Ask MetaFilter questions tagged with constitution

Laying down the law...

opek — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:15:20 -0800

Does my grassroots advocacy organization need bylaws? What should they look like? I'm involved with a new bicycle advocacy organization in my town. We've been meeting for a few months now, and are growing steadily. We've reached out to public officials and will soon be getting a write-up in the local alternative paper. We have lots of energy, and big plans.

Until now things have been very informal, with no clear hierarchy or process for making decisions, but I'm starting to think it's time for some kind of bylaws or constitution. I'm afraid that without some formal organizational plan, it will be hard to keep the group focussed and coherent in a way that is fair and acceptable to all.

But I have no experience with this kind of thing, so I'm looking for guidance from others who have built grassroots advocacy organizations.

First, at what point do bylaws become necessary? We've got an email list of about 75 people, but maybe just a dozen core activists. Do we really need to be thinking about this yet?

Second, if we do create an organizational plan, how formal should it be? I don't know if we're big enough or active enough yet to incorporate as a non-profit (and we don't have any money), so legal articles of incorporation and bylaws might be overkill. I also don't want to dampen the spirit of the group with a rigidly hierarchical plan.

Third, what should our plan include? I'm thinking right now we'll need a steering committee, and sub-committees for the various areas we'd like to be active in. Do we need to select officers? How do we do that? How do we hold elections? What am I missing?

TIA for any advice.

Review book for Criminal Procedure

j1950 — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:44:52 -0800

What is the best hornbook for a law school Criminal Procedure class? I'm taking a Criminal Procedure class, and would like a review book that synthesizes and summarizes many of the cases. Focus on Fourth and Fifth Amendments, with occasional forays into the Sixth.

Constitutionality of US federal death penalty

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:34:03 -0800

How would a more qualified person refute my dumb legal theory regarding the death penalty? Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States". The Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, and amnesties.

The death penalty unnecessarily infringes on this executive power by killing the inmate. The inmate’s punishment can no longer be reprieved (and arguably no legitimate pardon can be issued). Therefore the federal death penalty is unconstitutional, and the Bureau of Prisons has an obligation to attempt to keep prisoners alive so that the President can decide to issue a reprieve of their punishment.

Has this argument or a related one been dealt with in court?

Galbraith on the Constitutionality of Paper Money

timmygoestothezoo — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 09:21:32 -0800

This morning I came across the following sentence on pg. 58 of John Kenneth Galbraith's A Short History of Financial Euphoria: "The Constitution forbade the federal government and, needless to say, also the states to issue paper money." Article 1, section 10 says that states can't issue paper money, but where does the Constitution say that the federal government can't?

What's the deal with UNCAT, the Genva Convetions, and the US?

Salvor Hardin — Wed, 13 May 2009 07:41:33 -0800

I have some questions about torture regarding international and US law, especially the Geneva Conventions and the UNCAT. This interesting thread led me to look up some things about international law regarding torture, and I was confused about a couple things. I'll tell you what I do understand (please tell me if it's wrong) and what I don't understand (please explain).

As I understand it, the parts of the Geneva Conventions which the US has ratified apply only to the treatment of prisoners of war from countries that obey the strictures of the Geneva Conventions; it is Protocol I, an addition to the Geneva Conventions from the '70s that prohibits torture of prisoners regardless of their previous disregard for the rules of war of the Geneva Conventions. The US has not ratified Protocol I. Thus it appears to me, as distasteful as it is to say, that G.W. Bush was correct when he insisted that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to prisoners rendered to Guantanamo Bay, since it is pretty clear that groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban do not obey the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

However, the US has signed and ratified the The UN Convention Against Torture. From a brief reading of that document, it appears that this document prohibits torture of anyone under any circumstances, and it defines torture as follows:

"Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

That seems entirely unambiguous to me. Is there any legal doubt that this applies to waterboarding? Is there a reason that I seem to only hear about the Geneva Conventions in relation to the Guantanamo Bay torture issue and never the UNCAT? Am I missing something about the legal nature of the UNCAT?

I'd also like to know how the US Constitution applies to foreigners held by the US: Is there a firmly established precedent that the Constitution only applies to US citizens? The Bill of Rights in the Constitution appears to refer to "persons" rather than "citizens". Why aren't Afghans rendered to Guantanamo Bay considered to be protected by the Constitution?

Thanks for your help MeFi Legal Team!

