Category Archives: Law: Constitutional Law

Something Went Badly Wrong in the Late 1970s

The toy du jour is Google’s new ngram — a way to graph the frequency of words or phrases in 10% of the books published in the US.  Here’s an ngram for “due process”.

Due Process Ngram

Something went wrong in the late 1970s — shortly after Justice Rehnquist joined the Court. Or maybe it’s just after Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).

Posted in Law: Administrative Law, Law: Constitutional Law | Comments Off on Something Went Badly Wrong in the Late 1970s

Appeals Court Strikes Down Gay Adoption Ban

Florida's ban on adoption by gay couples was declared unconstitutional by a the 3rd DCA, the state Court of Appeals located in Miami, 3-0 (although with two opinions) this morning.

The basic holding is that the statute fails the equal protection guarantee of the Florida Constitution because it makes a distinction between fit parents that has no rational basis. Indeed, the record compiled by Judge Cindy Lederman at trial pretty much compelled that verdict.

The next stop, most likely, is the Florida Supreme Court, although with this record it is hard to see how it could reach a different result.

Here's the full text of the decision. Here's a Miami Herald article.

I'm happy to report that UM's Children and Youth Clinic submitted an amicus brief.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | Comments Off on Appeals Court Strikes Down Gay Adoption Ban

Miami-Dade Metrorail Illegally Bans Photographers

Trying (ostentatiously, to make a point) to photograph the Miami-Dade MetroRail Stretch Ledford and Carlos Miller encounter some law on the ground, which happens to bear no relation to the law on the books.

So far the score is Uniforms 1, Photographers 0.

And that's why we have courts, dear Miami-Dade Metrorail….

Congratulations to Professor Sam Terilli of the School of Communications for first inspiring and empowering his student to undertake this project, and then for supporting him.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 11 Comments

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

Quick summary of the theory underlying Citizens United v. FEC summarized in one photo:

corps.jpg

Thus, just like a person's independent expenditures on politics can't be regulated, so too with a corporation's.

This is partly Daniel Webster's fault. And partly a power grab.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 6 Comments

Law on the Ground

Getting rights on paper is only the first round of an endless battle.

Here is the experience of a qualified bidder on a local government contract trying to photograph potential job sites which happen to be Miami-Dade Metro stations:

Transit Miami, Wacken-“Nuts”, Reflections on the First Amendment.

At the first station I had no problem doing my work, I took my photographs and moved on. As I walked up to the second station I was greeted by two power-tripping guards that quickly welcomed me into the reality of the horrors of governmental and private company unions and their inane bureaucracies. To be clear, at all times I had in my possession the plans and contract book from Miami-Dade County stating the job description, locations, and purpose. I also identified myself and my intentions at every stop. It was at this stop where the debate and discussion on one’s constitutional right to photograph in public blossomed. I spent about one hour trying to get into the station to photograph the area, which I was not allowed to do.

At subsequent stations I already knew what to expect. Once again, I approached the station and introduced myself and explained myself. This guard appeared to be calm and wise, at least I thought based on his calm, non-emotional, respectful tone of voice. All that changed after he began talking about his “interpretations” on the law.

At this point, I was just so amazed and shocked that I wanted to hear more on his rationale. This guard had some of the best quotes of the day. Some of them are: “Miami-Dade Transit is not Public,” “The Constitution does not apply on Miami-Dade Transit grounds,” “The County Ordinances supersede the Constitution,” and the best justification for those lovers of the expansion of the police state…”9/11,” yes he said, “Now, after 9/11 your constitutional rights are different.” At this point, I was in shock that a Wackenhut Security Guard was stating this was the policy of the county and Wackenhut. He spoke with so much confidence and belief in the absurdities he was uttering that I said to myself, “This country is doomed.”

No, but maybe we need more lawyers?

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law | 3 Comments

The GOP Has Troubles With Reality

Mike Stark has turned his talent for ambush journalism to Republican Congressmen. He asked them if they personally believed that Barack Obama is legally entitled to be President of the United States. Almost none of them would affirm this belief on camera. Watch Birthers on the Hill and be amazed, disgusted, or worried, depending on your emotional fortitude.

Incidentally, anyone who is unaware of the literal incoherence of the Birther arguments need look no further than this appearance of Birther spokesperson, right-wing radio host, and former Watergate conspirator and felon G. Gordon Liddy on Hardball:

Chris Matthews's best move here wasn't confronting Liddy with documentary evidence he is wrong — mere documents failed to move him, as they failed to move so many of the crazies in the Birther cult — but rather his spinning the Birther view to its logical conclusion: If, as they argue, President Obama was born abroad, not only is he ineligible to be President as he's not a 'natural born citizen' but the President is an illegal alien who should be deported since he's never been naturalized and doesn't have a visa. Liddy swallowed that, but this is so crazy that it's going to turn the press — except maybe Lou Dobbs who conceivably might lose his job over this — against them.

Note also that Liddy's reference to a “deposition” is a fiction — the actual source of this canard is a mistranslation in an interview.

More here and here if you need it.

Back when I lived in England, both sherry-drinking and beer-drinking intellectuals in the UK used to deride the British Tory part as “the stupid party”. Today British intellectuals boast that whatever their Tories may be, they're not as crazy as the US Republican party. They don't give people with burglary convictions radio shows in the UK either.

Posted in Law: Constitutional Law, Politics: Tinfoil | 8 Comments