SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

Home , Clarence Thomas, Hope Hicks, Jay Sekulow, Oyez, Steve Lonegan, Thousand Oaks shooting

President: Miguel Calle

Vice-President: Estefanía Henao

Index 1. Cover page 2. Letters from the Chair 2.1. President 2.2. Vice-President 3. The Supreme Court 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Jurisdiction 3.3. Internal Structure 3.4. Cases Tried Previously (History) 4. The Constitution of the United States 4.1. State v. Federal Law 5. The Justices (“The Nine”) 5.1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. 5.1.1. Biography/Description 5.1.2. Main Points 5.2. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas 5.2.1. Biography/Description 5.2.2. Main Points 5.3. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 5.3.1. Biography/Description 5.3.2. Main Points 5.4. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer 5.4.1. Biography/Description 5.4.2. Main Points 5.5. Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 5.5.1. Biography/Description 5.5.2. Main Points 5.6. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor 5.6.1. Biography/Description 5.6.2. Main Points 5.7. Associate Justice Elena Kagan 5.7.1. Biography/Description 5.7.2. Main Points 5.8. Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch 5.8.1. Biography/Description 5.8.2. Main Points 5.9. Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh 5.9.1. Biography/Description 5.9.2. Main Points 5.10. Ideological Graphs 6. The Lawyers 6.1. Case #1 6.1.1. Legal Counsel for President Trump (Defence) 6.1.1.1. Jay Sekulow 6.1.1.2. Pat Cipollone 6.1.2. Selected Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Prosecution)

COSMUN 2020

6.1.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris 6.1.2.2. Senator Cory Booker 6.2. Case #2 6.2.1. Legal Team for the Petitioner (Republican Party) 6.2.1.1. Senator Rick Scott 6.2.1.2. Senator Marco Rubio 6.2.2. Legal Team for the Respondent (Democratic Party) 6.2.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris 6.2.2.2. Senator Cory Booker 7. Case #1: United States v. Donald J. Trump 7.1. Overview 7.1.1. Introduction 7.1.2. The Mueller Report - and Everything in Between 7.1.3. Unrighteous Behavior 7.1.4. The “Ukraine Situation” 7.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent 7.2.1. Impeachable Offenses and “the Process” 7.2.2. History and Andrew Johnson 7.2.3. History and Richard Nixon 7.2.4. History and Bill Clinton 7.3. Legal Reasoning 7.3.1. The Prosecution’s Standpoint 7.3.2. The Defence’s Standpoint 8. Case #2: Republican Party v. Democratic Party (“Limitations of the Second Amendment for the Protection of the American People”) 8.1. Overview 8.1.1. Introduction 8.1.2. Why Now? - The Mass Shooting Epidemic 8.1.3. The National Rifle Association 8.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent 8.2.1. Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) 8.2.2. Precedent, Stare Decisis, and the “Law of the Land” 8.2.3. The “Strange Case” of Amendment 21 8.2.3.1. Amendments 18 and 21 8.2.3.2. Repealing an Amendment 8.3. Legal Reasoning 8.3.1. The Republican Standpoint 8.3.2. The Democratic Standpoint 9. QARMAS 10. Bibliography

COSMUN 2020

2. Letters from the Chair 2.1. President

Dearest delegates,

For several years, I had been bothering the future Secretary General to consider implementing this committee. My profound love of both the law and American politics made it into a perfect fit for me and my career path. From the moment that he told me that it was going to be mine, I knew that the recreation of a process in the most important court in the world was going to demand blood, sweat, and tears. Blood, because every great judicial argument draws blood, and someone, unfortunately, will have to lose. Sweat, because organizing a special committee commands diligence and strenuous work. And tears, because I am reminded that this will be my last Model United Nations before graduating. I have enjoyed this journey immensely, and look forward to closing this stage of my life with a committee I had always dreamt about. Nothing would please me more than to see you, delegates, as invested as I am. Therefore, do not hesitate to contact the Vice-President or me if you have doubts or concerns.

Regarding the topics, these are two issues that have been at the forefront of my mind for a long time. The first case will be a criminal trial, in which the Justices must decide whether the Commander-in-Chief’s actions are grave enough to justify his removal from office. The second case will be a Constitutional review, bearing precedent and the state of the country in mind. You, Justices, cannot ignore the mass shooting epidemic that has plagued the nation and the continuous pleas for gun control. It will be up to you to decide if and how the Constitution should be amended.

The reality is that we may not be able to directly change the world. If I had a dollar for every time someone has called MUN “pointless,” I would be able to pay for college. Yet, I do not believe it is change we seek. We are here because we want to pursue truth. Horace Mann said it best: “Seek not greatness, but seek truth, and you will find both.” If you are expecting to encounter life-altering revelations in this committee, you will probably be in the wrong place. If you simply desire to learn and grow, my friend, welcome to the Supreme Court.

Miguel Calle Jaramillo President of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

COSMUN 2020

2.2. Vice-President

Esteemed delegates,

It is my distinct pleasure to welcome you to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) of COSMUN 2020. Prepare yourselves for three days of heated yet effective debates and to be challenged as a delegate. This is an amazing opportunity to grow as a delegate and as a person. The Supreme Court, which is the only court explicitly created by the Constitution, is the most powerful court in the United States. Delegates have to be extremely prepared as each intervention and idea presented could impact the security and the future of a nation as a whole. After all, the topics up for debate are the most controversial and troublesome for the citizens of modern America. The Court has nine justices and its decisions cannot be appealed to any other court. For that reason, the Supreme Court is an incredibly powerful and important body, and a nomination of a new justice is an event that attracts significant media attention, debate and even controversy. It is this challenge that moves me and makes me love this organ of the Constitution so much. I hope we can make this committee a great one and that we can all enjoy ourselves.

My name is Estefanía Henao, and I am honored to be serving as part of your chair this year in COSMUN 2020. I have adored my MUN experiences a great deal and hope to pass on my passion to other MUNers. MUN has taught me a lot of things these past few years and it is a big part of my life. I look forward to seeing what you have to offer and expect each and every one of you to be well prepared and give your very best in this committee, guaranteeing you will have an unforgettable experience at COSMUN 2020. I am more than willing to help you in every way through this process of preparing and presenting to this remarkable committee. I believe that all of you have what it takes to do an amazing job and bring this committee forward. Therefore I’m confident each one of you will contribute positively in their own way to the committee. In the meantime please do not hesitate to contact me or Miguel Calle if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely, Estefanía Henao Garzón Vice-President of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)

COSMUN 2020

3. The Supreme Court

3.1. Introduction

The Supreme Court is the only court established by the Constitution of the United States.

It was implemented in 1789 under the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Judiciary Act, which also became Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, prescribed that the "judicial power of the

United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior Courts." It was to be composed of six members, but Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, and then to 10 in 1863. After that, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial

Circuits Act of 1866, which reorganized the United States circuit courts and provided for the gradual elimination of the tenth seat. The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in

Washington, D.C.

3.2. Jurisdiction

According to the US Courts’ website1, “Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law.”

1 https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about COSMUN 2020

3.3. Internal Structure

Each Justice has lifetime tenure, which means that they will remain on the Court until they resign, retire, die, or are removed from office. When a vacancy occurs, the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new Justice. Each Justice has a single vote in deciding a specific case. When in majority, the Chief Justice decides who writes the opinion of the court; otherwise, the most senior Justice (the person with the most years serving on the court) in the majority (for each case) assigns the task of writing the opinion. The activities of the

Justices are governed by the rules of protocol of the Court, based upon the seniority of justices.

The Chief Justice always ranks first in the order of precedence (priority in order and importance)—regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service. During Court sessions, Justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center and Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice's immediate right, and the most junior Associate

Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Gorsuch, Sotomayor,

Breyer, Thomas (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Ginsburg, Alito, Kagan, and Kavanaugh (most junior Associate Justice).

3.4. Cases Tried Previously (History)

Landmark decisions establish a notable new legal principle, concept or otherwise that considerably alters the interpretation of existing American law. These decisions may settle the law in more than one way:

COSMUN 2020

● Distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from

prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis (legal term in latin for

precedent);

● Establishing a "test" or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in

future decisions.

The following is a list of some of the landmark court decisions coming from the Supreme

Court2, and some cases that are not landmark, but are still crucial (cases highlighted in yellow are directly pertinent over our two cases):

❖ Marbury v. Madison (1803): Gave the Court the ability to strike down

laws on the grounds that they are unconstitutional (a power called judicial

review).

❖ McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): Established two important principles for

constitutional law that continue today- implied powers and federal

supremacy.

❖ Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Became a central issue in the debate

surrounding the expansion of slavery and further fueled the flames leading

to the Civil War.

❖ Schenck v. United States (1919): Speech could be restricted if it presented

a clear and present danger (like yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater).

❖ Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson

(1896) which had created the "separate but equal" doctrine. In Plessy, The

2 The summaries of these decisions are derived directly from this source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/Programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/ COSMUN 2020

Court held that even though a Louisiana law required rail passengers to be

segregated based on race, there was no violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (“nor shall any State [...] deny to

any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"). By

overturning this doctrine, the Brown Court helped lay the ground for the

Civil Rights Movement and integration across the country.

❖ Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Established the right to assistance for state

criminal defendants, and had the effect of expanding public defender

systems across the country.

❖ Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The now famous "Miranda rights" are

required before any police custodial interrogation can begin if any of the

evidence obtained during the interrogation is going to be used during a

trial; the Court has limited and narrowed these warnings over the years.

❖ Loving v. Virginia (1967): Invalidated state laws prohibiting interracial

marriage.

❖ Roe v. Wade (1973): Probably the most famous Supreme Court case ever.

Roe has become a center-piece in the battle over abortion-rights, both in the public and in front of the Court. It established that abortion is legal.

❖ United States v. Nixon (1974): Determined that a President cannot use

executive privilege to withhold evidence in a criminal trial.

COSMUN 2020

❖ Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The decision

started a line of cases in which the Court upheld affirmative action

programs.

❖ Bush v. Gore (2000): Votes cannot be recounted, for that would be

violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

❖ Heller v. District of Columbia (2008): This will be expanded on later.

❖ Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Same-sex marriage is legalized across all 50

states.

4. The Constitution of the United States

The Supreme Court’s main role is to analyze a case through the lens of the Constitution.

Furthermore, in order to understand how to try a case, we need to understand how the

Constitution was written, what it looks like, and some of its most relevant sections.

The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, draws out the national frame of government. Its first three articles contain the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the Bicameral

Congress, meaning the Senate and the House of Representatives (Article One); the executive, consisting of the President, the Vice-President, and their Cabinet (Article Two); and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and other federal courts (Article Three). Articles Four, Five and

Six deal with the concepts of federalism, describing the rights and responsibilities of state governments, the states in relationship to the federal (national) government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used

COSMUN 2020

by the thirteen original States to ratify it. It is regarded as the oldest national constitution currently upheld today.

Though people often believe that the Constitution was more expansive in its original form, and that it contained more than the aforementioned seven Articles, the first “Amendment” was written and passed in 1791, four years after the Constitutional Convention was held (on

September 17, 1787). As you might notice, the initial scope of the Constitution was by no means large. It basically dealt with the inner workings of government, and its relationship with state governments, but it did not really outline which rights American citizens would possess.

However, we should allude to two side notes about the seven Articles before going on with the explanation of the amendments. The first is that, while Article V clearly states that, “The

Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose

Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” the Congress (as mentioned in the Preamble - see Procedure Manual) has passed a temporary Bill so that these decisions can be made by the Judiciary until January 4, 2021. Section 3 of Article I also asserts that, “The

Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief

Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present,” but, the same Bill (referenced to in Preamble) applies, creating a temporal exception to this norm. The second side note is that, in Section 2 of Article III, it is maintained that, “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not

COSMUN 2020

committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by

Law have directed,” which is why the trial of President Donald J. Trump, and whether to impeach or not to impeach him, shall take place in the Supreme Court Building, starting on April

21st, with no Jury present.

