As we watch the Elena Kagan hearings, here are some sites to help you teach the US Supreme Court. First off the Chief Justice always writes a year end report which, among other things, talks about the number of cases appealed to the Court each year and how many were given certiorari. It is a very short document that your students could easily digest.
SCOTUS Blog is another great resource. Here is a link they put together yesterday on year end statistics, graphs, etc. (including how often each judge voted w. each other, the number of 9-0 decisions (more on this than any other) and much more.
Selective incorporation is a key constitutional component we will cover in class this fall. My graduates should have recognized the importance of this week's 5-4 decision by the Supremes in McDonald v. Chicago, as it marked the first time in our nation's history that the 2nd amendment has been made bound as a right in all of the states. Local governmental officials in Chicago immediately began planning to make new gun ordinances that would withstand constitutional muster. Robert J. Spitzer is Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at SUNY Cortland, and the author of 13 books, including "The Politics of Gun Control," "Gun Control: A Documentary and Reference Guide," and "Saving the Constitution From Lawyers." He gave a solid lesson on selective incorporation through this week's decision for CNN. ______________
Teachers -- like me -- love "teachable moments," so here's a big one from Monday's sweeping Supreme Court decision on gun rights and the states, McDonald v. Chicago. In it, the court not only validated individual gun rights, but applied them to every state and locality in the country.
Americans know they have rights. Even some of my students who confess to near-total ignorance of American politics know they have free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to have a lawyer, should they run afoul of the law. But what none of my students know -- and what most Americans also don't know -- is that we can lay claim to these and other sacred Bill of Rights freedoms because of a different constitutional amendment, a cluster of 20th-century court cases, and something called "incorporation."
Early in America's history, court rulings established that the Constitution's Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government, not the states. So, for example, if local police tried to shutter a newspaper for publishing legitimate, if unpopular, news, the newspaper would have to turn to that state's constitution for protection or help, and not to the First Amendment's protection of a free press.
And since every state constitution is different, the actual rights of citizens varied widely from state to state. Moreover, in the nation's first century, citizens rarely had direct dealings with a national government of limited size and reach.
All this changed when the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution after the Civil War. Several decades later, the court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment's provision saying that states may not deprive persons of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" could now be used to apply or "incorporate" key provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Note, however, that this process occurred selectively, provision by provision, and over seven decades. The first Bill of Rights protection to be applied to the states was in 1897, when the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that private property was not to be taken for public use "without just compensation" was incorporated. Following that, the court incorporated free speech in 1925, press freedom in 1931, free exercise of religion in 1934, and so on until 1969, when it applied the protection against double jeopardy (being tried for the same crime twice) to the states.
By design, this piecemeal process didn't include everything. (No one would argue that the Seventh Amendment's unincorporated right to common law suits "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars" was the equivalent of free speech.) But most felt that incorporation was at an end, until two years ago.
In its landmark 2008 decision, D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's decades-old handgun ban as in violation of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms.
This decision was momentous for two reasons. First, it was the first time in history that a gun law was struck down as a violation of the amendment. Second, the court contradicted past rulings that interpreted the amendment as pertaining only to citizen gun possession in connection with the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the first half of the amendment, and instead concluded that it protected an individual or personal right to own a handgun for protection in the home.
Because D.C. is a federal enclave, the Second Amendment could be brought to bear without addressing the fact that it had never been applied to the states (the high court has repeatedly refused to hear Second Amendment-based challenges in the past).
This brings us to McDonald, in which gun rights advocates challenged Chicago's local handgun ban as in violation of Heller -- but they also asked the court to now incorporate the Second Amendment. A five-member majority obliged. In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito concluded that the individual right to bear arms, while subject to the limits outlined in Heller two years earlier that recognized most existing gun laws, was "fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty" -- the litmus test for judging whether a right was important enough to be applied to the 50 states.
Readers eager to learn more about competing theories of incorporation are invited to plow through the five separate opinions that compose the case's 214 page decision.
But whether one agrees with Justice Alito that the right to own handguns promotes ordered liberty because they are "the most preferred firearm. . .for protection of one's home and family," or with Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote in his dissent that guns in society "destabilize ordered liberty" by taking the lives of 30,000 Americans annually, Americans should at least know better today that the path to American rights runs through the Fourteenth Amendment.
We were reminded again this weekend that the subtle lessons learned from a box of animated toys from our youth remain timeless.
