Word just in that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in (i.e., decided to hear) the McDonald v. Chicago case discussed here previously - and, most importantly, did not appear to have limited the arguments to due process, as Chicago had suggested.
Specifically, here's how the issue is framed in today's order (scroll down to Docket No. 08-1521): "Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home."
Please forgive the momentary gloat, but this is precisely the question raised (which my thesis answers in the affirmative) in my 2007 Missouri Law Review article, entitled (in language virtually identical to the Court's stated issue): "Second Amendment Incorporation Through the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities and Due Process Clauses."
So, the Privileges or Immunities argument we've been pushing, for so long, is ON in the Supreme Court. This is huge.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
Nordyke v. King Rehearing
Last Thursday the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals re-heard oral arguments in the case of Nordyke v. King (discussed here previously), regarding whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment to apply to the states.
As reported Friday on the Constitutional Accountability Center's "Text and History Blog,"
As reported Friday on the Constitutional Accountability Center's "Text and History Blog,"
"Just a few hours after the 11-judge en banc panel heard argument, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski issued an order holding off on further consideration of the case until the Supreme Court disposes of three outstanding petitions for certiorari in similar cases –McDonald v. City of Chicago (No. 08-1521), in which CAC [and law professors Richard Aynes, Jack Balkin, Randy Barnett, Michael Curtis, Michael Lawrence, and Adam Winkler] filed an amicus brief urging Supreme Court review; National Rifle Ass’n v. City of Chicago (No. 08-1497), the companion case to McDonald, also out of the Seventh Circuit; and Maloney v. Rice, (No. 08-1592), the comparable New York “numchucks” case coming out of the Second Circuit. All three of these petitions present challenges to local laws restricting the sale or possession of arms, and are asking the Court to determine whether, and if so how, the individual right to bear arms is “incorporated” against state and local action.
"These three petitions are currently scheduled to be considered at the Supreme Court’s so-called “long conference” on September 29. The Court is expected to announce its decision on whether to hear the cases soon thereafter.
"The Ninth Circuit’s action suggests that the Supreme Court should not wait any longer for the Circuit courts to weigh in on the incorporation question. So far, both the Second and Seventh Courts have found no incorporation, citing binding Supreme Court precedent, thus there is technically no “split” on the matter. While the Court frequently waits until a pronounced split has developed among the federal circuit courts before granting review, here, the lower courts have indicated that they feel this is a matter for the High Court to decide."
Friday, September 4, 2009
Just Do It - Obama Needs Backbone for Meaningful Healthcare Reform, a la FDR
In "Roosevelt, the Great Divider" in yesterday's New York Times, Jean Edward Smith explained that much of the meaningful progressive reform accomplished during the New Deal was done by a pugnacious president willing to exercise his majority in Congress even though he knew he would be highly criticized by his opponents.
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt said on national radio before the 1936 election, Smith recalls. “They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred.”
When he was seeking to make major progressive reform, FDR did not waste his time trying to work with the deeply entrenched obstructionist minorities interested only in maintaining an unjust status quo. He did not consult giant utilities, for example, when he sought to create the Tennessee Valley Authority which would provide affordable electricity throughout the poor South. He did not ask for the permission of Wall Street when he proposed the Securities and Exchange Commission to curb greed. Had he caved to the loud minority who believe that government has no role in providing a social safety net, we would have no Social Security. His arguments for maximum hours and minimum wage laws and the right to bargain collectively were over the heated objections of American business. And, to show that it was not always traditionally conservative vested interests that he faced down, organized labor was vociferous in its objection to the Civilian Conservation Corps because of the low wages paid by the corps.
In short, Smith explains, "majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents’ permission." He assuaged his Democratic colleagues to maintain his majorities, but "his Republican opponents were relegated to the political equivalent of Siberia.... [He] lambasted the 'economic royalists' who had gained control of the nation’s wealth. To Congress he boasted of having 'earned the hatred of entrenched greed.' In another speech he mocked 'the gentlemen in well-warmed and well-stocked clubs' who criticized the government’s relief efforts.... Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process."
