The Constitution Project in the News
The Associated Press: SPIN METER: Republicans hot, cold on Constitution, by Ben Evans (08/23/2010)
Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
"There are a lot of people who obviously don't like income taxes. That's a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it's in the Constitution ... and I don't think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don't like it."
Sloan said that while some proposals to alter the Constitution have merit, most are little more than posturing by politicians trying to connect with voters.
"People are responding to the politics of the day, and that's not what the framers intended," she said. "They intended exactly the opposite - that the Constitution not be used as a political tool."
Fulton County Daily Report: AG Race Has Turned Ugly over Death Penalty, by Bob Barr (08/09/2010)
Politics has reared its ugly head in the Republican primary runoff for attorney general. This certainly is not surprising, but it is disappointing nonetheless that a candidate for attorney general is being chastised for questioning a measure that wouldhave made it markedly easier than at present to impose the death penalty in Georgia ("Lawyer: Smith blocked death penalty change," Aug. 5).
Congress approved a landmark change Wednesday to the mandatory sentences for cocaine possession that detractors have long alleged had racist effects.
“For Congress to take a step toward saying ‘we have made a mistake’ and this sentence is too severe … is really remarkable,” said Virginia Sloan, president of the Constitution Project, in an interview with the AP.
JURIST Guest Columnist Bruce J. Einhorn of Pepperdine University School of Law says that provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 that would allow for special investigations of lawyers representing Guantanamo Bay
The Supreme Court, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, upheld the extremely broad application of federal laws that prohibit material support for designated terrorist groups. The lawsuit challenged the application of the "material support" laws to organizations and individuals who seek to provide peacebuilding and human rights training to groups designated as terrorist organizations. Writing for a total of six justices, Chief Justice Roberts today rejected this challenge, finding that the application of the material support statutes to punish these groups' pure speech that seeks to further lawful, non-violent ends does not run afoul of the Constitution. Although the Court agreed that the statute's regulation of speech must be subject to a demanding level of scrutiny, the Court found that these sweeping restrictions were justified by the Government's interests in combating terrorism.
Senior Counsel Sharon Bradford Franklin speaks with WBAI, Pacifica Radio 99.5FM in New York about the Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project decision. Listen to her interview just before the 19 minute mark of their June 22 morning program.
National Law Journal: Justices deliver rare victory to death penalty defendants by Tony Mauro (6/14/10)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sympathized with a Florida death row inmate whose lawyer missed a deadline for his habeas appeal and failed to communicate with him for years despite numerous written pleas for help.
Listen to Senior Counsel Sharon Bradford Franklin on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" (05/11/10), discussing possible changes to the Miranda rights for terrorism suspects, including U.S. citizens (click on the NPR logo below to listen to the program)
Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Times Square Pt. 2 - Second, Fifth, Sixth Amendment Rights attacked by Bob Barr (05/12/2010)
In the immediate aftermath of the failed Times Square bombing, the fundamental right to a fair trial by jury was sought to be jettisoned by those who adhere to the philosophy that whatever rights need to be sacrificed in order to “make us safe,” must be sacrificed. Some even called for the citizenship of a US citizen merely accused of committing an act of terrorism, to be summarily stripped in order to prosecute them in a military tribunal instead of a civilian court. In such a setting, the “Great Writ” of habeas corpus would be discarded in order to “streamline” the prosecution of accused terrorists.
The United States Constitution was adopted in 1788; the Bill of Rights, three years later in 1791. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established a national network of federal courts and prosecutors. This system of civil justice remains today — well more than two centuries later, and with all its warts and imperfections — what is rightly regarded as the best and fairest system of civil justice in the world. Yet it is increasingly under attack – from within our own country.
Detroit Free Press OpEd by Michael German and Lawrence Wilkerson on reform to watch lists (05/04/2010)
We quickly learned that the would-be bomber who sought to bring down Flight 253 just before landing in Detroit on Christmas Day was in a terrorist database, but still allowed to board the plane. As a result, President Barack Obama has called for a much needed review of our terrorist watch list system, and members of Congress are floating ideas about how to keep alleged terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab off our planes and out of the country.
