U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction blocking key portions of the Arizona immigration law scheduled to take effect tomorrow.

The Associated Press reports that the law will take effect, "but without many of the provisions that angered opponents -- including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold a part of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places." 

Before the judge's ruling, The Arizona Republic reported that uniformity among police authorities on enforcement was lacking.

Supporters of the law, SB 1070, the newspaper reports had hoped it would help uniformity among the various counties on enforcement. "But a survey of Arizona police agencies indicates there is anything but a uniform approach," The Republic reports. The law requires police officers, during the enforcement of other laws, to question a person's immigration status if the officers have a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. The law also makes it a crime for immigrants not to carry immigration documents. But Judge Bolton's ruling, which came after hearings on three of the seven federal lawsuits challenging the law, puts a halt, for now, on those portions of the law, The Republic reported. In her ruling, Judge Bolton said the Department of Justice "was likely, but not certain, to prevail on those points [that it is better to place a preliminary injunction on a law likely to be judged later as pre-empted by federal law, among others] at a later trial in federal court, The New York Times reported. It also noted that the judge had made "no ruling on the six other suits that also challenged the law."  

Beyond the legal challenges, the law has attracted widespread criticism. The Times recently editorialized, that the law is constitutionally suspect because "Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy."

Beyond watching a video of training standards, The Republic noted that police departments across the states are taking varying approaches. The Washington Post reported that "the hardest-line approach is expected in the Phoenix area, where Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep."

The Republic, after citing some of the varying enforcement tactics, concluded that the approaches "are a reflection of the confusion that persists among agencies tasked with enforcing the law ...."

Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, blasted the law, noting that it would add to the burden of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

"In light of the state statute, you have policy that appears to be designed to be costly, invasive or intrusive to citizens and burdensome to ICE," he said. "You take those three ingredients, and you have a policy that appears designed to undermine the rule of law."

The newspapers also noted that opponents of the law are planning protests within the state. Liz Hourican of CodePink told The Post that the group plans to "block the driveway for immigration officers in downtown Phoenix."

Recently Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka discussed the immigration system and how it affects the economy and needs to be reformed. Secretary Solis and Trumka agreed that a path for immigrants to become documented needs to be found. Video of that discussion is available here.

For additional analysis of the Arizona law, see video here of a panel discussion on the topic from the 2010 ACS National Convention. Following that panel discussion, MALDEF leader Thomas A. Saenz talked with ACSblog about immigration reform. His interview is available here.

Read more »

President Barack Obama today urged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and others in the Senate to fill the vacancies "that continue to plague our judiciary."

"Right now, we've got nominees who've been waiting up to eight months to be confirmed as judges," Obama said in the Rose Garden. 

Most of these nominees have been voted out of committee by large majorities and "[b]oth Democrats and Republicans agreed they were qualified to serve," Obama said.

"Nevertheless," Obama continued, "some in the minority have used parliamentary procedures time and again to deny them a vote in the full Senate."

Reform of the parliamentary procedure that "infiltrates policy discussion at every step," the filibuster rule, may be imminent, The Huffington Post reports. Democratic candidates and sitting senators say a measure reforming rules allowing silent filibusters that force a supermajority vote may be the first item on which senators vote in 2011.

"What was recently considered impossible is now looking inevitable," The Huffington Post reports.

A National Public Radio report adds, "confirmations are one area where Senate rules give Republicans enough power to have a substantial impact. Unless Republicans grant unanimous consent, senators must spend days debating a judicial nominee before a vote. That's true even without a filibuster."

Obama's remarks followed a meeting with congressional leaders from both parties during which they discussed legislation on climate change and job creation, in addition to confirmation of judicial nominees.

The inclusion of judicial nominations in his address signals a possible shift in approach for Obama, The Blog of the Legal Times suggests, noting that Obama has rarely raised the issue in public, "focusing instead on legislative priorities such as health care and financial regulation."

Since Obama took office, he has nominated 86 people for federal judgeships, of which 37 have been confirmed, according to the Associated Press. There are now about 100 vacancies on the federal bench.