By contrast, President Obama's "fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead." Smith suggests "[i]t is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices. Health care reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Even if it is passed without Republican support, it would still be the law of the land."
Really, what does Obama have to lose? Face it: the Right, marching to the tune of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Steele, is never going to play ball. Their main agenda is political - whatever it takes to bring Obama down, they're for. So Obama might as well stand up, like FDR, and say, "to heck with 'em - we're going to pass reform with teeth that will create the sort of humane society of which we are all worthy."
What does that mean? As David Brooks suggests in his column today, "Let's Get Fundamental": "There are many people telling [President Obama] to go incremental. They’re telling him to just enlarge the current system a bit and pay for it by pounding down a few Medicare fees. But did Barack Obama really get elected so he could pass the Status Quo Sanctification and Extension Act?
"This is not the time to get incremental. It’s the time to get fundamental. Reform the incentives. Make consumers accountable for spending. Make price information transparent. Reward health care, not health services. Do what you set out to do. Bring change."
Much of what has made America great was brought about by progressive legislation. If President Obama wants to be a great president who makes lasting, meaningful progressive change, he should stand up, be brave (in his own way, if not in the outright combative manner of FDR), and commit to a strong progressive plan. Accept that the ever-present regressive 40% of American society will bitch and moan about it (but of course they will take full advantage of its benefits once available) - they'll never change, so might as well just move forward despite them.
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today,” Franklin Delano Roosevelt said on national radio before the 1936 election, Smith recalls. “They are unanimous in their hatred for me — and I welcome their hatred.”
When he was seeking to make major progressive reform, FDR did not waste his time trying to work with the deeply entrenched obstructionist minorities interested only in maintaining an unjust status quo. He did not consult giant utilities, for example, when he sought to create the Tennessee Valley Authority which would provide affordable electricity throughout the poor South. He did not ask for the permission of Wall Street when he proposed the Securities and Exchange Commission to curb greed. Had he caved to the loud minority who believe that government has no role in providing a social safety net, we would have no Social Security. His arguments for maximum hours and minimum wage laws and the right to bargain collectively were over the heated objections of American business. And, to show that it was not always traditionally conservative vested interests that he faced down, organized labor was vociferous in its objection to the Civilian Conservation Corps because of the low wages paid by the corps.
In short, Smith explains, "majority rule, as Roosevelt saw it, did not require his opponents’ permission." He assuaged his Democratic colleagues to maintain his majorities, but "his Republican opponents were relegated to the political equivalent of Siberia.... [He] lambasted the 'economic royalists' who had gained control of the nation’s wealth. To Congress he boasted of having 'earned the hatred of entrenched greed.' In another speech he mocked 'the gentlemen in well-warmed and well-stocked clubs' who criticized the government’s relief efforts.... Roosevelt understood that governing involved choice and that choice engendered dissent. He accepted opposition as part of the process."
By contrast, President Obama's "fixation on securing bipartisan support for health care reform suggests that the Democratic Party has forgotten how to govern and the White House has forgotten how to lead." Smith suggests "[i]t is time for the Obama administration to step up to the plate and make some hard choices. Health care reform enacted by a Democratic majority is still meaningful reform. Even if it is passed without Republican support, it would still be the law of the land."
Really, what does Obama have to lose? Face it: the Right, marching to the tune of the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Steele, is never going to play ball. Their main agenda is political - whatever it takes to bring Obama down, they're for. So Obama might as well stand up, like FDR, and say, "to heck with 'em - we're going to pass reform with teeth that will create the sort of humane society of which we are all worthy."
What does that mean? As David Brooks suggests in his column today, "Let's Get Fundamental": "There are many people telling [President Obama] to go incremental. They’re telling him to just enlarge the current system a bit and pay for it by pounding down a few Medicare fees. But did Barack Obama really get elected so he could pass the Status Quo Sanctification and Extension Act?
"This is not the time to get incremental. It’s the time to get fundamental. Reform the incentives. Make consumers accountable for spending. Make price information transparent. Reward health care, not health services. Do what you set out to do. Bring change."