Carrying on with the topic of amendments, it is in this section where most of the controversies in the United States begin and end. It is worth mentioning that amendments to the

Constitution can take several years, until they are ratified by at least 3/4 of the states that make up the Union at the time. The number of states currently required to amend the Constitution is 38

(out of 50). The earliest amendments (the first ten) were submitted on September 25, 1789, but only passed on December 15, 1791. These ten amendments are called the “Bill of Rights” and they are as follows: the First Amendment, often considered to be the most important one, and the one that cannot possibly be modified, prohibits Congress from “making any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the right to petition the government.” This amendment is the pillar on which the

United States stands as a beacon of freedom and justice for all. Anyone can say and do whatever they want as long as they are not breaking the law (for example, yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater would not be “freedom of speech” because it is affecting others in a life-threatening manner, that could cause a stampede). The Second Amendment is the one that will be “on trial” during our sessions in April. That amendment sanctions that American citizens shall have “a well regulated Militia, [and that] being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” More information will be provided in subsequent

COSMUN 2020

sections of this guide. The Third “places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers3 in private homes.” The Fourth “prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause.” The Fifth “sets out rules for indictment4 by grand jury

5 and eminent domain6, protects the right to due process, and prohibits self-incrimination and double jeopardy7.” The Sixth “protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.” The Seventh “provides for the right to trial by jury in certain civil cases, according to common law.” The Eight “Prohibits excessive fines and excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.” The Ninth “protects rights not enumerated in the Constitution,” also called fundamental rights (basically those described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). The Tenth Amendment that composes the Bill of Rights is that which “reinforces the principle of federalism by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the states or the people through the Constitution.” For more information on state and federal law, see section 4.1 of this guide.

The remaining seventeen amendments are not less important than those in the Bill of

Rights. In fact, the main Constitutional argument towards repealing the Second Amendment can be found in the case of Amendment 18, but more on that later. Amendments after the first ten do not have a formal name, except for Amendments 13-15, which are known as the “Reconstruction

3 Quartering of soldiers: The act of a government in billeting or assigning soldiers to private houses, without the consent of the owners of such houses 4 Indictment: a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime. 5 Grand Jury: a group of citizens empowered by law to conduct legal proceedings and investigate potential criminal conduct, and determine whether criminal charges should be brought. 6 Eminent Domain: the power of the government to take private property and convert it into public use. 7 Double Jeopardy: is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same (or similar) charges following a valid acquittal (judgement or verdict that a person is not guilty of the crime with which they have been charged). COSMUN 2020

Amendments.” To avoid confusion, we will describe the most important additional amendments in order. The Thirteenth Amendment “abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude.” The

Fourteenth “defines citizenship, contains the Privileges or Immunities Clause8, the Due Process

Clause9, the Equal Protection Clause10, and deals with post–Civil War issues.” The Fifteenth

“prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.”

The Eighteenth Amendment stands out as a peculiar one, for it is no longer in effect. That amendment “prohibited the manufacturing or sale of alcohol within the United States,” but was repealed by the Twenty-First (21) Amendment, which limits the prohibition of alcohol to

“[making it] a federal offense to transport or import intoxicating liquors into U.S. states and territories where such transport or importation is prohibited by the laws of those states and territories.” The case of the Eighteenth Amendment is crucial for those (probably Democrats) that want to change the Constitution and alter the Second Amendment. The Nineteenth

Amendment “prohibits the states and the federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex.” The Twenty-Second Amendment (22) “limits the number of times that a person can be elected president: a person cannot be elected president more than twice, and a person who has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected cannot be elected more than once.” Only one President in U.S. history has been elected more than twice: Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945. This

Amendment was ratified in 1951, six years after Roosevelt died. The Twenty-Seventh (27)

8 The Privileges and Immunities Clause (also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner. 9 Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the sanction of law. 10 The Equal Protection Clause provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." COSMUN 2020

Amendment is a distinctive one, for it is the only amendment that took more than four years to be ratified. It actually took more than 202 years to ratify it. From 1789 (it would have been a part of the Bill of Rights) to 1992. That Amendment’s content is not as relevant as its story.

And that is how the Constitution looks today. Currently, there are six amendments that have been adopted by Congress and sent to the states, but have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, one is closed and has failed by its own terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. That means that if the Supreme Court were to decide that the Second Amendment should be repealed with another amendment, 38 states would have to agree to replace it.

4.1. State v. Federal Law

It all comes down to what is known as the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause is part of Article VI of the Constitution and it provides that state laws are bound by the supreme law. That means that if state and federal (national) laws are in conflict, federal law will always prevail. This can seem contradictory at times, because the Clause would render state laws obsolete. However (and this is a pivotal however) if a state law gives people more rights than a federal law, the state law is legally supposed to prevail. Or at least that’s how it is supposed to work. Take marijuana as an example. In Michigan, marijuana is legal, but it is not legal in federal law. So, a person can still be prosecuted for having a farm in which he/she is growing marijuana, even though state law allows it. Ultimately, state and federal laws all come down to the interpretation of the judicial branch, and therefore, that power is usually bestowed to the

Supreme Court (now you see how important this Court is). As a rule of thumb, use this humorous analogy from the Huffington Post to understand state and federal law: “it’s the ‘go ask

COSMUN 2020

your mother’ law. Regress back into your childhood and think of your father as the state law and your mother as the federal law. You want to go to a party and stay out a little later past your curfew. Your father (state) says yes but your mother (federal) says no. Who ultimately has the final say? ‘Go ask your mother.’ ”

5. The Justices (“The Nine”) *Only read the person you have been assigned - either for the Justices and lawyers. These two sections are 40 pages long. Read everything if you want to gain a completely holistic understanding, but YOU DO NOT HAVE TO*

5.1. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. 5.1.1. Biography/Description

John Glover Roberts Jr. was born on January 27, 1955, in Buffalo, New York but grew up in Long Beach, Indiana. Roberts was an excellent student who also participated in several extracurricular activities including choir, drama and student council. Additionally, Roberts was named the captain of his high school football team because of his leadership skills even though he was not an exceptionally gifted athlete. He was a tremendous wrestler as well, becoming

Regional Champion. Roberts’ alma mater was Harvard College, and the man had aspirations of

COSMUN 2020

becoming a history professor. During the summers, he would work in a steel mill to help pay his college fees. He graduated from Harvard summa cum laude in three years, and then decided to attend Harvard Law School, where he discovered his love for the law. He was managing editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude with a J.D. (Doctor of Jurisprudence) in 1979.

Due to his honors at both Harvard and Harvard Law, Roberts was recruited to clerk for

Judge Henry Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Then, in 1980, he had the opportunity to clerk for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal analysts believe that working for both of these judges influenced Roberts' conservative approach to the law. In 1982, Roberts served as an aide to U.S. Attorney General William French

Smith and later as an aide to White House counsel Fred Fielding in the Reagan Administration.

During these years, Roberts earned the reputation of being a political pragmatist, tackling some of the administration’s toughest issues and sparring with legal scholars and members of

Congress. After working as an associate at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson from 1987 to 1989, Roberts returned to the Justice Department under President George H.W.

Bush as Principal Deputy Solicitor General from 1989 to 1993.

In 1992, President Bush nominated Roberts to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

D.C. District, but no Senate vote was held and his nomination expired when Bush left office.

During President Bill Clinton's administration, Roberts returned to Hogan & Hartson as a partner where he became head of the appellate division arguing cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In

January 2003, President George W. Bush nominated him for a position on the U.S. Court of

Appeals. He was confirmed in May by voice vote with little opposition. Two years later, on July

COSMUN 2020

19, 2005, President Bush would select Roberts to fill the vacancy left by Associate Supreme

Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, following her retirement. However, on September 3, 2005,

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (his former boss) died following a long illness. On

September 6, President Bush withdrew Roberts's nomination as O'Connor's successor and nominated him for the position of Chief Justice.

During his confirmation hearings, Roberts dazed both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the nation with his encyclopedic knowledge of Supreme Court precedent, which he discussed in detail without notes. Roberts was confirmed by the full Senate on September 29,

2005, as the 17th Chief Justice of the United States by a margin of 78-22, more than any other nominee for Chief Justice in American history. At age 50, Roberts became the youngest person confirmed as Chief Justice since John Marshall in 1801.

5.1.2. Main Points

Overall, Chief Justice Roberts is:

-Always calm.

-Has an incredible knowledge of judicial precedent (see this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNF_pwkP6gg). -He is a fantastic speaker.

-Conservative-leaning but often a swing vote (meaning that he could side with the

liberal-leaning Justices from time to time, if he deems it Constitutional). He has

also mentioned that, “Chief justices are more likely to sublimate their personal

views for the good of the Court than associate justices are.”

COSMUN 2020

-He is deeply religious but never shows it in public. When asked about it in his

confirmation hearings, he stated unequivocally that "my faith and my religious

beliefs do not play a role in my judging."

-Justice Roberts joined the Court's decision on District of Columbia v. Heller on

Jun 26, 2008: Overturning DC's handgun ban, the court ruled that the Second

Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun for private use--not only in

connection with service in a militia. The 5-to-4 decision left unanswered

questions, but also much room for continued gun regulation, short of an absolute

ban.

-Analysts believe that he would loathe having to preside over an impeachment

trial in the Senate (in real life) because he sees the law as Constitutional, not

political or partisan. It is therefore our belief that the Chief Justice would vote

according to the Constitution in an impeachment case, without any regard for

political ideals.

COSMUN 2020

5.2. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas 5.2.1. Biography/Description

Born on June 23, 1948, in Pin Point, Georgia. His grandfather encouraged him to pursue a religious life. In high school, Thomas decided to transfer to a seminary, his first step towards becoming a Catholic priest. However, the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968 proved to be a turning point for Thomas. He left the seminary after overhearing a fellow student making fun of King's death. He moved north and attended Holy Cross College in Massachusetts, where he studied English. He became active in many social causes there, including protesting the

Vietnam War and campaigning for civil rights. Thomas also helped establish a black student union. After college, he went to Yale University Law School, where his views started to become more conservative even though he benefited from the school's affirmative action11 policies.

Thomas returned to the South to work as an assistant to Missouri Attorney General John

Danforth after earning his J.D. After several years as a lawyer for the agricultural corporation

Monsanto, he moved to Washington, D.C., where he eventually received several appointments

11 Affirmative Action: the practice or policy of favouring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously; positive discrimination. COSMUN 2020

from President Ronald Reagan. His most prominent post was that of chair of the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1982. Another president, George H.W. Bush, gave Thomas his first and only judgeship, nominating him to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then, In 1991, President Bush selected Thomas to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice

Thurgood Marshall, the first (and only) African American to serve on the court before Thomas.

The two men could not have been more different. Marshall was widely known as a liberal jurist and for his civil rights work before taking the bench. Critics, on the other hand, attacked Thomas for his rigidly conservative views. Some also thought that he had too little experience as a judge.

During his confirmation hearings, Thomas remained quiet on several key issues, including abortion rights. The most infamous moments in Thomas's career, which almost cost him the position, was when one of his former colleagues at the EEOC, Anita Hill, came forward and testified that he had sexually harassed her during the time the two worked together. She claimed that he had asked her to go out with him, discussed pornography and made inappropriate remarks about her body. Thomas patently denied the allegations, and the committee decided that there was not enough evidence to prove her claims. Thomas was approved by the Senate by a very small margin, a 52-48 vote.

5.2.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Thomas is:

-Extremely conservative. By far the most conservative Justice sitting on the

Supreme Court bench today.

COSMUN 2020

-Known for almost never speaking during oral arguments. Thomas has given

many reasons for his silence, including self-consciousness about how he speaks, a

preference for listening to those arguing the case, and difficulty getting in a word.

-He has acknowledged that sometimes, during oral arguments, he will pass notes

to his friend and colleague Justice Stephen Breyer, who then asks questions on

behalf of Thomas.

-This does not mean that Clarence Thomas is not a great speaker, he is, but he just

chooses to stay silent most of the time. Watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8. -He also joined the Court's decision on District of Columbia v. Heller on June 26,

2008.

-He would probably vote against the impeachment of a conservative President,

but if the argument is strong enough, he might change his mind (this is a huge

might). The argument would need to be rock-solid.

COSMUN 2020

5.3. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 5.3.1. Biography/Description

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg was born Ruth Joan Bader on March 15, 1933, in Brooklyn,

New York. She grew up in a low-income, working-class neighborhood in Brooklyn. Ginsburg's mother, who was a major influence in her life, taught her the value of independence and a good education. Ginsburg worked diligently and excelled in her studies. Sadly, her mother struggled with cancer throughout Ginsburg's high school years and died the day before Ginsburg's graduation. Ginsburg earned her bachelor's degree in government from Cornell University in

1954, finishing first in her class. She married Martin D. Ginsburg that same year. The early years of their marriage were challenging, as their first child, Jane, was born shortly after Martin was drafted into the military in 1954. He served for two years and, after his discharge, the couple returned to Harvard, where Ginsburg also enrolled.

