WATCH THE DEBATE: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION MOVES TO ALLOW FOR LATITUDE IN PRE-MIRANDA INTERROGATIONS, BUT IS THIS MOVE CONSTITUTIONAL?

Here, in the 2011 Peter Jennings Project moot court, two eminent Supreme Court attorneys argue whether Miranda doctrine should be changed to allow terror suspects to be interrogated without first being informed of their rights Last week, the Obama Administration announced a dramatic switch on the procedures law enforcement personnel should follow when interrogating "operational terrorists" on issues that involved an "immediate" threat. The new rules, which ere outlined in a FBI memo, expanded the previous "public safety" exception to Miranda rights -- the requirement that suspects first be informed that anything they say may be used in a court of law against them, that they have a right to an attorney and to remain silent. Heretofore, there had to be an "imminent threat" -- a stricter standard than "immediate" -- for pre-Miranda statements to be admissible in court. But the Obama justice department declared that the "magnitude and complexity" of the terrorism issue required a "significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case.” Is the administration acting outside the constitutional guarantee of due process? On March 5 of this year, in a public program crafted by the NCC-sponsored Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution, two well-establshed Supreme Court litigators -- Carter Phillips and Kanan Shanmugam -- argued this very issue before a panel of distinguished federal judges. You can watch the moot court here.

THE ADVENT OF "MATERNITY TOURISM":

OFFICIALS CLOSE A CALIFORNIA HOME THAT BIRTHED "AMERICAN CITIZENS" TO ASIAN WOMEN VISITING THE US; AN ISOLATED INSTANCE OR A NEW TREND?

Today's New York Times features a story about a makeshift maternity home in San Gabriel, CA, twenty miles from Los Angeles. For fees ranging into thousands of dollars, the home offered well-to-do women from China the opportunity to give birth to their children in the United States. By being born here, the children are automatically American citizens under the "birthright citizenship" clause of the 14th amendment. The Times article described other businesses advertising similar services to women in China, Mexico, and Korea.

The birthright citizenship issue, which was the focus of a program mounted by PJP at its 2011 main event, has been at the heart of the debate over illegal immigration, usually from Latin American countries. But this is different, Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells the Times. "If anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants having a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous."

FINALLY, REASON PREVAILS: MY STATE REJECTS FIVE IMMIGRATION BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANYWAY

By Andrew Hedlund, 2011 Collegiate Fellow

Thankfully, the Arizona state Senate rejected five major immigration bills this week. This was a victory for Constitution-lovers everywhere because several provisions of these bills stood in direct conflict with the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution and with precedent-setting Supreme Court decisions.

Senate Bills 1308 and 1309 would have re-interpreted the birthright citizenship guarantee of the 14th amendment. The amendment declares that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." It is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment that is claimed to be open to interpretation. Those who maintain that the amendment is being read too broadly believe that it should not apply to the children of those who are here illegally because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. But I go with those who argue that the reason this wording was included in the amendment was simply to exclude the children of diplomats and ambassadors.

RELIGIOUS FREE EXPRESSION VERSUS NON-DISCRIMINATION: MY FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE WITH A SUBJECT THAT LANDED IN THE HIGH COURT

by Erin Moriarty, 2010 Jennings Fellow

By the time that a case arrives for oral argument before the United States Supreme Court the passions that propelled the case to the High Court in the first place can feel remote, or even forgotten. I was reminded of that as I listened to some of this year’s Peter Jennings Project Fellows dispassionately dissect and analyze the decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. I know firsthand how divisive the underlying issues were in this case and the damage caused to several public university law schools. One of those schools was the one I attended. It was no surprise to me when the Justices agreed to hear the case in 2009. This is a difficult issue.