Note: I don't wish to start a shouting match about the morality of torture - I believe it to be incontrovertibly immoral and unconscionable; this question is strictly about the legal aspect.

Marbury v. Madison mayhem!

shadowfelldown — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:01:16 -0800

Either I have found a secret flaw in the opinion, or I am misunderstanding something major about Marbury v. Madison. The later is more likely, being as this would have been brought up before as one of the most important SCOTUS cases... but I can't find it anywhere! Okay, so the basic opinion of Marbury goes:

The constitution only lets us use original jurisdiction in cases with public officials, advisors, and consuls. Otherwise we need to use appellate jurisdiction only. (Article 3 of the constitution)

Issuing a writ of mandamus, as it is in this case brought straight to the Supreme Court and not appealed up from a lower court, original jurisdiction.

In this case we do not have original jurisdiction, so the law giving us the right to issue the writ in this case (Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789) is unconstitutional.

Therefore, when an Act of Congress is unconstitutional, we the Supreme Court have the right to issue it void. Voila, judicial review.

BUT!

Marbury, according to the earlier part of the decision, had legally gotten the job of Justice of the Peace as soon as Adams had signed the paper, even though it never got delivered. Isn't that a public official?
And even if this didn't count because of the ultimate ruling of the court, not enforcing the position, Madison was still the secretary of state to Jefferson at the time of the case.

So isn't this a case concerning public official, advisors, or consuls?
So didn't the court have original jurisdiction?
So the Act of 1789 wasn't unconstitutional?
So...

The whole case falls apart from there. Did Chief Justice Marshall fudge this so he could outline the Court Power of Judicial Review? Or so he could rule against Marbury and avoid pissing off Jefferson?

Or am I missing the correct definition of public officials, advisors, and consuls, and therefore the times when the court has original jurisdiction? I read that the court RARELY ever uses it today, but back in the day people went less on precedent and more on the newly formed constitution. And at least to me, the constitution doesn't contradict this law.

Please! I am but a lowly law student. Will some legal scholar please clarify this for me? I can hardly write a long paper on the case history if I disagree with the ruling fundamentally.

Whose Gaza is it anyway?

parmanparman — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:37:46 -0800

Is Gaza considered a separate nation-state from the Palestinian Authority by the Israeli government? Israel is at war with Hamas, the militant group/political party that won elections in the Palestinian Authority a few years ago and then recently took control of Gaza in a military coup that routed Fatah militias and the Palestinian Authority's police. If both of those groups are not present in Gaza, doesn't that mean that Hamas has instituted a wholly separately Palestinian nation with a different political structure?

The West Bank is run by the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah Party. If Hamas runs Gaza, is it still a part of the Palestinian Authority? Or, is it considered by Israel to be a second Palestinian nation-state that is entirely separated from West Bank/Palestinian Authority? If Hamas is decimated in Gaza, who is the de facto head of state?

What (for him) to do?

tmcw — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:51:28 -0800

ForA(Best)FriendFilter: What can a smart, idealistic kid do out of college in the DC area which relates to law & the study of the constitution? One of my very good friends is graduating college this year (as am I) and has lots of interests (law, rights, environmental), but can't find any actual work which will let him let loose with his intellectual power. Is there anything like this (especially in DC?) deets inside.

So, one of his big things is the Constitution: he isn't conservative as far as holding it as biblical truth; rather he's very interested in it becoming better understood and more commonly used in law - to this end, he started a student group at his school (Pomona College) for reading the constitution, one bit at a time. It's been quite popular.

Next up is essentially rights-type-stuff: Gay rights, especially. Then comes environmental policy, urban planning (public transportation, etc.) Working on improving the political process, like MoveOn or Real Clear Politics...

He's a Philosophy/Politics/Economics major, and a very hard worker when he's passionate about what he's doing.

Can Bush Refuse an Obama Pardon?

Ironmouth — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:45:05 -0800

May George W. Bush refuse a pardon from Barack Obama? Imagine that Barack Obama's first act is to pardon George W. Bush for all the illegal acts he committed during his term. Could Bush refuse such a pardon? Would his refusal mean that he could still assert his Fifth Amendment right to not be required to incriminate himself? Or would he be required to testify before any committee to call him up? (assuming Bush fails in his inevitable assertion of executive privilege).

For that matter, can any other pardon-refusing potential witness before Congress or other body with subpoena power still claim Fifth Amendment rights to avoid incriminating themselves and thereby avoid testifying?

