If You Were Wondering About the Engagement...
As for her naming suggestion for a group of leftists, I respond with one for conservatives that has at least as much rhyme.
Continue Reading "If You Were Wondering About the Engagement..." . . .
PANEL #4 DEBATE (2:30-3:30 p.m.)Kozinski --
This debate will address the arguments over the extent of the Executive’s power in matters touching on foreign affairs. The debate will confront both constitutional and pragmatic arguments regarding the boundaries of the Executive’s role in treaty interpretation, war powers, and homeland security. The discussion will touch upon appropriate methods of constitutional interpretation—from originalism to functionalism.
Moderator: Hon. Alex Kozinski, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
* Professor Martin Flaherty, Fordham Law School
* Professor Michael Ramsey, University of San Diego Law School
Address (1:45-2:15 p.m.)Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo gave the introduction, describing Bolton's differences from the international policy elite as a "wonderful breath of patriotism" and a "refreshing dose of humility," by putting trust in the American people and other peoples of democratic regimes.
United Nations Reform
Ambassador John R. Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N.
PANEL #3 (11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.)[Unfortunately, PG was helping Prof. Amar sell his book and therefore missed the panel's speaking.]
This panel will deal with questions relating to the constitutional permissibility of express and implicit delegations of authority to international bodies such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, and appellate bodies in NAFTA. Panelists will deal with issues such as the Executive’s ability to delegate treaty interpretation authority to international bodies, as currently practiced under compulsory jurisdiction clauses in many international treaties. The recent case of Medellin v. Dretke raises the question of whether, even in the absence of express delegation, our courts should follow the decisions of international law courts out of comity.
Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid O'Scannlain, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
* Dean Alex Aleinikoff, Georgetown University Law Center
* Professor Curtis Bradley, Duke University School of Law
* Professor Lori Damrosch, Columbia Law School
* Professor John Harrison, University of Virginia Law School
PANEL #2 (9:00-10:45 a.m.)A case that I sat on with then Judge Roberts and Williams is going to the Supreme Court, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. There's some question about whether there's jurisdiction, and also a jurisdictional question for the cases in our court that were argued in December. Congress passed an act depriving the district courts over habeas petitions coming from Guantanamo Bay, investing jurisdiction exclusively in the D.C. Circuit. There's an ethics rule against judges' talking about the merits of cases before them, so I'm not going to, but the panelists will.
Many commentators have argued that the United States has violated international law in its war on terror. This panel will consider both the abstract question of the extent to which international law can restrict United States action and specific issues in which international law is claimed to prohibit U.S. action. It will thus consider the extent to which international law is the law of our own land. It will also consider the extent to which the operation of specific provisions of international law, such as the law of war, place restrictions on the war on terror.
Moderator: Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
* Professor Akhil Amar, Yale Law School
* Professor Catherine Powell, Fordham Law School
* Professor Saikrishna B. Prakash, University of San Diego School of Law
* Professor John Yoo, Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley) School of Law
PANEL #1 (7:05-8:45 p.m.)
This panel will explore competing definitions and visions of what is meant by an international rule of law, a concept that has proved elusive to define. Is international law really law? What exactly does rule by international law mean? Is such a regime really possible or even truly desirable? Who is to make the rules? Does the international lawmaking process assure that international law is good? The discussion will provide a necessary starting point for the entire conference by trying to lay out the key positions in the debate over the proper role and scope of an International Rule of Law.
Moderator: Hon. Dennis Jacobs, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals
* Professor Thomas Franck, New York University Law School
* Professor John McGinnis, Northwestern University Law School
* Professor Jeremy Rabkin, Cornell University
* Professor Jeremy Waldron, Columbia Law School
The Supreme Court has increasingly turned to international law to interpret provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Cases such as Lawrence v. Texas and Roper v. Simmons have cited both European decisions and international law as persuasive authority in constitutional interpretation. This use of foreign and international law in domestic constitutional interpretation raises important questions. Are foreign and international law valid sources of constitutional interpretation? Is the use consistent with originalism? To what extent is such reliance a new phenomenon?I don't know whether foreign and international law will be considered a valid source of constitutional interpretation, nor consistent with originalism, but as many already have noted, such reliance is not a wholly new phenomenon. The American courts have been considering the law of other nations in determining the law of their own for at least two centuries.
The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain the king himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.Marbury, 5 U.S. at 163. And again, despite the striking absence of a king from the U.S. government:
In the third volume of his Commentaries, page 23, Blackstone states two cases in which a remedy is afforded by mere operation of law. 'In all other cases,' he says, 'it is a general and indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded.'
And afterwards, page 109 of the same volume, he says, 'I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark, that all possible injuries whatsoever, that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals, are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice; for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England, that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.'
