Party On UK

Here are the links to find the parties you will be representing in our Mock Commons simulation Monday:


http://www.labour.org.uk/

http://www.conservatives.com/

http://www.libdems.org.uk/

Brown turns Green

Before the ink could dry on stories about Scott Brown’s historic Republican victory last Tuesday in Massachusetts the United States Supreme Court stole the headlines. An upset victory for a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts is a big story. Changing the campaign finance rules to benefit corporate donors is an even bigger story. More and more green money will find its way into our political process.

Time to color in the details.

In a special session of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy read his Majority Opinion in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). It signaled a new day in campaign finance reform.

At issue was a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA, 2002) that prohibited both corporations and unions to engage in “electioneering communication” 60 days prior to general elections. Much of the details in the BCRA, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, had been held constitutional in the case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).

What changed? Samuel Alito replaced Sandra O’Connor.

The five most conservative justices all lined up together in forming the majority in the Citizens United case. During the special session Associate Justice John Paul Stevens read from his 90-page dissent. Both sides seemed to understand the significance of this case.

The conservative bloc essentially found any regulatory distinction based on a speaker’s identity a clear violation of the First Amendment’s protection. This also would include the criminalization of corporate efforts to influence the political process prior to federal elections. Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito stood up to defend freedom of speech.

The liberal bloc argued that certain civil liberties have always been limited. Corporate interests, in particular, have been held out of direct political activity for over one hundred years. The constitutionality of the Tillman Act (1907) has been consistently upheld. It prevented monetary donations by corporations to national campaigns. Many, including four on the current Court, saw no problem to limit corporate money in “electioneering communication” as well.

Republicans were pleased with the decision. Democrats were not. President Obama warned that the Court had given a “green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics.” Clearly there will be new and creative ways for big money to influence the political process.

Scott Brown became the 41st Republican Senator this week. Brown’s victory, in part, appeared to be a repudiation of Obama’s first year in office. The United States Supreme Court this week in an even bigger story vindicated the First Amendment. In doing so they extended free speech protections to corporate donations to federal election campaigns.

Green trumps brown. Money talks louder than one surprise victory in Massachusetts. Ironically in this democracy the triumph of the people was trumped by the triumph of special interests.

The true colors of this week now look clearly black and white.

If you don't remember much about what we learned about campaign finance law, don't worry. It may now be irrelevant.

By comparison, could this Court decision make us more similar to the systems of Nigeria and Mexico.

Comparing UK & US Constitutional Principles

Constitution Smonstitution. Much the U.S. Constitutional Principles were derived from the British system, which does not have a formal written constitution. Your assignment, due Monday will be to creatively chart the comparisions and contrasting principles and Rule of Law and instituions of the two leading, and longest surviving constitutional democracies in the world.


For example,

US Constitutional Principle -- Federalism, the shared power between national and state and local governments.


UK Constitutional Principle -- Devolution, the transfer of Whitehall powers in areas like education and health - but not, for example, defence - to the UK's nations and regions.



Use the following sites to help you in your research:

http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/


http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/UKgovernment/Centralgovernmentandthemonarchy/DG_073438

http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/wstate.htm


http://www.virtualclassroom.net/tvc/gov/constitution/

Comparative news of the world in the Blagosphere

This semester, we will hope to offer views of the comparative countries we study through multiple, non-US, media sources. This blog post takes one post from each of our countries of study. But first will start with the still to be published survey of annual rights in the world:

The End of the "Third Wave"

Freedom House has issued the results of its annual survey of political rights and civil liberties around the world. In 2009, human freedom declined for the fourth straight year.
According to the survey’s findings, 2009 marked the fourth consecutive year in which global freedom suffered a decline—the longest consecutive period of setbacks for freedom in the nearly 40-year history of the report.

These declines were most pronounced in Sub-Saharan Africa, although they also occurred in most other regions of the world. Furthermore, the erosion in freedom took place during a year marked by intensified repression against human rights defenders and democracy activists by many of the world’s most powerful authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China."

