E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
So the President, as best I can tell, has repeatedly violated federal law by spying on American citizens in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Congress, controlled by his own party, responds not by demanding an investigation into the matter, but rather by asking meekly whether it might amend the statute so that whatever the President has been doing (which he won't actually tell us) could become legal. The President says, not really necessary, don't you fools realize that when I act as Commander-in-Chief I can't violate the law? And if you insist that I did, well then, your laws are just plain unconstitutional. A Democratic Senator then stands up and argues that if the President broke the law repeatedly, he should be censured, if not impeached. Everybody else makes fun of him. At this point the Republicans, who lined up almost as one to impeach the previous (Democratic) president for lying about sex to a grand jury, while making impassioned speeches about the rule of law, are now delighted by this development, using the fact that the Senator is talking about censure as an opportunity to fire up their base.
So children, here's the moral of the story: If you are the President, feel free to violate the law, early and often. Just make sure you do it when your party controls all three branches of government. Because just as blood is thicker than water, party is thicker than law.
I think its possible that there are side effects other than weakening the rule of law. In the eyes of the rest of the world, its possible that the nation as a whole has come to appear more hypocritical, and I also think its possible that the president has lost a degree of trustworthyness before other nations, since he so openly violates the laws of his own nation.
Now the Saudi government is openly supporting a what GB calls a 'terrorist organization' (Hamas), and where once GB declared 'you're with us or against us', he is now silent. It just seems to me that along with a host of other things, openly disrespecting the laws of his own country has left him considerably wanting in the amount of leadership he can excercise in the world.
What rule of law? Show me a Democrat who actually cares whether a power they want the federal government to exercise is actually delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, and I'll start listening to whining about "the rule of law". Until you're willing to uphold the highest law of the land even when it says you can't do something you want to do, it's all just partisanship.
Oh, and Clinton SIGNED the law making that testimony manditory, in case you forgot. He who lives by the stupid law, should die by it.
There is no bar to giving retroactive effect to an ameliorative change in a staute. The Courts due it all the time. And legislatures too in response to sweeping opinions. Sometimes persons convicted under the earlier statute get compensated as well.
You should comment on the competition comparison of the blog. You can highlight it's mind boggling. Your blog exploration/tour will broaden your conversions. Agen Ibcbet
He pressed the name against his lips and slid the envelope into his inside pocket. Now well below freezing outside, those three layers of paper were all he needed to keep his heart warm. Judi Bola
New York. Non-stop. He hadn’t been to the city in nearly two decades, but was finally ready to return. After picking up extra holiday shifts at the jewelry store he was able to save enough for a two-week stay Judi Bola
He knew the shows she had won awards for, the shows she should have won for, as well as (because he was nothing if not rational) the shows she shouldn’t have won for. Judi Bola
At the men in food trucks keeping warm in front of their grills. And the old couples in their best coats walking arm in arm to a show they’ve seen twice before Judi Bola
The show was almost flawless, which was to be expected for something that had been extended that many times and cost that much. After the lights came up Judi Bola
She was human, after all. And, as the lights went down, she was on stage. The first actor to appear. The first monologue of the night. The first time he’d seen her in so, so long. Judi Bola
With each opening of the door came a gust of wind and flash of hope, but never Ellen. 20 years, he thought. Of course she doesn’t come here anymore Judi Bola
Only a fool would keep doing the same thing for 20 years. Only a fool would have traveled across the ocean to fix something that had been broken this long. Rufus reached inside his coat and felt the envelope with his fingertips Judi Bola