"At this point in his presidency, President George W. Bush had 62 percent of his district court nominees confirmed, while Obama has had 45 percent confirmed." the Associated Press reports.

View Obama's remarks here. (Scroll down to the bottom for his comments on judicial nominations.)

Read more »

Twenty years after enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the law faces a new challenge: adapting to changing technology and the Internet, says Kareem Dale, President Barack Obama's top disability advisor in an interview with The Washington Post.

In celebrating the law's 20th anniversary, Dale points out the "sea change" of progress that has been made, with developments as simple as curb cuts on street corners for wheelchairs and Braille in hotel rooms, "but we're not done," he qualifies, citing the lack of clarity as to whether websites have to comply with the ADA.

"Many courts have said no and maybe a couple have said yes, but it's been an open question," Dale said.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced last week that the Department of Justice will soon seek comment on four proposed rules that would create accessibility requirements for websites, movies, equipment and 911 call-taking technology, Main Justice reports.

Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said in the past that ADA applies to websites, according to Main Justice.

"Companies that do not consider accessibility in their website or product development will come to regret that decision, because we intend to use every tool at our disposal to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to technology and the worlds that technology opens up," Perez said in April.

During the event commemorating the 15th anniversary of the American Association of People with Disabilities, Holder announced the creation of a new position, special assistant for disabilities, under the deputy associate attorney general for diversity management.

President Obama also issued a public service announcement in honor of the ADA's anniversary.

View ACSblog commentary on the ADA at 20:

• Sen. Tom Harkin, one of the original sponsors of the ADA, looks back at the progress made from "pre-ADA America," when people with disabilities "had to crawl on their hands and knees to go up the stairs," but calls it shameful that young people with disabilities are housed in institutional settings like nursing homes.
• Emily Benfer, director of the new Health Justice Project at Loyola University Chicago School of Law, authored an issue brief on the necessity of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. In a new guest post, Benfer highlights the importance of education and coalition-building in furthering the ADA's goals.

Here is some other notable commentary:

• "Is the ADA DOA?" asks workplace and labor columnist Eve Tahminciolglu. She points to "pretty sad numbers" from a recent study, showing that 61% of people say the act has made no difference in their life, while 23% report the act has made their life better. She urges stronger enforcement of the act in a blog on The Huffington Post.
• Bloomberg News Executive Editor for Washington Albert R. Hunt also writes that employment problems persist 20 years after the ADA's passage - the jobless rate for disabled people is double that of "able-bodied workers" - but said "progress, in politics, business and social mindsets is impressive," citing as one recent victory the health care bill's ban on health insurance companies' denial of coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.
• Fifty percent of people with disabilities are not working, the same as 20 years ago, according to Andy Imparato, president of the American Association for People with Disabilities. In a PBS Newshour interview, Imparato says the official unemployment figure of 14 percent is misleading because it counts only those who are actively looking for work, and many have given up. View a video segment here.  
• The Guardian's Michael Tomasky asks, "Would the ADA pass today?" While "it is agreed nearly across the spectrum - nearly - that this was a good thing," Tomasky points to Senate candidate Rand Paul's (R-KY) comment that requiring businesses to provide access isn't "fair to the business owner." "Paul is more extreme than your average Republican, but it does make one wonder whether today's Republican Party would have supported the ADA," Tomasky writes.

Read more »

Some 57 years after legendary Native American athlete Jim Thorpe died, his son is contesting the site of his father's burial.

Jack Thorpe, 72, waited until his father's widow, Patricia, and his three half-sisters died before filing suit against a Pennsylvania town bearing his father's name for return of his body, The New York Times reports.

Patricia, Jim Thorpe's third wife, had made a deal with two neighboring Pennsylvania towns that they merge into one, name the town Jim Thorpe and maintain a memorial to Jim, according to The New York Times.

Jack Thorpe is now suing Jim Thorpe, Pa. under a federal law intended to give Native American artifacts back to their tribal homelands, according to the Associated Press.

"The bones of my father do not make or break your town," Jack Thorpe told the Associated Press."I resent using my father as a tourist attraction."

