DOCSLIB.ORG

Congress' Constitutional Role in Protecting Religious Liberty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congress' Constitutional Role in Protecting Religious Liberty S. HRG. 105-405 CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON EXAMINING CONGRESS' ROLE IN PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN THE CASE OF CITY OF BOERNE v. FLORES IN WHICH THE COURT HELD THE RELI­ GIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT AS APPLIED TO THE STATES OCTOBER 1, 1997 Serial No. J-105-55 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Legislative Office MAIN LIBRARY U.S. Dept. of Justice U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 47-217 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-056351-8 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MIKE DEWINE, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator from the State of Utah 1 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts 48 Ashcroft, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri 51 CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES Panel consisting of Douglas Laycock, Alice McKean Young regents chair in law, University of Texas, Austin, TX; Michael Stokes Paulsen, associate professor of law, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Erwin Chemerinsky, Sydney M. Irmas professor of law and political science, Uni­ versity of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; and Daniel O. Conkle, professor of law and Nelson Poynter senior scholar, Indiana University- Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 4 ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIALS SUBMITTED Chemerinsky, Erwin: Testimony 27 Prepared statement 28 Conkle, Daniel O.: Testimony 29 Prepared statement 31 Laycock, Douglas: Testimony 4 Prepared statement 5 Paulsen, Michael Stokes: Testimony 13 Prepared statement 14 APPENDIX QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Douglas Laycock to questions from Senators: Hatch 55 Kyl 62 Kennedy 63 Thurmond 66 Responses of Michael Stokes Paulsen to questions from Senators Hatch and Kennedy 67 Responses of Erwin Chemerinsky to questions from Senators: Hatch 69 Kyl 76 Kennedy 78 Responses of Daniel O. Conkle to questions from Senators: Hatch 79 Kyl 86 Kennedy 87 (III) CONGRESS' CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE IN PROTECTING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1997 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch (chairman of the committee) presiding. Also present: Senators Kyl, Ashcroft, Abraham, Kennedy, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH The CHAIRMAN. I am sorry it has taken us 5 minutes late to get this going, but we have a lot of things we have to resolve and it is the end of the session, so it is just kind of a miserable experience around here. Good morning, and welcome to all of you. We are here this morn­ ing to begin our discussion of what Congress may do to protect reli­ gious liberty in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of City of Boerne v. Flores, in which the Court held the Reli­ gious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] unconstitutional under the 14th amendment as applied to the States. Now, I think it is fitting to note that we open this new chapter in the constitutional dialog with the Court on the eve of Rosh Ha­ shana, when Jews will be celebrating the beginning of the new year and embarking upon a period of reflection. I hope that this will also mark a new beginning in the history of religious freedom in our country as we reflect on the recent developments in the law of reli­ gious liberty. I hope that we will begin here to make substantial steps toward greater deference to religious belief and practice, and that govern­ ment at all levels will work to increase the freedom of believers to live their religions unburdened by the heavy hand of government. At the opening of this conversation today, we should remember how we got here. We start with the fact that the first freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is the freedom to believe and prac­ tice that belief as we wish without government interference. This promise of the freedom of worship is, for many, the country's found­ ing and guiding principle, the Pilgrims' reason for braving thou- sands and thousands of miles of dark and dangerous seas and countless privations just to arrive here, and privations when they got here. (1) 2 As one scholar has noted, "While only a few important immi­ grants bear the name Pilgrim in American myth, most of the new arrivals [in America] came as Pilgrims from other lands—and Pil­ grims they have remained * * *." The constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion for all has been a beacon to the world throughout our history. Of the relationship between religious liberty and civil govern­ ment, James Madison, the principal architect of the Bill of Rights and their prime mover in the Congress, once wrote, It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society * * *. [E]very man who be- comes a member of any particular Civil Society, [must] do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Re­ ligion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society, and that Reli­ gion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. This acknowledgment of the precedence of duty to God over de­ mands of a civil society or government was the Founders' vision and is the source of this Nation's beacon to Pilgrims throughout the world. It stands in stark contrast to the recent pronouncements of the Supreme Court in such cases as Employment Division v. Smith. The Smith decision effected a change in the law governing free ex­ ercise claims, holding that, as a general matter, neutral and gen­ erally applicable laws will be upheld against free exercise chal­ lenges, no matter how onerous the burden on religious practice, un­ less a claimant can show his or her case falls within a number of exceptions or limitations. Now, I