At Harvard, Ginsburg learned to balance life as a mother and her new role as a law student. She also encountered a very male-dominated, hostile environment, with only eight other females in her class of more than 500. The women were chastised by the law school's dean for

COSMUN 2020

taking the places of qualified males. But Ginsburg pressed on and excelled academically, eventually becoming the first female member of the Harvard Law Review. Martin contracted testicular cancer in 1956, requiring intensive treatment and rehabilitation. Ginsburg attended to her young daughter and ill husband, taking notes for him in classes while she continued her own law studies. Martin recovered, graduated from law school, and accepted a position at a New York law firm. To join her husband in New York City,

Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she was elected to the school's law review.

She graduated first in her class in 1959. Despite her brilliant academic record, Ginsburg continued to encounter gender discrimination while seeking employment after graduation. After clerking for U.S. District Judge Edmund L. Palmieri, Ginsburg taught at Rutgers University Law

School from 1963 to 1972 and at Columbia from 1972 to 1980, where she became the school's first female tenured professor. During the 1970s, she also served as the director of the Women's

Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, for which she argued six landmark cases on gender equality before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia. She served there until she was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in

1993 by President Bill Clinton, selected to fill the vacancy left by Justice Byron White. President

Clinton wanted a replacement with the intellect and political skills to deal with the more conservative members of the Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were unusually friendly, despite frustration expressed by some Senators over Ginsburg's evasive answers to hypothetical situations. Several of the members were concerned over how she could transition

COSMUN 2020

from social advocate to Supreme Court Justice. In the end, she was easily confirmed by the

Senate, 96–3.

5.3.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Ginsburg is:

-A liberal icon. She is affectionately known as the “Notorious RBG” and two

movies have been made about her life in the past two years. Despite being 86

years old and having been diagnosed with cancer, she has promised not to leave

her post yet.

-The most respected Justice in the Supreme Court (perhaps in its history). She was

the second female Justice selected to the Supreme Court after Sandra Day

O’Connor.

-Perfectly capable of working with people who have opposite views. She has

repeatedly stated that her best friend in the Court was Justice Antonin Scalia,

before his death in 2016.

-She measures and carefully chooses her every word. Not one is wasted. See her

way of speaking here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfUB7PgW4o -Unlikely to side with conservatives, especially in cases such as women’s rights

or LGBTQ rights. As previously mentioned, liberals look up to her.

-Like Roberts and Thomas, she is deeply religious, but is of a Jewish faith. She

does not display her religious beliefs publicly.

COSMUN 2020

-She has been blunt about her distaste of President Trump. However, this does not

mean that she would vote in favor of impeaching him without a justified line of

reasoning.

-Regarding the Second Amendment, Justice Ginsburg said, about the Heller Case

in 2008, that she disagreed with the decision because “if the court had properly

interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment

was very important when the nation was new," she said. "It gave a qualified right

to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the

purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation."

5.4. Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer 5.4.1. Biography/Description

Stephen Gerald Breyer was born on August 15, 1938, in San Francisco,

California. He was influenced by his parents and developed an understanding of the importance of public service. Displaying a formidable intellect at an early age, Breyer was known as the

"troop brain" among his Eagle Scouts group. He joined the debate team at his high school, and

COSMUN 2020

was voted "most likely to succeed" upon graduating in 1955. Breyer earned his undergraduate degree in philosophy from Stanford University in 1959, and then traveled to the United Kingdom in order to attend Oxford University's Magdalen College as a Marshall Scholar. He returned to the United States to enroll at Harvard Law School, joining the Harvard Law Review before graduating magna cum laude in 1964.

Breyer clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Arthur J. Goldberg for the

1964-1965 term, before becoming special assistant to the U.S. Assistant Attorney General for

Antitrust. In 1967, he became a law professor at Harvard. After serving on the Watergate12

Special Prosecution Force, in 1973, Breyer was appointed special counsel to the Senate Judiciary

Committee. At the end of the decade, he became the Judiciary Committee's chief counsel. With the sole judicial appointment of outgoing President Jimmy Carter to be confirmed by the Senate,

Breyer took office as a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in December

1980. He joined the U.S. Sentencing Commission in 1985, and in 1990, he was named chief judge of the Court of Appeals and a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States.

Initially considered for a seat on the Supreme Court upon the retirement of Byron White in 1993 (Ginsburg’s eventual spot), Breyer instead waited another year to earn President Bill

Clinton's nomination as a replacement for Harry Blackmun. Following a week of hearings, he was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 87-9 and assumed his position on August 3, 1994.

12 Watergate: a major American political scandal that lasted from 1972 to 1974, following a burglary by five men of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C. on June 17, 1972, and President Richard Nixon's subsequent attempt to cover up his administration's involvement. Nixon resigned because of this event. He is, until now, the only President ever to resign. COSMUN 2020

5.4.2. Main Points Overall, Justice Breyer is:

-The definition of calm. He is perpetually serene and never gets acrimonious. He

is stoic, confident, and extremely smart.

-Liberal-leaning, the only man belonging to the “liberal bloc” of the Supreme

Court today. However, he is slightly less liberal than his three female colleagues.

-An extraordinary rhetorician. His eloquence is second-to-none. Hear him speak

here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BSS5_VyF8. And in a more informal occasion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj2yh6QJJJk. -After the 2008 decision of Heller v. District of Columbia, Breyer said this about

the Second Amendment: “The Framers did not write the Second Amendment in

order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no

consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional

interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the

contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly

against that treatment.”

-Regarding President Trump, Justice Breyer asserted that he was not “allowed to

have an opinion.” The only way to convince Justice Breyer to impeach him would

be through excellent arguments.

COSMUN 2020

5.5. Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 5.5.1. Biography/Description

Samuel Anthony Alito Jr. was born in Trenton, New Jersey, on April 1, 1950, the son of

Italian immigrants. Both his parents were primary influences in his academic pursuits, and Alito was an excellent student. He attended Princeton University and earned his undergraduate degree there. Alito then attended Yale Law School and was the editor of the Yale Law Journal, graduating from the institution in 1975. He then moved to moved to Newark, New Jersey, to begin his career. Beginning in 1976, Alito worked as a law clerk for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit before being hired as an assistant district attorney for the District of New Jersey. He specialized in prosecuting drug traffickers and members of the mafia, because he felt that the mob gave Italian-Americans a bad reputation.

After four years with the district attorney’s office, Alito moved to Washington, D.C., where he worked as an assistant to the solicitor general for the Department of Justice and argued cases for the government before the Supreme Court. In 1985, he became the deputy assistant attorney general at the Department of Justice, a position he held until 1987 when he returned to

New Jersey as a U.S. attorney and prosecuted cases for the next three years. In 1990, George H.

COSMUN 2020

W. Bush chose Alito to serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He spent 16 years on the court and frequently issued the dissenting opinion as he was part of the conservative minority. During his time with the Court of Appeals, Alito was also an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University.

On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush chose Alito to replace retiring Supreme

Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. After a tumultuous round of confirmation hearings, in which Senator John Kerry attempted a filibuster, and several organizations were officially opposed to his nomination, Alito was confirmed by a narrow margin of 58–42.

5.5.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Alito is:

-Conservative-leaning. He rarely sides with the more “liberal side” of the Court.

-A coherent, but not brilliant, public speaker. See him speak here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axExSrXw3Uk. -Frequently considered to be rude. He rolls his eyes at other Justices and it is quite

obvious when he disagrees with other people. See his reaction to one of President

Barack Obama’s statements during his State of the Union address:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZrANnq3OaM. -Like Roberts and Thomas, he also joined the Court's decision on District of

Columbia v. Heller on June 26, 2008.

-Like Justice Thomas, he would probably vote against the impeachment of a

conservative President. The arguments would need to be sufficiently strong to

convince him. As with Thomas, that will not be easy.

COSMUN 2020

5.6. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor 5.6.1. Biography/Description

Sonia Sotomayor was born to parents of Puerto-Rican descent in the South Bronx area of

New York City, on June 25, 1954. Sotomayor attended Princeton University, starting in 1972.

She became highly involved with the Puerto Rican groups on campus, including Acción

Puertorriqueña and the Third World Center. She also worked with the university's discipline committee, where she started developing her legal skills. Her hard work was rewarded when she graduated summa cum laude in 1976. She was also awarded the Pyne Prize, which is the highest academic award given to Princeton undergraduates. That same year, Sotomayor entered Yale

Law School, where she was an editor for the Yale Law Journal. She received her J.D. in 1979, passed the bar13 in 1980 and immediately began work as an assistant district attorney in

Manhattan, serving as a trial lawyer under District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.

In 1984, Sotomayor entered private practice, making partner at the commercial litigation firm Pavia & Harcourt, where she specialized in intellectual property litigation. She moved from

13 The Bar Exam: the examination that law students in the United States must pass in order to practice law. COSMUN 2020

associate to partner14 at the firm in 1988. Sotomayor also served on the board of the Puerto Rican

Legal Defense and Education Fund, the New York City Campaign Finance Board and the State of New York Mortgage Agency. Sotomayor's pro bono15 work at these agencies caught the attention of Senators Ted Kennedy (brother to Robert Francis and John Fitzgerald) and Daniel

Patrick Moynihan, who were partially responsible for her appointment as U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of New York City. President George H.W. Bush nominated her for the position in 1992, which was confirmed unanimously by the Senate on August 11, 1992.

When she joined the court, she was its youngest judge. On her 43rd birthday, June 25, 1997, she was nominated for the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton. She was confirmed by the Senate that October.

In addition to her work in the Court of Appeals, Sotomayor also began teaching law as an adjunct professor at New York University in 1998 and at Columbia Law School in 1999. She has also received honorary law degrees from Herbert H. Lehman College, Princeton University and

Brooklyn Law School. All while serving on the Board of Trustees at Princeton. On May 26,

2009, President Barack Obama announced his nomination of Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice. The nomination was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in August 2009 by a vote of 68 to 31, making Sotomayor the first Latina Supreme Court justice in U.S. history.

5.6.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Sotomayor is:

14 A partner at a law firm is a person that has a highly ranked position, traditionally indicating co-ownership. 15 Pro Bono: Latin expression meaning "for the public good." It is professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment. COSMUN 2020

-Liberal-leaning. She makes part of the Court’s liberal bloc.

-Very charismatic. Almost always has a smile on her face and is beloved by most

of her colleagues.

-She’s a measured and thoughtful public speaker. See her speak here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMoatA0LWxI. And in a more informal occasion here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZxIs48uXc. -A fighter. She comes from a very modest background, and has fought for

everything she has in life. She attended Princeton on a full-ride scholarship, and

that is an incredible feat.

-She has also dedicated her life to public service. Whilst being a lawyer at a firm,

and having a huge paycheck, she decided to go back into public service even

though her salary would drop substantially.

-As for the Second Amendment: in Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings in 2009,

she pledged fidelity to the decision of “Heller” made a year prior. However, in

2010, she sided with her three liberal-leaning colleagues in dissenting against the

Court’s decision that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms,"

as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due

Process Clause (see Page 14) or Privileges or Immunities Clause (see Page 14) of

the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

-On an impeachment case, she would probably follow the rule of law and decide

whether the President should or should be impeached according to his actions. We

sincerely doubt that she would have political motivations.

COSMUN 2020

5.7. Associate Justice Elena Kagan 5.7.1. Biography/Description

Born April 28, 1960, in New York City, Kagan grew up in a middle-class Jewish family living on Manhattan's Upper West Side. She graduated high school in 1977 and enrolled, like

Sonia Sotomayor, at Princeton University, where she studied history. In 1981, Kagan graduated summa cum laude. She also earned the Daniel M. Sachs Graduating Fellow scholarship from her alma mater, which allowed her to attend the University of Oxford in England. In 1983, she earned a master's degree in philosophy at Oxford before moving on to Harvard Law School.

While at Harvard, she served as the supervising editor of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude in 1986.