Much of what has made America great was brought about by progressive legislation. If President Obama wants to be a great president who makes lasting, meaningful progressive change, he should stand up, be brave (in his own way, if not in the outright combative manner of FDR), and commit to a strong progressive plan. Accept that the ever-present regressive 40% of American society will bitch and moan about it (but of course they will take full advantage of its benefits once available) - they'll never change, so might as well just move forward despite them.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Article in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal: Rescuing the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause
I'm pleased to report that my article entitled "Rescuing the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause: How "Attrition of Parliamentary Processes" Begat Accidental Ambiguity; How Ambiguity Begat Slaughter-House" will be published in the upcoming volume of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal.
The article is available at SSRN and BePress Selected Works.
Here is the abstract:
"This Essay addresses a topic of great academic and practical interest currently facing the Supreme Court: whether the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, which has lain dormant since the Court's erroneous 1873 SlaughterHouse Cases decision, should be resurrected in order to apply the Second Amendment to the States.
The Essay makes the unique argument that the textual basis for the SlaughterHouse Court's holding regarding the clause - i.e., the lack of parallel textual construction in the Section One's first two sentences regarding citizenship - was in fact the wholly unintentional product of what we might call "attrition of parliamentary processes." This analysis is not new to the Supreme Court. Borrowed from an oral argument made before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1882 by Roscoe Conkling (a member in 1866 of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction), the analysis played a vital role in leading the Court ot its 1898 conclusion that the word "person" in Section One's Due Process Clause should be read to include artificial persons, including corporations - an interpretation substantially broader than that given previously by the SlaughterHouse majority.
Just as the Court in the last decades of the nineteenth century corrected the Court's too-narrow interpretation of Section One "personhood," so it should now - finally - begin to correct its earlier misreading of the distinction in Section One between U.S. and state citizenship in order to restore the privileges or immunities clause to its full intended effect of applying the Bill of Rights (and more) to the States."
(I have previously posted here on related topics.)
The article is available at SSRN and BePress Selected Works.
Here is the abstract:
"This Essay addresses a topic of great academic and practical interest currently facing the Supreme Court: whether the Fourteenth Amendment Privileges or Immunities Clause, which has lain dormant since the Court's erroneous 1873 SlaughterHouse Cases decision, should be resurrected in order to apply the Second Amendment to the States.
The Essay makes the unique argument that the textual basis for the SlaughterHouse Court's holding regarding the clause - i.e., the lack of parallel textual construction in the Section One's first two sentences regarding citizenship - was in fact the wholly unintentional product of what we might call "attrition of parliamentary processes." This analysis is not new to the Supreme Court. Borrowed from an oral argument made before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1882 by Roscoe Conkling (a member in 1866 of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction), the analysis played a vital role in leading the Court ot its 1898 conclusion that the word "person" in Section One's Due Process Clause should be read to include artificial persons, including corporations - an interpretation substantially broader than that given previously by the SlaughterHouse majority.
Just as the Court in the last decades of the nineteenth century corrected the Court's too-narrow interpretation of Section One "personhood," so it should now - finally - begin to correct its earlier misreading of the distinction in Section One between U.S. and state citizenship in order to restore the privileges or immunities clause to its full intended effect of applying the Bill of Rights (and more) to the States."
(I have previously posted here on related topics.)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Time to Legalize Drugs - Sensible WaPo Article
Today's Washington Post contains a well-reasoned OpEd entitled "It's Time to Legalize Drugs" by two former Baltimore City police officers and members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition. This is something I've blogged on before here, and this OpEd makes the case yet again.
Written by Peter Moskos (a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood") and Neill Franklin, (a 32-year law enforcement veteran), the OpEd explains that:
"after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- we and other police officers [have] begun to question the system.
"Cities and states license beer and tobacco sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold. Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game. Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo.
"Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes. "
...
Moskos and Franklin continue, "We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.
"Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.
"Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die."
Sensible words.
Written by Peter Moskos (a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the author of "Cop in the Hood") and Neill Franklin, (a 32-year law enforcement veteran), the OpEd explains that:
"after years of witnessing the ineffectiveness of drug policies -- and the disproportionate impact the drug war has on young black men -- we and other police officers [have] begun to question the system.