believe we can do better for religious liberty than this. The Supreme Court has invited us to enact legislation solicitous of the constitutional value of religious liberty in the Smith decision it- self. It said, Values that are protected against government interference through enshrinement in the Bill of Rights are not thereby banished from the political process. Just as a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to the press by the first amendment is likely to enact laws that affirmatively foster the dissemination of the printed word, so also a society that believes in the negative protection accorded to religious belief can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation as well. Now, in response to this invitation, the Congress passed the Reli­ gious Freedom Restoration Act, popularly known as RFRA, with only three dissenting votes in the entire Congress. In the recent City of Boerne case, however, the Court decided that RFRA went beyond Congress' power under the 14th amendment as applied to the States. The City of Boerne decision was, to say the least, a deep dis­ appointment to us in Congress and to all Americans who care about religious liberty and freedom. More disappointing was the fact that the decision was not a model of clarity, so we have sought the input of many legal scholars to assist us in divining the appro­ priate bounds of our power. Hence, we are here to discuss what options the Congress has be- fore it, given the current state of Supreme Court jurisprudence. I think we in Congress are willing to do all we can to work with the Supreme Court in fashioning appropriate protections for religious liberty, but we need to know just what options we have, given the 3 Court's current posture. We also need to continue the discussion with the Court about our respective roles as co-equal branches op­ erating under the Constitution. I think it would be best if we could ultimately work with the Court rather than against it to protect the religious liberty of our people. In addition to serious work being done in Congress to protect re­ ligious liberty with appropriate Federal legislation, I believe other parts of government should also work toward real and meaningful protections for religious liberty within their spheres of action. The Supreme Court should be given ample opportunity to rethink its decision in Smith, and I would hope that all levels of government would do their utmost to see that their actions do not impinge upon the religious liberties of our people. Now, because of time constraints, because we are going to have a vote at 11 o'clock and I have to leave then for the White House, we will submit members' statement for the record and we will ask witnesses to limit their statements to 3 minutes.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate One Hundred Sixth Congress First Session
    S. HRG. 106-673 OVERSIGHT OF FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE: ITS ROLE IN FIGHTING CRIME HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON FEDERAL ASSET FORFEITURE, FOCUSING ON ITS ROLE IN FIGHTING CRIME AND THE NEED FOR REFORM OF THE ASSET FORFEITURE LAWS JULY 21, 1999 Serial No. J-106-38 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary Department of Justice NOV30 2000 MAIN LIBRARY U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66-959 CC WASHINGTON : 2000 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire MANUS COONEY, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE OVERSIGHT STROM THURMOND, South Carolina, Chairman MIKE DEWINE, Ohio CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont GARRY MALPHRUS, Chief Counsel GLEN SHOR, Legislative Assistant (II) CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER Page Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina 1 DeWine, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio 3 Schumer, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominations Submitted to the Senate
    Administration of George W. Bush, 2005 27 Government to discuss the upcoming elec- he met with Chairman Connie Mack and tions in Iraq. He then had an intelligence Vice Chairman John B. Breaux of the Presi- briefing. dent’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform Later in the morning, the President trav- and Secretary of the Treasury John W. Snow. eled to Collinsville, IL, arriving in the after- Later in the morning, the President trav- noon. Upon arrival, he met with USA Free- eled to Clinton Township, MI, arriving in the dom Corps volunteer Connie Bergmann. afternoon. While en route aboard Air Force Later in the afternoon, the President re- One, he had a telephone conversation with turned to Washington, DC. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John The President announced his intention to C. Danforth to discuss the situation in Sudan. name Claude A. Allen as Assistant to the Upon arrival in Clinton Township, the Presi- President for Domestic Policy. dent met with USA Freedom Corps volun- The President announced that he has teer Don Kotchman. named Daniel Bartlett as Counselor to the Later in the afternoon, the President re- President. turned to Washington, DC. The President announced that he has The President announced his intention to named Nicolle Devenish as Assistant to the appoint the following individuals as members President for Communications. of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform: Connie Mack III (Chairman); January 6 John B. Breaux (Vice Chairman); William In the morning, the President had a tele- Eldridge Frenzel; Elizabeth Garrett; Edward phone conversation with President Mikheil P.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wen Ho Lee Matter Joint Hearing