After school, Kagan landed a job clerking for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The next year, she began another clerking job, this time for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the U.S. Supreme Court. During this time, she also worked for Michael Dukakis' 1988 presidential campaign, but after Dukakis lost, Kagan headed to the private sector to work as an associate at the Washington D.C. law firm Williams &

COSMUN 2020

Connolly. After three years at Williams & Connolly, Kagan returned to academia—this time as a professor. In 1991, she began teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, and by 1995, she was a tenured professor of law. Kagan left the school that same year, however, to work as associate counsel for President Bill Clinton. During her four years at the White House, Kagan was promoted several times: first to the position of Deputy Assistant to the President for

Domestic Policy, and then to the role of Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council.

Before Clinton left office, he nominated Kagan to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals

D.C. Circuit. However, her nomination struggled with the Senate Judiciary Committee and in

1999, Kagan returned to higher education. Starting as a visiting professor at Harvard Law, Kagan quickly climbed the ladder from professor in 2001 to dean in 2003. During her five years as the dean of Harvard Law, Kagan made big changes at the institution, including faculty expansion, curriculum changes and the development of new campus facilities. After fellow Harvard alumnus Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election, he selected Kagan for the role of solicitor general16. In January 2009, Kagan received her endorsement from the previous solicitors general and was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on March 19, 2009. With her confirmation, she became the first woman to serve as solicitor general of the United States.

Just one year after her confirmation as solicitor general, President Obama nominated

Kagan to fill the vacancy left by Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court bench after his retirement. On August 5, 2010, she was confirmed by Senate with a vote of 63–37, making her the fourth woman to sit on the high court. At 50 years old, she became the youngest member of the current court and the only Justice on the bench who had no previous judicial experience. In

16 Solicitor General: the chief representative of a regional or national government in courtroom proceedings. COSMUN 2020

addition, her approval put three female Justices—Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia

Sotomayor—on the country's highest court for the first time in U.S. history.

5.7.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Kagan is:

-Liberal-leaning. She makes part of the Court’s liberal bloc.

-Tough. She does not “take crap from anybody.”

-More academic than most of her colleagues. Her experiences as dean of

Harvard Law, Professor at UChicago, and studies at Oxford and Princeton make

her one of the most legally well-rounded beings on the planet.

-Quite funny. She has a keen sense of humor. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Ix6u-EJ_8. -In terms of public speaking, she’s like Samuel Alito. Coherent and cohesive, but

not gifted. See her speaking here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkVwvlpXUk. -On the Second Amendment, Kagan said that it is “settled law” that an individual

has a right to bear arms, because of the “Heller” case of 2008. However,

throughout her career, Kagan has hinted at an aversion of the Second

Amendment.

-Like Justice Sotomayor, she would probably follow the rule of law and decide

whether the President should or should be impeached according to his actions. We

sincerely doubt that she would have political motivations.

COSMUN 2020

5.8. Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch 5.8.1. Biography/Description

Neil McGill Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, in Denver, Colorado. He was the oldest son of two lawyers, and was very studious as a child. Gorsuch began spending more time in Washington, D.C., after his mother, Anne, became the first woman to run the Environmental

Protection Agency in 1981. She resigned 22 months into the job after refusing to turn over subpoenaed17 documents. Around that time she also divorced her husband, David. Even though his home life was difficult, Gorsuch succeeded at school and was voted class president as a senior. He then attended Columbia University, displaying his conservative views as a writer for the Columbia Daily Spectator. He was also the co-founder of The Federalist Paper. Gorsuch then attended Harvard Law School, where he was classmates with Barack Obama, earning his

J.D. in 1991.

Gorsuch began his legal career as a clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle of the United States

Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He then spent another year of clerkship

17 Subpoena: a writ (a form of written command in the name of a court or other legal authority to act, or abstain from acting, in a particular way) ordering a person to attend a court. COSMUN 2020

with two Supreme Court justices, Anthony M. Kennedy and Byron R. White. In 1995, Gorsuch joined the D.C. law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel. He rose to the rank of partner in 1998. In 2004, Gorsuch completed his education with a doctorate in legal philosophy from Oxford University. He then joined the U.S. Department of Justice in 2005 as principal deputy to the associate attorney general.

In July 2006, the 39-year-old Gorsuch was confirmed without opposition to the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in Denver. He was there for over eleven years, until, on

January 31, 2017, he was nominated by President Donald Trump to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February 2016.

5.8.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Gorsuch is:

-In almost every sense of the word, the successor to Justice Scalia. Like Scalia, he

is very conservative-leaning, a Constitutional originalist and a “colorful” writer.

And, on a court consisting of five Catholic and three Jewish justices, all from the

East Coast, it was believed he offered a different perspective as a Protestant from

a Western state.

-An intellectual with a charming personality. Everyone who has served with him

testifies to his charisma and gracious conduct.

-A truly accomplished public speaker. See him speak here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnbFxpFCgho. -Extremely unlikely to vote to impeach the President that nominated him to the

Court.

COSMUN 2020

-He has only said of the Second Amendment, that it is “the law of the land” and

that he will act according to precedent. Yet, it cannot be denied that he has a

conservative viewpoint and that the National Rifle Association (NRA) thought it

was worth investing a million dollars in television ads urging his confirmation.

-He was the decisive vote on four cases with a liberal majority for the 2018 term,

more than any other conservative-leaning Justice.

5.9. Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh 5.9.1. Biography/Description

Brett Michael Kavanaugh was born in Washington, D.C., in 1965. He attended private

Roman Catholic primary and secondary schools, including Georgetown Preparatory School (like

Justice Gorsuch). He was then admitted to Yale University, and graduated cum laude in 1987 with a bachelor’s degree in history. He then studied at Yale Law School, earning a law degree in

1990. For the next two years he clerked for federal appellate court judges, first with Walter

Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and then with Alex Kozinski of the

COSMUN 2020

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He worked for a year in the office of the U.S. solicitor general before, in 1993, beginning a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Anthony

Kennedy, whom he would eventually replace.

From 1994 to 1997 and again in 1998, Kavanaugh served on the legal team of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who led an investigation of Democratic President Bill

Clinton that culminated in Clinton’s impeachment on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his affair with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Kavanaugh was in charge investigating allegations that Clinton and his wife had arranged the murder of deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster (the investigation concluded that Foster had committed suicide), and he later directed Starr’s investigation into Clinton’s sexual relations with

Lewinsky. Later on, Kavanaugh assisted the legal team of George W. Bush in its successful effort to end the recount of presidential votes in Florida following the 2000 election (see Bush v.

Gore). During the late 1990s Kavanaugh also worked in private practice at the law firm of

Kirkland & Ellis (1997–98 and 1999–2001).

Following Bush’s inauguration as President, Kavanaugh worked in the White House as associate counsel (2001–03), as senior associate counsel (2003), and finally as assistant to the

President and staff secretary (2003–06). Bush twice nominated Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—in 2003 and 2005—but the nominations were never voted upon. In January 2006 Bush again nominated Kavanaugh to the D.C. Circuit, and he was finally confirmed in May. While serving on the D.C. Circuit, he also taught part-time at Yale

Law School, the Georgetown University Law Center, and Harvard Law School, where he was first hired by Elena Kagan, then dean of the school.

COSMUN 2020

In July 2018, President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy. Though his confirmation hearings initially ran smoothly, once a confidential letter was exposed, which accused Kavanaugh of sexually abusing a woman

(Christine Blasey Ford), Democrats in the Senate were enraged. The FBI conducted a limited investigation into the accusations, but did not find any substantial evidence in order to not confirm the judge. On October 6, 2018, the Senate voted to confirm Kavanaugh by an exceptionally slim vote of 50 to 48, and he was sworn in on the same day.

5.9.2. Main Points

Overall, Justice Kavanaugh is:

-Temperamental. His occasionally frenzied nature really came across in his

confirmation hearings. For a biased, but partly true exposé of Justice Kavanaugh,

see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opi8X9hQ7q8. -Conservative-leaning. But “Kavanaugh has voted with some of the liberal

justices as often as he did with the really conservative flank during his first term.

He sided with justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan (liberal-leaning), for

example, the same percentage of the time that he did with President Donald

Trump’s other appointee, Justice Neil Gorsuch,” according to data collected by

Adam Feldman, a lawyer who writes the Empirical SCOTUS blog. This means

that he has no problem with siding with the liberal bloc when he deems it right.

-Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter died in the Parkland school shooting,

approached Kavanaugh and extended his hand, and Kavanaugh turned his back to

the man and walked away. This put a spotlight on Kavanaugh’s views on gun

COSMUN 2020

control, and it is widely believed that Kavanaugh supports the Second

Amendment and an individual’s right to bear arms, as set forth in the decision of

the “Heller” case in 2008.

-As is the case for Justice Gorsuch, it is extremely unlikely for Justice Kavanaugh

to vote to impeach the President that nominated him to the Court.

5.10. Ideological Graphs

COSMUN 2020

6. The Lawyers *Only read the person you have been assigned - either for the Justices and lawyers. These two sections are 40 pages long. Read everything if you want to gain a completely holistic understanding, but YOU DO NOT HAVE TO* 6.1. Case #1 6.1.1. Legal Counsel for President Trump (Defence) 6.1.1.1. Jay Sekulow

Jay Alan Sekulow was born in Brooklyn, New York, and was raised Jewish. Sekulow earned a B.A. and a J.D. from Mercer University. While attending Atlanta Baptist College (now the Atlanta campus of Mercer University), Sekulow became interested in Christianity and converted to Messianic Judaism after encountering Jews for Jesus. He earned a Ph.D. from

Regent University in 2005, writing his dissertation on religious influence on Supreme Court

Justices and their opinions.

As a young lawyer, Sekulow worked in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal

Revenue Service (IRS) as a tax trial attorney, defending lawsuits in the United States Tax Court on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury. In 1992, Sekulow became the director of the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice), where he is chief counsel. He served as an outside adviser to President George W. Bush on judicial nominations and Supreme Court picks

COSMUN 2020

(including Chief Justice Roberts), and advised former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney on his presidential runs in 2008 and 2012. Most importantly, he has been President Trump’s personal attorney since the Mueller probe was announced. He is considered to be the key player in Trump’s legal team since John Dowd resigned. He has argued in front of the Supreme Court

12 times, so he has experience in front of the Justices.

Here are a few examples to show how Sekulow speaks and debates:

● https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-lawyer-reveals-im

peachment-defense-in-fiery-msnbc-interview-70804549984.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVYpOsXFcS0.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqCbVlgkUO8.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPzLyAvN7Ys. 6.1.1.2. Pat Cipollone

COSMUN 2020

Pasquale Anthony "Pat" Cipollone was born on May 6, 1966 in the Bronx. He graduated as class valedictorian from Fordham University in 1988, with a Bachelor of Arts in economics and political philosophy. Afterwards, Cipollone attended the University of Chicago Law School, where he was managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, and earned the title of Juris Doctor (J.D.) in 1991.

After graduation, Cipollone was a law clerk for Judge Danny Boggs of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from 1991 to 1992, and served as an assistant to Attorney

General William P. Barr from 1992–1993. Barr, coincidentally, is also the Attorney General today. He was then hired as a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis, and then at Stein,

Mitchell, Cipollone, Beato & Missner, where he practiced commercial litigation. His clients included President Donald Trump, Radio Ingraham LLC, and Sony Entertainment.

In October 2018, Cipollone was named White House Counsel by President Donald

Trump. He has since been the public face of the White House response to the impeachment inquiry.

Here are a few examples to show how Cipollone speaks and debates:

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me8sd5DTCDw.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1TJ5lmE-fE.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cio9jJTYhAg.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehew5rMr6zo.

COSMUN 2020

6.1.2 Selected Members of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary (Prosecution)

6.1.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris

Kamala Devi Harris was born on October 20, 1964, in Oakland, California. Her father was Jamaican and a professor at Stanford University, and her mother, the daughter of an Indian diplomat, was a cancer researcher. Harris earned her degree in political science and economics at

Howard University, and her J.D. from Hastings College. She then worked as a deputy district attorney (1990–98) in Oakland, and rose through the ranks, becoming district attorney in 2004.

In 2010 she was narrowly elected attorney general of California (she won by a margin of less than 1 percent) becoming the first female and the first African American to hold the post.

Like Barack Obama, Harris delivered a memorable speech at the Democratic National

Convention in 2012, which helped to raise her national profile. Senator Barbara Boxer, who was retiring, convinced her to run as her replacement in the Senate for California. She declared her candidacy in 2015, and easily won one year later in a state that is widely considered to be “blue.”