Jurist commentary by Virginia Sloan on Beyond Guantanamo signatories meeting with members of Congress (04/02/2010)
Last month, the Constitution Project, working with Human Rights First, brought more than a dozen signatories to Beyond Guantanamo: A Bipartisan Declaration to our nation’s capital to meet with members of Congress and their staffers to advocate for the trial of terrorism suspects in traditional federal court, rather than military commissions. Signatories also cautioned against using a system of indefinite detention to hold suspects without charge or trial. These efforts were particularly timely given recent debate on these issues and pending legislation that could force the administration to pursue prosecutions of terrorism suspects only in military commissions.
Albany Times Union OpEd by Rhoda Billings and Susan Herman on the need for indigent defense in New York State (04/01/2010)
All New Yorkers suffer when poor people accused of crimes do not have competent defense counsel with adequate tools to provide a reliable defense. Tax dollars are wasted on an inefficient criminal justice system with lengthy lag time before trials and avoidable appeals.
Jurist commentary by Azizah al-Hibri and William H. Taft, IV on immigration access to counsel (03/31/2010)
Imagine your neighbor had been born and raised in Jamaica. Twenty years ago, he moved to the United States to marry an American woman and start a family. Your neighbor has a good job that enables him to support his family. He has had only one minor run-in with the law since moving to the states, a mistake for which he served no jail time but was on probation for twelve months.
Atlanta Journal-Constitution OpEd by Justice Norman S. Fletcher on indigent defense in Georgia (03/05/2010)
Partisan politics has no place in the debate over how Georgia should fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide defense counsel for those accused of crimes. So, last week’s attack by the Legislative Oversight Committee of the Georgia Public Defenders Standards Council (GPDSC) in their annual report is deeply disturbing.
Roll Call: All Accused Terrorists Should Be Tried in Federal Courts by Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham (03/05/2010)
The Obama administration’s decision to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court, as opposed to a military tribunal, has ignited a firestorm of controversy, though it is hard to imagine why. After all, should the forum for his conviction matter where, as has been so frequently stated, the outcome of such a trial would hardly seem in doubt. We could hardly imagine KSM missing an opportunity to take credit for the attacks, given his past performances. Moreover, would it really matter where the evidence against him is said to measure in mountains rather than molehills?
Washington Post LTE by Sharon Bradford Franklin Opposing the Creation of a National Security Court (8/13/2009)
The Aug. 3 editorial "An Independent Lens" advocating the creation of a national security court presented a strong case for independent judicial review. But its incorrect and dangerous conclusion that the creation of a national security court is the best way to provide this review does not follow from the arguments made in the editorial.
Wall Street Journal LTE by Judge William S. Sessions on Habeas Rights of Bagram Detainees (7/23/2009)
David Rivkin and Lee Casey's "Judges Don't Belong on the Battlefield" (op-ed, July 17) rightly brings attention to the significant, yet seldom discussed, Bagram decision providing habeas rights to some individuals detained by the U.S. in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the piece fails to recognize that the Maqaleh v. Gates case is entirely consistent with the proper role of the courts in our constitutional system of government.
No matter the laws enacted or the judicial safeguards put in place, ''prolonged'' or preventive detention undermines American values and security. Holding people without charge was at the heart of President Bush's discredited Guantánamo policies and practices, and any new scheme of indefinite detention for suspected terrorists would violate the very standards and values President Obama has pledged to restore and preserve.
Re ''The Right to DNA Testing'' (editorial, May 19):
As director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the late 1980s, I oversaw the creation of the bureau's first DNA laboratory. The initial test results were stunning: in approximately 30 percent of the cases, the DNA found during an investigation did not match that of the suspect. In the last 20 years, that percentage has dropped to 25 percent, but remains a rate far too high.