Thorpe told The Times that he's not trying to change the name of the town, but only to have his father's remains returned. No trial date has been set in federal district court in Scranton, Pa., and representatives for the town said they are unsure how they will proceed.

Read more »

---

By Emily Benfer, director of the newly created Health Justice Project and a clinical professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. Benfer authored an issue brief on amendments to the ADA available here.

---

In honor of the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Senate unanimously passed S. Res. 591. The resolution describes the prejudice and discrimination faced by people with disabilities and the importance of the ADA to the provision of "equality of opportunity, independence, economic self-sufficiency, and full participation for Americans with disabilities." Sen. Tom Harkin, an original sponsor of the ADA who introduced the resolution, stated, "The ADA has broken down barriers, created opportunities and transformed lives."

It certainly has moved us away from the appalling pre-ADA past, one in which people with disabilities were forcibly isolated, institutionalized, excluded and socially outcast. As Senator Harkin recalled, people with disabilities were forced to crawl on their hands and knees to climb a flight of stairs. They lacked access to employment, education, public facilities, voting, and a host of other activities. They were subjected to intolerance and stereotypes on a daily basis. In sum, people with disabilities were denied the opportunity to fully participate in society - a form of exclusion that the society recognizes as discrimination.

We have made great strides in twenty years, opening doors to employment, civic involvement and public places. In fact, we have all benefited from the accommodations made possible by the ADA. Everyone - from people in wheelchairs to people pushing strollers or riding bikes - enjoys the assistance of curb cutouts at street corners. Thanks to accessible voting machines, our democracy is better informed and more just. Our workplaces and schools are more productive and ingenuous because of the diversity of experiences and ideas commingling in inclusive environments.

But our work is not finished. We must oppose any stalemate in progress and be vigilant, guarding against all attempts to narrow the scope of opportunity and protection. Such attempts are commonplace, as demonstrated by the need for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The ADA Amendments Act was necessary to restore the original broad scope of the ADA and overturn the Supreme Court's narrowing of it.

Read more »

A front-page analysis of the Supreme Court's ideological direction in Sunday's New York Times calls the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "the most conservative one in living memory."

Citing the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Justice Samuel Alito as one of the primary causes for the change, the article predicts:

If the Roberts court continues on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.

Decisions favoring criminal defendants, unions, people claiming discrimination or violation of their civil rights are considered liberal, the article explains. Decisions striking down economic regulations and favoring prosecutors, employers and the government are said to be conservative.

According to data collected by political scientists, "four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and, most conservative of all, Clarence Thomas."

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens also noted in an interview in April that "every one of the 11 justices who had joined the court since 1975, including himself, was more conservative than his or her predecessor, with the possible exceptions of Justices Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

During the 2010 ACS National Convention, Sen. Al Franken discussed the impact that the conservative wing of the court has had on the case law.

"I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans," Franken said. "And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time."

For more analysis of the high court's recent term, see video of the ACS Supreme Court term review.

Read more »

---

By Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). Sen. Harkin is Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

---

The Americans with Disabilities Act - signed into law on July 26, 1990 - has been described as the Emancipation Proclamation for people with disabilities. It sets four goals for people with disabilities: equal opportunity, full participation, independent living and economic self-sufficiency.

But at its heart, the ADA is simple. In the words of one activist, this landmark law is about securing for people with disabilities the most fundamental of rights: "the right to live in the world." It ensures they can go places and do things that other Americans take for granted.

I will always remember a young Iowan named Danette Crawford. In 1990, she was just 14. She used a wheelchair, and lived with great pain. But she campaigned hard for the ADA. When I told her that the ADA would mean better educational opportunities, and prevent workplace discrimination, Danette said: "Those things are very important. But, you know, what I really want to do is just be able to go out and buy a pair of shoes like anybody else."

Two decades later, people with disabilities can do that - and so much more. The ADA has changed America in ways largely invisible to most citizens, but profoundly transformative for tens of millions of Americans with disabilities.