"Cities and states license beer and tobacco sellers to control where, when and to whom drugs are sold. Ending Prohibition saved lives because it took gangsters out of the game. Regulated alcohol doesn't work perfectly, but it works well enough. Prescription drugs are regulated, and while there is a huge problem with abuse, at least a system of distribution involving doctors and pharmacists works without violence and high-volume incarceration. Regulating drugs would work similarly: not a cure-all, but a vast improvement on the status quo.
"Legalization would not create a drug free-for-all. In fact, regulation reins in the mess we already have. If prohibition decreased drug use and drug arrests acted as a deterrent, America would not lead the world in illegal drug use and incarceration for drug crimes. "
...
Moskos and Franklin continue, "We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we're at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.
"Having fought the war on drugs, we know that ending the drug war is the right thing to do -- for all of us, especially taxpayers. While the financial benefits of drug legalization are not our main concern, they are substantial. In a July referendum, Oakland, Calif., voted to tax drug sales by a 4-to-1 margin. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron estimates that ending the drug war would save $44 billion annually, with taxes bringing in an additional $33 billion.
"Without the drug war, America's most decimated neighborhoods would have a chance to recover. Working people could sit on stoops, misguided youths wouldn't look up to criminals as role models, our overflowing prisons could hold real criminals, and -- most important to us -- more police officers wouldn't have to die."
Sensible words.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Healthcare Reform - Voices of Reason from Senators Wyden & Bennett
In a column entitled "How We Can Achieve Bipartisan Health Reform" in today's Washington Post, Senators Ron Wyden and Robert Bennett describe the bipartisan approach to healthcare reform that offers the best hope for getting something done on this contentious issue.
Writing for 12 senators from both sides of the aisle (including Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)), they rightly state that "It's time to stop trying to figure out what pollsters say the country wants to hear from us and focus on what the country needs from us. The American people can't afford for Congress to fail again."
Here are some of the details:
"Democratic activists have long campaigned for universal coverage and quality benefits. Republican activists zero in on empowering individuals and bringing market forces to the health-care system. Our approach does both. In our discussions on the Healthy Americans Act, each side gave a bit on some of its visions of perfect health reform to achieve bipartisanship.
"The Democrats among us accepted an end to the tax-free treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance; instead, everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy.
"The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it. Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that this framework is the only one thus far that bends the health-care cost curve down and makes it possible for the new system to pay for itself. It does this by creating a competitive market for health insurance in which individuals are empowered to choose the best values for their money and by cutting administrative costs and spreading risk across large groups of Americans.
"First, we allow all Americans to have the same kind of choices available to us as members of Congress. Today, more than half of American workers who are lucky enough to have employer-provided insurance have no choice of coverage. Members of Congress who enroll their families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program often have more than 10 options. This means that if members of Congress aren't happy with their family's insurance plan in 2009 or insurers raise their rates, they can pick a better plan in 2010. Our plan would give the consumer the same leverage in the health-care marketplace by creating state-run insurance exchanges through which they can select plans, including their existing employer-sponsored plan.
"Beyond giving Americans choices, our approach also ensures that all Americans will be able to keep that choice. We believe that at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, members of Congress must be able to promise their constituents that "when you leave your job or your job leaves you, you can take your health care with you." Our approach ensures seamless portability."
Good stuff. Hopefully Congress can see its way clear, past all of the millions of dollars of "donations" from the healthcare industry (more like bribes - the old saying applies here, that if in a baseball game the players gave the umpires money we'd call it a bribe; but if the same happens in politics we call it a campaign donation), to do what a strong majority of the American people want and which is morally right - provide the opportunity for good healthcare insurance to all Americans at a reasonable price.
Wyden and Bennett conclude:
"Our point is not that our framework is the only way to reform the system or to reach consensus. But our effort has shown that it is possible to put politics aside and reach agreement on reforms that would improve the lives of all Americans. Insisting on any particular fix is the enemy of good legislating. A package that will entirely please neither side, but on which both can agree, stands not only the strongest chance of passage but also the best chance of gaining acceptance from the American people.