Sheriff Woody and Space Ranger Buzz Lightyear along with the rest of the Toy Story gang are back in 3D. In their latest adventure we learn an important lesson about “the consent of the governed” but that is not the only government message in this classic tale.
Sheriff Woody teaches us about our Foundations. Woody is brave and can always be counted on. So too were our Founding Fathers. They left enduring principles that still guide us.
The Green Aliens teach us about Federalism. Their ability to adapt to new environments and experiment with new policies is a lot like what we see in our fifty states. Federalism recognizes our regional differences while at the same time counting on our ability to work together. In the latest Toy Story this lesson is learned just in time.
Rex teaches us about Public Opinion. Large and loud but tender is what best characterizes the big green dinosaur and the big voice of the American people. Both provide the narrative to our human story.
Lots – O – Huggin’ Bear teaches us about Participation. Though tempted to follow certain elites it is only through the consent of the governed that we find our true solutions. This sweet smelling bear turns out to be something a little bit more unexpected.
Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head could be stand ins for our Political Parties. Both can change their appearance to get what they want.
Slinky Dog teaches us about Interest Groups. Always looking to help Slinky Dog like Interest Groups can bend, twist and maneuver in ways others cannot. Therefore we often rely upon them whether we like it or not.
Barbie and Campaigns have a lot in common. Wardrobe changes are the norm. Barbie like our campaigns can dress up to fit any situation.
Hamm teaches us about Congress. Clearly both keep our money. Pork projects would be the obvious comparison though a careful analysis would discover that Hamm rarely can keep the money secure. More often Hamm, the piggy bank, is empty.
Mr. Spell teaches us not unlike our Courts do. In the first two Toy Story movies Mr. Spell educates the other toys. When confusion arises Mr. Spell brings clarity. Our Supreme Court fulfills that same role in our polity.
And without question Buzz Lightyear is the archetype of our President. Always making bold promises Buzz suffers from dramatic swings both in personality and in ability. His idealism often trumps the others’ pragmatism. At times this is what is needed. Frequent mode changes, however, mean that Buzz can never quite meet expectations. Buzz thinks he can actually fly. After countless tries we now know better.
The best lesson to learn this summer just may be found inside the heart of our toy boxes.
In the end “You’ve got a friend in me…” is a much more assuring message than more hollow promises claiming “to infinity and beyond.”
Anyone who was tuned in to this morning's session of Congressional hearings featuring various angry members of the House of Representatives, BP CEO Tony Hayward, and Hayward's pet parakeet, ">Representative Joe "Rationalizin' and Apologizin'" Barton (R-Tex.) probably noticed the same strange thing about Hayward's opening remarks that I did -- a large part of his opening statement seemed to be a robotic recitation of the ad copy used in BP's famous "Sorry about that oil spill" ad.
Well, as it turns out, it was. HuffPost's own Ben Craw went ahead and spliced together the relevant portions of Hayward's statement and the BP ad and if you close your eyes, you won't be able to tell the difference.
DESPITE dominating the headlines for more than a month, there is little agreement about the size of the Deepwater Horizon spill. One of the teams in the government taskforce has put the latest estimate at between 20,000 and 40,000 barrels a day, up from an earlier range of 12,000 to 19,000. Discounting the 149,000 barrels captured by BP's cap, even at the low end of the new range, the leak would be one of the largest accidental spills ever (the various wells uncorked by the first Gulf War were far bigger). Barack Obama will increase pressure on BP on Tuesday when he speaks about the clean-up from the Oval Office. BP, for its part, is searching for a truce with the American government that will involve it paying billions of dollars in compensation.
President Obama will make his first Oval Office address to the nation tonight when he talks to the American people about the Gulf Oil Disaster. Constitutional scholars have started to debate what exactly in Presidential Powers can be done to press BP to pay-up, clean-up, and/or take orders from the American Government.
The classic two theories on presidential powers come from Teddy Roosevelt and his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft.
Roosevelt's "Stewardship Theory," basically stipulates that anything not prohibited by the Constitution, is all good for the president who needs to use the Bully Pulpit he'll have tonight.
Taft, using the "Whig Theory" looked strictly at presidential powers. If the constitution did not specifically express the power to the president, the Chief Executive lacked a big stick to swing at BP.
Interestingly, those who claim Obama has created too much government and want to continue to, "Drill Baby, Drill," must have forgotten the history of President George W. Bush (43) arguably overstepping his authority, using his BP to benefit BP, Shell and the rest of big oil, when he lifted an executive order banning drilling on the Outer Continential Shelf. The order was signed by his presidential father, George HW Bush (41) following the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989.