I'm a lawyer, so give me hard details if they exist. Google is no help.

It's been on my mind: what legal say do the dead have?

parmanparman — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:52:04 -0800

In the United States, what legal rights are there for dead people? Does the constitution have stipulations for the rights of dead Americans and non-Americans who die in America? Also, how long - hypothetically - does a person need to be dead until their body becomes public property and, in the case of those who die leaving kin, are dead bodies 'owned', and for how long?

Should Immigrants Be Required to Learn a National Language?

netbros — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:36:38 -0800

What are the reasons for and against constitutionally requiring a specific national language? I'm particularly interested in the United States and the frequent debate about a constitutional amendment to require knowledge of the English language, but I realize the MeFi population spans the globe. So rather than being U.S. centric, please tell me what the debating points are in your home country. Thanks for your assistance.

What are the most common criticisms of the Treaty of Lisbon?

goodnewsfortheinsane — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:01:34 -0800

What are the most common points of criticism of the Treaty of Lisbon, and how do they relate to the failed European Constitution? My Google-fu is failing me, and moreover I'm also interested in viewpoints from nations whose languages I can't read: between Irish/British and Dutch/Belgian sources you only get so much of the story.

I understand that a common criticism is that the treaty would enhance the powers of unelected officials. What positions are we talking about, here? And would the treaty really bestow more power upon them? I thought part of the treaty's idea was to improve the role of the European Parliament through codecision with the Council, thus making it more democratic. What gives?

Also: after France and the Netherlands held failed referendums on the Constitution, both decided not to hold a referendum on the treaty. Were there any political reasons for this decision, besides fear of another debacle? I know people got mad, but were there any substantial protest movements, especially in France?

Lastly: have the most common criticisms been allayed somewhat by the revision of the Constitution and its repackaging as the Treaty, or do the same criticisms still stand?

I'm sorry if this is a broad question, please let me know if I can be clearer on any points. Thanks in advance for any insight you may have to offer.

The power to tax is the power to destroy

mullingitover — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:04:28 -0800

Does the 'use tax' charged by states for purchases made outside their borders violate the commerce clause? Inspired by this question and my desire to not completely derail it. If a state can, through whatever legal contortions it can devise, tax an out-of-state purchase at all, can't it ultimately destroy the ability to purchase goods and services out of state? After all, if it can tax 1%, can't it tax 1,000,000%? It seems to me that this kind of state-held power could lead to intranational trade wars if it's allowed. Imagine the ramifications if California decided to viciously protect its economy. The fact that it's perhaps difficult to enforce right now doesn't seem relevant, given the trivial nature of recording and auditing a person's spending history.

Well t'aint a pardon, and t'aint attainder...

dsword — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:26:43 -0800

Two to three questions involving the pending FISA bill--specifically the immunity provisions. 1)
The Constitution expressly forbids Congress from passing bills of attainder, which punish individuals or groups of individuals without trial. Is there a similar term describing laws which single out individuals or groups of individuals for some benefit--either material or legal? One example I have in mind would be the current FISA bill (which includes a provision of immunity for telecoms), although I suppose that under a loose interpretation, earmarks for local or state governments might also be included in this category. Are there examples of these sorts of laws being overturned. If so, on what grounds, and what is the prevailing legal standard for overturning such statutes?

2)
(a) Why is the current administration trying to push telecom immunity through Congress, when the power to pardon is expressly and without qualification granted to the President by the Constitution? What prevents Bush from simply granting immunity from prosecution to the relevant individuals and/or corporations?

(b) If the answer to part (a) happens to be that "the pardon wouldn't extend to civil cases" (would it?) would it not be considered an act of attainder for Congress to strip telecom customers of the right to sue?

To be clear, I'm looking for legal arguments and explanations, preferably with caselaw and/or code citations (not Bush and/or Congress bashing).

What movie clip could I show my students to start a conversation about the Constitution?

allthewhile — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:50:04 -0800

What movie clip/s could I show my 8th graders that would make them say, "Damn, I really do need to care about the Constitution!"? I would prefer something under 10 minutes that could at least start a conversation where they could make connections between what it says in the constitution and their own lives.

p.s. they are inner city Chicago students...

Indians- Why and How?

thethirdman — Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:23:13 -0800

What are MeFi's favorite resources about American Indian law? I'm a fairly well-read person on the letters of the law- I read the appropriate journals and legal briefs- but I'd like a more comprehensive set of rhetoric about the native peoples of the Americas. I know about some typical web sites- Cornell has a pretty good resource, and so forth- but I'm looking for things that aren't obvious.