"We didn't undertake this effort because we thought it would be easy; in fact, we started working together because we knew it would be hard. Passing health reform is going to require that we take a stand against the status quo and be willing to challenge every interest group that is jealously guarding the advantages it has under the current system, because health reform isn't about protecting the current system or preserving the advantages of a few. We can't forget that we are working on life-and-death issues facing our constituents, our families, our friends and our neighbors."
Voices of reason from the U.S. Senate - how refreshing.
Writing for 12 senators from both sides of the aisle (including Sens. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)), they rightly state that "It's time to stop trying to figure out what pollsters say the country wants to hear from us and focus on what the country needs from us. The American people can't afford for Congress to fail again."
Here are some of the details:
"Democratic activists have long campaigned for universal coverage and quality benefits. Republican activists zero in on empowering individuals and bringing market forces to the health-care system. Our approach does both. In our discussions on the Healthy Americans Act, each side gave a bit on some of its visions of perfect health reform to achieve bipartisanship.
"The Democrats among us accepted an end to the tax-free treatment of employer-sponsored health insurance; instead, everyone -- not just those who currently get insurance through their employer -- would get a generous standard deduction that they would use to buy insurance -- and keep the excess if they buy a less expensive policy.
"The Republicans agreed to require all individuals to have coverage and to provide subsidies where necessary to ensure that everyone can afford it. Most have agreed to require employers to contribute to the system and to pay workers wages equal to the amount the employer now contributes for health care. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that this framework is the only one thus far that bends the health-care cost curve down and makes it possible for the new system to pay for itself. It does this by creating a competitive market for health insurance in which individuals are empowered to choose the best values for their money and by cutting administrative costs and spreading risk across large groups of Americans.
"First, we allow all Americans to have the same kind of choices available to us as members of Congress. Today, more than half of American workers who are lucky enough to have employer-provided insurance have no choice of coverage. Members of Congress who enroll their families in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program often have more than 10 options. This means that if members of Congress aren't happy with their family's insurance plan in 2009 or insurers raise their rates, they can pick a better plan in 2010. Our plan would give the consumer the same leverage in the health-care marketplace by creating state-run insurance exchanges through which they can select plans, including their existing employer-sponsored plan.
"Beyond giving Americans choices, our approach also ensures that all Americans will be able to keep that choice. We believe that at a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, members of Congress must be able to promise their constituents that "when you leave your job or your job leaves you, you can take your health care with you." Our approach ensures seamless portability."
Good stuff. Hopefully Congress can see its way clear, past all of the millions of dollars of "donations" from the healthcare industry (more like bribes - the old saying applies here, that if in a baseball game the players gave the umpires money we'd call it a bribe; but if the same happens in politics we call it a campaign donation), to do what a strong majority of the American people want and which is morally right - provide the opportunity for good healthcare insurance to all Americans at a reasonable price.
Wyden and Bennett conclude:
"Our point is not that our framework is the only way to reform the system or to reach consensus. But our effort has shown that it is possible to put politics aside and reach agreement on reforms that would improve the lives of all Americans. Insisting on any particular fix is the enemy of good legislating. A package that will entirely please neither side, but on which both can agree, stands not only the strongest chance of passage but also the best chance of gaining acceptance from the American people.
"We didn't undertake this effort because we thought it would be easy; in fact, we started working together because we knew it would be hard. Passing health reform is going to require that we take a stand against the status quo and be willing to challenge every interest group that is jealously guarding the advantages it has under the current system, because health reform isn't about protecting the current system or preserving the advantages of a few. We can't forget that we are working on life-and-death issues facing our constituents, our families, our friends and our neighbors."
Voices of reason from the U.S. Senate - how refreshing.
Friday, July 24, 2009
McDonald v. Chicago Amicus Brief - Volokh Conspiracy Link
My last post described the amicus brief filed by the Constitutional Accountability Center and signed by six law professors, including myself. Here is a comment on the brief and its signers from the popular legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)