Law & Justice
Citizens United v. FEC: The Decision, Its Implications, The Road Ahead
Tue, 03/09/2010 - 17:26 — Dave Culver- Does the decision represent a victory for the First Amendment or an opening for corruption of elections?
- What are the merits of mechanisms being considered by Congress as ways of dealing with the decision?
- In practical terms, what does the decision mean for corporations and unions?
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy
In a 5-4 decision issued on January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court held in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that limitations on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections violate the First Amendment. The Court struck down a section of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act that banned corporations and unions from broadcasting "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. In so doing, the Court overruled its 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and generated substantial controversy-President Obama mentioned the decision in his State of the Union address and both the House and Senate have held hearings on the topic. Many questions linger in the wake of the decision. Does the decision represent a victory for the First Amendment or an opening for corruption of elections? What are the merits of mechanisms being considered by Congress as ways of dealing with the decision? In practical terms, what does the decision mean for corporations and unions? What does the overruling of Austin suggest about the Roberts Court and its relationship to precedent? These questions and others were discussed by a panel of experts in campaign finance law.
The panel discussion featured:
Series: Holding Members of the Bush Administration Accountable Before the Law (March)
Fri, 03/05/2010 - 10:30 — Dave Culver- "In a government of law, the existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Justice Louis Brandeis
- 6 Items
David Culver, ed., Evergreene Digest
Spanish Inquiry of Alleged Bush-Era War Crimes Begins, Democratic Underground<>
“… from the U.S. government’s own documents and the public statements of its leaders, that there is prima facie evidence of the following crimes:
o Torture and the Conspiracy to Commit Torture
o War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity
o Waging Aggressive War
o Illegal (Arbitrary) Detention
(He) places varying degrees of responsibility on particular government officials including George W. Bush and Richard Cheney and dismisses as inapplicable to serious international crimes the relevant defenses available to them and their subordinates including the government lawyers who (he argues) have a special professional responsibility.”
Torture Whitewash, Zaid Jilani and others, Think Progress
Supreme Court muddies clean water act
Wed, 03/03/2010 - 11:53 — Dave Culver
- The court narrowed application of the act, leaving regulators confused and giving some polluters a clear path to the nearest creek.
- Rulings Restrict Clean Water Act, Foiling EPA.
Charles Duhigg and Janet Roberts, New York Times
The mouth of Avondale Creek in Alabama, into which a pipe maker dumped oil, lead and zinc. A court ruling made the waterway exempt from the Clean Water Act. David Walter Banks for the New York Times
Thousands of the nation's largest water polluters are outside the Clean Water Act's reach because the Supreme Court has left uncertain which waterways are protected by that law, according to interviews with regulators.
As a result, some businesses are declaring the law no longer applies to them. And pollution rates are rising.