DOCSLIB.ORG

An Examination of the Call to Censure the President

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Examination of the Call to Censure the President S. HRG. 109–524 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALL TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION MARCH 31, 2006 Serial No. J–109–66 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 28–341 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware MIKE DEWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma MICHAEL O’NEILL, Chief Counsel and Staff Director BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director (II) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC C O N T E N T S STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 13 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin ............. 6 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88 Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ......... 12 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 8 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 93 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4 prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 10 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 2 WITNESSES Casey, Lee A., Baker and Hostetler, Washington, D.C. ....................................... 19 Dean, John W., III, former White House Counsel, Beverly Hills, California ..... 21 Fein, Bruce, Fein and Fein, Washington, D.C. ..................................................... 17 Schmidt, John, Mayer, Brown Rowe and Maw, Chicago, Illinois ........................ 22 Turner, Robert F., Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia ............................................... 15 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Boston Herald, March 15, 2006, Boston, Massachusetts, editorial ..................... 55 Calabresi, Steven G., George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, North- western University, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement .............................. 56 Casey, Lee A., Baker and Hostetler, Washington, D.C., prepared statement .... 62 Chicago Tribune, March 20, 2006, Chicago, Illinois, editorial ............................. 72 Dean, John W., III, former White House Counsel, Beverly Hills, California, prepared statement .............................................................................................. 74 Fein, Bruce, Fein and Fein, Washington, D.C., prepared statement .................. 82 Fulton County Daily Report, October 13, 1998, Atlanta, Georgia, editorial ....... 90 New York Times, March 17, 2006, New York, New York, editorial .................... 98 San Diego Union-Tribune, March 16, 2006, San Diego, California, editorial ..... 99 Schmidt, John, Mayer, Brown Rowe and Maw, Chicago, Illinois, prepared statement and attachment .................................................................................. 100 Sunstein, Cass R., University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, Illinois, letter . 104 Turner, Robert F., Associate Director, Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, prepared statement ............ 107 University of Richmond Law Review Association, March 1999, Richmond, Virginia, essay ...................................................................................................... 123 (III) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC AN EXAMINATION OF THE CALL TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT FRIDAY, MARCH 31, 2006 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Arlen Specter, Chair- man of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Specter, Hatch, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Leahy, Kohl, and Feingold. Chairman SPECTER. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is 9:30. We will proceed with Senator Feingold’s resolution to censure the President. First, let me wish happy birthday to Senator Leahy. Senator LEAHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. At a little after six this morning, Marcelle and I were down at the Tidal Basin taking pictures, walking around. But I wanted to get back especially because a classmate of mine from Georgetown, Mr. Dean, is here. But it was beautiful down there. A lot of people asked for you. Chairman SPECTER. Excuse me, but why are you changing the subject from your birthday? Senator LEAHY. Because 66 is older. But it was gorgeous down there. I realize you want to get to the hearing, but I talked to all of the pages yesterday, those wonderful young men and women who serve us all on the Senate floor, and I urged them all to go down along the Tidal Basin because this is something they will re- member the rest of their lives. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will hush and let you run your hear- ing. Chairman SPECTER. Well, Senator Leahy, we do wish you a happy birthday. You have made the disclosure voluntarily that you are 66, and you have a lot to show for it. You are in your 32nd year in the U.S. Senate. Before that, you had an important job. You were district attorney of Burlington, Vermont. Pat and I have known each other since D.A. days back in the late 1960s. Senator LEAHY. We have, indeed. Chairman SPECTER. You have had a very distinguished record here, and it has been a very satisfying experience to work with you as Ranking for the past 14 months and I think we have a fair amount to show for that, too. (1) VerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:36 Aug 16, 2006 Jkt 028341 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\28341.