Read more »

While more and more people are facing bankruptcy, foreclosure and employment disputes as a result of the economic downturn, the availability and affordability of lawyers have decreased, reports The Wall Street Journal.

"Most legal-aid organizations, which provide free legal services to people at or near the poverty line, have cut back as they have absorbed cuts in the funding they rely on from governmental and private sources just as demand for their services has risen," the article states.

At the same time, "[t]he problem is growing for the middle class," many of whom have too much money to pay for legal aid, but not enough to hire a private lawyer, says Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar who now heads the Department of Justice's Access to Justice initiative.

The result, according to a survey of judges, is more pro se litigants.

During a panel at the 2010 ACS National Convention, Tribe called the access to justice crisis "dramatically understated," a comment on which the ABA Journal's Law News Now picked up, in a follow-up to The Wall Street Journal's report.

"The whole system of justice in America is broken," Tribe said during the convention. "The entire legal system is largely structured to be labyrinthine, inaccessible, unusable."

View Tribe's full remarks and his discussion with other experts during the ACS Convention panel, Legal Services for Low-Income People, below.

Read more »

The Massachusetts Senate passed a bill to adopt a National Popular Vote law, approved by the state's House of Representatives earlier this year.

If Gov. Deval Patrick signs the bill, Massachusetts will join five other states that have agreed to cast their electoral college votes for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, rather than the candidate who wins the state's vote, according to the Progressive States Network.

The agreement between the states, which now include Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland , New Jersey and Washington, will not go into effect until states with electoral votes totaling 270 adopt such laws. If the Massachusetts law goes into effect, the number of electoral votes amassed would be 73.

ACSblog reported last month that New York State is also close to adopting a National Popular Vote law. A June 21 editorial in The New York Times urged the New York Assembly to follow the lead of the state Senate and seize the "chance to withdraw from the archaic and unfair way the country picks its chief executives."

The Progressive States Network map (above) shows the progress made in other states.

Jamie Raskin, a Maryland state senator and constitutional law professor at American University, wrote a two-part analysis for ACSblog, available here and here, on the importance of the National Popular Vote movement.

"Why is the NPV plan spreading like political wildfire?" asks Raskin, who introduced the nation's first National Popular Vote bill to be signed into law.

The core reason is that it presents an irresistible proposition: that the person we elect president should be the one who collects the most votes. This is how we elect Governors, Mayors, Senators and Congresspeople, and it is how presidents are elected in most democratic nations that have presidents. On the other hand, the current electoral college regime can produce farcical upside-down results like the one we saw in 2000, a dismal turning point in American history, when the popular vote loser (by more than a half-million votes) tortured out a "victory" in the electoral college after the most dubious sequence of assaults on voting rights and political participation by state and federal actors like Katharine Harris and five Supreme Court justices.

Read more »

The immigration system is broken and the situation urgently calls out for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to come together and find a way to fix the system, said Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis in a recent discussion with Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO. The discussion, led by Jaime Zapata, senior managing director of the Labor Department's Office of Public Affairs (OPA), touched upon why the immigration system currently undercuts the nation's economy and ways to reach reform.

Secretary Solis said the immigration system "isn't helping those legitimate businesses and those employees right now that are getting shortchanged because there's an employer who doesn't want to play by the rules, is not paying back taxes or is not paying into the system," which ultimately "robs our economy of those revenues." Solis added, "Yes, we have to crack down on the border and make sure the criminals are taken out of this country, but at the same time we have to protect all workers." The Secretary said a pathway must be created for those immigrants willing to follow the rules to become documented. She said that it is simply impossible to deport 11 million people, destroying families and depriving the economy of many people who provide it great innovations.

Trumka urged immigration reform, maintaining that the current system negatively affects all workers. "If we're going to create an economy that really does work for all workers, immigration has to be fixed because it is a terribly broken system that is being exploited and creating a permanent underclass of citizens that is being used to drive down wages, so we have to eliminate that," he said.

Trumka added, "This nation was built on the notion that we embrace immigration."

