ACSBlog

  • April 23, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Vincent Imhoff, Managing Partner, Imhoff & Associates, P.C.

    Clarence Earl Gideon was about 50-years old when he was arrested in relation to the theft of money and wine from a pool hall in Panama City, Fla., in 1961. Gideon’s father had died when he was young, and Gideon himself quit school after eighth grade, running away from home and becoming a drifter. By the time Gideon was 16 he already had a criminal record, one that would follow him up until that fateful day when he was arrested, tried, and convicted of breaking and entering with intent to commit petty larceny. Gideon was too poor to pay for any type of defense in the case, and back in 1961 in Bay County, Fla., that meant you had to defend yourself against even the toughest prosecuting attorneys unless you were convicted of a capital offense. So it was that the Gideon’s judge denied him access to a lawyer, Gideon defended himself, lost, and was sentenced to the maximum prison term of one year.

    While serving his time, Gideon learned a little bit about law and wrote a 5-page letter to the Supreme Court about how his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment had been violated. The Supreme Court eventually decided to take his case, and, under the argument that “you cannot have a fair trial without counsel,” ruled in Gideon’s favor. The landmark case, Gideon v. Wainwright, set precedent that states had to provide counsel for criminal defendants who could not afford counsel, essentially owing to the eventual segment of the Miranda Rights that basically read “if you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” After a retrial, Gideon was set free, and the legal landscape of the United States of America was changed.

  • April 22, 2013

    by Ben Geman, writer of the E² Wire, the Environment and Energy blog, at The Hill. This piece is cross-posted on The Hill.

    Conservative groups and a dozen House Republicans are petitioning the Supreme Court to review an appellate decision that upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

    They’re taking aim at a June 2012 federal court ruling that protected several EPA decisions, including the “endangerment finding” that greenhouse gases threaten humans, that underpin the agency's existing and planned carbon regulations.

    “Although seemingly disjointed in their promulgation, taken together these rules create a comprehensive, integrated program that gives EPA regulatory jurisdiction over a breadth of human activity unparalleled in the history of American governance,” states the petition Friday from the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation.

    Twelve GOP lawmakers, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), who is a Tea Party favorite, and Reps. Joe Barton (Texas), Tom Price (Ga.) and Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) joined the petition.

    Other backers of the petition include FreedomWorks, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Georgia Motor Trucking Association.

  • April 22, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Unsurprisingly the Boston marathon bombings are fueling some of the basest thoughts among us, such as those emanating from Islamophobic pundits, and U.S. senators such as the stuff from South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham.

    Sen. Graham, a reliably tired hawk, has been bellowing since last week that President Obama should declare 19-year-old marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev an enemy combatant. This is typical grandstanding for Graham -- grab ahold of any opportunity to embrace military tactics, which inevitably lead to a diminishment of liberties. So dub Tsarnaev an enemy combatant, toss due process aside and let federal government do its investigation largely smothered in secrecy. It may be too easy to dismiss Tsarnaev’s predicament when many understanably believe that tossing constitutional concerns aside for suspects like Tsarnaev is no big deal since obviously the vast majority of people could never find themselves in similar circumstances.

    But that’s a terribly weak line of thought. Constitutional rights apply when invoked, they’re inherent; and not effective only when convenient or for the privileged.

    Chairman of Armed Services Committee Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has also noted the obvious – there is no evidence yet that the Boston bombings suspect is tied to al Qaeda, the Taliban or other government-determined terror groups.

    Levin says, “I am not aware of any legal basis at this point for such a designation in this case. Under the law of war, we have the authority to detain individuals who join a hostile foreign force engaged in attacking the United States.”

    More importantly, the granting of such sweeping federal powers to detain suspects in very broad manners is harmful enough. The expanded executive powers to conduct an ongoing war on terror have, as many have already noted, not been terribly conducive with liberty.  Hisotrians have noted war is rarely if ever compatible with sustaining robust liberty, if liberty at all. Moreover, military campaigns eventually crumble because of the harm caused to liberties. George Orwell wrote: "The fact is that every war suffers a kind of progressive degradation with every month that it continues, because such things as individual liberty and a truthful press are simply not compatible with military efficiency.”