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC 2 Senator LEAHY. Thank you. You are a dear friend, Mr. Chair- man, and I appreciate it. Thank you. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Chairman SPECTER. This is a very important hearing for several reasons. First of all, it will examine in some depth—in fact, in sub- stantial depth, the scope of the President’s wartime power under Article II of the Constitution. Second, it will examine the inter- relationship of Congressional power under Article I, and also the courts’ power under Article III, the interrelationship and the fa- mous opinion by Justice Jackson in the steel seizure case about the strength of Presidential authority when backed up by the Congress and the weakness of Presidential authority when not backed by the Congress. Although the President has extensive authority under Article I, the Congress has extensive authority in the premises under Article II. The point of the tradition of judicial review before the issuance of warrants for surveillance or search and seizure comes into play in this matter. On the merits, I have already expressed myself on the floor of the United States Senate. Some would say that the resolution by Senator Feingold to censure the President is frivolous. I am not prepared to say that, but I do think that there is no merit in it, but it provides a forum for the discussion of issues which really ought to be considered in greater depth than they have been. This is the fourth hearing that this Committee has had on this issue in March. That is a lot of hearings by the Judiciary Com- mittee when we have to wrestle with confirmations and immigra- tion. As we speak, immigration is on the floor, although not much will happen today because—well, we won’t go into that. We had the Attorney General, we had a panel of experts, we had former judges of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in a rather remarkable hearing, in my opinion. It wasn’t easy for them to come forward and speak on this subject, but they did so out of a deep sense of patriotism and out of a deep sense of judicial re- sponsibility to comment about warrantless searches and our effort to find some way to reconcile the issues of Presidential authority to protect this country, which is vital, from the terrorists with the rights of civil liberties. Those are big, big issues. I thought they would attract more attention. One of the major newspapers carried an extensive
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118
    Censure of Board Members Policy Code: 2118 It is the policy of the Board of Education that all Board members conduct themselves in a professional manner and in accordance with the Code of Ethics adopted by the Board. A "censure" under this policy is the process by which the Board of Education, acting by a two-thirds majority vote (i.e. five affirmative votes), can reprimand or condemn the actions of a member for any violation of law or policy or any other conduct committed by a Board member which tends to injure the good name of the Buncombe County Board of Education and/or undermines the effectiveness of the Buncombe County Schools or the Board of Education. A censure is an expression of formal disapproval by the Board. The Board, in addition to or in lieu of censure, may vote to 1) ask the member to resign or 2) refer possible misconduct by a Board member to the District Attorney as provided by law and/or 3) issue the Board member an official warning regarding future conduct. The Board of Education does not have the legal authority to remove a Board member from office. Therefore, any legal consequences or punitive sanctions related to a Board member’s actions shall be in accordance with applicable law and shall be separate and distinct from any censure proceeding under this Policy. In the event that a member of the Board of Education believes that a fellow Board member should be formally censured by the Board, the following protocol shall apply: 1) All Board proceedings related to a censure motion, with the exception of the disclosure of confidential information as permitted by the Open Meetings Law, shall be conducted in an open meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • War Powers for the 21St Century: the Constitutional Perspective
    WAR POWERS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY: THE CONSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 10, 2008 Serial No. 110–164 Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 41–756PDF WASHINGTON : 2008 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:32 May 14, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\IOHRO\041008\41756.000 Hintrel1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts STEVE CHABOT, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado DIANE E. WATSON, California RON PAUL, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington JEFF FLAKE, Arizona RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JOE WILSON, South Carolina GENE GREEN, Texas JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas CONNIE MACK, Florida RUBE´ N HINOJOSA, Texas JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MICHAEL T.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikileaks, the First Amendment and the Press by Jonathan Peters1
