WORK EXPERIENCE Curriculum Vitae of JAMIN B. RASKIN 6/90
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and All Delegates to the Democratic National Convention
Letter to the Democratic National Committee, the DNC Rules Committee, and all delegates to the Democratic National Convention: The undersigned organizations hope that all Democrats agree that the will of the voters should be decisive in determining the Democratic nominees for the country’s highest offices. We therefore urge the Democratic Party – via action at this month’s Democratic National Convention – to eliminate the concept of so-called “superdelegates.” This change would not impact the ongoing nomination proceedings, but would take effect for all future national nominee selection processes and conventions. The superdelegate system is unrepresentative, contradicts the purported values of the party and its members, and reduces the party’s moral authority. • The system undermines representative democracy and means that the electorate is not necessarily decisive in determining who will be the Democratic nominees for president and vice president and dilutes the voters’ say over the party’s platform and the rules under which it operates. Astonishingly, these unelected delegates have essentially as much weight as do the pledged delegates from the District of Columbia, 4 territories, and 24 states combined. • The system undermines the Democratic Party's commitment to gender equity. While the party’s charter rightfully mandates that equal numbers of pledged delegates be male and female, a near super-majority of superdelegates are men. • The Democratic Party prides itself on its commitment to racial justice and the racial diversity of its ranks. Yet the superdegelates appears to skew the party away from appropriate representation of communities of color: Proportionately, approximately 20% fewer of this year’s superdelegates hail from communities of color than was true of the 2008 and 2012 pledged delegate cohorts, or of the voters who supported President Obama in those years’ general elections. -
The Charter the Bylaws
THE CHARTER & THE BYLAWS OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES As Amended by The Democratic National Committee August 25, 2018 CONTENTS CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES 1 PREAMBLE 1 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ The Democratic Party of the United States of America 2 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... National Convention 3 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Democratic National Committee 5 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... Executive Committee 5 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... National Chairperson 6 ARTICLE SIX.......................................... Party Conference 6 ARTICLE SEVEN ................................... National Finance Organizations 6 ARTICLE EIGHT..................................... Full Participation 7 ARTICLE NINE ....................................... General Provisions 9 ARTICLE TEN ........................................ Amendments, Bylaws, and Rules 9 RESOLUTION OF ADOPTION BYLAWS Adopted Pursuant to the Charter of the Democratic Party of the United States 11 ARTICLE ONE ........................................ Democratic National Convention 11 ARTICLE TWO ....................................... Democratic National Committee 20 ARTICLE THREE ................................... Executive Committee 22 ARTICLE FOUR ..................................... National Finance Organizations 22 ARTICLE FIVE ....................................... Amendments i CHARTER CHARTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE -
Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors
History of MACo 5 Executive Secretaries & Executive Directors Robert Lovelace: June 1960 - November 1961 Bill Ratchford: November 1961 - October 1962 Thomas Kelly: October 1962 - January 1964 Bill Ratchford: January 1964 - November 1968 Joe Murnane: November 1968 - May 1978 Wallace “Wally” Hutton: October 1978 - July 1981 Althea “Tee” O'Connor: September 1981 - August 1985 Raquel Sanudo: June 1985 - June 1991 David Bliden: July 1991 - Present Since the first Executive Director was hired in 1960, the men and women who have held that position have come from varied career backgrounds. The responsibilities of the position have changed and duties have been expanded and diversified. Similarly, the MACo staff has grown, from the charter staff of Executive Secretary Lovelace and a stenographer, to the seven staff members who serve the organization today. Each Executive Director has not only redefined the position, but, along with his or her staff, has helped to shape and develop MACo itself. Robert Lovelace As discussed in the previous chapter, Robert Lovelace, a former city manager, began his duties with the Association upon the establishment of the Symons Hall office beginning June 1, 1960. Per the agreement with the University of Maryland, he joined their staff as a lecturer in American Government. As the first Executive Secretary, as it was then called, Lovelace set the pace and provided a basic structure for those that would come after him. As is the case today, in 1960 the SACCOM Board was made up of county officials for whom Association service was only one aspect of their responsibilities; Lovelace was the first person involved with the organization that could focus wholly on its development. -