See more at:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=505

Google May End Chinese Service in Wake of Cyber Attack

Google has announced that it will no longer censor the results of searches conducted on its Chinese site. If, as is likely, the Chinese government will not agree to allow Google to run an uncensored service in China, Google will shut down its Chinese site. Google's announcement follows its discovery that the gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists had been systematically hacked in a "sophisticated and targeted attack ... originating from China." Google did not directly accuse the Chinese government of hacking into gmail:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8455712.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8456950.stm

Водка

Half of all deaths in Russia among people aged 15 to 54 are alcohol-related. In an effort to combat widespread alcohol abuse, new restrictions on vodka sales went into effect in Russia on Jan 1. Among other things, there is now a minimum price for vodka ($3 for a half-liter bottle). But whether this will reduce alcohol abuse or simply encourage bootlegging is an open question (See Vodka museum, Mandrogi, Russia). This is a serious issue: 35,000 Russians die each year from acute alcohol poisoning, many of them from consuming tainted bootleg vodka:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8432271.stm

Ladies and Gentlemen, Take Your Marks

Voters in the UK will elect a new Parliament in May. The Conservatives are favored to win, but need a sizable swing to secure a majority in Parliament; a "hung Parliament" (in which no party has a majority of seats) is a distinct possibility. An article in this week's issue of The Economist reports on the campaign, now underway:

http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15176433#top

Nigerian Constitutional Crisis Spawns Litigation

Nigeria's constitutional crisis deepened this week. President Umaru Yar'Adua has been out of the country for six weeks; he is undergoing treatment in Saudi Arabia for acute pericarditis. Nigeria's Vice-President, Goodluck Jonathan, and the members of the Nigerian cabinet appear to be running the country, though they claim that President Yar'Adua is making key decisions from his hospital bed in Jeddah. Opposition activists and Nigerian lawyers claim that the failure of the cabinet to invoke a provision of the Nigerian constitution allowing the cabinet to transfer presidential power to Jonathan, but instead to maintain the fiction that Yar'Adua is governing the country, indicates that Nigeria is ruled not by law but by "big men."

Opposition leaders now claim that President Yar'Adua's signature on this year's budget was a forgery. Moreover, an opposition activist has filed a suit seeking to annul all decisions made by the Nigerian cabinet in Yar'Adua's absence on the ground that power has not formally been handed over to Vice-President Jonathan. The Nigerian Bar Association has also brought suit, seeking the formal of transfer of presidential power to the Vice-President:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8445776.stm

Mexico's War on Drugs Boosts the Sinaloa Mob

Although the Mexican authorities have arrested more than 50,000 alleged drug traffickers in the past six years, most of those arrested have come from Mexico's smaller drug gangs. Mexico's largest crime organization, the Sinaloa "mafia," has been relatively unscathed by the crackdown. An article in this week's issue of The Economist explains why:

http://www.economist.com/world/americas/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15213785

Could Democracy Emerge under Iran's Current Structure of Government?

According to an analysis published in this week's issue of The Economist, the intransigence of Iran's Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the face of mass protests has led to a significant broadening of opposition to his leadership. A group of five exiled Iranian intellectuals have explained how a democracy might emerge within the structure established by Iran's 1979 Constitution (albeit with some significant amendments to that Constitution):

http://www.economist.com/world/middleeast-africa/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=15213450

Or Not?

Masoud Ali Mohammadi, a Tehran University professor of Particle Physics and Quantum Mechanics, was assassinated this week. The Iranian government has blamed the US and Israel, claiming that Mohammadi's murder is part of an effort to disrupt Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian opposition, however, notes that Mohammadi publicly supported reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in last June's presidential election and blames the regime for the killing. NPR theorizes that the assassination was carried out by elements of the regime, who attempted to make it look like the work of an Iranian terrorist organization allegedly supported by the US and Israel:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122645685

Mapping the future of Gay Marriage in U.S.

Use these resources as a way to prepare for Wednesday's deliberation of gay marriage as a Policy Issue or a Constitutional issue.

______________________

First, starting today, former Bush solicitor general Ted Olson attempts to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8—the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957/page/1

____________________

On the California case Perry v. Schmarzeneger, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday temporarily blocked a federal judge's plan to broadcast the trial over California's ban on gay marriage by posting video on YouTube.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A3II20100111

________________

Check out the maps, of where this is going here:

The Los Angeles Times has produced a nice interactive map showing that state-by-state status of gay marriage. The map is also a choropleth map on a red to green scale with each color share representing a different level of rights (interesting color spectrum, no?) Related is a map that shows the projected future of gay marriage in each state (I would have reversed the shading of the colors, personally).