Watch video of the entire discussion here or by clicking on the picture. For additional discussion of immigration reform, watch video of a plenary panel from the 2010 ACS National Convention called "Immigration Reform: Congress and the States." In addition, following that panel discussion, Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF, talked with ACSblog about the need for greater public education surrounding immigration reform. Video of the interview, which can be downloaded as a podcast, is available here.

Read more »

An explanation by the Department of Justice of why the health care reform bill is constitutional, described by The New York Times as a change in strategy, is neither new nor surprising, a constitutional law scholar says.

Yale Law Professor Jack M. Balkin, quoted in the article from his remarks at the 2010 ACS National Convention, defended the bill under the government's power to tax and provide for the general welfare during the convention's health care reform panel.

Indeed, "[t]he tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding" the individual-coverage requirement, Balkin told The Times.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfieffer told The Times that the tax and spend clause is an "alternative source of authority," and its primary source remains the commerce clause.

"The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law," Pfeiffer said.

Balkin made clear at the ACS convention, during his participation in the health care reform panel, that the law is justifiable under both the commerce clause and the power to tax clause. A number of other constitutional law professors, including Erwin Chemerinsky and Robert A. Schapiro have also asserted that the health care reform law is on solid constitutional ground under both clauses.

Georgetown Law Professor Randy E. Barnett, who engaged in a spirited discussion with Balkin during the ACS convention panel, responded to Balkin's commerce clause argument by suggesting that the law is an "unconstitutional commandeering of the people."

"Now, you may say that's a novel argument," Barnett said. "And I agree. But why is this a novel argument? Because this has never been done before. ... And something that's never been done before is going to require a novel argument on both sides."

View the conversation between Balkin and Barnett below. Watch video of the entire panel discussion here.

 

 

Read more »

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, leading a multistate investigation into Google's Street View software, urged the company to release more data about the software, including the names of the people responsible for its usage.

In a press release announcing his letter that was sent to Google earlier this week on behalf of the 37-state coalition, Blumenthal maintained that the Internet search company should have been aware that the software could ensnare personal data.

"If Google tested this software, it should have known all along that Street View cars [pictured] would snare and collect confidential data from homes across America. Now the question is how it may have used - and secured - all this private information," he stated.

In his letter, Blumenthal also asked Google to supply the names of the people responsible for the Street View software, Reuters reported. The news service states that Google has acknowledged that its Street View software, intended to use Wi-Fi spots to provide location information to smartphones, had collected personal information over a number of years. Reuters noted that Google is facing "an informal investigation into the matter by the Federal Trade Commission, a variety of probes overseas, and class action lawsuits." Additionally Blumenthal asks Google whether it "sold or otherwise used technical network information also collected."

Blumenthal states:

Google's responses continue to generate more questions than they answer. Our powerful multistate coalition - 37 states so far - is demanding that Google reveal whether it tested Street View software, which should have revealed that it was collecting payload data.

We are asking Google to identify specific individuals responsible for the snooping code and how Google was unaware that this code allowed the Street View cars to collect data transmitted over WiFi networks. Information we are awaiting includes how the spy software was included in Google's Street View program and specific locations where unauthorized data collection occurred.

We will take all appropriate steps - including potential legal action if warranted - to obtain complete, comprehensive answers.

Some of the states involved in the investigation include Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Texas, New York, Mississippi, Vermont Nebraska, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, Kansas, Montana and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia is also a part of the coalition.

Google spokeswoman Christine Chen told Reuters, "It was a mistake for us to include code in our software that collected payload data, but we believe we did nothing illegal. We're working with the relevant authorities to answer their questions and concerns."

Read more »

---

David Mortlock is the author of a recent article on this topic in the Harvard Law & Policy Review.

---

The United States has yet to settle on a definition of enemy combatant. The Supreme Court spent the past decade determining whether and how detainees could challenge their detention but explicitly avoided the question of whether they could be detained in the first place. The debate has divided not only political rivals, but also, as the New York Times recently detailed, seniors official in the current Administration.