She took office in January 2017, and began serving on both the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Judiciary Committee, among other assignments. She became known for her prosecutorial

COSMUN 2020

style of questioning witnesses during hearings. She can only be described as “tough as nails” because she is fierce and will grill anyone who is not prepared.

In January 2019, Senator Harris announced that she would be running for President. She dropped out of the race in December. She will most likely be chosen as either a Vice-Presidential candidate or the US Attorney General (if the Democratic candidate wins). Either way, Senator

Harris will still be a Senator and a member of the Judiciary Committee by the time the Supreme

Court is in session in April, and she will argue the case to impeach President Trump, and to repeal the Second Amendment with a new amendment.

Here are a few examples to show how Senator Harris speaks, debates, and questions:

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUutymbDLI0. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DH8WnLLT4I. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPyn3ozACz0. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sak58M2Og8. 6.1.2.2. Senator Cory Booker

Cory Anthony Booker was born on April 27, 1969, in Washington D.C., to civil rights activists Cary Alfred and Carolyn Rose Booker, who were among the first black executives at

COSMUN 2020

IBM. He was raised in Harrington Park, New Jersey, and attended Stanford University, where he received a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in sociology. Booker served as senior class president and headed a student-run crisis hotline. Upon his graduation from Stanford, he was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship to study at the University of Oxford. He then received his J.D. from Yale Law School, and operated free legal clinics for low-income residents of New Haven. Despite his busy schedule, Booker managed to get involved in the

National Black Law Students Association.

Booker took an interest in the politics of the state he grew up in: New Jersey. He ran the and defeated four-term Newark City Council incumbent George Branch. Instead of running for re-election, he took his ambitions a step further and ran for mayor against longtime incumbent

Sharpe James. Booker lost the election and instead finished out his council term in 2002.

Following his loss, Booker began investing his time in establishing nonprofit organizations with the goal to provide Newark residents with resources and services to improve their communities, including Newark Now, and was making headlines. He ran for the mayoral seat again in 2006 and won. His campaign to battle crime angered gang leaders, who started to plot his assassination. State investigators managed to stop it.

He reduced the crime rate significantly during his first term as mayor. He even patrolled the streets personally until 4 a.m., and also implemented pay cuts for top-earning city managers and directors, whilst reducing his own salary by 8 percent. As a member of the nonpartisan

Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition, Booker was honored in October 2009 by the Brady

Center to Prevent Gun Violence and was among the finalists for the 2010 World Mayor prize, but ranked seventh (still an impressive ranking). He was re-elected to his seat in May 2010 and

COSMUN 2020

continued making headlines by taking care of a few citizens’ requests himself. The Toronto Sun even gave him the name “super-mayor.”

Booker officially announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in New Jersey on June 8,

2013, the seat left vacant following the death of Senator Frank Lautenberg. He won the primary election for the Democratic nomination on August 13, 2013. He soon won the Senate seat, beating out Republican Steve Lonegan in a special election held on October 16, 2013. In 2014,

Booker defeated Republican challenger Jeff Bell to hold onto his Senate seat. During Brett

Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing in 2018, Booker released 12 pages of "committee confidential" emails that dealt with racial inequality, an act that left him in danger of expulsion.

Nothing came of it.

On February 1, 2019, Booker announced via email to supporters that he was running for the Presidency. He dropped out of the race in January 2020. He will most likely be chosen as a

Vice-Presidential candidate. Either way, Senator Booker will still be a Senator and a member of the Judiciary Committee by the time the Supreme Court is in session in April, and he will argue the case to impeach President Trump, and to repeal the Second Amendment with a new amendment.

Here are a few examples to show how Senator Booker speaks, debates, and questions:

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9FJBTIMVM. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A52bs7D4qHw.

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkW0bDG1mcU. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypMbplfWtg.

COSMUN 2020

6.2. Case #2 6.2.1. Legal Team for the Petitioner 6.2.1.1. Senator Rick Scott

Rick Scott was born Richard Lynn Myers in Bloomington, Illinois on December 1, 1952.

Scott never met his biological father, Gordon William Myers, who was as an abusive alcoholic.

Scott's parents divorced in his infancy. He was raised in North Kansas City, Missouri, the second of five children. His family was lower-middle-class and struggled financially. Scott graduated from high school in 1970, attended one year of community college but then decided to enlist in the U.S. Navy. He was in the US Navy for 29 months and served as a radar technician. After leaving the Navy, Scott attended college on the GI Bill18, graduating from the University of

Missouri–Kansas City with a Bachelor of Business Administration degree. He earned a J.D. from

Southern Methodist University. He was licensed by the Texas Bar to practice law on November

6, 1978.

Following his graduation from law school, Scott worked as an attorney at the law firm of

Johnson & Swanson in Dallas, Texas. While practicing law in 1987 he tried to purchase

18 GI Bill: provides educational assistance to servicemembers, veterans, and their dependents. COSMUN 2020

‘Hospital Corporation of America’ (HCA), but failed. In 1988, Scott and his wife put up their entire savings of $125,000 for ‘Columbia Hospital Corporation’ that Scott set up with two other business partners. It gradually started purchasing other hospitals and with time emerged as one of the largest healthcare companies worldwide with over 340 hospitals, 550 home health locations and 135 surgery centres. However, on March 19, 1997, the company started to be investigated by the DHHS, the IRS, and the FBI. In the middle of such fraud investigations, Scott was pressured to resign as CEO and Chairman. He resigned that year. From 1997 to 2003 he remained a member of the United Way of America’s National Board of Directors and a partner of George

W. Bush as co-owner of the Texas Rangers. He started two other companies from 2001 to 2009.

On April 9, 2010, Scott declared his candidacy for the Governor position in Florida. He beat Bill McCollum with 47% of the vote in the Republican primary election. He then defeated

Democratic nominee Alex Sink in the general election and became the 45th Governor of Florida.

He spent around $75 million on campaigning from his own pocket. He assumed office as

Governor of Florida on January 4, 2011. He then ran for a second term in the 2014 gubernatorial election in Florida and this time defeated former governor and Democratic nominee Charlie Crist on November 4, 2014, to assume office for a second term.

Scott officially announced on April 9, 2018, that he would challenge incumbent

Democratic U.S. Senator Bill Nelson in the 2018 election. He defeated Nelson by 10,033 votes, after a recount. Also, as of February 2018, Scott had an A+ rating from the National Rifle

Association (NRA), indicating a record of supporting gun rights. The NRA stated in 2014 that

Scott "signed more pro-gun bills into law – in one term – than any other governor in Florida history." Scott has since signed a few bills that make it harder for people to own weapons,

COSMUN 2020

including one that raises the age required to buy a weapon from 18 to 21. Yet, he is still a gun owner and an NRA member.

Here are a few examples to show how Senator Scott speaks, debates, and questions:

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiXSA7eN1U. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhv5qtPkdr0. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCVkEhbBNeo. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crpu1_3rmDY&t=21s. 6.2.1.2. Senator Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida, on May 28, 1971. He is one of four children born to Cuban immigrants. In 1975, his parents became naturalized U.S. citizens. Rubio spent part of his childhood in Las Vegas, Nevada, but returned to Florida in the 1980s with his family.

He was a fantastic athlete and a top football player at his high school, graduating in 1989 and earning a football scholarship to Tarkio College in Missouri. Rubio left the school after a year and eventually enrolled at the University of Florida. He completed his bachelor's degree there in

1993, and went on to earn a J.D. from the University of Miami in 1996.

COSMUN 2020

Rubio began his career in the public sector in 1998, by winning a seat on the West Miami

City Commission. A year later, he was victorious in his bid for the Florida House of

Representatives. He quickly established himself as a political force within the House, becoming the majority leader in 2003 and then Speaker of the House three years later. After that, in 2009,

Rubio surprised many in Florida by taking on former Florida governor and Republican Charlie

Crist for the Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez. With the help of Tea Party supporters, the reform-minded Rubio managed to win an impressive victory in November 2010.

Since taking office in 2011, Rubio has become a member of several legislative committees, including the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation; and the

Committee on Foreign Relations. In April 2015, Rubio announced his plans to run for the 2016

Republican presidential nomination. In an ill-tempered primary election, he lost against real estate magnate Donald Trump. In June 2016, Rubio told the press that he would run for a second

Senate term. In November 2016, Rubio defeated his Democratic opponent, Representative

Patrick Murphy, and won re-election in the Senate race.

Senator Rubio has faced tough questions about his ties to the NRA. According to

Business Insider, the man has received 3.3 million dollars from that organization. Like Senator

Scott, he also has an “A+” rating from the NRA.

Here are a few examples to show how Senator Rubio speaks, debates, and questions:

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR0k5xdUxBs&t=211s. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X38k0cND64. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZKx26irnFo. ● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XycsE4FICg.

COSMUN 2020

6.2.2. Legal Team for the Respondent

6.2.2.1. Senator Kamala Harris

The explanation for Senator Harris has already been given in the section above.

6.2.2.2. Senator Cory Booker

The explanation for Senator Booker has already been given in the section above.

COSMUN 2020

7. Case #1: United States v. Donald J. Trump

7.1. Overview

7.1.1. Introduction

President Donald J. Trump became the third sitting president in American history to be impeached. However, it was a very “superficial” impeachment as it was most certainly not bipartisan and was extremely divided along party lines. That is partly because the Democrats rushed into things in trying to attack Trump, and because the Republicans wouldn’t allow key

Republican witnesses to testify. Thus, the Senate trial was a formality and President Trump was obviously not removed from office. We WILL NOT take President Trump’s official impeachment into consideration and will instead start from a clean slate. You delegates will have complete freedom to examine whether the President really deserves to be both impeached and removed from office. This committee will go much further than the House of Representatives’ investigation ever did. What we will do is analyze everything that Trump is accused of

(according to the evidence presented by the lawyers - not just the Ukraine situation like in the real-life impeachment scenario), and the charges that the lawyers put forth, and then find whether it justifies impeachment AND removal from office. We DO NOT recommend that you research any further on Trump’s real impeachment articles and proceedings as they will probably be very misleading. The next three sections are a description of Trump’s supposed wrongdoings. 7.1.2. The Mueller Report - and Everything in Between

The Mueller Report, officially titled Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, is the official report that documents the conclusions and

COSMUN 2020

findings of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was appointed to explore the allegations of conspiracy or coordination between Donald Trump's presidential campaign and Russia, and the allegations of obstruction of justice19.

The report was submitted to Attorney General William Barr on March 22, 2019, and a redacted version of the report was released to the public by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on

April 18, 2019. Redactions to the report fall under President Trump’s ability to use executive privilege20. The report is divided into two volumes: one that deals with Russian interference and the Trump campaign’s knowledge of that interference, and the other with how the President might have obstructed justice.

The first volume describes how the Counsel and his team did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign "coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities." The word “sufficient” is key. The investigators had a deficient picture of what happened because communications were often encrypted, deleted or unsaved.

Testimony was also often false, incomplete or declined. Yet, the report did state that Russian interference happened "in sweeping and systematic fashion," but was welcomed by the Trump campaign as it though that it would benefit from it. The report also identifies several ties between

Trump campaign officials and individuals who work(ed) with the Russian government.

19 Obstruction of Justice: the crime or act of willfully interfering with the process of justice and law especially by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, juror, or judicial or legal officer or by furnishing false information in or otherwise impeding an investigation or legal process.

20 Executive Privilege: the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications under certain circumstances within the executive branch and to resist some subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. COSMUN 2020

Basically, there was not enough evidence to conclusively assert that Trump had directly collaborated with Russia to meddle in the election.

The second volume was less beneficial for Trump. Mueller and his team did find ten instances/episodes in which the President might have obstructed justice. The episodes are the following:

❏ The Trump campaign's response to Russian support: The report states that the first

possible obstruction case was during the 2016 presidential campaign, when

questions “arose about the Russian government's apparent support for candidate

Trump." The report states that while Trump was publicly skeptical Russia had

released emails from Democratic officials, Trump and his aides were also trying

to obtain information about "any further planned WikiLeaks releases." According

to the report, shortly after a WikiLeaks release, Rick Gates, then Deputy

Campaign Chairman, was going to LaGuardia Airport with Trump when Trump

took a phone call. After the call, "candidate Trump told Gates that more releases

of damaging information would be coming."

