Our “Inconvenient” Constitution

Addressing the controversy over the Koran-burning Florida preacher, a story syndicated by USA Today a couple of weeks ago bemoaned our “inconvenient Constitution.” At first, I thought that merely an unfortunate phrase – something akin to “annoying laws” or “bothersome principles” – but was surprised when I did a Google search that resulted in thousands of hits on the same idea. Seems as though a lot of people look upon the First Amendment as an irksome thing; indeed, several authors cited their belief that if put to a popular vote, most people would today not endorse the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights.

Featured Guest Blogger Sarah Hinchliff Pearson

Speaking from the Shadows: How the Internet Has Changed the Meaning of "Anonymous"

The First Amendment right to speak anonymously is well-established, and, at various times throughout American history, it has protected some of the most important speech in our political discourse. But anonymous speech also has a dark underbelly, which has been transformed and cultivated by the Internet. Courts attempt to balance these conflicting dynamics on a case-by-case basis and, not surprisingly, the result is inconsistency and uncertainty.

Should Airport Security Officials be Able to Search the Content of Your Phone and Computer Laptop?

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Says "No"

A recent article in Legal Times outlined a Fourth Amendment claim against airport security officers for searching the contents of laptop computers "without susipcion of wrongdoing." the complaint asserts that “electronic devices like laptops, ‘smart’ phones, and external data storage devices hold vast amounts of personal and sensitive information that reveals a vivid picture of travelers’ personal and professional lives, including their intimate thoughts, private communications, expressive choices, and privileged or confidential work product."

“We were prepared to go to court and sue if they did not put them up. Having a gun is a constitutional right.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, speaking about ads promoting gun ownership that his organization succesfully placed at the San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Agency's busstops despite the Agency's policy of not promoting guns. Ironically, earlier this year the MTA had forced the makers of the movie “The Other Guys” starring Mark Wahlberg and Will Farrell to alter an ad for their movie so that the two stars held cans of pepper spray instead of guns. But the Supreme Court's pro-gun-rights ruling in McDonald v Chicago, the controversaial gun rights case, has made the agency rethink its policy. Gottlieb is quoted in an article about the subject in the New York Times.

What You Can Learn From Studying the Tea Leaves Left by Supreme Court Clerks

For most of the Supreme Court's history, the job of Supreme Court clerk has been both prized and private. There has long been suspicion that the clerks -- who are among the most promising recent graduates from the top law schools around the country -- wield enormous power, sifting the cert pile to advance one case over another for the Court to consider, writing the rough drafts of opinions and, as rumored in some cases, the final drafts of opinions from justices who may not want to work that hard anymore. Still, all clerks are wed to a tradition of secrecy. A clerk works for a justice and then departs, never to utter a word about what went on while he or she was there.

What the Constitution Really Has to Say About the Ground Zero Mosque

As I listen to the debate on the Ground Zero mosque, engage friends and neighbors on the subject, and read editorials in what I hoped would be a more enlightened press, it is disturbing to see so much ignorance of, or indifference to, the Constitution and constitutional values.

Let's begin with the argument that the mosque must be allowed to be built because the First Amendment protects religious freedom. Yes, there is no doubt that the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion – all religion -- and there should be no debate on whether the leaders of the mosque have the right to build it. They do. But so many, including Mayor Bloomberg of New York, think that the argument should end there. They see those who object to the mosque as hostile to the great American tradition of religious tolerance; indeed, I watched the Mayor on the Jon Stewart show a couple of weeks ago pompously pronouncing this fact to a rewarding round of applause. To which I can only react by asking, “just how much of the First Amendment, Mr. Mayor, have you read?”

The Constitution in "Quotes"

“They always say that I must abide by laws and constitutions...I know what is in laws and in constitutions, but what we have here in Egypt is neither laws nor constitution."

Mohammed ElBaradei, the Nobel laureate, on the political situation in his homeland where 82 year old President Hosni Mubarak, who has been president since the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981, is widely believed to be readying his son, Gamal, to soon become his successor.

Do the Homeless Deserve Protection as a Minority Class? In a Recenlty Published Piece, 2009 PJP Fellow Margo Pierce Says Yes

Margo Pierce, Jennings Fellow 2009, recently published a piece addressing an interesting question:, do the homeless deserve constitutional protection as a special class? That is, should we consider the homeless in the same manner that we consider other minority populations, such as African-Americans or homosexuals? Pierce’s work has appeared in several “street papers” – newspapers created to be sold by homeless people, providing them with a source of income – and has been syndicated by the International Network of Street Papers, which connects over 100 street papers worldwide. Pierce relied upon PJP faculty member Sherrilyn Ifill as a major sourc for her article, which is reproduced below. We invite your reactions.

By Margo Pierce

If 27 people had been killed in the United States in one year for being African-American or for being Jewish or for being developmentally disabled, there would be a national uproar. In 2008, 27 people were killed in the United States “for being homeless,” according to the National Coalition for the Homeless. Where is the uproar?

The Vexing Issues of Texting and "Sexting" in Public Schools

As a writer and reporter on the subject of educational reform, I am struck by the number of new constitutional issues arising these days in the public schools. My introduction to this came at the PJP conference this past February when I participated in the workshop run by Vic Walczak on a case involving the public schools and the subject of “sexting.” He and I have kept up since then and, let me put it this way, Vic Walczak is a busy man.

In fact, while we were meeting in the National Constitution Center last February, Walczak, who is the ACLU’s legal director for Pennsylvania, had three different cases before the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals just around the corner.

“If you’re going to seek capital punishment, you’re going to have to pay for it...If we’re going to have harsh laws, at least we should fulfill our constitutional obligations."

Norman S. Fletcher, Former Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, upon hearing that his state had told the defendant in a capital case that it could no longer afford to pay for his lawyer and that, instead, he would have to switch to an overworked public defender unfamiliar with the case.