rule of law – Page 7 – Sheila Kennedy

Protecting Article XII

Well, Trump visited central Indiana yesterday, for a fundraiser and rally. It only increased the intense speculation about whether he would add Indiana’s embarrassing Governor to his ticket.

In many respects, they would be a political odd couple, but they do have one thing in common: neither of them appears to have much familiarity with, or regard for, the Constitution.

In his recent meeting with Congressional Republicans, for example, Trump emphasized his readiness to protect America’s Constitution–including Article Twelve.

Of course, there is no Article Twelve.

We probably shouldn’t be surprised; to the extent that this particular candidate has policies, a significant number of them are patently unconstitutional. Trump says he would authorize torture, round up and deport immigrants (no mention of due process, which is evidently not a phrase in the vocabulary of the man who brags that he has lots of “good words”), and he has proposed “passing a law” to eliminate the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship provision.

It’s mind-boggling that any citizen of the U.S. knows so little about America’s legal framework that he thinks passing a law can change constitutional mandates. (Even Pence and my least civically knowledgable students know better than that.) The fact that the Presidential nominee of a major political party is so ignorant of the most basic rules that constrain all elected officials–rules that he would be charged with defending and obeying if, God forbid, he should win–is stunning.

I know I am a broken record on the subject of civic literacy, but the ability of a man like Trump to garner 13 million votes in the primaries is at least partially attributable to the fact that too many Americans know little or nothing about the country’s legal framework or governing architecture.

The American Constitution was not handed down by God (although some on the far Right actually have made that claim). There are good reasons to consider amending parts of it, and serious political figures and scholars who advocate for such changes–but no credible source suggests that the Constitution is irrelevant and can simply be ignored.

What separates successful countries from theocracies, autocracies and banana republics is respect for the rule of law. The basic premise of the rule of law is that laws and regulations apply to everyone. It is the obligation of all citizens–including Presidents, Governors, and all other elected officials–to follow the same rules that apply to the rest of us.

Actually, it shouldn’t surprise us that Trump doesn’t understand that. He’s lived his entire life convinced that the rules don’t apply to him, and he’s made it quite clear that, if he should be elected, he won’t let pesky rules or constitutional provisions get in his way.

That attitude and ignorance explains why citizens who are civically literate find the prospect of a Trump Presidency terrifying.

Comments

Rules for Thee but Not for Me….

The two-year-olds who currently dominate America’s political landscape may be riding different hobby-horses, but the common thread that runs through their various tantrums is an assault on the rule of law.

The essential difference between regimes based upon raw power and those based on the rule of law is that in the latter, the same rules apply to everyone. No one, we like to say, is “above the law.” In democratic rule-of-law regimes, partisans may contend bitterly over the wisdom or efficacy of any particular rule, but once it is enacted, like it or not, they abide by the law unless and until it is repealed or overruled.

Adherence to the rule of law is an essential condition of government legitimacy–a point that is seemingly lost on the various county clerks refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, or police officers who believe their commands are the law, to use just a couple of contemporary examples.

Closer to home, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence says he will refuse to implement the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan. In a letter to President Obama, he wrote that he would not abide by the plan “if the final rule has not demonstrably and significantly improved.”

“Improved” evidently meaning “acceptable to Mike Pence.”

If Pence and others who object to the EPA’s rule truly believe it represents a wrongful exercise of the agency’s authority, they can litigate that issue. If they win, good for them. If they lose, they have to abide by the law.

In a country with the rule of law, none of us gets to decide for ourselves which laws we will obey.

Comments

Family Fights

We are a weird family. I should just admit it.

You want examples?

Several years ago, my eldest granddaughter–then 13– interrupted a lively dinner discussion by our extended family, saying “Stop it! Just stop it! All this family talks about is politics and I’m sick of it!” I apologized and said we’d talk about anything she wanted. What did she want to discuss? “School uniforms. I don’t think we should have to wear uniforms.”

Not long after 9-11, when our daughter was still on IPS’ School Board, she and my lawyer son disagreed about encouraging schoolchildren to recite the Pledge. He cited Barnette v. Board of School Commissioners of West Virginia; her Christmas gift to him that year was The Story of Our Flag.

And so it goes–at least in our family.

Most recently, my two younger sons have been arguing about Edward Snowden. On Facebook, my (very liberal and idealistic) middle son approvingly posted the New York Times editorial arguing that Snowden should get clemency; his brother (the lawyer) shot back with Fred Kaplan’s article for Salon, Why Snowden Won’t (and Shouldn’t) Get Clemency. That led to a spirited exchange, to put it mildly.

Each one called and tried to get me to weigh in on his side.

In other families, I am told, children call their mothers (when they do) to ask for money, or to report on life events, or even to ask advice. Mine call to talk politics and argue policy.

For what it’s worth, I agree with my lawyer son on this one. As Kaplan–like me, a foe of NSA domestic spying– notes in his article, had Snowden only disclosed information about domestic surveillance, leniency might be appropriate. But he did much more than that. He disclosed information having nothing to do with domestic spying, or even spying on our allies. He disclosed information about intelligence gathering practices that are not “illegal, immoral or improper”–information useful to the Taliban and Iran, among others.

Kaplan quotes Snowden telling the South China Morning Post that he took his job with the express intention of gaining access to NSA information–rebutting the assumption that what he learned on the job so distressed him that he decided to broadcast what he’d found. He only stayed on the job for three months– just long enough to get what he’d come for. (He also lied to some 25 co-workers, telling them he needed their logons and passwords as part of his system administrator duties. Predictably, those co-workers were subsequently fired.)

There were also his glowing remarks about the “commitment to human rights” shown by Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador, his praise of Hong Kong’s devotion to freedom of speech, and his expressed intent to share the pilfered documents with “every country where the NSA had operated.”

Someone who really wanted to shine a light on government misconduct–to engage in the time-honored tactic of civil disobedience–would not have taken refuge in countries whose interests are inimical to ours. He would have stayed in the U.S., made his case, and accepted the consequences of his actions.

Had Snowden limited his disclosures to the NSA’s clearly unlawful domestic activities, had he remained in the U.S. to argue that his actions were in service of the Constitution and Rule of Law, he would be a whistleblower entitled to our consideration.

Bradley Manning was a whistleblower. Snowden is not, and the fact that his disclosures will end up doing some collateral good really doesn’t change that.

My lawyer son’s analogy is apt: if someone goes on a shooting spree and kills two innocent people and one murderous son-of-a-bitch, the fact that he rid the town of the SOB doesn’t excuse the murder of the other two.

I hate taking sides when my kids have an argument, but sometimes, it’s unavoidable. At least they aren’t arguing about who Mom loves best…

Comments

Disorderly Law

When I read about City-County Councilor Joe Simpson’s arrest last week for “disorderly conduct,” I immediately thought about an incident several years ago involving the then-Legal Director of Indiana’s ACLU.

He had been on his front porch when police descended on the house next door, and he took issue with aspects of their behavior which he believed violated the Constitution. He never left his porch, but he did enter into a verbal exchange with the police, who responded by arresting him for disorderly conduct. Being a lawyer–and an ACLU lawyer to boot–he sued for false arrest. For years thereafter, he liked to say that the City provided the downpayment for his new house.

I don’t know the details of the altercation between Joe Simpson and the police–although I do know that the parallels being drawn between his arrest and past legal problems of other Councilors are ridiculous: surely we can draw a distinction between mouthing off to the police and taking bribes. That said, perhaps his arrest was justified, perhaps not.

My problem is with laws that lack specificity. Laws against “disorderly” conduct and “loitering” are widely recognized as invitations to official abuse. Police are notorious for using these catch-alls to arrest people whose “crime” has been to challenge their authority. As I tell my students, the rule of law requires that laws be written with sufficient specificity and clarity to alert citizens to the sort of behavior that is being proscribed.

It is manifestly unfair to legislate against vague categories of behavior, without defining the elements of that behavior. If the legislature passed a measure outlawing “irresponsible” driving, for example, such a law would fail to provide any meaningful direction to drivers and would vest far too much discretion in traffic police. Instead, we spell out the behaviors we want to prohibit: speeding, texting while driving, failing to wear a seat belt, etc. Policymakers and citizens can agree or disagree about the propriety of those particular prohibitions, but we all know them when we see them.

There is no such clarity with laws against loitering or disorderly conduct.

Comments

An Interesting Exchange

Like many other civil libertarians, I have been deeply disappointed by President Obama’s willingness to continue many of the security practices of the Bush Administration. It is especially galling because–unlike Bush–Obama quite obviously knows what the Constitution requires, and has nevertheless been willing to engage in surveillance and other practices which most civil libertarians believe cross the line.President Obama gets blamed for many things he clearly doesn’t do, but in this area, disappointment in his performance is justifiable.

Because I have been pretty critical of Administration policy in this area, I was interested in the following observation posted on the Law and Courts Listserv, a scholarly exchange to which I subscribe.

In response to a post suggesting an equivalency between the policies of the two administrations, Professor Alexander wrote:

“Eugene says the Bush antiterrorism policy “is quite similar to the Obama Administration’s antiterrorism policy.”

I like many others have been deeply disappointed in aspects of the Obama Administration’s policy on detainees and counterterrorism, as well as the efforts by Congress and judges on the D.C. Circuit to force the administration to continue Bush policies. But Eugene’s statement is simply not the case. Contrary to the Bush administration:

* Obama has withdrawn from combat operations in Iraq and plans to

withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014;

* Obama found and killed bin Laden;

* on his first day in office Obama

1) revoked all the Bush administration OLC memos, executive

orders, and directives on interrogations;

2) ordered an end to torture, and cruel, inhumane, or

degrading treatment, and compliance with the Army field manual

(regardless of whether one thinks that is the end-all of good

interrogation practice);

3) ordered all CIA prisons worldwide to be closed;

4) ordered the closure of Guantanamo — it is decidedly not

his fault that the facility remains open;

5) ordered that the Geneva Conventions are the “minimum

baseline” for treatment of any individuals detained in “any armed conflict”;

6) ordered that the International Red Cross be given access

to all detainees;

* Obama ordered the trial in Art III court of KSM and the other

captured 9/11 plotters — again, not his fault that they must be tried

in military commissions;

* in March 2011 Obama issued an executive order directing that the

government comply with Art 75 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva

Conventions “out of a sense of legal obligation” — thereby

acknowledging the binding nature of international law in connection with

the detention of suspected terrorists — and urged Congress to ratify

Additional Protocol II;

* the Obama administration revamped the military commission

procedures so that — although not as good as Art III courts — they are

much improved over the Bush versions;

* in particular, evidence obtained by cruel, inhuman, or degrading

treatment is barred;

* it appears that DOJ and DOD are pursuing and concluding military

commission plea bargains so that evidence in MC trials (such as the KSM

trial) will conform to Art III standards;

* the President and Attorney General have repeatedly declared that

waterboarding is torture and is illegal (in stark contrast to Bush,

Cheney, and Yoo, who have gleefully affirmed torture as good policy); and

* no prisoners have been transferred to Guantanamo and the

administration has repeatedly stated that none will be.”

Clearly, Professor Alexander has been following these matters far more closely than I have.

Now, I’ll be the first to acknowledge that being better than the Bush Administration on civil liberties is hardly a “get out of jail free” card. But this list did make me feel better.

Comments