I'm willing to dive into complex sources- I lovelovelove Foreign Affairs and several other journals, so I'm not afraid of the real law or academics. I just like big books I can read and refer my friends to.

Thanks!

Reading an unwritten constitution?

awesomebrad — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 19:45:54 -0800

Reading an unwritten constitution? I'm an American student of Public Policy, and next year I'll be studying government in the United Kingdom. I need a primer on the workings of government in the UK, and I suppose that if my situation were reversed, I'd start by reading the American Constitution and move on from there. There is, however, no such document in the UK, so my question is: where to start? I'd like to read a book (or a few books, if necessary) that covers how exactly government functions in the UK, the idea being to give me the same level of understanding of UK government as someone politically aware who grew up there (or close to it). I can handle academic writing easily, but the more readable, the better. Bonus points for books taking an institutional view, like James Q. Wilson's Bureaucracy. Thanks in advance.

Help me sift through the deluge of potential topics!

fvox13 — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:07:47 -0800

What do you feel is the biggest case, or group of cases, concerning online censorship and a breach of first ammendment rights to happen in the past five years? I'm writing a paper for Communication Ethics and Law class, and I've narrowed my potential topics to one: Internet censorship. But I'm really struggling to find a particular case or group of cases to focus on (there's just so much!) I can't just blab on and on for 5 pages about how bad I think censorship is -- I need to discuss the specific ethical/legal implications of a particular case or group of cases. Any ideas?

P.S. By "case," I don't necessarily mean "court case." I mean "instance" or "example."

Is that a veto in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

dances_with_sneetches — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:34:00 -0800

I just wanted to check this. Didn't Bush pocket veto the "interrogation bill?" And if he didn't, why didn't that happen? (more inside) The basic background facts are (I checked the dates via Google News):

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 passed the Congress on September 29.

Congress adjourned on September 30.

Bush signed law October 17.

However:

If a bill is not signed within ten days (Sundays excepted) and Congress is adjourned, it is automatically vetoed (Constitution, Article, Section 7). Or to quote: "If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

The constitution is pretty rigid. . . or am I missing something?

I want my habeas corpus

frecklefaerie — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 17:53:02 -0800

How, with our system of law, can the Military Commissions Act be repealed? As I understand it, when Bush signs the bill there is still a chance the courts could overturn it. How does that work? Does the ACLU or another entity need to sue the U.S. for it? What happens if the courts overturn it? Does Congress need to write a new law? What if the courts don't overturn it? Can we, the people, sue the U.S. about it?

Must all statutory laws be written?

chitlin — Thu, 20 Jul 2006 14:27:04 -0800

Is there a constitutional provision in the United States that all statutory laws must be written and/or available to the public for review? Our county has adopted new rules that it is currently enforcing, but they are not recorded anywhere in the public domain. Apparently, the county is "editing" the new rules for typographical and grammatical errors before releasing them to the public. I thought I remebered somewhere in history class where we learned that American citizens cannot be subject to laws if they aren't even public record.

Single minded political activism

dpx.mfx — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 10:25:33 -0800

Political Activism Question: I want to oppose the marriage amendment. Is there an organization/group of likeminded citizens/whatever that basically takes the position that "hey, it's none of the federal government's business who marries who"? Most of the organizations I've found also deal with other political areas that I may or may not agree with.

How does Article II lead to the unchecked executive?

aaronetc — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:53:26 -0800

What is the reasoning that says Article II of the U.S. Constitution gives the President blanket powers in matters of "national security"? Article II § 2 Para. 1 says:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

There's nothing in there about "war" or "national security." So, what is the legal argument for the President's ability to wiretap American citizens without warrants, detain American citizens with trial, torture suspects in contravention of international law, etc? I'm not looking for snark here, I'm curious how the actual text of the Constitution relates to the legal argument being put forth.

Are we "at war"?

sushrob — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 12:23:25 -0800

Is the United States "at war" or not? If Congress only authorized the use of force against Iraq, and did not formally declare war, what is our status under the Constitution? What about Afganistan?

Historical Hemp

furiousxgeorge — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:11:22 -0800

Is it true that the original US Constitution is written on hemp paper? Cite? Bonus, Were American flags made of hemp material at any point?

Just trying to weed out stoner myths vs. reality. Wow, horrible pun.