Obama's Katrina? Really? It is important to keep recent history of presidential orders, moratoriums and sunset legislation pieces in mind when considering what the government can, or cannot do, to stop this disaster. Obama temporarily banned the off shore drilling immediately after the explosion. But our president needs to do more even if constitutional scholars, and right-wingers might question the authority.
Here's hoping President Obama comes out like TR and uses the Bully Pulpit to bully BP. The President and Congress before him used a broad stoke to open the way for this mess. It's time to carry a big stick and show that "Yes, We Can," is not just a campaign motto.
Let me kow what you think the president can do, or should say, when he speaks to the American people tonight.
Way to Go Hawks! Now basking in the shine of Lord Stanley's Cup for the first time in my lifetime, here's how the City of Chicago government is Planning the Parade route and downtown rally:
"City officials are hoping for a safe, fun and stylish celebration at a ticker-tape parade and rally Friday for the Blackhawks after their Stanley Cup win Wednesday night.
The event will begin about 10:30 a.m. when players and some front office staffers will be on a double-decker bus traveling through the central business district and down Michigan Avenue in a parade that will end at Michigan Avenue and Wacker Drive with a “huge rally,’’according to Megan McDonald, Executive Director of the Mayor’s Office of Special Events.
McDonald spoke at a 6 a.m. press conference with several other city officials Thursday at the city’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications, 1411 W. Madison St."
But even in celebration, governing can be hard. There has been some early critique of the City planning, due to the Cubs-Sox game later Friday. City officials plan the rally to be over downtown by noon. They expect a crowd of about 350,000 to come down to see their champions and the Cup.
Jon Stewart does it again. Great stuff to make us laugh instead of crying about the Gulf Oil Spill Disaster. But real questions on whose fault and whose job it it to clean up this, it shouldn't be that complicated, should it? Bureaucratic regulatory agencies are often taken to task, but there has not been any advances in oil company environmental regulations since the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989.
Blog here any ideas you might have. Here's one: Make BP pay for clean-up job for the thousands of unemployed workers in the Gulf states. A 2010 CCP.......oh I forgot, that CCP would be like CCCP. Government socialism......
Governing is hard, we can't do that. Politics is easy and we're about to see a lot more of that now that Congress is back in session.
Iranian authorities have begun police patrols in the capital to arrest women wearing clothes deemed improper. The campaign against loose-fitting veils and other signs of modernism comes as government opponents are calling for rallies to mark the anniversary of the disputed presidential election, and critics of the crackdown say it is stoking feelings of discontent.
But hard-liners say that improper veiling is a "security issue" and that "loose morality" threatens the core of the Islamic republic.
Iran's interior minister has promised a "chastity plan" to promote the proper covering "from kindergarten to families," though the details are unclear. Tehran police have been arresting women for wearing short coats or improper veils and even for being too suntanned. Witnesses report fines up to $800 for dress considered immodest…
When seminary student Fatemeh Delvari, 24, moved to Tehran from a provincial town eight months ago, she was shocked to see how some women dressed.
"My own veil oppresses my feminine side, so I can be free and active," she said of her black chador, a garment that covers the entire body except the face and hands. "But some women seem to be only interested in looking beautiful."
"They are trampling on social boundaries," Delvari said. "Violence is not good, but they should be punished."… _______________
Thanks to Armeeta (Class of 2010) for sending this piece on Banned Barbies in Iran. Basically it talks about the Iranian government's attempts to deter American and Western values in Iran and the effects of this on the younger generation:
"In an attempt to deter the influence of Western culture in their country, Iranian government officials have banned the import of Barbie dolls and several other American-branded toys. Adeline Masquelier, professor of anthropology at Tulane, understands the government’s reasoning behind the ban, but says it may result in unintended consequences. ...
Masquelier says the “over-sexed image resulting from Barbie’s exposed hair, bright lipstick and non-traditional career roles played a significant role in the government’s decision.” Barbie’s rack of clothing, which includes mini skirts and midriff-baring tops, also is an affront to officials who enforce the wearing of traditional garments such as the hijab or chador by Muslim women.
“In places like Iran where these dress codes are enforced, people are living two lives — the life the government wants them to live and a life that includes other things like watching banned shows via satellite,” Masquelier says. “There are actually more bloggers per capita in Iran because it’s a way to escape reading only what the government releases in its news.”