______________

Last week, the New Jersey legislature rejected legalization of gay marriage. Earlier in Gay marriage became legal in Vermont and Iowa in 2009 and takes effect January 1, 2010 in New Hampshire.

In the District of Columbia, a city council vote passed same-sex marriage.

Holding Court

Call this post a full-court press on Supreme Court news and views:

1) From the 2005 Senate comfirmation hearings of Samuel Alito, political cartoonist Mike Lane illustrated the constitutional conundrum facing the newest justice and the term stare decisis -- lettting the precedent stand unless there are compelling reasons not to -- and a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Alito's mother said, "Of course he's against abortion,'' in a classic sound-byte before during the confirmation hearings. The question is not really what the Alito believes personally, but as NPR reported in 2005 if that Roe v. Wade was settled law.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5012335

2) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas made news last week by speaking his mind, something he's not prone to do while on the job.

As the above data shows, Thomas' silence during Supreme Court oral arguments is legendary. While his colleagues pepper lawyers with questions, Thomas listens. While the other 8 justices force legal teams to perform verbal and logical gymnastics 30 minutes at a time, Thomas often leans back in his large chair and stares at the ceiling.

When he does speak during oral arguments, it's almost always in private conversation with Justice Breyer. (And from the looks at the menus that they swap, those conversations are often about what to get for lunch.)In the past, Justice Thomas has said the oral argument time is not meant for Justices to show off but for the lawyers to make their legal arguments before the Court. But Thomas has recently said--in jest-- that “My colleagues should shut up!”

___________________

3) In the Ny Times article, "The Disenter," gives insight into how the High Court has moved right and now the self-proclaimed conservative, and eldest member of the Supremes, may be The Nine's most liberal justice:

"Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice, now finds himself the leader of the opposition. Vigorous and sharp at 87, he has served on the court for 32 years, approaching the record set by his predecessor, William O. Douglas, who served for 36. In criminal-law and death-penalty cases, Stevens has voted against the government and in favor of the individual more frequently than any other sitting justice. He files more dissents and separate opinions than any of his colleagues. He is the court’s most outspoken defender of the need for judicial oversight of executive power. And in recent years, he has written majority opinions in two of the most important cases ruling against the Bush administration’s treatment of suspected enemy combatants in the war on terror — an issue the court will revisit this term, which begins Oct. 1, when it hears appeals by Guantánamo detainees challenging their lack of access to federal courts.

"Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. “I don’t think of myself as a liberal at all,” he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. “I think as part of my general politics, I’m pretty darn conservative.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/23/magazine/23stevens-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

This is one of the two linked articles you need to read by Monday.

___________________________

4) The second article you need to have read by Monday is Time's cover story from last October:

The Incredible Shrinking Court

"The irony is that the Court's ideology is playing a dwindling role in the lives of Americans. The familiar hot-button controversies--abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, police powers and so on--have been around so long, sifted and resifted so many times, that they now arrive at the court in highly specific cases affecting few, if any, real people. And it's not clear that Roberts wants to alter that trend. His speeches on the judicial role suggest a man more interested in the steady retreat of the court from public policy than in a right-wing revolution. Unless the Roberts court umpires another disputed presidential election (à la Bush v. Gore in 2000--a long shot, to say the least), the left-right division will matter mainly in the realm of theories and rhetoric, dear to the hearts of law professors and political activists but remote from day-to-day existence. What once was salient is now mostly symbolic."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1670489,00.html

________________

5) Finally, a re-run post from last year's 'Global Warming' SC decision:

The world saw former Vice-President being called a “rock star” and getting an Oscar from movie stars for his documentary on the “climate crisis,” and later a Nobel Peace Prize. But with far less glitz and fanfare, the legal definition of whether global warming is damaging US and the world was being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court a few months ago.

The new “swing vote” on the high Court is Justice Anthony Kennedy and his questions during the oral arguments in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120) seemed to indicate that justices may be ready to decide more than the case at bar.

