DOCSLIB.ORG

Read the Full PDF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Read the Full PDF Job Name:2175318 Date:15-03-05 PDF Page:2175318pbc.p1.pdf Color: Cyan Yellow Black SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COUR1 1975-1976 TERM SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT 1975-1976 TERM Bruce E. Fein American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research Washington, D.C. Distributed to the Trade by National Book Network, 15200 NBN Way, Blue Ridge Summit, PA 17214. To order call toll free 1-800-462-6420 or 1-717-794-3800. For all other inquiries please contact the AEI Press, 1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 or call 1-800-862-5801. Bruce E. Fein is an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice. The views of the author do not necessarily represent those of the Department of Justice. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Fein, Bruce E Significant decisions of the Supreme Court, 1975-1976 term. (AEI studies; 183) Includes indexes. 1. United States-Constitutional law-Digests. I. United States. Supreme Court. II. Title. III. Series: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. AEI studies; 183. KF4547.8.F4221977 348'.73'413 77-26165 ISBN 0-8447-3283-4 AEI studies 183 © 1977 by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C. Permission to quote from or reproduce materials in this publication is granted when due acknowledgment is made. Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS 1 OVERVIEW 1 Death Penalty Decisions 2 Abortion 6 Campaign Financing 9 Fair Trial-Free Press 11 Federalism 13 General Analysis 16 Voting Alignments 17 1975-1976 Statistics 20 Retirement of Justice William O. Douglas and Appointment of Justice John Paul Stevens 21 2 SUMMARIES OF SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS 23 Criminal Law: Powers of the Police and Prosecutors 23 Criminal Law: Rights of the Accused 47 Abortion 63 Freedom of Speech, Press, and Association 70 Federalism 97 Racial Discrimination 101 Federal Courts and Procedure 113 Government Employment 122 Church and State 129 Aliens 134 Prisons and the Rights of Prisoners 142 Government Regulation of Business and Commerce 152 Labor Law 170 Social Security 176 Taxation and Import Fees 181 Freedom of Information 186 INDEX OF CASES 189 SUBJECT INDEX 193 1 OVERVIEW The 1975-1976 term of the Supreme Court marked a significant change both in the membership of the Court and in the speed and confidence with which it has charted a diminished role for the federal judiciary and an increased role for the states in the process of governing.1 On December 19, 1975, Justice John Paul Stevens filled the vacancy caused by the retirement of Justice William O. Douglas because of ill. health. Douglas's departure left the liberal bloc of the Court with only the votes of Brennan and Marshall. It seemed to encourage the remaining seven justices in their general belief that an unelected federal judiciary should avoid imposing constitutional and, thus, nationwide shackles on other levels or branches of government in their attempts to treat intractable and complex political, economic, and social problems. After avoiding controversial decisions during the preceding term, the Court rendered a series of opinions with wide political and public reverberations. It upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty for murderers if imposed pursuant to specified procedural safeguards. In seeming to depart from its general approach to consti- 1 See, for example, Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976) (reducing the scope of federal habeas corpus review in suits raising Fourth Amendment claims) ; Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (holding an individual's interest in reputation is not a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment) ; Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) (holding that indigents lack standing to challenge an Internal Revenue Service ruling concerning the charitable obligations of tax-exempt hospitals) ; Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (overturning an injunction requiring a police department to adopt a program for effectively dealing with complaints by civilians) ; Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 (1976) (upholding the discharge of a policeman without a hearing) ; National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976) (holding federal regu­ lation of the wages and hours of state and municipal employees an unconsti­ tutional infringement of state sovereignty). 1 OVERVIEW tutional questions in other areas, the Court expanded a woman's right to an abortion by striking down restrictions requiring spousal and parental consent. The planning of several presidential candidates was shaken when the Court invalidated several provisions of the Watergate-inspired amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act and thereby impaired the financing of their campaigns. Both broadcasters and the press won a controversial battle to stop the growing use of judicial gag orders imposed to prevent the pretrial publication of news that could be prejudicial to the accused.2 The Court erected such high constitutional standards of necessity as virtu­ ally to prohibit the issuance of gag orders against the press in any circumstances. Finally, for the first time in several decades, the Court established a restraint on the authority of Congress to encroach upon state sovereignty in legislating pursuant to the commerce clause. With regard to questions of criminal law, the Court restricted and virtually overruled liberal decisions of the Warren Court that greatly expanded the constitutional rights of suspects and prisoners.3 In weighing and balancing the interests of individuals in privacy and the interests of society in effective law enforcement in an era of increased crime, high rates of recidivism, and public clamor for better law inforcement, the Court generally leaned in favor of law enforce­ ment needs.4 Death Penalty Decisions Justice Holmes once observed: Great cases, like hard cases, make bad law. For great cases are called great, not by reason of their real importance in shaping the law of the future, but because of some accident of immediate overwhelming interest which appeals to the 2 See Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Press Censorship Newsletter no. 9 (April-May 1976), pp. 2-34. 