    So here you have, thanks to a South Carolina senator urging a hawkish president to once again give little weight to the Constitution, instead to rely heavily upon and use the military and intelligence industries.

    And why should Graham be clamoring for a total trampling of constitutional rights, such as the Fifth Amendment’s right against self-incrimination? Although Tsarnaev has the constitutional right to an attorney, even if he can’t afford one, to help defend him against criminal charges, the federal government has made that right more exclusive.

    As Slate's Emily Bazelon notes, the Obama administration has created a public safety exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Miranda safeguards, like the right to remain silent or that an attorney be present during questioning. The exception says that if the suspect is a threat to “public safety,” the federal government can keep the suspect detained indefinitely and question him in about any way it sees fit. We can be promised the suspect won’t be harshly interrogated, but the government under this exception doesn’t have to tell us anything.

  • April 19, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Senators beholden to the NRA successfully blocked compromise legislation containing a few new measures to promote gun safety, providing, as many quickly noted, another example of the sorry mess Republicans have made of the Senate, albeit with the help of some powerful Democrats.

    Early this year, Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pushed serious filibuster reform aside to enter into a deal with Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) that was nonetheless trumpeted as an agreement that would curb the use of the filibuster, often requiring a supermajority to move nominations or legislation along.

    After the failed effort to pass modest measures on guns, Salon’s Alex Pareene took down some of the typical excuses for the Senate’s failure, and cut to the point: “The measure failed because of a bunch of asshole senators voted to filibuster it, and they were able to do so because Harry Reid made a deal with Mitch McConnell to preserve the filibuster a few months ago.”

    He concluded that the “mainstream political press” should start giving a more critical look at the “legitimacy of the 60-vote threshold ….”

    Today as authorities hunted for the second suspect of the Boston marathon bombings -- an immigrant of Chechen origin -- a few senators and right-wing pundits moved quickly to undermine consideration of immigration reform now before Congress.

    Elise Foley reporting for The Huffington Post noted that during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on immigration reform, Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) quickly tied the bombings to immigration reform.

    “How can individuals evade authorities and plan such attacks on our soil?” he said. “How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the U.S.? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?”

    Jillian Rayfield for Salon noted Grassley’s comments, but also provided a stream of Twitter comments from right-wing pundits, like Ann Coulter. Coulter tweeted early this morning: “It’s too bad Suspect # 1 won’t be able to be legalized by Marco Rubio, now,” referring to the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by eight senators, including Sen. Rubio (R-Fla.).

  • April 19, 2013
    Guest Post

    by Allison Guttu*

    On April 5, U.S. federal judge in Tummino et al. v. Hamburg ordered that the Morning-After Pill be made available "without a prescription and without point-of-sale or age restrictions within thirty days."

    Until the court’s ruling, emergency contraception was only available without a prescription for women 17 and up, forcing all women to be “carded” to buy it. Now, the Morning-After Pill or “Plan B” can be stocked on any shelf in any store, next to condoms, aspirin, or shampoo. No prescription or identification will be needed to buy it.

    The Morning-After Pill prevents pregnancy up to 5 days after sex; but is most effective within the first 24 hours. It is not RU-486, which induces an abortion. If you are pregnant, it will not work. But, having this form of birth control at our fingertips will give women enormous freedom--if we don’t want to have a child, we won’t have to.

    When women can’t control how many children we have, it impacts us as a group, not just individually. Not being able to control the course of our lives has deep implications for women. It means we have less leverage, whether in the workplace, with partners, in our families, or in our public lives. No birth control method is foolproof. Sometimes our partners resist using condoms, condoms break, and sometimes we forget to take the pill. Less frequently we are "swept away" by the moment, but should that mean that we have to bear a child? The Morning-After Pill is one more way for us to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    For over a decade, grassroots feminists with National Women’s Liberation (NWL) -- including lead plaintiff Annie Tummino -- have been waging the most important fight in decades to expand access to birth control in the United States: making the Morning-After Pill available over-the-counter without any restrictions.