    THE WEN HO LEE MATTER JOINT HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT'COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION THE WEN HO LEE MATTER SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 70-ME WASHINGTON: 2001 SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada, Vice Chairman RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana BOB GRAHAM, Florida JON KYL, Arizona JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma MAX BAUCUS, Montana ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia PAT ROBERTS, Kansas FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado CARL LEVIN, Michigan CONNIE MACK, Florida TRENT LOTT, Mississippi, Ex Officio THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota, Ex Officio COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERB KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DEWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire (11) CONTENTS Page Hearing held in Washington, DC, September 26, 2000 . ........................................ 1 Statement of: Bay, Norman, C., U.S. Attorney, District of New Mexico ............. ................ 27 Bryan, Hon. Richard H., U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada ......... ....... 4 Freeh, Hon. Louis J., Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation .......... ....... 28 Glauthier, Hon. T.J., Deputy Secretary of Energy .................... .................... 42 Grassley, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa .......... ....... 13 Hatch, Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate on Birthright Citizenship
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2011 Debate on Birthright Citizenship John Eastman Dr. Chapman University Fowler School of Law, [email protected] Ediberto Román Florida International University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation John Eastman Dr. and Ediberto Román, Debate on Birthright Citizenship , 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 (2011). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/304 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 6 FIU L. Rev. 293 2010-2011 Provided by: FIU College of Law Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Jun 22 14:05:02 2017 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. Debate on Birthright Citizenship Dr. John Eastman*& Professor Ediberto Roman' Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University School of Law, specializing in Constitutional Law and Legal History. He also served as Dean from 2007 to 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a campaign for Califor- nia Attorney General. He is also the founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Juris- prudence, a public interest law firm affiliated with the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment Erwin Chemerinsky
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 44 | Issue 4 Article 7 1-1993 History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment Erwin Chemerinsky Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Erwin Chemerinsky, History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment, 44 Hastings L.J. 901 (1993). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol44/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment by ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* Introduction My advice to an attorney litigating a case before the current Supreme Court is to buy a copy of Blackstone's history of the common law or at least a good book on legal history. In virtually every area of constitutional law, the Supreme Court increasingly is relying on tradition as its guide in decisionmaking. Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has de- nied constitutional protection by holding that the claimed right was not historically protected. The Court is often explicit in stating that rights should be protected only if there has been a tradition of judicial safe- guards, and its analysis frequently is accompanied by a lengthy exegesis on common-law practices. I believe that this is a perverse and undesirable method of interpret- ing the Constitution. What has been done in the past cannot answer normatively what the law should be in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Ethics
    642 THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS IDEOLOGY, JUDICIAL SELECTION AND JUDICIAL ETHICS ERWIN CHEMERINSKY Reprinted from THE GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF LEGAL ETHICS Volume 2, Number 3, Winter 1989 Copyright © 1989 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 643 Ideology, Judicial Selection and Judicial Ethics ERWIN CHEMERINSKY* In the fail of 1986, there was a bitter fight against the retention of three members of the California Supreme Court, Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin, and Cruz Reynoso. Exactly a year later, the nation's attention focused on the battle over Robert Bork's confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. There were ironic parallels between these two events. In both instances, pub- lic opinion and media reporting played an unprecedented role in the judicial selection process. In each situation, there were arguments over whether the candidates' ideology should be a major factor in the evaluations. Liberals in California argued that assuring judicial inde- pendence required that the evaluation be limited to the justices' competence; that the individuals' ideology and prior votes should play no role in the re- tention election. But the sides were reversed in tflMMMMBtfMHMMWM the liberals who ^rgUcd that B<^^^~^v^ml^giig^t^bmtKHmmK tiv&jfem••91& prior votes asri^Bi^gJHBB^rtii^ Conservatives argued that evaluation should be limited to the nominee's competence—that his ide- ology and prior votes should play no role in the Senate's confirmation decision. A cynic might observe that these experiences reflect a pattern of public rhetoric. If jjnp |n nil kill liriHTfihi liiffti jiniiWHi iilmii ni'^nTiTfrrMTITri'P as an issue in your arguments; bat if your candidate's positions ate against the weight of public opinion, you maintain that ideology is irrelevant and that judicial candidates should be evaluated solely on the basis of profes- sional qualifications.