At issue is the states’ (MA. and 12 others, including Illinois) lawsuit challenging the federal bureaucracy’s (EPA) lack of enforcement of an act of Congress (1990 Clean Air Act). The questions the Court is considering are:1) May the EPA decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in the Clean Air Act?2) Does the Clean Air Act give the EPA authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases?Breaking down the oral argument, Justice Kennedy seemed to be saying the Court has a bigger, global, question to answer. But not all on the bench seemed to think it was in the Court’s jurisdiction.

From the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Kennedy is questioning counsel for the petitioners, the Massachusetts states attorney:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: At the outset, you made this, some of this perhaps reassuring statement that we need not decide about global warming in this case. But don't we have to do that in order to decide the standing argument, because there's no injury if there's not global warming? Or, can you show standing simply because there is a likelihood that the perceived would show that there's an injury?

MR. MILKEY: Your Honor, especially in this case where none of our affidavits were challenged, I don't think the Court needs to go there ultimately on the merits because we showed through our uncontested affidavits that these harms will occur. There was no evidence put in to the contrary, and I would add that the reports on which EPA itself relies conclude that climate change is occurring.

JUSTICE KENNEDY (later): What is the scientific answer to if global warming exists? I think this Court might have to press for an answer to this question.

(Justice Antonin Scalia’s prides himself as a strict constructionalist, and a Constitutional scholar. He never claimed to have aced Mr. Rosiano’s “Cosmic Journey” class, he chimes in):

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Milkey, I always thought an air pollutant was something different from a stratospheric pollutant, and your claim here is not that the pollution of what we normally call "air" is endangering health. That isn't, that isn't -- your assertion is that after the pollutant leaves the air and goes up into the stratosphere it is contributing to global warming.

MR. MILKEY: Respectfully, Your Honor, it is not the stratosphere. It's the troposphere.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. (Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming, to tell you the truth.The decision in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (05-1120), given last June ruled in favor of Massachusetts.

_____________

In analyzing new Chief Justice John Roberts and newest associate justice Samuel Alito influence of the high Court, attorney Patrick Cotter said the two, who have not spoken or written much, have had little effect so far. For the long term, however, Cotter said President Bush may have created what conservative presidents have been trying to do since the 1950s – cement a solid block on the bench. He said to watch how many times Kennedy sides with Roberts and Alito.Statistically, the Roberts Court took 40% fewer cases this year than last, when it issued just 69 opinions (the lowest # since 1953). Now the docket is even less filled with just half the opinions to come down as compared to the Rehnquist court of the late 1980s. What would possible reasons for the Court deciding less? Blog your thoughts. Linked is the transcript of the oral arguments in 05-1120.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_1120/argument/

There are no cameras in the Supreme Court or other Federal Courts, although movement to advance bills such as the "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2007" has been progressing.

www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19772

But there are charts that track the decisions that our Judiciary make. Click on the picture above and you will get a great graphic from the Washington Post which shows the number of US circuit court judges appointed by Dems & Repubs as well as the # appointed by Bush. Then click here for an article that argues that Bush may not have changed the Supreme Court as much as he wanted (Justice Stevens the 87-year-old hold out) but he has had a significant impact on the circuit court level.

This article talks about how Obama may be able to create a "major shift"in the federal judiciary.The chart at the left tracks the SCOTUS voting record of the last session of the High Court, which had more 5-4 decisions than the Supremes have had in the past.

Some 'sweet' influences on Daylight Savings Rider

(Was it a Trick, or a Treat? This was big news at Halloween and the influences on lawmaking on Capitol Hill two years ago. This post origninally posted on Political Warrior in Nov. 2007)

Last year's Trick-or-Treating was different. Because Congress in 2007 moved Daylight Savings time back to the first Saturday in Novemeber, my son went to a record number of doors in the Sunlight. (In 2008, I think he set a new record).

"I got lots of candy more than ever before,'' said then nine-year-old Patrick. "It should have been night, because night is cooler going trick-or-treating, and the houses are more lit up . But I probably wouldn't have got as much candy."

Hmm. Despite the fact that Patrick did get tooth paste at one house, the load of his loot may have been due to influences on Capitol Hill. The New York Times City Room Blog says the candy lobby gave an influential push for a rider to the 2005 Engergy Policy Act.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005The NYT story on the influences on federal lawmakers to shed more light on Halloween night (child safety was also a legitimate concern) is linked here:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/an-extra-hour-of-daylight-thank-the-candy-lobby/index.html?hp