2010 FELLOW ERIN MORIARTY OF CBS NEWS REFLECTS ON A "DROP IN" AT THE 2011 PJP EVENT

I wasn’t at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Saturday morning March 5th more than five minutes when I heard my name called. As I saw a tall man with a smiling, familiar face striding towards me, my first reaction was “What’s Matt Lait doing here?” Matt Lait is half of a well-known and respected investigative team from the Los Angeles Times. But then, I thought, “Of course!” Lait is the ideal Fellow for the Peter Jennings Project: an experienced and knowledgeable journalist who often encounters complex legal issues in the process of his reporting. He was there for the same reason I had attended as a Fellow a year earlier: the Project is one of the few places where mid-career journalists can focus on our craft, examining what part constitutional issues play in the stories we tackle everyday. Where else can you hear de Tocqueville quoted regularly?

The Islam hearings: What would James Madison do?

By Dr. Steve Frank

There are many reasons you can think of James Madison as the Jiminy Cricket of the Founding Fathers:

- diminutive size
- preference for black coats
- voracious student with an encyclopedia in his brain
- belief that conscience should be your guide.

Madison was born 260 years ago today. As we wish him a happy birthday, there is a great deal about his life and work for which to be thankful. But it’s our belief in freedom of conscience, which Madison did so much to establish, that commands particular attention today. Read full article at Constitution Daily.

CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR REPORTING SUSPECTED TERRORISM?

New Senate Legislation Aims to Protect those Who Report Suspicious Activity

Back in 2006, six Muslim imams boarding a plane in Minneapolis were reported by other passengers as suspicious when they prayed in their seats, switched seats, and asked for extensions to their seat belts. It was reported that three of the imams had checked no luggage and had only one-way tickets. Police boarded the plane and removed the imams, one of whom later asked, is it a "crime in America...to practice your faith?"

The imams sued US Airways, the Minneapolis airport and several of the passengers who had complained about them.

A Message from the Director of the Peter Jennings Project to all of this year’s fellows:

First, thank you again for your commitment and enthusiasm. What a great weekend we all had!

In preparation for your follow-on, I would like to emphasize some of the points that Vic Walczak made in his remarks to the group at yesterday’s concluding lunch: the Constitution is out there everywhere, if you just take the time to look.

One general piece of advice: give a call to the local law school and take a professor out to lunch. Do not wait for there to be an article where you need the professor for a quote or as a source. Work proactively: find out what issues he or she sees as central to the constitutional dialogue in your community,

"SUBJECT TO JURISDICTION THEREOF"?

IN OPPOSING OP-EDS TWO IMMIGRATION ACTIVISTS SET THE PLATFORM FOR A CLASH THIS SATURDAY AT THE FIFTH ANNUAL PETER JENNINGS PROJECT EVENT

Like so many constitutional questions, this one comes down to language. The 14th amendment declares that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." But what does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? ACLU lawyer Cecillia Wang, in an Op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer this week, says that the phrase was merely meant to exclude the children of diplomats and soldiers of hostile armies; Pennsylvania State Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-PA/12), in an opposing Op-ed on the same page, says that it is beyond dispute that the original intent of the phrase was to separate out those with "allegiance to any foreign sovereignty," which he reads as excluding the children of illegal aliens. Like many who favor a more robust policy towards illegal immigration, Metcalfe sees these "anchor babies" as one of the three main incentives -- jobs and public benefits being the others -- drawing illegal immigrants to the United States. You can read Wang's piece here and Metcalfe's here. Both Wang and Metcalfe will be on stage before a sold out crowd in the F.M. Kirby Auditorium at the National Constitution Center this Saturday, March 5 at 5:30 p.m., as part of a Peter Jennings Project for Journalists and the Constitution panel exploring the 14th amendment's birthright citizenship clause.

A KING UNDER THE TITLE OF PRESIDENT?

"After the Constitution was ratified, foreigners and even monarchs from other nations believed the president was a king under the title of president. The president had many of the powers monarchs had — he was commander-in-chief, had the power to make treaties and judicial appointments, and could grant pardons. The U.S. Electoral College recalled the systems used to elect the Polish and Papal monarchies. Even Samuel Johnson’s dictionary, published in 1755, included “president” as a synonym for 'monarch.'"

Sai Prakash, in a lecture marking his appointment as the David Lurton Massee, Jr. Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. Prakash's lecture, which can be read and/or watched here was titled, "No More Kings?"