrutiny to apply in such cases — a matter that could prove quite important in future cases.
Continue reading “Federal Court Strikes Down Maryland’s Handgun Law”
Iranian human rights lawyer Abdolfattah Soltani has been sentenced to 18 years in prison by what the Iranian government refers to as “courts.” To his credit, Soltani refused to defend himself before the Iranian tribunal which blindly carries out the dictates of the religious leaders of the country.
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
There has been a lot of discussion in the media recently about the HHS contraception coverage mandate. Much of the talk has focused on women’s sex lives and the types of birth control that doctors prescribe for women in order to prevent pregnancy—as well as on the separation of church and state and the mandate’s infringement on religious freedom and the Catholic Church’s First Amendment rights. There has been much less talk about women’s health, women’s rights, and the use of birth control pills to treat certain female medical conditions, including polycystic ovary syndrome and endometriosis. Both of these conditions can cause severe pain and lead to other health problems. According to Bruce Nolan of The Times-Picayune, the Institute of Medicine—which is a non-profit advisory panel—recommended the contraception coverage because “those services are basic to individual health.”
Many Americans—especially women—think that contraceptive coverage and other “female-related” medical services ARE basic to women’s health. Catholic bishops, however, believe that contraceptive coverage and some hospital services are in conflict with the church’s “moral conscience.” The bishops contend that the church has the right to deny certain types of health insurance coverage for women who work for Catholic institutions. It doesn’t matter to the bishops whether the female employees are members of other religions…are atheists or agnostics. The church’s position is that all female employees of Catholic institutions should be denied access to all forms of contraceptives and not be provided medical insurance that would cover the cost of certain medical procedures. The bishops also believe that certain types of treatment and procedures—including tubal ligations—should not be provided to women at Catholic hospitals.
When I was doing research on an earlier post, The National Women’s Law Center Takes a Position on Contraceptive Coverage & “Extreme” Legislation, I came across some information about Catholic hospitals that caused me great concern. The information left me with the belief that Catholic bishops and the Catholic Church do not seem to value the lives of women as much as they value the lives of men and the unborn. In this post, I will look at the “usurpation of female patients’ rights” at Catholic hospitals. I think after reading my post you will understand why I drew the conclusion that I did.
Continue reading “Catholic Bishops and Religious Rights vs. Women’s Rights”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
While we have discussed the fairness of the taxes paid and not paid by large corporations in the past, the alleged high corporate tax rate is once again in the news. It seems that after contraception the Right’s most consistent accusation is that the corporate tax rate is way too high for corporations to compete in the world market. The facts seem to differ from those claims however.
“Corporations are lobbying for lower corporate rates and an exemption for profits they shift offshore. McIntyre, however, says “Our study provides proof that too many corporations are already being coddled by our tax system.” Findings in the report include:
The average effective tax rate for all 280 companies in the study over the three year period was 18.5 percent; for the period 2009-2010 it was 17.3 percent, less than half the statutory rate of 35 percent.
78 of the companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was zero or less.
30 companies enjoyed a negative income tax rate over the entire three year period on their combined pre-tax profits of $160 billion.
Total tax subsidies given to all 280 profitable corporations amounted to $222.7 billion from 2008-2010.
Wells Fargo tops the list of 280 U.S. corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies, getting nearly $18 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. treasury in the last three years.
Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study, at negative 57.6 percent over the three year period.” Citizens for Tax Justice Continue reading “Corporate Tax Rate and Reality”
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Coincidentally and often, abuses of civil or human rights in the United States derive from the same source as law made via precedent. That source is vague or overly broad legislation and imprecise use of language. As a matter of good drafting practice, this is why precision language is encouraged – to provide clarity and minimize ambiguity in the letter of the law. When vague laws create issues in court, the court either makes a ruling creating precedent and consequently a plan of action for how to address the issue moving forward although occasionally a law is overturned in toto for vagueness and the legislature can take a fresh swing writing the law.
However, it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing “wiggle room” for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice. The issue of vagueness is at the heart of the NDAA scandal as recently discussed on the blog here, here and here. While the NDAA poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347, innocuously titled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”. As currently worded, it might as well have been called the “Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011” or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are “authorized” to be protected by the Secret Service. Being that the bill passed on a House vote 388-3 and is currently coming out of committee in the Senate, its progress is something civil libertarians and activists may want to monitor. UPDATE: President Obama signed H.R. 347 into law on March 9, 2012.
Continue reading “Imprecise Language and the Risks of H.R. 347”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
This week Huffpost ran an article titled:“IBM’s Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal”, written by Edwin Black. The article was a followup to Mr. Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” published in 2001. As Mr. Black puts it justifying this particular article:
“Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM‘s pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
These are of course pretty serious charges being made about one of the world’s most famous companies and about its founder. While I will present the nature of these charges and the specificity of the author’s alleged proof in the piece, it really is not my focus to condemn IBM one way or another, or even to vouch for the truth of the article. I will provide a link that offers a different perspective on these charges and will leave it to you the reader to decide what you think of them. My real purpose here is to discuss the necessary amorality of Corporations and what effect that amorality has upon nations and people. Continue reading “A Corporate Tale”
In a controversial interview, Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz has called not only for the White House to sever ties with Media Matters, but has called upon Media Matters to fire staff member M.J. Rosenberg for this criticism of supporters of Israel. Clearly, this is not a first amendment issue that arises when the government is asked to engage in censorship or coercion with regard to critics. However, the demand for Rosenberg’s termination does raise serious concerns over the freedom for writers to raise often controversial topics and positions. Rosenberg was voicing a common objection over Israeli policy and the demands for his termination sends a chilling message for anyone who voices such positions.
Continue reading “Dershowitz Calls On Media Matters To Fire Critic Of Israel”
A campaign to pressure Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., is well underway, but it is not the usual parade of industry lobbyists that run feral in the halls of Congress. Rather, Camp is facing demands that he pressure his adviser Aharon Friedman to grant a Jewish “get” to his wife who wants to divorce him. Jewish community members are seeking to pressure Friedman by pressuring Camp, but is that an appropriate matter for a Member of Congress or any employer?
Continue reading “Should A House Member Force An Aide To Grant A Jewish “Get”?”
Chief U.S. District Judge of Montana Richard Cebull is under fire for a joke that he sent to friends from his court email. The email has been denounced as racist and “compares African-Americans to dogs.” He insists that it was not for public circulation and reflected his dislike for the president, not black people.
Continue reading “Racist or Clueless? Chief Judge of Montana Under Fire For Obama Joke”