After stating that personal injury from the king to a subject is presumed to be impossible, Blackstone, Vol. III. p. 255, says, 'but injuries to the rights of property can scarcely be committed by the crown without the intervention of its officers: for whom, the law, in matters of right, entertains no respect or delicacy; but furnishes various methods of detecting the errors and misconduct of those agents by whom the king has been deceived and induced to do a temporary injustice.'5 U.S. at 165.
Professor of Law, Brigham Young University Law School. B.A. 1977, Brigham Young University; J.D. 1980, Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Just for the record (in case I am ever nominated for a judicial appointment), I don't believe a word of this Essay. And if I do, I'm only being tentative. And if I'm not, I promise to let my colleagues dissuade me from my position shortly before the Senate confirmation hearings begin. After all, I watched the Bork hearings, too.Apparently he learned originalism well --
Another organization, the Federalist Society, has appeared at some American law schools and is attempting to return us to that golden age when states were as yet unencumbered by the Bill of Rights. Their organizational efforts have been impeded, however, by the fact that Federalist membership dues must be paid in gold coins, since the Society refuses to recognize paper money as legal tender.
Part III explores the relationship of judges to people and organizations in the path of law reform. The American Bar Association (ABA), state and federal judicial*623 conferences, the Federalist Society, academia and the coordinate branches of government bring together people concerned about both the state of law and the practice of law. Each body approaches the discussion with differing priorities, and judges must actively participate in this discussion. [...]
Other organizations devoted to the improvement of the practice of law include Inns of Court and the Federalist Society. The Inns of Court movement was sparked during the 1980s by Chief Justice Warren Burger in an effort to raise the effectiveness and integrity of the bar. To quote Judge Patrick Higginbotham, President of the American Inns of Court, the philosophy on which the Inns are based is "an effort to define and embrace the underlying values of the legal profession--a positive claim that the law is a learned profession. . . . The idea is fundamental change--a return to our core values as servants of the law and officers of the court." The Inns are modeled after the English Inns of Court, and judicial participation is crucial to an Inn's success. The Inn typically is divided into "pupilage teams" that design and present instructive programs on issues concerned with ethics in client representation. In addition to the educational program, an Inn's meeting concludes with a meal so that discussion can continue in a collegial atmosphere. I have found from my own Inn membership that most of us leave the meetings happier about our potential contribution as lawyers.
The Federalist Society is also an organization that has been effective in bringing judges, attorneys, and students together to examine the proper role of lawyers in society. The Federalist Society's mission is to foster debate concerning the most pressing issues in law and government. Without regard to political stripe, judges ought to take advantage of the opportunities this organization creates for examination of the judicial function and the ethics of modern law practice, for the emphasis on debate provides a forum for thoughtful discussion. Judges can make a solid impact in this discussion by weighing in on topics like judicial activism, criminal procedure, civil rights, class action litigation, or the role of the ABA in our system of law.
[State Senator Peter C. Knudson, the Republican majority leader,] and other lawmakers say that part of the debate here is in fact over what kind of religion would be buttressed by the legislation. Although the Origins of Life bill, as it is formally known, does not mention an alternative theory to evolution, some legislators say they think that voting yes could be tantamount to supporting intelligent design, which posits an undefined intelligence lurking behind the miracles of life and which differs greatly from the Mormon creation story.Such concerns are a reminder that even the "Judeo-Christian" tradition, often touted as being embedded in our laws and thus a necessary part of government institutions, is more complicated than the monolith it is presented to be.
"There are people who say, 'That's not my religion,' or that it will only confuse our children," said State Representative Brad King, a Democrat and the minority whip in the House, who also plans to vote against the bill. "For me, it's sort of that way," added Mr. King, whose father, a Mormon bishop, taught evolution at the College of Eastern Utah.
Others say that Mormonism, with its emphasis that all beings can progress toward higher planes of existence, before and after death, has an almost built-in receptivity toward evolutionary thought that other religions might lack. Still others oppose the state's inserting itself in matters of curriculum, which are mostly under the control of local school districts.
Utah's predominant faith has also made its stance less predictable on other issues touching on religion in school — notably school prayer. Enthusiasm for the idea has been muted or ambivalent, said Kirk Jowers, a professor of political science and director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah*. Professor Jowers pointed to the awareness among Mormons of their religion's minority status in the nation and world.This is precisely how the issue played out in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, the prayer-at-football-games case in which the plaintiffs were Mormon and Catholic families who were decidedly a minority in the Baptist town.
"It was kind of a realization that if you push to have prayer in school, then outside of Utah, the prayer would not typically be a Mormon's prayer, so is that road you want go down?" Professor Jowers said.