ACS National Convention

June 14 - 16, 2012

Washington, DC

Register Now

Login:

ACSBlog

May 29, 2012
A Troubling Bipartisan Consensus on Counterterrorism Policy
by Jeremy Leaming

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama leveled broadsides against the counterterrorism efforts waged by the administration of George W. Bush. Deep into President Obama’s term many see a continuation if not drastic advancement of Bush counterterrorism policy.

In an extensive piece Jo Becker and Scott Shane report for The New York Times that Obama has “preserved three major policies – rendition [where prisoners are sent to secretive sites to undergo harsh, often brutal interrogation], military commissions and indefinite detention – that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks.”

The story also states that the president, who as a candidate railed against the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and promised if elected to close it, did not have a plan to convince Congress to shutter the prison.

A major piece of The Times reporting focuses on the personal involvement of the president in sessions to determine which terrorist suspects to kill or capture. “It is the strangest of bureaucratic rituals: Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.” The president, The Times reports, will then sign off on who to target.

In a piece titled “Obama the Warrior” for Salon, Glenn Greenwald highlights the support Obama has garnered from some of the far right architects of the Bush counterterrorism policy, noting a progressive myth that the far right never lauds the president:

Virtually every one of the most far-right neocon Bush officials – including Dick Cheney himself – has spent years now praising Obama for continuing their Terrorism policies which Obama the Senator and Presidential Candidate once so harshly denounced. Every leading GOP candidate except Ron Paul wildly praised Obama for killing U.S. citizen Anwar Awlaki without a shred of due process and for continuing to drop unaccountable bombs on multiple Muslim countries.

More
Tags:
Civil rights, Detainee treatment, Executive power, Habeas corpus, National security and civil liberties, Other courts, Rights of detainees, Surveillance, ACLU, counterterrorism, Glenn Greenwald, Jameel Jaffer, Jo Becker, President Obama, Scott Shane
May 29, 2012
The Uphill Struggle to Seriously Discuss Constitution’s Imperfections
by Jeremy Leaming

Perpetual campaigning for national offices, ongoing and intensifying gridlock in Congress and a Supreme Court that easily invalidates federal laws might be sensibly addressed if only it were easier to amend to the nation’s Constitution. As Sanford Levinson, a leading constitutional scholar writes in a column for The New York Times critical discussion of the Constitution’s imperfections and their impact on governance is needed, but often impossible to entertain because of the reticence to do so by prominent politicians.

First Levinson notes the problem, writing:

Our vaunted system of ‘separation of powers’ and ‘checks and balances’ – a legacy of the founders’ mistrust of ‘factions’ – means that we rarely have anything that can truly be described as ‘government.’ Save for those rare instances when one party has hefty control over four branches – the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and the Supreme Court – gridlock threatens. Elections are increasingly meaningless, at least in terms of producing results commensurate with the challenges facing the country.

The nation’s founders, however, were not so wedded to an unchanging governing document. Indeed Levinson points to the Articles of Confederation, which many of the nation’s founders disparaged, and which was eventually dumped because it set up a weak central government.

But Article V of the Constitution, Levinson writes, makes it one of the world’s most difficult to amend.

On top of that few national leaders seriously question the Constitution’s adequacy. (He notes Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were the last to publicly discuss drawbacks of the Constitution.)

More
Tags:
Executive power, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, Separation of Powers and Federalism, Article V, Articles of Confederation, Constitution, Sanford Levinson
May 25, 2012
Another Federal Court Rules DOMA Unconstitutional
by Samantha Berkovits

In the first decision on DOMA from the federal bench since President Obama’s announcement supporting gay marriage, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California has ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, is unconstitutional. Dragovich v. U.S. Department of the Treasury focused on how DOMA unconstitutionally limits same-sex couple and domestic partner participation in aspects of the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS.

U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the definition of spouse in DOMA "violates the equal protection rights of Plaintiff same-sex spouses," as does a subsection of the Internal Revenue Code. Wilken concludes that CalPERS should not use DOMA or the IRS provision to limit participation for same-sex couples, nor should the plan cease receiving beneficial tax credits from the federal government.

Her ruling “set out the reasons why the legal arguments for a federal statute prohibiting same-sex marriage have become obsolete” and referenced the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which stated that “social disapproval of homosexuality on the basis of asserted tradition and mores is no longer accepted as sufficient justification for laws burdening gay men and lesbians.” She also cited the more recent Ninth Circuit ruling in Perry v. Brown that “tradition alone is not a justification for taking away a right that had already been granted, even though that grant was in derogation of tradition.”

More
Tags:
Civil rights, LGBT issues, Equality and Liberty
May 25, 2012
This Week on JudicialNominations.org
by Samantha Berkovits

The U.S. Senate confirmed Paul Watford to a judicial emergency seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Monday evening, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to force a vote on his nomination. Watford’s confirmation will provide some much-needed relief to the Ninth Circuit, which has more than twice the caseload of the next busiest circuit. But the confirmation vote came only after Reid filed a motion to force a vote – the 27th he has had to file on President Obama’s judicial nominees. Before the scheduled cloture vote, senators agreed to instead hold an up-or-down vote on his nomination and confirmed him 61-34.

President Obama has nominated Thomas M. Durkin to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Durkin, a partner at Mayer Brown and former federal prosecutor, has the full support of Senators Durbin and Kirk. He was first suggested as a potential nominee three years ago, and the seat has been vacant since 2010 when Judge Wayne Anderson retired.

More
May 24, 2012
A Few Thoughts on Crack Cocaine and Love
BookTalk

Willie Mays Aikens

Safe at Home

By:
Gregory Jordan

Available Here

By Gregory Jordan, an author and journalist

I remember standing with Willie Mays Aikens outside his halfway house in a hardscrabbled corner of Kansas City as night fell in June 2009. I was there to write a book about his life; he was merely trying to make sorts of his life. He would be late for sign-in in two minutes, but showed no urge to rush. He never rushed - his innate cool and Southern style made rushing inconceivable. But that night he seemed unnerved. Not nervous – never that, either. But unnerved at how he would provide for the woman who would soon be his wife, for a daughter at an expensive college, and for her younger sister who had her eyes set on other expensive colleges.

He was an ex-con, a month out of the slammer after learning the hard way what mandatory minimum sentencing is, and he had been offered a job on a road crew fixing potholes. He had two bad hips, two bad knees, an empty bank account, and a used car that broke down every other day. But he also had something he hadn’t had in over 14 years: freedom. And one more thing: spiritual cleanliness. He was not only drug free, not only did he have that cursed addiction tucked in under his hat where it belonged, but he also had what he called “a spiritual life.” He correlated it with God and churchgoing; I equated it with his boundless hope and joy.

As I walked him up the steps of the big brick building that night, I looked at my watch. He walked through the swinging doors, signed in, and the second hand on my wristwatch hit twelve as he put down the pen. 9 p.m. on the nose, and Mr. Cool Faith Hope Joy was heading to his bunk bed.

I walked to my rental car, and thought: if I were a betting man, I’d bet on him. He wants it. He can taste it. Even though they set him up and locked him up and came close to throwing away the key, he had somehow corrected himself. Not cured himself, but set a right and steady course, destination pending.

More
Tags:
Prison policy/incarceration, Sentencing guidelines, Criminal Justice, BookTalk, drug policy, Gregory Jordan, Mandatory Minimum Sentences, Willie Mays Aikens

Site designed by Free Range Studios
Site developed by Jackson River

1333 H St, NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

T. (202) 393-6181
F. (202) 393-6189
info@ACSLaw.org