❏ The President's conduct in the Michael Flynn investigation: On February 13,

2017, Michael Flynn resigned as National Security Advisor, following news

reports about his communications with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak and

additional reports that he had misled the Vice President about them. The

communications he had with the Russian ambassador were subsequently leaked to

the press. The next day (February 14), President Trump met with FBI Director

James Comey in the Oval Office and reportedly told him "I hope you can see your

COSMUN 2020

way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go" adding "he's a good guy.” Also,

the Report described a November 2017 voicemail Flynn's attorneys received from

Trump's "personal counsel," reportedly John Dowd, who stated, "[I]f...there's

information that implicates the President...we need some kind of heads up."

❏ The President's reaction to the FBI's Russia investigation being publicized: After

Trump learned that Attorney General Jeff Sessions planned to recuse21 himself

from the Special Counsel investigation, Trump sought to prevent the move, which

he viewed as disloyal and harmful. "After Sessions announced his recusal on

March 2, the President expressed anger at Sessions for the decision and then

privately asked Sessions to ‘unrecuse’.” On March 20, Comey publicly disclosed

the FBI's Russia investigation. "In the days that followed, the President contacted

Comey and other intelligence agency leaders and asked them to push back

publicly on the suggestion that the President had any connection to the Russian

election-interference effort in order to 'lift the cloud' of the ongoing

investigation," the Report says.

❏ The Firing of FBI Director James Comey: The report asserts that,"In the week

leading up to Comey's May 3, 2017, Senate Judiciary Committee testimony, the

President told [former White House Counsel] Don McGahn that it would be the

last straw if Comey did not set the record straight and publicly announce that the

President was not under investigation, despite repeated requests that Comey make

such an announcement." Trump told those close to him that he was going to fire

21 Recuse oneself: to remove (oneself) from participation to avoid a conflict of interest. COSMUN 2020

the Director on May 5, and did so on May 9. The report notes that Trump fired

Comey before he received a recommendation by the Justice Department.

According to the Report, there is "substantial evidence [to] indicate that the

catalyst for the President's decision to fire Comey was Comey's unwillingness to

publicly state that the President was not personally under investigation, despite

the President's repeated requests that Comey make such an announcement."

Trump bragged about the firing of Comey to the Russian foreign minister and

U.S. Ambassador of Russia in an Oval Office meeting in May 2017, saying: "I

just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure

because of Russia. That's taken off."

❏ The President's efforts to remove the Special Counsel (Mueller): When Jeff

Sessions recused himself from the Special Counsel (Mueller) investigation, the

report notes that Trump said something along the lines of: "This is the end of my

presidency. I'm fucked," and that Attorney General Sessions had not protected

him and should resign. Sessions submitted his resignation, but the President did

not accept it. The report also indicates that on June 14, 2017, "the press reported

that the President was being personally investigated for obstruction of justice and

the President responded with a series of tweets crippticizing the Special Counsel's

investigation." The following weekend, Trump called Don McGahn and "directed

him to have the Special Counsel removed because of asserted conflicts of

interest." McGahn did not act on the request "for fear of being seen as triggering

COSMUN 2020

another Saturday Night Massacre22 and instead prepared to resign." McGahn did

indeed resign on October 17, 2018.

❏ The President's efforts to diminish the Special Counsel (Mueller) investigation:

On June 19, 2017, two days after Trump tried to have Don McGahn fire the

special counsel, the President had a one-on-one meeting in the Oval Office with

Corey Lewandowski, former Trump campaign manager who was not working for

the government. Trump wanted Lewandowski to deliver a message to Sessions

that would "have had the effect of limiting the Russia investigation to future

election interference only," and therefore, would not involve the President

personally or investigate his behavior or actions. Trump dictated the following

message for Sessions, and Lewandowski wrote it down: "I know that I recused

myself from certain things having to do with specific areas. But our POTUS . .. is

being treated very unfairly. He shouldn't have a Special Prosecutor/Counsel

[because] he hasn't done anything wrong. I was on the campaign [with] him for

nine months, there were no Russians involved with him. I know it for a fact

[because] I was there. He didn't do anything wrong except he ran the greatest

campaign in American history." The message goes on in which Sessions would

meet with the Special Counsel and limit its jurisdiction to future election

interference. "Now a group of people want to subvert the Constitution of the

United States. I am going to meet with the Special Prosecutor to explain this is

very unfair and let the Special Prosecutor move forward with investigating

22 Saturday Night Massacre: the series of events that took place in the United States on the evening of Saturday, October 20, 1973, during the Watergate scandal. COSMUN 2020

election meddling for future elections so that nothing can happen in future

elections."

❏ The President's efforts to prevent disclosures about the Trump Tower meeting:

The report cites three different occasions between June 29 and July 9, 2017, when

Trump directed Hope Hicks, former White House Communications Director, and

others, to not disclose information about the Trump Tower meeting (a meeting

with the purpose to receive "dirt" on the Clinton presidential campaign) on June 9,

2016. These requests were directed to the press and could have constituted

obstruction only if Trump "sought to withhold information from or mislead

congressional investigations or the Special Counsel." The Special Counsel could

not find sufficient evidence to establish that Trump intended on preventing the

Special Counsel or Congress from obtaining information referring to the meeting.

❏ The President's efforts to have the Attorney General control the investigation: The

aforementioned statements from the President to try to convince Jeff Sessions to

reverse his recusal over the Special Counsel investigation.

❏ The President ordering White House Counsel Don McGahn to deny reports: After

the news broke out in late January 2018 that Trump ordered Don McGahn to fire

the Special Counsel in June 2017, Trump pressured McGahn to deny the reports.

"After the story broke, the President, through his personal counsel and two aides,

sought to have McGahn deny that he had been directed to remove the Special

Counsel," the report denotes.

COSMUN 2020

❏ The President's conduct towards Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, and "redacted

name": The Report details that Trump took actions "directed at possible witnesses

in the Special Counsel's investigation." According to the Report, actions taken by

Trump and his lawyers "could have had the potential to affect Flynn's decision to

cooperate, as well as the extent of that cooperation. Because of privilege issues,

however, we could not determine whether the President was personally involved

in or knew about the specific message his [lawyer] delivered to Flynn's [lawyer]."

As for Manafort, the report states, "there is evidence that the President's actions

had the potential to influence Manafort's decision whether to cooperate with the

government." There was one more redacted name (under executive privilege) that

Trump could have influenced to not cooperate with the investigation.

❏ The President's conduct involving Michael Cohen: The last episode of potential

obstruction concerns Michael Cohen, a former lawyer of Trump's. The Report

claims that "there is evidence that could support the inference that the President

intended to discourage Cohen from cooperating with the government because

Cohen's information would shed adverse light on the President's campaign-period

conduct and statements." Nonetheless, the Report reveals that when Cohen began

cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, Trump openly chastised

him: "Cohen also discussed pardons23 with the President's personal counsel and

believed that if he stayed on message, he would get a pardon or the President

would do 'something else' to make the investigation end. But after Cohen began

23 Presidential pardons: the action of the President of the United States that completely sets aside the punishment for a federal crime. COSMUN 2020

cooperating with the government in the summer of 2018, the President publicly

criticized him, called him a 'rat', and suggested that his family members had

committed crimes."

7.1.3. Unrighteous Behavior

However, the possible charges delineated in the Mueller Report are not the only ones that have been mentioned in an eventual justification for impeachment. The offenses described in the following sub-sections are only potential arguments set forth by those who want Trump impeached, but they are not judicial certainties. They are only here for the lawyers to explore whether it’s worth including them in a case against the President. Most of these would not constitute high crimes and/or misdemeanors, but they should still be analyzed.

7.1.3.1. Profiting from the Presidency

It should be mentioned that the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits the

President from accepting personal benefits from any foreign government or official.

Keeping that in mind, Trump, America's richest president in history, has gained hundreds of millions from his real estate empire while in office, in what many see as a flagrant conflict of interest. Trump could have put the issue to rest by giving up his business interests entirely as he entered the White House. Instead, through a trust, he turned over management to his adult sons, while continuing to receive updates on how the company functions. In the meantime, Trump continues to rake in cash, including $421 million in 2018 alone.

Subsequently, President Trump has to defend himself against multiple allegations that he has in effect violated the Constitution by receiving money from foreign sources while serving as

President of the United States. The first allegation against the President was proposed after

COSMUN 2020

Trump opened the Trump International Hotel a short time before he was elected in November

2016, just blocks from the White House. In comparison to past presidents, while serving as

President, he has maintained control of several business interests, including the hotel.

The hotel has become a favorite accommodation and event space for some foreign and state officials visiting Washington D.C. since his election. By refusing to disengage from the hotel, the lawsuit alleges that Trump has directly tried to profit from his role as President, by not accommodating the leaders elsewhere.

Other allegations named are: that China approved multiple trademarks for his family’s brands while Trump was negotiating trade policies with Xi Jinping; that Trump attempted to promote his club in Doral, Florida as a place to host the 2020 G-7 Conference; and that every time he goes to golf at a Trump property, he transfers taxpayer money into his family business—violating the Domestic Emoluments Clause24. To date, Trump has spent over $100 million taxpayer dollars to golf and vacation at his own properties.

7.1.3.2. Advocating Political & Police Violence

Trump’s language and rhetoric have been cited in numerous criminal proceedings as being the inspiration and justification for political violence. There are many instances in which this would be true, but none more so than when he gave cover to those who rioted in

Charlottesville, Virginia and murdered a protester. At the time, Trump declared that, “[he] condemn[ed] in the strongest possible terms [that] egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides," Trump said. The use of the words “on many sides” implied that he thought both sides were to blame, thus justifying the actions of neo-Nazis and

24 Domestic Emoluments Clause: prohibits the president from receiving any “Emolument” from the federal government or the states beyond “a compensation” for his “services” as chief executive. COSMUN 2020

white supremacists. His actions at the time were so worrying that then-Ambassador to the UN

Nikki Haley has included the following statement about President Trump’s remarks in her book:

"I was deeply disturbed... [and] certain he didn't understand how damaging his remarks were."

These were the words of a Trump appointee and a member of his cabinet.

Additionally, candidate Trump’s first speech included one of the most derogatory affirmations ever declared by someone seeking the Presidency. He said that all Mexicans were

“rapists.” He has made similar insults towards other nationalities and ethnicities.

7.1.3.3. Abuse of Power

The main argument to be made about Trump abusing his power is the President’s decision to pardon Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was convicted for contempt of court after ignoring a court order that he stop detaining and searching people based on the color of their skin. Trump announced his decision on Twitter, declaring that Arpaio is an "American patriot" who had "kept

Arizona safe." That is not a reason to grant a pardon, especially after the formerly incarcerated man engaged in systematic racism.

7.1.3.4. Engaging in Reckless Conduct

The argument proposed here is mainly based on “hearsay.” Many former (and some current) Trump aides have stated that Trump is unfit for office, and that he does not have the capacity to make informed decisions in the event of a military crisis. The President is, after all, in possession of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. If he is not capable of knowing when and how to use it, then the world is at risk. For example, Trump paved the way for President Recep

Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey, to invade Syria, abandoning America’s Kurdish partners in the

Syrian Democratic Forces, who had eliminated the Islamic State’s caliphate in March, after five

COSMUN 2020

years of warfare. His actions to remove troops from Syria were received by bipartisan opposition, as both Democrats and Republicans wondered what the President was doing and why he had made a decision so distant from the US’ foreign policy.

7.1.3.5. Attacking the Press

The President has repeatedly attacked the concept of a free press. He calls some news outlets “fake news” and journalists “the enemy of the American people,” made threats to change libel laws and revoke credentials to the White House. Yet, the clearest example of his disdain or ignorace towards the press was the murder of journalist and US citizen Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi

Arabian dissident and columnist for The Washington Post who was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government. Trump did not condemn the assassination of the reporter, citing the US’ relationship with Saudi Arabia as the main reason.

7.1.3.6. Violating Immigrants' Rights

The Trump administration has separated at least 3,000 immigrant children from their parents at the southern border. This policy was meant to act as a deterrent for families trying to cross the US - Mexico border. However, the problem lies in the fact that the children and their families have been held in internment camps and cages with what lawyers call “inhumane conditions.” Also, the administration has no plan to reunite the children with their families, even deporting some parents while their children remain detained. This is a violation of the immigrants’ constitutional rights.