A handful of district and circuit courts have begun to examine the scope of the President's authority to subject enemy combatants to military detention without charges, a jury trial, or any of the other trappings of criminal detention. Some parties have taken the position that the President lacks detention authority in the fight against a terrorist group, while others argue that the President may detain even unwitting supporters of al Qaeda. The courts have reached a number of different conclusions.

In my article, Definite Detention: The Scope of the President's Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants, I suggest that Congress has authorized the President to subject members of al Qaeda and the Taliban to military detention, whether or not they engage in combat. However, the President may not use military detention for mere supporters or sympathizers of those groups. This membership model could also be used to determine the appropriate time for release. Namely, detainees could be freed when they sever their membership in al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Nonetheless, the debate is far from over. While a number of district courts have adopted this membership model, the D.C. Circuit recently suggested in dicta that an individual could be subjected to military detention merely for supporting the Taliban. The decision indicates that this debate could continue for many years.

Read more »

Following a recent ACS event examining the state of the Miranda rule in the context of discussion within the administration of broadening an exception to when the rights are read to terrorism suspects, Michael German, public counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), talked with ACSblog about the importance of the Miranda rule. German, a former FBI special agent, said the Miranda rule, which was fashioned by the Supreme Court to protect an individual's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, has served police practice well. German said Miranda protections should continue to be used, not watered down. His entire interview is below or it can be downloaded as a podcast here. Video of the entire event, "Miranda's Future," is available here.

Read more »

---

By Caroline Fredrickson, Executive Director, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS).

---

In what may be an example of calculated distraction from things that matter, a gaggle of rightwing bloggers, precipitated by an article by Princeton University professor Robert P. George in the conservative magazine First Things, has decided to vent their fury at a small (4 inch) pocket Constitution published six years ago by the American Constitution Society because of what George claims are missing two words from Lincoln's Gettysburg address.

The publication, offered free to attendees at most ACS events, includes the U.S. Constitution and two other documents that provide important context for understanding our founding document: the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address. But rather than acknowledge the goal of the booklet -- to help ensure that Americans have ready access to these primary documents - George and his posse of rightwing bloggers baselessly finds a conspiracy afoot, suggesting, erroneously, that "The American Constitution Society had omitted Lincoln's reference to the United States as a nation under God from the address he gave at the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg."

Apparently, in his eagerness to find a conspiracy, George has chosen to either ignore or willfully distort the history of this important document. The truth is, five drafts of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address exist, and historians are uncertain about which one Lincoln actually read on the battlefield. Three included references to God and two did not. Which one was the most accurate is not and cannot be known for certain. George cites the recollections of several reporters of the time who stated that the president included the words "under God" in his remarks. Did President Lincoln improvise and add those words as he spoke? Perhaps! I wasn't at Gettysburg, so I can't be sure that George wasn't. As for the journalists' accounts, it would be interesting to read a history of the Civil War based solely on contemporaneous reports of journalists of the time, which would include countless conflicts, distortions, and inaccuracies. At the very least, honest scholars must acknowledge that wise people have differing views based on the available facts.

Even more disturbing (and clearly erroneous) is the claim that ACS deliberately manipulated the texts out of an alleged anti-God agenda of our organization. One need only open the first page of ACS's pocket publication and look at the first lines of the first document - the Declaration of Independence, to see very clear references to God and "the Creator." George simply ignored this fact, since it did not fit within his conclusion.

At a time when many conservative pundits and policymakers can only try to distract from the administration's efforts to address real problems, it is perhaps not surprising that some would try to refocus attention on such peripheral issues. Indeed, the hysteria over our pocket Constitution is reminiscent of debate over conservative "originalism," in which highly complicated matters from the past which are open to a variety of interpretations with considerable evidence for each get boiled down into tendentious little just-so stories about how everyone who has a different view of the evidence hates God and America.

The draft of the Gettysburg address included in our pocket Constitution is just that, one of Lincoln's drafts, word for word. Nothing crossed out, nothing redacted, and nothing hidden. George and his handful of fellow travelers know this, but they don't want to discuss or debate matters of dire seriousness to the nation.

Read more »