Final Environmental Impact Statement Future Development and Operations
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONS FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, MARYLAND June 2001 Fort George G. Meade, Maryland Directorate of Public Works Environmental Management Office Fort Meade, Maryland 20755 U.S. Army Military District of Washington Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, D.C. 20319 .... FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAcrSTATMENT···- LEAD AGENCY: Department of the Army, Military District of Washington. TITLE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: Future Development and Operations Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. AFFECTED JURISDICTION: State of Maryland, Anne Arundel and Howard Counties. PROPONENT REVIEWED BY: Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Management Office, Fort Meade, Maryland 20755. REVIEWED BY: U.S. Army Military District of Washington, Fort Lesley J. McNair, Washington, D.C. 20319. END OF WAITING PERIOD AFTER FILING: 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. ABSTRACT: An environmental assessment (EA) prepared in April 1999 determined that potentially significant adverse impacts to traffic and air quality could result from the proposed future development and operations at Fort Meade. Pursuant to NEPA, this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was undertaken to evaluate, in detail, the environmental and socioeconomic effects of future development and operations at the installation, specifically planned new construction and associated demolition activities. The Proposed Action includes development and operations expected to occur on the installation between 2001 and 2005. To provide the specificity needed for reasonable predictions of environmental consequences, 11 projects were identified by the Fort Meade Master Planner for consideration within the Proposed Action as being representative of the expected build out. Alternative A consists of constructing 9 of the 11 projects, excluding the two projects least likely to occur; their elimination reduces the number of additional personnel by 272, or 30 percent of the 912 additional personnel included in the Proposed Action. -
Biggest Event of the Year for All Maryland Lawyers
BIGGEST EVENT OF THE YEAR FOR ALL MARYLAND LAWYERS LEGAL SUMMIT & ANNUAL MEETING MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION2019 June 12-15, 2019 ● Ocean City, MD A supplement to Conference schedule of events supplied by the MSBA Welcome to the 2019 MSBA Legal Summit & Annual Meeting in Ocean City, Maryland! Our Board, Sections, Committees, and staff have worked extremely hard to bring you an action packed week, filled with programs for all members of the legal profession! The 2019 MSBA Legal Summit & Annual Meeting will kick-off atnoon on Wednesday, June 12, 2019 with pre-conference workshops. At 1 pm, we will introduce our slate of keynote speakers, including Former United States Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein, Maryland Attorney General, Brian Frosh, D.C. Attorney General, Karl A. Racine, Former Maryland Attorney General, Doug Gansler and Officers CNN Chief Legal Analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. We will also be hosting family friendly events and health & wellness seminars at this time. Wednesday evening will feature Hon. Keith R. Truffer a host of networking opportunities, including the First-Time Attendees Reception, the Welcome Reception, and a fan favorite, the Crab Feast at Hooper’s Crab House President (additional ticketed event - transport provided). On Thursday and Friday, you’ll find a multitude of programs relevant to your Dana O. Williams practice, your sector of the legal profession, and your career. In addition, we will be President-Elect featuring a “Thought Leader Series” to provide programming on emerging areas of law, panels from various legal sector, and perspectives on issues facing the legal profession. As always, networking opportunities and family friendly events are Deborah L. -
Harvard Law Today
Ruling out Risk? | Harvard Law Today http://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/ruling-risk/ http://today.harvard.edu In 20 years as a bank regulatory lawyer, Robin Maxwell ’85 has encountered nothing quite as complicated as the Volcker Rule, the 2010 financial overhaul law provision designed to limit risk-taking on Wall Street. So when the five U.S. banking regulators approved the final version last December, Maxwell shut the door of her midtown Manhattan office, did her best to ignore the phone and emails, and started to read. For three days, Maxwell pored over the 71-page rule and nearly 900-page preamble, trying to figure out what was different from an earlier version, which had attracted withering criticism on Wall Street. “This was just a huge new piece of incredibly important regulation essentially coming down at 1 of 7 6/17/2014 3:31 PM Ruling out Risk? | Harvard Law Today http://today.law.harvard.edu/feature/ruling-risk/ once,” says Maxwell, who heads Linklaters’ U.S. financial regulation group. “It’s an interesting and challenging time.” Three and a half years after President Barack Obama ’91 signed the Dodd-Frank Act into law, directing regulators to develop the Volcker Rule, banks finally had the final language detailing how regulators intended to limit banks’ ability to trade on their own money and invest in hedge funds. But the work was just beginning for banking lawyers such as Maxwell, who estimates she has spent 90 percent of her time since December helping client banks figure out what the final rule means and how to comply with it. -