3 Compare Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), with United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976), and Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976); compare Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), with Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (1976), United States v. Mandujano, 425 U.S. 564 (1976), and Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341 (1976); compare Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963), with Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501 (1976); compare Kaufman v. United States, 394 U.S. 217 (1969), with Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). 4 See, for example, United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976); United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976); South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976); Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976); Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463 (1976); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976). 2 DEATH PENALTY feelings and distorts the judgment. These immediate in­ terests exercise a kind of hydraulic pressure which makes what previously was clear seem doubtful, and before which even well settled principles of law will bend. [Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 400-401 (1904), Holmes, J., dissenting.] The five written opinions of the Supreme Court regarding the death penalty this term involved, in the words of Justice Holmes, "great cases" and made "bad" or at least poorly reasoned law. At stake were the lives of more than 450 prisoners. The enormous increase in crime over the past fifteen years and a growing belief that deterrence, as opposed to rehabilitation, should be the primary purpose of crim­ inal punishment heightened public interest in the issue. These cir­ cumstances seem to have distorted the judgment of the Court in its decisions that virtually prohibited mandatory death penalty statutes, but upheld the death penalty if imposed pursuant to specified pro­ cedural safeguards.5 An examination of the plurality opinions by Justices Stewart, Powell, and Stevens in the leading cases of Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 289 (1976), reveals the use of inconsistent and unpersuasive reasoning in striking down mandatory death penalty statutes. In Gregg, a convicted murderer sentenced to death challenged the constitutionality of the Georgia death-sentencing provisions. They provide for a bifurcated trial procedure; sentence is imposed at a separate hearing only after a guilty verdict in the initial trial stage. At the sentencing hearing, any evidence relevant to the sentencing decision, including any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, is admissible. In order to impose a death sentence, the sentencing authority must find, beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of at least one of ten statutorily defined aggravating circumstances.6 Judicial review of all death sentences by the Georgia Supreme Court is re­ quired to ensure that the sentence is not arbitrarily imposed. The defendant argued that Georgia's death-sentencing provisions violated the prohibition of the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments against 5 The Court left open the question of whether mandatory death penalty statutes applicable to murder committed by prisoners serving life sentences violated the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 292 n. 25 (1976). 6 One aggravating circumstance was commission of a murder for the purpose of avoiding lawful arrest. Another was commission of murder by a person with a substantial histo!"y of criminal convictions for serious assault. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 165 n.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ..............................
    [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]
  • 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]
  • September-17-CRP-Complete
    Praise for Restore the Constitution “ Bruce Fein is a no-BS constitutional textualist and originalist and, more importantly, an uncompromising constitutional patriot. He has been on the front lines of resisting the brutal Executive-branch usurpations and transgressions of the Trump presidency. In this remarkably comprehensive package, Fein offers provocative and impressive proposals not only to restore the much-trampled and much-surrendered powers of Congress but to restore the much- RESTORE THE abused liberties and rights of the people.” congressman jamin ben “jamie” raskin was also a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law for more than 25 years and the author of several books on law and public policy. CONSTITUTION “ Bruce Fein has meticulously diagnosed the fissures in the American Constitutional edifice and prescribed workable repairs. He brings a lifetime of scholarship and intense study to this task, Model Congressional Resolutions, focusing on recent instances of how the careful balance of power between our federal branches has come undone. From war powers to executive orders to unilateral decisions not to enforce the Rules, and Legislation to Reclaim the laws passed by Congress, Presidents have amassed power the founders never intended, and our Constitution from Unconstitutional country has suffered accordingly. Fein has devoted his prodigious talents and energy to crafting Executive Supremacy to Benefit the specific laws Congress should pass to reclaim the authority the Constitution uniquely gave it. Seldom has a constitutional text combined extensive learning with such practical applications.” Health, Safety, and Welfare tom campbell is the former Dean of Fowler School of Law, Chapman University, former Professor of Law, of the American People Stanford University, former US Congressman, and lead plaintiff in Campbell v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Presidential Signing Statements Hearing
    S. HRG. 109–1053 THE USE OF PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 27, 2006 Serial No. J–109–92 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 43–109 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009 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 Nov 24 2008 10:34 Apr 16, 2009 Jkt 043109 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43109.TXT SJUD1 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 Nov 24 2008 10:34 Apr 16, 2009 Jkt 043109 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\43109.TXT SJUD1 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 ..............................
