ACS 2012 Convention June 14 Gala Dinner

ACS 2012 Convention June 14 Gala dinner, featuring ACS President Caroline Fredrickson; California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu; and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

"So Rich, So Poor" Book Event with the Center for American Progress

If the nation’s gross national income—more than $14 trillion—were divided evenly across the entire U.S. population, every household could call itself middle class. Yet the income-level disparity in this country is now wider than at any point since the Great Depression. In 2010 the average salary for CEOs on the S&P 500 was more than $1 million—climbing to more than $11 million when all forms of compensation are accounted for—while the current median household income for African Americans is just more than $32,000. How can some be so rich while others are so poor? In his provocative new book, Peter Edelman, a former top aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy and a lifelong antipoverty advocate, offers an informed analysis of how this country can be so wealthy yet have a steadily growing number of unemployed and working poor. So Rich, So Poor delves into what is happening to the people behind the statistics and takes a particular look at the continuing crisis of young people of color, whose possibility of a productive life too often is lost on their way to adulthood.

  • Opening RemarksLaShawn Warren, Vice President of Policy Development and Programming, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
  • Featured AuthorPeter Edelman, Author, So Rich, So Poor; Chair, Board of Directors, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
  • Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress
  • ModeratorLinda Wertheimer, Senior National Correspondent, National Public Radio

Reimagining the Constitutional Pardon Power: Does the President Have a Role in Making Drug Sentences Fairer?

On Thursday, May 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy and the Open Society Foundations hosted “Reimagining the Constitutional Pardon Power: Does the President Have a Role in Making Drug Sentences Fairer?” In Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the President’s pardon power resides with little fuss or fanfare, likely a result of its infrequent use. Article II, Section 2 provides that the President "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." Despite this explicit authority, and the thousands of clemency petitions received by the Department of Justice each Administration – close to 6,000 such petitions have been received by the Obama Administration thus far – the pardon power is a tool rarely used in our criminal justice system. As the Administration wraps up its first term in office having granted 23 clemency petitions, we considered whether the pardon power should be used as a tool for balancing unfair sentencing laws in the criminal justice system. The President took a step in this direction when he commuted the sentence of federal prisoner Eugenia Jennings, who was serving a 22-year sentence for a nonviolent, crack cocaine offense. Should clemency in this context become customary? Is there a viable pardon process that can be used? If pardon power is exercised regularly, how do we ensure fair and nondiscriminatory procedures? Are governors setting an example at the state level for how pardon powers should be used? These questions and others were considered by the program’s panel of experts.

A Losing Game: Sports and the "War on Drugs" A Conversation with Authors Dave Ungrady and Gregory Jordan

On Thursday, April 26th, the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) and Open Society Foundations (OSF) hosted Dave Ungrady, author of Born Ready: The Mixed Legacy of Len Bias, and Gregory Jordan, author of Willie Mays Aikens: Safe at Home, for a conversation moderated by Darryl Fears, reporter for the Washington Post, about the unsuccessful "War on Drugs." OSF's Christopher Scott and ACS's Caroline Fredrickson introduced the panel. The discussion around these books centered on how no one, not even our most celebrated professional athletes, can win in this nation’s "War on Drugs." Drug and sentencing policies, which have resulted in the world’s highest incarceration rate and the substantial disenfranchisement of certain populations, have failed us all.

Reexamining the Scope of Executive Power: A Debate

Reexamining the Scope of Executive Power: A Debate
 

On Wednesday, April 25, 2012, ACS and the Brennan Center hosted Reexamining the Scope of Executive Power: A Debate. This event was the third in a series of four debates intended to identify common ground through exploration of the fault lines within the progressive community on important topics of the day. On April 25th, two scholars explored the constitutional legitimacy of recent assertions of executive power, including American participation in military action in Libya, the use of drone strikes to kill terrorism suspects, and the indefinite detention provisions of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by the President at the end of last year.
 
What are the proper limits of presidential authority when national security is at stake? Where are the fault lines in the debate among progressives and how should we navigate them?
 
Welcome:

       Michael Waldman President, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law 

Introduction:

  • Caroline Fredrickson, President, American Constitution Society for Law and Policy

Moderator:

  • Dawn Johnsen, Walter W. Foskett Professor of Law, Maurer School of Law, Indiana University

Featured Scholars:

  • Martin S. Flaherty, Leitner Family Professor, Fordham Law School

    Stephen Vladeck, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University  

Is Popular Right?: A Debate on Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review

 

Is Popular Right?:

A Debate on Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review

 

On Wednesday, April 4, 2012, ACS hosted “Is Popular Right?: A Debate on Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review.” This event was the second in a series of four debates intended to identify common ground through exploration of the fault lines within the progressive community on important topics of the day. On April 4th, Deans Chemerinsky and Kramer discussed whether courts are and should be the ultimate arbiters of constitutional meaning and what outcomes flow from the answer to that question.

Moderator:

  • Rebecca Brown, Newton Professor of Constitutional Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Featured Scholars:

  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Irvine School of Law

    Larry Kramer, Dean and Richard E. Lang Professor of Law, Stanford Law School