Pages

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Freedom of Assembly

­ Freedom of Assembly and Association ... the First Amendment
Yet another reason to praise the drafters of our Constitution.

The First Amendment guarantees not only the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances, but also the right to affiliate with organizations.

The terms freedom of assembly and freedom of association attempt to distinguish between:
  1. the right to assemble in public places, and
  2. the right to join an organization
The term freedom of assembly, in Constitution-speak, often indicates the right to protest. Freedom of association, on the other hand, generally enters the realm of labor rights, and in the Constitution is usually interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association such as a labor union.

Freedom of Assembly and Association ... Assignment
For each of these cases: describe, in a brief paragraph, whether the event in question more closely reflects freedom of assembly or of association.
Freedom of Assembly and Association ... More Resources
Each of the resources below can give you further insight into Freedom of Assembly and Association as defined in the First Amendment:

Friday, November 1, 2019

Prosecuting Impeachment

In  January of 1998, there were  13 prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial of Bill Clinton.  Such trials require one or more members of the House of Representatives to present to the jury of Senators one or more of the points with which the defendant is charged.  Those de facto prosecutors are referred to as House managers.

While it has never been applied to a President's impeachment, there are a few cases on record that involved a defense attorney in the Senate trial  , in addition to the corps of House managers.  Finally, note also that there need not be a full Senate present when the time comes to arrive at a verdict.  Article 1 Section 3 of our Constitution states that the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments… no person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present".  

Not legally holding a seat - just present.  AKA in the chamber.

Thursday, October 31, 2019

Historic

That's what this morning's tally in the House of Representatives was - historic.

By a vote of 233 to 196, the Resolution that will structure the remainder of the effort to impeach Donald Trump passed.

Reading the tea leaves as to what might happen next, we turn to 538 (Nate Silver's shop), which has one of the best records going for predicting this kind of thing.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

What's Next

Yesterday, the House released a draft of the Resolution that outlines procedures for the impeachment process going forward.  Like so many government documents, its wording is both stiff, and voluminous, so I've summarized it here.  Note that, far from being slanted or in any other way glossing over Constitutional responsibilities, as has been asserted by Republican members of the House, the Resolution appears eminently fair.



  • Adam Schiff, chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, shall (note the verb - not "can", but "shall") set up open (AKA public) hearings
  • Both the majority and the minority members of the Committee shall have equal time to ask questions at those hearings.
  • Questions can be delegated to staff\
  • The ranking minority member may submit to the chair, in writing, any requests for witness testimony relevant to the investigation
  • The ranking member may issue subpoenas for depositions, testimony, and records of a number of kinds
  • Schiff can make publicly available in electronic form transcripts of depositions and testimony
  • The chair of any other committee having custody of records (e.g., Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, and Ways and Means) will continue their ongoing investigations, and, upon completion of those investigations, transfer, along with the Intelligence Committee, any resulting records or materials to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  • The Judiciary Committee can then conduct proceedings relating to the impeachment inquiry, in accordance with procedures needed for printing in the Congressional Record.
  • Such  procedures must allow for the participation of the President and his counsel.
  • The Committee on the Judiciary shall report to the House of Representatives resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations.



Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Articles of Impeachment - A Crystal Ball

Given the political climate in which we've lived for the past few weeks, I think it instructive to examine the process of impeachment more closely.  I'll start that examination today, with an edited (by me) copy of the three articles of impeachment issued by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974.

The edits shouldn't be considered analogs of redactions.  My goal in introducing a number of elipses wasn't to mask any information that might seem to support Donald Trump.   Rather, I'm simply trying to pare down the legal-speak without distorting underlying meaning.  Note also that the italics and bold you'll see below were present in the original.

One more thought.  We'll almost certainly, and probably within the next few weeks, see such an indictment of Donald Trump; there's an eerie similarity between what Nixon was charged with, (abuse of power in Article 1r, obstructing justice in Article 2, and contempt of Congress in Article 3) and what we've all seen Trump carry out.



Articles of Impeachment adopted by the House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974.
 
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate: 

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

ARTICLE I

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his consitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence.
Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. 

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:


1. Making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
2. Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
3. Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
4. Interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;

...

8. Making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
9. Endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.


In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
 

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

ARTICLE II


Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.  This conduct has included one or more of the following:


1. He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavoured to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposed not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be intitiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

 ...

4. He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities
 ...

ARTICLE III
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.




Article I was approved by a vote of 27-11. Article II was approved by a vote of 28-10. Article III was approved by a vote of 21-17.

Monday, October 28, 2019

Freedom of the Press

­ Freedom of the Press ... the First Amendment
Decades before there was a United States of America, the groundwork had been laid to protect freedom of the press. In 1735, John Peter Zenger, a journalist and publisher in New York, was charged with libel. After more than eight months in prison, Zenger went to trial. The jury returned in ten minutes with a verdict of not guilty. In defending Zenger, his lawyers established the precedent that a statement, even if defamatory, is not libelous if it can be proved. That was the begining of freedom of the press in America.

Even when set aside by the powerful, freedom of the press could not be ignored. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln ordered Union Gen. John Dix to stop publication of the New York Journal of Commerce and the New York World, because they'd published a forged presidential proclamation calling for another military draft. The editors were arrested. But after the authors of the initial forgery were identified, the newspapers were allowed to resume publication.

In 1952, he U.S. Supreme Court uphelde conviction of a white supremacist for passing out leaflets that characterized African Americans as dangerous and criminals. The group libel law under which the supremacist was prosecuted makes it a crime to make false statements about people of a particular race, color, creed or religion for no other reason than to harm that group. The Court also ruled that libel against groups, like libel against individuals, has no role in the marketplace of ideas.

Freedom of the Press: Assignment

For each of these cases: cite what you consider to be the aspect of the case in which the First Amendment's suppoort of freedom of the press had the most impact (e.g., Moore's implying the wealthy did not bear an adequate share of the burden of national security)

Freedom of the Press: More Material

Each of the resources below can give you further insight into the relationship between the Federalist Papers, and Freedom of the Press as defined in the First Amendment:

Yet Another Reason I Love Baseball

Last night Donald Trump attended Game 5 of the 2019 World Series.  The crowd at Nationals Park in D.C. greeted him with resounding boos and cat-calls, and closed with chants of Lock him up!  Lock him up!

Sunday, October 27, 2019

Freedom of Speech

­­ Constitution 101: Freedom of Speech ... the First Amendment

Sadly, the examples below are indeed protected by the freedom of speech clause of the First Amenment.
  • The chants of Jews will not replace us (from Charlottesville)
  • Donald Trump's libelous claims about the Biden family
However, they are not out-of-the-box safe. In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, known then and now as the Great Dissenter, gave the opinion that even freedom of speech has limits. His classic suggestion? One cannot shout fire in a crowded theater ...

Federalist 10 (authored by Madison) claims that the “violence of faction” is the “mortal disease” of popular governments. Ironically, it's the 10th Federalist that's most often cited as protecting freedom of speech. As Publius (in this case Madison) points out, the Constitution is designed not only for the American situation of that moment, but also for circumstances most likely to nurture the problem of faction. I.e., infighting among political groups.

Freedom of Speech: Assignment

For each of these well-known cases:
  • the My Lai massacre
  • the Pentagon Papers
  • Rudy Giuliani's ignoring a Congressional subpoena
cite what you consider to be the facet of the case most affected by the First Amendment's support for freedom of speech

Freedom of Speech: More Material

Each of the resources below can give you further insight into the relationship between the Federalist Papers, and Freedom of Speech as defined in the First Amendment: