Yellin, who also worked for ABC News, described her new position as a "dream job." You can read of her appointment here.
The Jennings blog has moved!
As of October 1, 2011 the Jennings Project blog has moved and joined forces with Constitution Daily, the Center’s daily digest of smart conversation on the Constitution. All new posts will be published there, so be sure to subscribe and follow Constitution Daily on Twitter. If you are interested in submitting a post to Constitution Daily, please email Stefan Frank at JenningsProject@constitutioncenter.org.
Showing posts with label Jennings Fellow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jennings Fellow. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2011
2010 PJP FELLOW JESSICA YELLIN NAMED CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT
Labels:
CNN,
Jennings Fellow,
Jessica Yellin
Yellin, who also worked for ABC News, described her new position as a "dream job." You can read of her appointment here.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
2010 PJP FELLOW CHANEL LEE EXPLAINS THE COURT'S DECISION ON THE SALE OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS
In a post at the website howstuffworks.com, where she is an editor, Chanel Lee writes: "Although the Court focused on the obscenity portion of the case during oral arguments, the decision itself largely left that question alone, saying only that the California law is too vague and broadly drawn to pass the Miller test necessary to meet the obscenity standard. Then again, Associate Justice Antonin J. Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, seems to have had it up to here with those who want to define obscenity as anything they don’t like: 'The most basic principle — that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content — is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.' "You can read her entire post here.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
PJP FELLOW RELEASED FROM CUSTODY
Labels:
Al Jazeera,
Dorothy Parvaz,
Jennings Fellow
The Daily Beast is reporting this morning that Dorothy Parvaz, the Al Jazeera English reporter and 2009 PJP Fellow who was seized by Syrian authorities 19 days ago, has been released by Iran, where she had been sent by the Syrians after they claimed she was traveling on an expired Iranian passport. Parvaz, who used to report for the Seattle Post Intelligencer and was a Nieman Fellow at Harvard, is an American citizen, who was born in Iran. In addition to an American passport and an Iranian passport, she also carries a Canadian passport, having grown up, partly, in Canada.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
SYRIAN GOVERNMENT ADMITS HOLDING PJP FELLOW DOROTHY PARVAZ
Labels:
Al Jazeera,
Dorothy Parvaz,
Jennings Fellow
2009 PJP Fellow Dorothoy Parvaz, who has been missing since she arrived in Damascus, Syria, on April 29 is being held by the Syrian government. Parvaz, who works for Al Jazeera English was there to report on the government protests. An update about her situation can be read here and here. For immediate updates on the situation, visit the "Free Dorothy Parvaz" Facebook page.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
PJP FELLOW MISSING IN SYRIA; FEARED TO BE IN GOVERNMENT CUSTODY
Labels:
Al Jazeera,
Dorothy Parvaz,
Jennings Fellow
Dorothy Parvaz, a 2009 PJP Fellow, has been reported missing in Syria. Parvaz, who was formerly with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, was working for Al Jazeera English and an appeal for her release can be seen on its website. Parvaz has Iranian, American and Canadian citizenship. A story in the New York Times can be viewed here.UPDATE: The Oregonian reports Syrian government has confirmed it has journalist Dorothy Parvaz. Read the most up-to-date news on Parvaz here.
Monday, April 4, 2011
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A JURY GETS IT WRONG? EXAMINING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL
by Erin Moriarty, 2010 Jennings FellowIn all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution “… a general grant of jury trial for serious offenses is a fundamental right, essential for preventing miscarriages of justice and for assuring that fair trials are provided for all defendants,''
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968).
Saturday, March 19, 2011
FINALLY, REASON PREVAILS: MY STATE REJECTS FIVE IMMIGRATION BILLS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL ANYWAY
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.
Friday, March 18, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)