A History of Maryland's Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016
A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 A History of Maryland’s Electoral College Meetings 1789-2016 Published by: Maryland State Board of Elections Linda H. Lamone, Administrator Project Coordinator: Jared DeMarinis, Director Division of Candidacy and Campaign Finance Published: October 2016 Table of Contents Preface 5 The Electoral College – Introduction 7 Meeting of February 4, 1789 19 Meeting of December 5, 1792 22 Meeting of December 7, 1796 24 Meeting of December 3, 1800 27 Meeting of December 5, 1804 30 Meeting of December 7, 1808 31 Meeting of December 2, 1812 33 Meeting of December 4, 1816 35 Meeting of December 6, 1820 36 Meeting of December 1, 1824 39 Meeting of December 3, 1828 41 Meeting of December 5, 1832 43 Meeting of December 7, 1836 46 Meeting of December 2, 1840 49 Meeting of December 4, 1844 52 Meeting of December 6, 1848 53 Meeting of December 1, 1852 55 Meeting of December 3, 1856 57 Meeting of December 5, 1860 60 Meeting of December 7, 1864 62 Meeting of December 2, 1868 65 Meeting of December 4, 1872 66 Meeting of December 6, 1876 68 Meeting of December 1, 1880 70 Meeting of December 3, 1884 71 Page | 2 Meeting of January 14, 1889 74 Meeting of January 9, 1893 75 Meeting of January 11, 1897 77 Meeting of January 14, 1901 79 Meeting of January 9, 1905 80 Meeting of January 11, 1909 83 Meeting of January 13, 1913 85 Meeting of January 8, 1917 87 Meeting of January 10, 1921 88 Meeting of January 12, 1925 90 Meeting of January 2, 1929 91 Meeting of January 4, 1933 93 Meeting of December 14, 1936 -
What's Wrong with Bush V. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure It Never Happens Again Jamin B
Maryland Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 7 What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again Jamin B. Rasking Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr Part of the Politics Commons Recommended Citation Jamin B. Rasking, What's Wrong with Bush v. Gore and Why We Need to Amend the Constitution to Ensure it Never Happens Again, 61 Md. L. Rev. 652 (2002) Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mlr/vol61/iss3/7 This Conference is brought to you for free and open access by the Academic Journals at DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHAT'S WRONG WITH BUSH V. GORE AND WHY WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO ENSURE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN JAMIN B. RASKIN* I. Disenfranchisement as Remedy, Vote-Counting as H arm ................................................... 652 A. A Political Question Raised By a Candidate Without Standing ............................................ 653 B. And If It Had Been Gore v. Bush? ................... 660 C. Bush v. Gore: Hypocrisy and Reaction; Moral Expressivism and Legal Realism .................... 668 1. Moral Realism and Moral Expressivism ......... 670 2. Moral Realism and Legal Realism at Odds ...... 673 3. Hypocrites or Reactionaries ..................... 676 II. The People's Missing Right to Vote ..................... 679 A. The Missing Right to Vote in House and Senate Elections: Disenfranchisement in the District ....... 682 B. Territorial Subjects: The People of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam ............ -
Nancy Green Speech February 3 2009
Nancy Greens Campaign Speech for the election of Chapter Chair of the Berlin Chapter of Democrats Abroad Germany on February 3, 2009 Barack Obama has been elected president …Wow… How did this happen? It was no accident!! Of course there are many factors that lead to the outcome of this historic election … which will be analyzed at the local Stammtisch and by scholars and institutions far into the future. One thing I can say from my perspective here in Berlin is. We had something to do with it. And people like us had something to do with it. From Berlin and Munich, Heidelberg, and Landstuhl, to Rome, Vancouver, London, Madrid, Ukraine, Lebanon and Israel, to Denver…. Democrats all over the world had something to do with the outcome of this election. We also had some help …. George Bush…. Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld John McCain… I could go on and on, but I only have 10 minutes… The missteps of the Republican Party are one major factor. Other factors include the Organization of the Democratic Party the Obama Campaign, The leadership of Howard Dean and people like us at the grass-roots. Then there is Barack Obama himself, who has inspired millions. Change has come about because we have had leadership. We are here because we care about our country and, adhering to the basic principles of the Democratic Party, we want to bring about changes in our nation’s policies regarding, to name only some the economy, health care, education, the environment, equal rights, scientific research, support for the arts, foreign policy, Iraq, Quantanemo and Habeus Corpus. -
Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education: Conversation Series
Reclaiming the Promise of Public Education: Conversation Series School Integration by Race & Class: A Movement Reborn? June 7, 2017 | Noon to 2 p.m. Johanna Josaphat Johanna Josaphat is a Founding Teacher at The Urban Assembly Unison School in Brooklyn, NY. She has been a middle school teacher in the NYC Department of Educational since 2002. Prior to becoming a Middle School educator, Josaphat served as an Instructor of Developmental Reading for the NOAH Program at Hofstra University. She holds a BA in Psychology, M.S. Ed in Foundations of Education and a M.S. Ed in Elementary Education from Hofstra University. Throughout her career, Josaphat has served as a teacher leader in many capacities within her school communities. She has served as school data analyst, professional development facilitator, new teacher mentor, and content specialist. She participated in New York City and New York State assessments initiatives, and in teacher leadership programs through the United Federation of Teachers and the American Federation of Teachers. Josaphat has always strived to develop her professional practice with the intent to improve the quality of educational opportunities for all students. John B. King, Jr. John King is the president and CEO of The Education Trust, a national nonprofit organization that seeks to identify and close opportunity and achievement gaps, from preschool through college. King served as the U.S. Secretary of Education from 2016 to 2017 as a member of President Barack Obama’s administration. Before becoming education secretary and beginning in January 2015, King carried out the duties of the U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education, overseeing all policies and programs related to P-12 education, English learners, special education, and innovation and the agency’s operations. -
Rethinking the Boundaries of the Sixth Amendment Right to Choice of Counsel
RETHINKING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO CHOICE OF COUNSEL I. INTRODUCTION Criminal defense is personal business. For this reason, the Consti- tution’s ample procedural protections for criminal defendants are writ- ten not just to provide a fair trial, but also to put the defendant in con- trol of his own defense. Courts and commentators alike have rec- ognized that the constitutional vision of liberty requires not only protection for the accused, but also the right of the accused to speak and act for himself.1 The Sixth Amendment also reflects the common understanding that the assistance of counsel can be crucial — even necessary — to effective defense,2 but its language and structure nev- ertheless make clear that the rights and their exercise belong to the de- fendant himself, not his lawyer.3 The right to the assistance of counsel has many facets, but its most ancient and fundamental element is the defendant’s right to counsel of his own choosing. Indeed, the Supreme Court has identified choice of counsel as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee.”4 Yet ac- tual choice-of-counsel doctrine gives the state broad authority to inter- fere with the exercise of this right. For example, a defendant may not choose an advocate whose representation creates a potential conflict of interest for the defendant, even if the defendant knowingly and intelli- gently waives any objection to the potential conflict,5 and a defendant has no right to be represented by an advocate who is not a current member of a state bar association.6 The remedy for a choice-of- ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1 See, e.g., Faretta v. -
The Washington Post September 16, 1996, Monday No Place for Perot In
The Washington Post September 16, 1996, Monday No Place for Perot In the Debates David J. Garrow OP-ED; Pg. A19 LENGTH: 672 words The Commission on Presidential Debates is to decide soon whether Reform Party nominee Ross Perot and running mate Pat Choate will be included in the presidential and vice-presidential debates that are scheduled to begin next week. Commission members say their top criterion for inclusion is whether a ticket has a "realistic" chance of winning. By that standard as by others, there ought to be no debate: Neither Ross Perot nor Pat Choate is a realistic -- or even plausible -- president of the United States. Recent national opinion surveys show the Perot-Choate ticket drawing only 5 percent support -- a far cry from the 19 percent that Perot ended up with after his on-and-off campaign in 1992. What's more, monthly polls in crucial states where Perot and Choate's Buchanan-like message of economic protectionism ought to be popular show that Perot's support has been dropping like a stone. In Michigan, Perot's 19 percent backing in July fell to 10 percent in August and to just 4 percent in early September. Indeed, it's hard to envision any state where Perot-Choate could challenge Dole-Kemp or Clinton-Gore even for second place, and there may be some, like Alaska and California, where either Libertarian nominee Harry Browne or Green Party candidate Ralph Nader could outdo Perot for third place. Perot's only hope for a chance at increased voter support is the commission.