    [Show full text]
  • OPINION and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J
    FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C. LOGAN, in his official capacity as Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk for the County of Los Angeles, Defendants, 1569 1570 PERRY v. BROWN HAK-SHING WILLIAM TAM, Intervenor-Defendant, and DENNIS HOLLINGSWORTH; GAIL J. No. 10-16696 KNIGHT; MARTIN F. GUTIERREZ; D.C. No. MARK A. JANSSON; 3:09-cv-02292- PROTECTMARRIAGE.COM-YES ON 8, VRW A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RENEWAL, as official proponents of Proposition 8, Intervenor-Defendants-Appellants. KRISTIN M. PERRY; SANDRA B. STIER; PAUL T. KATAMI; JEFFREY J. ZARRILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his official capacity as Governor of California; KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official capacity as Attorney General of California; MARK B. HORTON, in his official capacity as Director of the California Department of Public Health & State Registrar of Vital Statistics; PERRY v. BROWN 1571 LINETTE SCOTT, in her official capacity as Deputy Director of Health Information & Strategic Planning for the California Department of Public Health; PATRICK O’CONNELL, in his official capacity as Clerk-Recorder for the County of Alameda; DEAN C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Honorable Spencer Abraham the Secretary of Energy U.S
    The Honorable Spencer Abraham The Secretary of Energy U.S. Department of Energy Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20585 18 April, 2002 Dear Secretary Abraham: A year ago, my center wrote asking you what nuclear technology the Department of Energy was contemplating transferring to the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea (DPRK) to help in the construction, licensing, and operation of two promised U.S.- designed light water nuclear power reactors. On May 21, 2001, you wrote that you had authorized the transfer to DPRK entities of U.S. nuclear technology "necessary for the licensing and safe operation of the reactors" but had specifically excluded "technology enabling design or manufacture of nuclear components or fuel." In light of the events of September 11th and revelations that Al Qeada terrorists considered sabotaging U.S. and European nuclear power stations and planned to acquire nuclear weapons, other U.S. nuclear agencies have since concluded that sensitive nuclear technology now also includes information relating to reactor licensing, safety and operations training. In specific, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recently announced restrictions on U.S. citizens' access to preliminary safety analyses of U.S. reactors that the NRC has on file. The NRC's concern is that in the wrong hands, this information could help terrorists to develop nuclear weapons production capabilities or to attack large nuclear power stations. The later would risk national disruption of electrical power production and the widespread release of radiation. Presumably, this is why the U.S. continues to oppose Russia's operations and safety training of Iranian nuclear operators and why Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently voiced concerns about the vulnerability of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Professor of Law UC Berkeley Law School
    The Bay Area Bankruptcy Forum and our Co-sponsors Present Round-up of Current Supreme Court Cases - Focusing on Those Most Important to Bankruptcy Lawyers and Accountants Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean, Professor of Law UC Berkeley Law School Erwin Chemerinsky became the 13th Dean of Berkeley Law on July 1, 2017, when he joined the faculty as the Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law. Prior to assuming this position, from 2008-2017, he was the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science. Before that he was the Alston and Bird Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke University from 2004-2008, and from 1983- 2004 was a professor at the University of Southern California Law School, including as the Sydney M. Irmas Professor of Public Interest Law, Legal Ethics, and Political Science. He also has taught at DePaul College of Law and UCLA Law School. He teaches Constitutional Law, First Amendment Law, Federal Courts, Criminal Procedure, and Appellate Litigation. He is the author of ten books, including The Case Against the Supreme Court, published by Viking in 2014, and two books published by Yale University Press in 2017, Closing the Courthouse Doors: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable and Free Speech on Campus (with Howard Gillman). He also is the author of more than 200 law review articles. He writes a weekly column for the Orange County Register, monthly columns for the ABA Journal and the Daily Journal, and frequent op-eds in newspapers across the country.