    [Show full text]
  • National Security and the First Amendment (Program) Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository IBRL Events Institute of Bill of Rights Law 1985 National Security and the First Amendment (Program) Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "National Security and the First Amendment (Program)" (1985). IBRL Events. 23. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlevents/23 Copyright c 1985 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/ibrlevents "N ational Security and the First Amendment" A Symposium Sponsored by the Institute of Bill of Rights Law in the College of William and Mary MarshaJl- Wythe School of Law Williamsburg, Virginia March 29 and 30, 1985 ,'National Security and the First Amendment" FRIDAY, MARCH 29 Registration and Coffee, Law School Lounge, 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Introductory Remarks, Room 119, Law School, 9:00 a.m. William B. Spong, Jr. Dean and Director of the Institute of Bill of Rights Law Session I, Room 119,9:30 a.m. - 11:45 a.m. Principal Remarks: "Embargoes on Exports of Ideas and Information: First Amendment Issues" Robert D. Kamenshine Professor of Law Vanderbilt University Visiting Lee Professor Institute of Bill of Rights Law Panelists: Allan Adler Counsel for Center of National Security Studies American Civil Liberties Union Jerry J. Berman Legislative Counsel American Civil Liberties Union Lynn Rankin Jordan Assistant Counsel Chicago Tribune Martin Redish Professor of Law Northwestern University Elizabeth Rindskopf General Counsel National Security Agency Moderator: James W.
    [Show full text]
  • Presidential Authority Transcript
    Seattle Journal for Social Justice Volume 6 Issue 1 Fall/Winter 2007 Article 25 November 2007 Presidential Authority Transcript Charles Swift Bruce Fein Chief Judge Robert Lasnik Jules Lobel Deborah Pearlstein & Robert Turner Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj Recommended Citation Swift, Charles; Fein, Bruce; Lasnik, Chief Judge Robert; and Deborah Pearlstein & Robert Turner, Jules Lobel (2007) "Presidential Authority Transcript," Seattle Journal for Social Justice: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 25. Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/sjsj/vol6/iss1/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Publications and Programs at Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Seattle Journal for Social Justice by an authorized editor of Seattle University School of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 23 A Forum on Presidential Authority INTRODUCTION The Presidential Authority Forum took place at Seattle University School of Law on November 3, 2006. Six panelists convened to discuss issues of presidential authority that have emerged from the actions of the Bush administration. Many Americans, particularly those in the legal profession, hold a great reverence for the rule of law and the notion that no individual is immune from the protections or the constraints of the law. However, when the safety of our nation is threatened, fear dominates, and it is in this climate that our adherence to the rule of law is tested. The panelists addressed the law pertaining to a wide range of topics, including the holding of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, the treatment and interrogation of enemy combatants, torture, National Security Agency surveillance programs, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Combatant Status Review Tribunals, and the role of Congress and the judiciary in upholding the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • Saltzman & Evinch, P.C
    FLOERAL El-fCTlOW COnMlSSlOH SALTZMAN & EVINCH, P.C. 20!iOCT-3 PM2:52 ATTORNEYS AT LAW METROPOLITAN SQUARE m 655 15TH STREET, NW, P STREET LOBBY, SUITE 225 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-5701 [email protected] [email protected] TELEPHONE (202)637-9877 FACSIMILE (202) 637-9876 WWW.TURKUW.NET September 26,2011 Via Facsimile (202) 219-3923 and U.S. Mail I Office of General Counsel 3 Federal Election Commission Attn: Jeff S. Jordan, Esq. 999 E. Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20463 RE: MUR6469 Dear Mr. Jordan: Respondent Turkish Coalition of America ('TCA") hereby responds to the Compfaint filed by David Krikorian in the above-captioned matter under review.' TCA was not named as a Respondent by the complainant. But TCA was informed that the Federal Election Commission (the "EEC") considers it a subject of its investigation.^ ' Undersigned counsel declares that this reply has been submitted within the fifleen-day timeframe measured from the date of the Complaint's receipt by TCA's President, G. Lincoln McCurdy at his home address. ~ TCA respectfully requests that further mail to TCA or its officers be delivered to TCA's office at 1510 H Street, NW, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20005, with a copy sent to counsel signing herein. TCA requests that the FEC take no action against it and provides the following arguments in support based on undisputed material facts and clear law. TCA is a Massachusetts corporation, exempt from taxation under section SO I (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. It was founded to educate the general public about Turkey and Turkish Americans and to opine on critical issues to interested parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Speaker Profiles and Acknowledgements a Symposium on Privacy and Security: Ucla Joins the National Debate Ucla School of Law | April 25, 2014