COSMUN 2020

7.1.3.7. Violating Campaign Finance Laws

Donald Trump knew disclosure of his affairs with Stephanie Clifford (also known as

Stormy Daniels) and Karen McDougal could hurt his chances at winning the 2016 election. At the direction of Trump, Michael Cohen, his personal counsel, bought the rights to the women’s stories and forced them to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements to prevent them from going public for the purpose of protecting his campaign. Cohen admitted to making illegal, hush-money payments to hide Trump’s affairs in the fall of 2016, just weeks before the election, a violation of campaign finance laws.

7.1.4. The “Ukraine Situation”

“Quid pro quo” basically means "a favour for a favour." Essentially, this is the reason why there is a “Ukraine situation” to begin with. The story behind it is that President Trump called Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, to ask him whether he would investigate

2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and their ties to

Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company. At the time, Zelensky was waiting on a congressionally mandated $400 million military aid package. It is unknown, and crucial to the argument, to determine whether President Trump made the aid contingent on Zelensky’s help to take down a political rival.

Because of the President’s actions in this situation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to begin a formal impeachment inquiry by the House of Representatives into President Trump. The impeachment inquiry came in the wake of a whistleblower25 complaint alleging a widespread abuse of power and a cover-up by Trump. Concurrently, the Trump administration released a

25 Whistleblower: a person who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct. COSMUN 2020

memorandum of the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, confirming that Trump had asked Zelensky to "look into" the Biden controversy as a favor. The whistleblower complaint also implicated Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and U.S. Attorney General William Barr as part of a wider pressure campaign directed towards the Ukrainian government.

7.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent

7.2.1. Impeachable Offenses and “the Process”

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high

Crimes and Misdemeanors." The precise constitutional meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and

Misdemeanors" is not included in the Constitution itself, leaving room for interpretation. The belief that only criminal conduct (breaking a law where a criminal penalty can apply) can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not align with either the views of the founding fathers founders or the historical practice of impeachment and impeachment inquiries.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65 (the sixty-fifth essay of The Federalist Papers), described impeachable offenses as those that come from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." According to this claim, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily prosecutable. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have interpreted the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" broadly, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.

COSMUN 2020

Grounds for impeachment usually include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust." In drawing up articles of impeachment, the House has placed little emphasis on criminal conduct. Less than one-third of the articles that the House has adopted have explicitly charged the violation of a criminal statute or used the word "criminal" or

"crime" to describe the conduct alleged. Officials, for example, have been impeached and removed (we should clarify that being impeached is not the same as being removed from office, as that is a separate step, though as they are powers that formerly belonged to the House and

Senate respectively, SCOTUS will now decide impeachment and removal from office conjunctly) for inebriation, biased decision-making, or inducing parties to enter financial transactions, none of which is specifically criminal. So far, Congress has principally identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as final: (1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. Nonetheless, actions that fall within these three categories are difficult to identify, because Article II of the Constitution is extremely ambiguous as to what the limit of presidential power and authority is. For example, if an impeachment inquiry were to determine that there was a quid pro quo in Trump’s actions with

President Zelensky, that could be interpreted as either improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; or misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. An

“article of impeachment” on obstruction of justice, as outlined in the Mueller Report, could fall into improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office as well, but that would be controversial as presidential authority might restrict that article. More on this in Section 7.3.

COSMUN 2020

Additionally, at the federal level, impeachment is a three-step process. However, because we have altered the way it works in this committee, we will assume that the inquiry has happened (it will probably be over by March) and that SCOTUS decides impeachment and removal from office in one step (the Justices’ verdict).

7.2.2. History and Andrew Johnson

The impeachment of Andrew Johnson started on February 24, 1868, when the House of

Representatives resolved to impeach Andrew Johnson, 17th President of the United States, for

"high crimes and misdemeanors," which were detailed in 11 articles of impeachment. Johnson became the first American president to be impeached on March 2–3, 1868, when the House formally passed the articles of impeachment and forwarded them to the United States Senate in order for them to decide if he should be removed from office. On May 16, the Senate could not convict Johnson on one of the articles, with the 35–19 vote in favor of conviction falling short of the necessary two-thirds majority by a single vote. Johnson remained the only President to have been impeached and faced a senate trial for over a century, until Bill Clinton became the second in 1998. Since it was such a long time ago, we will not go into the details of Johnson’s articles of impeachment.

7.2.3. History and Richard Nixon

Contrary to popular belief, Richard Nixon was not impeached nor was he removed from office by the Senate. Nixon resigned because of the biggest political scandal in the history of the

US, the Watergate scandal (explained in a footnote on pg. 27), which he tried to cover up. Though the scandal has a long and interesting history, including it here would be unnecessary.

COSMUN 2020

Basically, tapes emerged from the White House recording system in which Nixon accepted that he had knowledge of the Watergate break-in. This was treated as a “smoking gun26” and political support for the President practically vanished. The ten Republicans on the House Judiciary

Committee who had voted against impeachment announced that they would now vote for it once the matter reached the House floor. He also lacked substantial support in the Senate. Senators

Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott estimated that no more than 15 Senators were willing to even consider acquittal. Facing certain impeachment in the House of Representatives and equally certain conviction in the Senate, Nixon announced his resignation to avoid further humiliation.

Nixon’s actions were an exemplar of the three categories set forth by Congress to define impeachment. He abused the powers of the office by trying to cover up the scandal; his behavior was incompatible with the function and purpose of the office because he blatantly lied to the

American people; and he misused the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain by interfering in the democratic process of the country.

7.2.4. History and Bill Clinton

President Bill Clinton’s impeachment started on October 8, 1998, when the House of

Representatives voted to begin impeachment proceedings against the 42nd President of the

United States,for "high crimes and misdemeanors." The specific charges against Clinton were lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The charges came from a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against Clinton by a former Arkansas state employee (Clinton was then Governor of

Arkansas) Paula Jones, and from Clinton's testimony denying that he had engaged in a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The stimulant for the president's

26 Smoking Gun: reference to an object or fact that serves as conclusive evidence of a crime or similar act, just short of being caught in flagrante delicto. COSMUN 2020

impeachment was the Starr Report, a September 1998 report written by Independent Counsel

Ken Starr for the House Judiciary Committee, similar to that prepared by Robert Mueller.

On December 19, 1998, Clinton became the second American president to be impeached.

That day, the House formally adopted articles of impeachment and passed them on to the Senate for them to decide whether President Clinton should be removed from office. Trials began in

January 1999, and concluded on February 12, when Clinton was acquitted (reminder that

“acquittal” means the judgement or verdict that a person is not guilty of the crime with which they have been charged) on both articles. Neither received the necessary two-thirds majority vote

(67) of the Senators present for conviction and removal from office. On Article One, 45 senators voted to convict while 55 voted for acquittal. On Article Two, 50 senators voted to convict while

50 voted for acquittal. Ergo, Clinton remained in office for the rest of his second term.

7.3. Legal Reasoning

7.3.1. The Prosecution’s Standpoint

The Prosecution should analyze every argument mentioned above and find a way to prove the innocence of President Trump. The “articles of impeachment” presented by the

Defence will be passed on to the Prosecution prior to the beginning of COSMUN in order for the lawyers to develop a counter-argument. If you were to need any more details, please do not hesitate to ask us anything. 7.3.2. The Defence’s Standpoint

The Defence should build a coherent case for impeaching President Trump, taking the arguments mentioned above into account and deciding which would be the best to follow up on.

You must create a sort of “articles of impeachment” and pass them on to the Chair. An example

COSMUN 2020

of an article of impeachment would be: “obstruction of justice” and the reasons (situations, episodes) why, with an intelligible line of reasoning, because the Prosecution will attack each reason to try and undermine it. If you were to need any more details, please do not hesitate to ask us anything.

8. Case #2: Republican Party v. Democratic Party

(“Limitations of the Second Amendment for the Protection of the American People”)

8.1. Overview

8.1.1. Introduction

In the United States, the debate over gun control has been an endless one. Some people argue that owning guns is necessary, despite the fact that only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala. Some state that the possibility of people owning guns generates a greater threat than that which can be stopped with a firearm, even though they have (probably) never had to hunt for a living or defend their home from attackers. It is clear to see that the list of pros and cons depends on one’s vantage point and where one comes from. A majority of New Yorkers will most likely not care about not being able to own guns, yet the same cannot be said for Texas or Tennessee. Here a few points to start the discussion on whether the Second Amendment should be modified through a different amendment, which would mean that the current amendment would have to be repealed. That

COSMUN 2020

does not mean that gun rights would cease to exist, but that there would be a few alterations (specified by the Supreme Court after a verdict has passed) to the amendment. Some positives aspects about the Second Amendment are:

● Reducing crime in a society. Owning a gun can even reduce homicide numbers, sexual

assault, and aggravated assault by at least 5%.

● Self-defense.

● Eliminating an amendment that is part of the Bill of Rights would be a dangerous constitutional precedent that could allow politicians to eliminate portions of the

Constitution they don’t like.

● It allows the average American to defend their country in a worst-case scenario.

● It allows for citizens to form a “well-regulated militia” if need-be (a war in domestic

territory, for example).

● You must qualify to own a gun in the United States already. Any store that sells firearms

must use the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, called NICS, to see if

there are any records in place that would prevent a customer from owning a gun.

Some negatives aspects about the Second Amendment are:

● It does not contain ANY provisions about how guns should be used or what regulations

should be in place. It does not exclude specific actions, behaviors, or choices.

● It was written when the United States was constantly awaiting a war with Great Britain,

which explains the use of the phrase “well-regulated militia,” meaning that citizens could

take up arms and defend their newly-formed country. The way the Amendment is

currently written is not representative of the times we live in.

COSMUN 2020

● A good guy might have a gun and come around to save lives or prevent tragedies, but an

equally bad guy can also own a gun.

● Owning guns is a huge risk for the people living in a household where firearms are

stored. 95% of the suicides that occur with a firearm are potentially preventable if the gun

wasn’t present in the home, and accidents with guns happen extremely often.

● There are many ways to deter or dissuade crime other than owning guns.

● It creates the potential for a domestic arms race. As in the Cold War, when MAD -

Mutually Assured Destruction - was a possibility, pitting two sides against each other by

having more or better guns is a hazardous situation.

● Current gun control laws do not work, there is absolutely no doubt about that, and

politicians have too much of an agenda to change that. This is something that will be

explained in section 8.1.3.

● The Second Amendment increases the cost of law enforcement. Having guns signifies

that a society will need more policemen and soldiers in case of an emergency.

However, the greatest con and the real reason why SCOTUS has taken up this case will be elucidated in section 8.1.2.

8.1.2. Why Now? - The Mass Shooting Epidemic

Gun control is front and center in the debates within Congress because of one (not so simple) reason: there is an ongoing mass shooting epidemic caused mainly by the lack of gun laws (because of political reasons related to the Second Amendment) in many states and nationally. The ability to own guns is the reason most cited by experts as the reason behind these terrible disasters. In fact, the United States has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world

COSMUN 2020

with 120.5 firearms per 100 people; the second highest is Yemen with 52.8 firearms per 100 people. That is a mind-boggling numerical difference. Nevertheless, the most worrying statistic is the number of deaths resulting from these shootings, leading to the F.B.I.’s conclusion that there has been a sharp rise in mass shootings since 2000. These are some of the deadliest since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 (13 deaths), which many believe was the catalyst for the emergence of this epidemic:

● Atlanta shootings - 1999 - 12 deaths.

● Virginia Tech shooting - 2007 - 32 deaths.

● Fort Hood shooting - 2009 - 14 deaths.

● Binghamton shootings - 2009 - 13 deaths.

● Geneva County massacre - 2009 - 10 deaths.

● Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - 2012 - 27 deaths.

● Aurora theater shooting - 2012 - 12 deaths.

● Washington Navy Yard shooting - 2013 - 12 deaths.

● San Bernardino attack - 2015 - 14 deaths.

● Orlando nightclub shooting - 2016 - 49 deaths.

● Las Vegas shooting (deadliest in US history) - 2017 - 58 deaths.

● Sutherland Springs church shooting 2017 - 26 deaths.

● Stoneman Douglas High School shooting 2018 - 17 deaths.

● Thousand Oaks shooting 2018 - 12 deaths.

● Pittsburgh synagogue shooting 2018 - 11 deaths.

● Santa Fe High School shooting 2018 - 10 deaths.

COSMUN 2020

● El Paso Walmart shooting 2019 - 22 deaths.

● Virginia Beach shooting 2019 - 12 deaths.

It is our recommendation that the Democrats investigate each of these cases individually to find how significant gun laws (or the lack thereof) were (the mental state of the shooter, whether they should or should not have been able to buy guns, etc.).