    [Show full text]
  • George W. Bush Presidential Records in Response to the Systematic Processing Project and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests Listed in Attachment A
    VIA EMAIL (LM 2019-110) July 26, 2019 The Honorable Pat A. Cipollone Counsel to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20502 Dear Mr. Cipollone: In accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA), as amended, 44 U.S.C. §§2201-2209, this letter constitutes a formal notice from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to the incumbent President of our intent to open George W. Bush Presidential records in response to the systematic processing project and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests listed in Attachment A. This material, consisting of 46,940 pages, 21,657 assets and 6 video clips, has been reviewed for the six PRA Presidential restrictive categories, including confidential communications requesting or submitting advice (P5) and material related to appointments to federal office (P2), as they were eased by President George W. Bush on November 15, 2010. These records were also reviewed for all applicable FOIA exemptions. As a result of this review, 6,246 pages and 4,892 assets in whole and 844 pages and 530 assets in part have been restricted. Therefore, NARA is proposing to open the remaining 39,850 pages, 16,235 assets and 6 video clips that do not require closure under 44 U.S.C. § 2204. A copy of any records proposed for release under this notice will be provided to you upon your request. We are also concurrently informing former President George W. Bush’s representative, Freddy Ford, of our intent to release these records. Pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2208(a), NARA will release the records 60 working days from the date of this letter, which is October 23, 2019, unless the former or incumbent President requests a one-time extension of an additional 30 working days or asserts a constitutionally based privilege, in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Senators 1837-2009
    FORMER MEMBERS OF THE U.S. CONGRESS FROM MICHIGAN U.S. SENATORS, 1837-2009 Lucius Lyon (D)1.................. 1836-1840 John Patton, Jr. (R) . 1894-1895 John Norvell1 . 1836-1841 Julius C. Burrows (R) . 1895-1911 Augustus S. Porter2 ................ 1840-1845 Russell A. Alger (R)9 . 1902-1907 William Woodbridge (W) . 1841-1847 William Alden Smith (R) . 1907-1919 Lewis Cass (D)3 . 1845-1848 Charles Elroy Townsend (R)10 . 1911-1923 Alpheus Felch (D) . 1847-1853 Truman H. Newberry (R)11 . 1919-1922 Thomas Fitzgerald (D) . 1848-1849 James Couzens (R)12 ............... 1922-1936 Lewis Cass (D) ................... 1849-1857 Woodbridge N. Ferris (D)13 . 1923-1928 Charles E. Stuart (D) ............... 1853-1859 Arthur H. Vandenberg (R)14 .......... 1928-1951 Zachariah Chandler (R) . 1857-1875 Prentiss M. Brown (D) . 1936-1943 Kinsley S. Bingham (R)4 . 1859-1861 Homer Ferguson (R) ............... 1943-1954 Jacob M. Howard (R) . 1862-1871 Blair Moody (D) .................. 1951-1953 Thomas W. Ferry (R) .............. 1871-1883 Charles E. Potter (R) ............... 1953-1959 Isaac P. Christiancy (R)5............. 1875-1879 Patrick V. McNamara (D)15........... 1955-1966 Zachariah Chandler (R)6 . 1879-1979 Philip A. Hart (D)16 ................ 1959-1976 Henry P. Baldwin (R) . 1879-1881 Robert P. Griffin (R) . 1966-1979 Omar D. Conger (R) ............... 1881-1887 Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (D) . 1976-1994 Thomas W. Palmer (R) . 1883-1889 Carl Levin (D) ................... 1979-1979 Francis B. Stockbridge (R)7 . 1887-1894 Spencer Abraham (R) . 1995-2000 James McMillan (R)8 . 1889-1902 Debbie Stabenow (D) .............. 2001-1979 Political Party Designations D — Democrat R — Republican W — Whig Information on party affiliation was not always available; therefore, some individuals may be listed without this data.
    [Show full text]
  • Biofuels News, Spring/Summer 2001, Vol. 4, No. 2
    N THE EDERAL RONT New Administration Boosts Ethanol O F F In a decision that is expected to have a huge impact on the ethanol industry, the U.S. Environmental Protection New Faces at Agency (EPA) has decided that California must abide by the DOE headquarters Clean Air Act requirement for oxygenates in reformulated news gasoline. California had petitioned EPA to waive the BiofuelsVolume 4, Number 2 Summer 2001 requirement because widespread water pollution is forcing Spencer Abraham – Secretary of Energy the state to phase out the use of the oxygenate MTBE. In January 2001, the U.S. Senate confirmed Ethanol is considered the obvious choice for replacing David Garman, the new Assistant Spencer Abraham as Secretary of Energy. MTBE in California. FOCUS ON… Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Abraham previously served as a senator from Analysts estimate that the California oxygenate market Renewable Energy (right), expressed the state of Michigan, as a member of the will need about 580 million gallons of ethanol each year to strong support for renewable energy National Energy during a June visit to the National Budget, Commerce, Science and Transporta- replace MTBE. According to the Renewable Fuels Association, tion, and Judiciary and Small Business com- Renewable Energy Laboratory the EPA ruling has already had an impact on ethanol plant Policy and Biofuels (NREL). Garman toured NREL and mittees, and chair of the Manufacturing and construction with new plants being planned to begin con- spoke to staff about the budget and Competitiveness and Immigration Subcommittees. struction this year in Iowa, South Dakota, and Minnesota. his goals.
    [Show full text]