    WikiLeaks, the First Amendment and the Press By Jonathan Peters1 Using a high-security online drop box and a well-insulated website, WikiLeaks has published 75,000 classified U.S. documents about the war in Afghanistan,2 nearly 400,000 classified U.S. documents about the war in Iraq,3 and more than 2,000 U.S. diplomatic cables.4 In doing so, it has collaborated with some of the most powerful newspapers in the world,5 and it has rankled some of the most powerful people in the world.6 President Barack Obama said in July 2010, right after the release of the Afghanistan documents, that he was “concerned about the disclosure of sensitive information from the battlefield.”7 His concern spread quickly through the echelons of power, as WikiLeaks continued in the fall to release caches of classified U.S. documents. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the slow drip of diplomatic cables, saying it was “not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests, it [was] an attack on the 1 Jonathan Peters is a lawyer and the Frank Martin Fellow at the Missouri School of Journalism, where he is working on his Ph.D. and specializing in the First Amendment. He has written on legal issues for a variety of newspapers and magazines, and now he writes regularly for PBS MediaShift about new media and the law. E-mail: [email protected]. 2 Noam N. Levey and Jennifer Martinez, A whistle-blower with global resonance; WikiLeaks publishes documents from around the world in its quest for transparency, L.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport
    DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport These pages may be reproduced by parish and Diocesan staff for their use Policy promulgated at the Pastoral Center of the Diocese of Davenport–effective September 14, 2007 Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Revised November 27, 2011 Revised October 15, 2012 Most Reverend Martin Amos Bishop of Davenport TABLE OF CONTENTS §IV-249 POLICIES FOR IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT: INTRODUCTION 1 §IV-249.1 THE ROLE OF THE BISHOP 2 §IV-249.2 FACULTIES 3 §IV-249.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF MASS 4 §IV-249.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CELEBRATION OF THE OTHER SACRAMENTS AND RITES 6 §IV-249.5 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 6 APPENDICES Appendix A: Documentation Form 7 Appendix B: Resources 8 0 §IV-249 Policies for Implementing Summorum Pontificum in the Diocese of Davenport §IV-249 POLICIES IMPLEMENTING SUMMORUM PONTIFICUM IN THE DIOCESE OF DAVENPORT Introduction In the 1980s, Pope John Paul II established a way to allow priests with special permission to celebrate Mass and the other sacraments using the rites that were in use before Vatican II (the 1962 Missal, also called the Missal of John XXIII or the Tridentine Mass). Effective September 14, 2007, Pope Benedict XVI loosened the restrictions on the use of the 1962 Missal, such that the special permission of the bishop is no longer required. This action was taken because, as universal shepherd, His Holiness has a heart for the unity of the Church, and sees the option of allowing a more generous use of the Mass of 1962 as a way to foster that unity and heal any breaches that may have occurred after Vatican II.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Virginians, Five Generations Ago, My Ancestors Were Freed from the Shackles of Slavery
    REFORMING OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM Dear Virginians, Five generations ago, my ancestors were freed from the shackles of slavery. Just two generations ago, my grandfather, one of Virginia’s first Black lawyers, was forced by Jim Crow to obtain his law degree in the north. And my father was one of the first to integrate his elementary school in 1960. As I travel throughout the Commonwealth and stand as an elected official in the former capital of the Confederacy, I often wonder how my ancestors would feel, and what they would think, about their descendant who has the opportunity to be Virginia’s first Black Attorney General. I’m running for Attorney General because we’ve made progress in building a more fair and equitable Virginia, but we all know we have not come far enough. The vestiges of slavery and Jim Crow live on in our Commonwealth’s criminal code, in our judicial system, and in our policing. They criminalize Black and Brown communities and make every Virginian less safe. In order to embrace the new Virginia decade, we must build a justice system that works for everybody in our Commonwealth, not just a select few. We have arrived at a true moment of opportunity in our country and in our Commonwealth. We must elect leaders who will rise to that moment and seize the chance to create real change in our justice system, rather than continuing with those who have proven time and time again that they will only do the bare minimum to get by. For his entire career, Mark Herring has shown that he will follow when he has to, but he will not lead.
    [Show full text]
  • Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak out of School Randall T
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 29 | Number 3 Article 2 2002 Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak Out of School Randall T. Shepard Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Judges Commons Recommended Citation Randall T. Shepard, Telephone Justice, Pandering, and Judges Who Speak Out of School, 29 Fordham Urb. L.J. 811 (2002). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol29/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TELEPHONE JUSTICE, PANDERING, AND JUDGES WHO SPEAK OUT OF SCHOOL Randall T. Shepard* As Americans we pride ourselves on the rule of law and its sine qua non, an independent judiciary. In The FederalistNo. 78, Alex- ander Hamilton described judicial independence as "an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."1 In the course of reaffirming the special role of judicial indepen- dence in our own society, we routinely decry the "telephone jus- tice" practiced in some parts of the world. Before the Berlin Wall came down, crimes such as "infringing on the activities of the state" served as "the fig leaves of a system that didn't disguise its real purpose: executing the wishes of the state's Communist Party leadership and their secret police."' 3 Even as the world enters the twenty-first century, there are still nations where a judge can ex- pect to receive a call from a party boss or security officer with or- ders on how to decide a case.4 While most would agree that such overt interference is the an- tithesis of judicial independence, these are the easy cases.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shakespeare List Is a Group of 1625 Words That Have Appeared on Past SAT/PSAT Tests
    The Shakespeare List The Shakespeare List is a group of 1625 words that have appeared on past SAT/PSAT tests. Many of the words have appeared several times on past tests. This section lists the words in alphabetical order along with definitions, pronunciation guide, synonyms, antonyms, sentences, and derivatives. The definitions given here, sometimes the secondary meaning, are those used on past SAT/PSAT tests. For that reason, it is expedient to give the students these definitions that they are likely to be tested on, rather than have the students look the words up themselves in dictionaries and copy definitions of their choice. A pronunciation guide is a simplified method of indicating the pronunciation of words so that the student who is not familiar with phonetic symbols is not handicapped. The synonyms are included in this section as a prediction of words that may appear on future SAT/PSAT tests. If ETS, the creators of the SAT/PSAT, feels a particular word is important enough to put on the test, then perhaps they will also put the synonym of that word on future tests. The sentences were added to assist the student in seeing how the words are used in context The derivatives of the words are predictors of words on future tests. Often a variation of a word will appear on a test, so we want to expose the student to as many forms of the words as possible. Copyright 2005 © by Advanced Placement Strategies 197 Shakespeare List 1. a cappella ah cuh PEL luh without accompaniment by an instrument Synonyms >> Antonym >> accompanied The girl had to sing acappella when her piano accompanist did not appear at the audition.
    [Show full text]
  • The Permission to Publish
    THE PERMISSION TO PUBLISH A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The Permission to Publish A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works Committee on Doctrine • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops The document The Permission to Publish: A Resource for Diocesan and Eparchial Bishops on the Approvals Needed to Publish Various Kinds of Written Works was developed as a resource by the Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was reviewed by the committee chairman, Archbishop William J. Levada, and has been author- ized for publication by the undersigned. Msgr. William P. Fay General Secretary, USCCB Excerpts from the Code of Canon Law: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Iuris Canonici prepared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 1998. Used with permission. Excerpts from the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches: New English Translation. Translation of Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium pre- pared under the auspices of the Canon Law Society of America, Washington, D.C. © 2001. Used with permission. First Printing, June 2004 ISBN 1-57455-622-3 Copyright © 2004, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmit- ted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photo- copying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, with- out permission in writing from the copyright holder.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Constitution, Canons, and Rules of Order
    CONSTITUTION & CANONS together with the Rules of Order OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN THE DIOCESE OF CALIFORNIA Adopted in Conventions 1850–2019 The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California 1055 Taylor Street San Francisco, California 94108 Tel. (415) 673-5015 Fax (415) 673-9268 www.diocal.org The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus Eighth Bishop of California Constitution & Canons Prepared by the Committee on Canons of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California Mr. Philip S. Boone, Esq., Vice Chancellor and Chair Prof. Margalynne Armstrong, Esq. The Rev. Paul Burrows Mr. Michael O. Glass, Esq. The Rev. Patricia Pearson Rules of Order Prepared by the Committee on Dispatch of Business of the Convention of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California The Rev. Ginger Strickland, Chair Mr. Matthew Burt Mr. David Frangquist, Secretary of the Convention Mr. Jeffrey Hookom Ms. Stephanie Martin Taylor The Rev. Eric Metoyer Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Constitution of The Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California ............................................................................... 11 Article I. The Title and Territory of the Diocese. ........................................................... 11 Article II. Acceding to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. ..................................................................................................................... 11 Article III. The Authority of the Diocese. .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Professor C. Raj Kumar Professor & Vice Chancellor O.P
    Curriculum Vitae PROFESSOR C. RAJ KUMAR PROFESSOR & VICE CHANCELLOR O.P. JINDAL GLOBAL UNIVERSITY Tel: (+91-130) 4091900; Fax: (+91-130) 4091888 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.jgu.edu.in I. CURENT AFFILIATION (since 2009) Vice Chancellor, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana (NCR of Delhi) Dean, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, Haryana (NCR of Delhi) Director, International Institute for Higher Education Research & Capacity Building, Sonipat, Haryana (NCR of Delhi) II. EDUCATION Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Doctor of Legal Science (S.J.D.), 2011 Harvard Law School, United States of America LL.M. (Master of Laws), 2000. University of Oxford, United Kingdom B.C.L. (Bachelor of Civil Law), 1999. Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, India LL.B. (Bachelor of Laws), 1997. Loyola College, University of Madras, India B.Com. (Bachelor of Commerce), 1994. III. AWARDS/SCHOLARSHIPS/FELLOWSHIPS (ANNEX I) Scholarships and fellowships awarded by the University of Oxford, Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Loyola College, University of Madras, Monash University and Indiana University. IV. RESEARCH GRANTS/FUNDS (ANNEX II) Received research grants and funds from various educational and research institutions, foundations, and inter-governmental organisations including City University of Hong Kong; Sumitomo Foundation, Tokyo, Japan; and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). V. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Passed the New York Bar Exam (July 2001) and was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York, U.S.A., as an Attorney and Counsellor at Law in February 2002; admitted to the Bar Council of Delhi, New Delhi, India, in August 1997.
    [Show full text]
  • Attendee Handout Packet 7.30.2020 AAM Webinar
    Association of Attorney-Mediators Webinar - Confidentiality in the Age of Online Mediations: Points to Ponder July 30, 2020 On July 30, 2020, from 11:30 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., the Association of Attorney Mediators will be presenting a webinar during which a moderator and four panelists will discuss the issues of confidentiality and discoverability that come with conducting mediations on platforms such as Zoom, with participants often in different states with different laws that govern mediation confidentiality. The panelists and moderator are from across the United States, as will be the attendees. The following panel members will discuss the enforceability of Confidentiality Agreements, the conflicts of laws principles that arise with multi-state mediations, the potential liability for confidentiality breaches of which mediators must be aware, and other salient issues. Panelists will be Danielle Hargrove, Jeff Kichaven, Jean Lawler and Michael Leech. Panel will be moderated by AAM President, Jimmy Lawson. Agenda 11:30-11:35: Welcome and Introduction of Panel Jimmy Lawson, Moderator 11:35-11:45: Brief synopsis of the substance of Kichaven’s articles Jeff Kichaven, Panelist 11:45-12:45 Discussion of mediation confidentiality. Various questions will be asked of the panel for discussion Table of Contents Speakers Bios Pages 2-3 Article: Mediator Confidentiality Promises Carry Serious Risks Pages 4-6 Article: What You Say In Online Mediation May Be Discoverable Pages 7-12 Article: Nix Your Mediators Prospective Waiver Of Liability Pages 13-16 1 Association of Attorney-Mediators Webinar - Confidentiality in the Age of Online Mediations: Points to Ponder Speakers and Panelists – July 30, 2020 Danielle L.
    [Show full text]