    SPEAKER PROFILES AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A SYMPOSIUM ON PRIVACY AND SECURITY: UCLA JOINS THE NATIONAL DEBATE UCLA SCHOOL OF LAW | APRIL 25, 2014 WELCOME RACHEL MORAN Dean and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law Rachel F. Moran is the Dean and Michael J. Connell Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA School of Law. Prior to her appointment at UCLA, Professor Moran was the Robert D. and Leslie-Kay Raven Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law. From July 2008 to June 2010, Moran served as a founding faculty member of the UC Irvine Law School. Dean Moran received her A.B. in Psychology with Honors and with Distinction from Stanford University in 1978, where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa her junior year. She obtained her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1981, where she was an Editor of the Yale Law Journal. Following law school, she clerked for Chief Judge Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and worked for the San Francisco firm of Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe. From 1993 to 1996 Moran served as chair of the Chicano/Latino Policy Project at UC Berkeley’s Institute for the Study of Social Change, and in 2003, she became the director of the Institute. In 2009, she was appointed as President of the Association of American Law Schools (AALS). JEFFREY LEWIS Chair and Associate Professor, UCLA Department of Political Science Jeffery Lewis is the Chairman and Associate Professor in the UCLA Political Science Department. Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
    THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME Neal Devins† GET IT. The 2008 elections were about change. Real change. Change we can believe in. And, most definitely, change from the failed presidency of George W. Bush. The sad truth is that the most basic questions of how the IBush White House understood and exercised presidential power played next to no role in the 2008 elections. “What almost no one disputes,” wrote Adam Liptak in The New York Times, “is that a cen- tral legacy of the Bush presidency will be its distinctively muscular vision of executive power.”1 This legacy, however, did not mean- ingfully figure into the 2008 presidential campaign. While Barack Obama and John McCain differed sharply on how they would exer- cise presidential power, the question of how much power presi- dents should have simply played no role in this election. An even sadder truth is that fundamental questions about the American system of checks and balances are hardly ever at play in presidential elections. Voters, presidential candidates, and political parties focus on first order policy preferences, not abstract ques- † Neal Devins is the Goodrich Professor of Law and a Professor of Government at the College of William and Mary. 1 Adam Liptak, More Power for Executive: Will It Last?, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 30, 2007, at A16. 12 GREEN BAG 2D 137 Neal Devins tions about the division of power. The only time that candidates or parties will talk about structural questions is to provide rhetorical cover to underlying policy preferences. And while none of this is surprising, I think it useful to spend a few pages talking about why truly fundamental questions about our governmental system are unlikely to figure into presidential elec- tions.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite
    Bruce Fein & Associates, Inc. 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 February 5, 2009 Honorable Eric H. Holder United States Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. RE: Investigation of U.S. citizen and U.S. green card holder for genocide, war crimes, and torture against Tamils in Sri Lanka Dear Mr. Attorney General: I represent Tamils Against Genocide (TAG), a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the enforcement against a United States citizen and a United States green card holder of the Genocide Accountability Act of 2007 (GAA), the War Crimes Act, and prohibition of torture. The U.S. citizen and U.S. green card holder are Gotabaya Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka’s Defense Secretary, and Sarath Fonseka, Sri Lanka’s Army Commander, respectively. I strongly urge the Department to open a grand jury investigation into these crimes based on the enclosed three-volume, 1,000 page proposed indictment that I have prepared. I would submit that the evidence of genocide, war crimes, and torture amassed in the three volumes amply satisfies the Department’s threshold for commencing a criminal investigation. The following points, among others, demonstrate the urgency of investigating the alleged crimes: 1. The model indictment charges Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Sarath Fonseka with 12 (twelve) counts of genocide under the GAA. That legislation was spearheaded by Senator Richard Durbin (D. Illinois). It was supported by President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The GAA is codified at 18 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]