8.1.3. The National Rifle Association

Many might ask - if gun laws are so necessary, why hasn’t legislation passed to implement them? There is one answer to that question: the NRA. The National Rifle Association of America (or NRA, for short) is a gun rights advocacy group. Founded in 1871, the group, which has 5.5 million members, directly lobbies27 against firearms legislation. Yet, the NRA is relevant because it is one of the most influential political forces in the country. Especially among

Republicans, the NRA provides funding and donates millions of dollars to politicians’ campaigns. If a Republican were to endorse, support, or propose truly significant gun reform, the

Association would not give them any money. Nonetheless, the NRA’s power does not really stem from its finances, but from the people it can mobilize and the effects it can produce on voters’ minds. Republicans are usually elected in states where the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and if the NRA were to say that a certain politician is betraying the cause, he/she would likely lose the next election. This is why passing this decision to the Supreme Court was essential. No external organizations can sway the decision made by the Justices.

27 Lobbying: lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials, most often legislators or members of regulatory agencies. COSMUN 2020

8.2. Constitutional and Historical Precedent

8.2.1. Heller v. District of Columbia (2008)

We have mentioned Heller v. District of Columbia in this guide before, but we haven’t really explained what happened or what it is. No Supreme Court decision before Heller had ever echoed or negated the Second Amendment. Some cases, like United States v. Miller, referenced the Second Amendment, but were not discussing whether citizens should be allowed to own arms. The facts of Heller, according to Oyez28, are: “Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the

District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the

Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of

Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of

Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.” The

Supreme Court agreed with the decision made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit, in a 5-4 decision in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy,

Thomas, and Alito were in the majority; and Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented.

The importance of the case was that it established that the Second Amendment does demarcate an individual right to bear arms, instead of just a collective right, as the petitioners

28 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 COSMUN 2020

argued. An individual right to bear arms means that a single person can own weapons and keep them inside his/her home without activating a trigger lock to deactivate the gun. However, in writing the majority opinion, Justice Scalia noted, “Like most rights, the right secured by the

Second Amendment is not unlimited." This short phrase may leave a sufficient amount of constitutional breadth to reform the Second Amendment by repealing it and writing a new one to replace it, a process that will be explained in section 8.2.3. Justice Scalia also wrote that,

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Interestingly, retired Justice John Paul Stevens - who wrote the dissent in 2008 - criticized Heller, writing in his book "The Making of a Justice," that it was "unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Court announced during my tenure on the bench."

Complete knowledge of this case will be pivotal for all of the Justices and the lawyers, because, in the Supreme Court, precedent is the priority (as will be explained in section 8.2.2.).

Additionally, one cannot forget that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was the deciding vote on

Heller, is gone and has been replaced by Justice Kavanaugh, a more conservative Justice. Unless the Democrats find compelling constitutional reasons to overturn Heller, convince at least one of the conservative Justices to flip his vote, and repeal an amendment, the Second

Amendment will probably stay the same.

COSMUN 2020

8.2.2. Precedent, Stare Decisis and the “Law of the Land”

The Supreme Court does not solely function on emotion or circumstances. The

Constitution, Supreme Court precedent29 (stare decisis), and the “supreme law of the land” (all of the laws currently in place) are what SCOTUS overwhelmingly uses to decide a case. There is, of course, a certain amount of sentimental consideration, but what is written in the laws of the

United States matters more. There is one detail, though, that could be significant. If the Justices find that precedent is not applicable anymore, because the country or something within it has changed, then it may choose to overturn precedent and make a different decision. For example,

Justice Ginsburg was in the dissenting opinion in Heller and might convince some of her fellow Justices why they either made the wrong decision at the time, or why the state of the country has been altered and the mass shooting epidemic leaves them no choice but to modify the

Constitution. It would be nearly impossible (because, again, precedent is king), but it can happen.

8.2.3. The “Strange Case” of Amendment 21

8.2.3.1. Amendments 18 and 21

The Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution established the prohibition of "intoxicating liquors" in the United States. The amendment was proposed by Congress on

December 18, 1917, and ratified by the necessary number of states on January 16, 1919. The

Eighteenth Amendment was repealed by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933. It is the only time in the history of the country in which a previous amendment was repealed and

29 Precedent: a legal case that establishes a principle or rule. This principle or rule is then used by the court or other judicial bodies use when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts. COSMUN 2020

replaced by a new one, a process that would need to occur if the Justices were to decide to repeal the Second Amendment. That process will be defined in-depth in section 8.2.3.2. If one thinks about it, it could be said that the case of Amendments 18 and 21 is not too dissimilar than that of the Second Amendment. It was repealed because it was no longer working and crime was rampant (the mafia emerged because of it), and the Second Amendment could be repealed because it no longer works in its current state and violence constantly happens due to its vague nature. It is worth looking into the history of these two Amendments to see why and how an amendment can be repealed.

8.2.3.2. Repealing an Amendment

In real life, it is extremely unlikely for an amendment to be repealed. However, in this committee, all it takes to repeal an amendment is a majority decision by those who wish to repeal it and write a new one, which will then be passed on to the states in order for them to ratify it

(which they will, because they have to, as it’s a decision made by SCOTUS).

8.3. Legal Reasoning

8.3.1. The Republican Standpoint

The Republicans should analyze every argument mentioned above and find a way to defend the current state of the Second Amendment and why it should not be repealed in order to create a new amendment about the same topic. The evidence presented by the Republicans will be passed on to the Democrats prior to the beginning of COSMUN in order for the lawyers to develop a counter-argument. If you were to need any more details, please do not hesitate to ask us anything.

COSMUN 2020

8.3.2. The Democratic Standpoint

The Democrats should analyze every argument mentioned above and build a coherent case for repealing the Second Amendment. The evidence presented by the Democrats will be passed on to the Republicans prior to the beginning of COSMUN in order for the lawyers to develop a counter-argument. If you were to need any more details, please do not hesitate to ask us anything.

9. QARMAS

Case #1: -1. Should President Trump be impeached? -1.1. Why? What evidence exists to justify either decision (whether to impeach or not)?

Case #2: -2. Should the Second Amendment be repealed and replaced with a new amendment? -2.1. Why? What in the stare decisis justifies the decision? -2.2. If it were to pass, what should be included in the new amendment? Regulations, bans?

10. Bibliography https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/ https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/a bout https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/about-us/the-supreme-court/structure-of-the-courts https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/Programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/ https://www.businessinsider.com/landmark-us-supreme-court-cases-2019-8 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/26/supreme-court-cases-history/29185891/ https://constitutionus.com/ https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript https://www.britannica.com/topic/Constitution-of-the-United-States-of-America https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/privileges_and_immunities_clause https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

COSMUN 2020

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equal_protection https://www.huffpost.com/entry/state-vs-federal-law-who-_b_4676579 https://www.insider.com/what-are-all-the-amendments-us-constitution-meaning-history-2018-11 https://nccs.net/blogs/americas-founding-documents/bill-of-rights-amendments-1-10 https://www.biography.com/law-figure/john-roberts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNF_pwkP6gg https://www.biography.com/law-figure/clarence-thomas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8 https://www.biography.com/law-figure/ruth-bader-ginsburg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VfUB7PgW4o https://www.biography.com/law-figure/stephen-breyer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33BSS5_VyF8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj2yh6QJJJk https://www.biography.com/law-figure/samuel-alito https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axExSrXw3Uk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZrANnq3OaM https://www.biography.com/law-figure/sonia-sotomayor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMoatA0LWxI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuZxIs48uXc https://www.biography.com/law-figure/elena-kagan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12Ix6u-EJ_8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFkVwvlpXUk https://www.biography.com/law-figure/neil-gorsuch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnbFxpFCgho https://www.britannica.com/biography/Brett-Kavanaugh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opi8X9hQ7q8 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/9/17537808/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-right-cartoon https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-is-john-roberts-2-0/ https://abcnews.go.com/US/pay-age-political-leanings-supreme-court-questions-answered/story?id=58204713 https://business.vanderbilt.edu/stories/jay-sekulow/ https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari/watch/trump-lawyer-reveals-impeachment-defense-in-fiery-msnbc-interview -70804549984 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqCbVlgkUO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVYpOsXFcS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=torf_mk0Sqk https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/12/pat-cipollone-trump-1361506 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hwdA4dWRd8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6EHQKL2wdo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7eR1e0WE4k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CljsZ7lgbtw https://www.britannica.com/biography/Kamala-Harris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUutymbDLI0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DH8WnLLT4I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPyn3ozACz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sak58M2Og8 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Cory-Booker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT9FJBTIMVM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A52bs7D4qHw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkW0bDG1mcU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XypMbplfWtg https://www.military.com/education/gi-bill/learn-to-use-your-gi-bill.html

COSMUN 2020

https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/biography https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiXSA7eN1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uhv5qtPkdr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCVkEhbBNeo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crpu1_3rmDY&t=21s https://www.biography.com/political-figure/marco-rubio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR0k5xdUxBs&t=211s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X38k0cND64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZKx26irnFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XycsE4FICg https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/read-the-mueller-report/ https://apnews.com/e0d125d737be4a21a81bec3d9f1dffd8 https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2019-04-18/the-10-instances-of-possible-obstruction-in-mueller-report https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/18/18484947/mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/ https://www.needtoimpeach.com/mueller/ https://www.npr.org/2019/08/26/754485105/a-look-at-president-trumps-history-of-profiting-off-his-presidency https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qvgjv3/the-case-against-trump-profiting-from-the-presidency-is-back-on https://www.businessinsider.com/nikki-haley-new-book-deeply-disturbed-by-trumps-charlottesville-remarks-2019-11 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/04/26/trump-says-both-sides-charlottesville-remark-said-perfectly/ 3586024002/ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/politics/trump-press-conference-charlottesville.html https://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/sheriff-joe-arpaio-donald-trump-pardon/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/politics/joe-arpaio-trump-pardon-sheriff-arizona.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-defense-secretary-mark-esper-says-us-will-leave-forces-in-syria-to-defend -oil-fields-from-islamic-state/2019/10/25/fd131f1a-f723-11e9-829d-87b12c2f85dd_story.html https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trump-betrayed-us-fleeing-kurds-condemn-u-s-decision-to-leave-syria https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/13/politics/us-troops-syria-turkey/index.html https://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-news/brief-history https://www.bu.edu/com/comtalk/the-war-on-fake-news/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/29/saudi-arabia-trump-administration-jamal-khashoggi-prince- mohammed https://time.com/5678313/trump-administration-family-separation-lawsuits/ https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17443198/children-immigrant-families-separated-parents https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/family-separation-court-filing/index.html https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-enforce-stormy-daniels-nondisclosure-agreement/story?id=57697574 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/mar/23/former-playboy-model-karen-mcdougal-says-trump-offered-cash- after-sex https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/11/us/ukraine-trump.html https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/09/trump-ukraine-impeachment-scandal-timeline-key-events https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/17/trump-ukraine-scandal-a-guide-to-the-players.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49800181 https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/50-impeachable-offenses.html http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/fedimpeachment.htm https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2019/11/13/impeachable-offenses-treason-bribery-other-high-crimes- and-misdemeanors/1MbviagQU78Q8qWYFcpJqO/story.html https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R44260.html https://time.com/5686104/trump-ukraine-call-impeachment-offense/ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/impeachment-process-works/story?id=51202880 https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/grant-impeachment/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/part3.html

COSMUN 2020

https://www.history.com/news/what-was-the-saturday-night-massacre https://www.newsweek.com/watergate-explainer-why-richard-nixon-resigned-presidency-45-years-ago-today-145327 8 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/elessons/the-impeachment-of-bill-clinton/ https://www.businessinsider.com/nixon-clinton-johnson-impeachment-timelines-history-2019-9 https://connectusfund.org/8-big-pros-and-cons-of-the-2nd-amendment https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-03/united-states-mass-shootings https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/11/americas-mass-shooting-epidemic-contagious/545078/ https://www.britannica.com/topic/National-Rifle-Association-of-America https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stare_decisis.asp https://www.in.gov/judiciary/2675.htm https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/18th-and-21st-amendments https://www.britannica.com/topic/Twenty-first-Amendment http://prohibition.themobmuseum.org/the-history/the-end-of-prohibition/repeal-of-prohibition/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/repealing-the-second-amendment-is-it-even-possible/

COSMUN 2020