Skip to main content

NCC's Constitution Daily and Scalia's Dissent

One of my favorite websites lately (and I hate to admit that I only discovered it several months ago) is the National Constitution Center's blog, Constitution Daily. The NCC's website has a lot of great, helpful, and fascinating information, but the blog is what usually grabs my attention.

The writers of the blog tackle constitutional issues, but they focus on the issues making news at the time, tackling everything from the use of drones to same-sex marriage, from the tension between a free press and a government's claim of national security to the proper place in our system for bureaucratic agencies. If you see or hear a news story about some aspect of how our government works (or should work), chances are that a blog entry explaining some of the nuances or identifying unanswered questions regarding that topic is in the works.

For example, since the US Supreme Court's controversial decision in Maryland v. King (upholding the warrantless collection and testing of an arrestee's DNA) came out on Monday (June 3), in less than 36 hours, there have been three postings discussing the decision.

Although Lyle Denniston's regular Constitution Check is always informative and enightening (if not sometimes frightening), and his posting regarding the DNA decision is worth the read, my new personal favorite is Jeffrey Rosen's analysis of Justice Scalia's masterful dissenting opinion. I'm not usually a fan of Justice Scalia, but I usually find myself in agreement with him when it comes to the Fourth Amendment, and I especially revel in his excoriation of the majority's decision in this case. If you don't have the time (or the stomach) to read Justice Scalia's full dissent, at least read Rosen's posting about it; it might actually make you feel sorry for Justice Kennedy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Spying and International Law

With increasing numbers of foreign governments officially objecting to now-widely publicized U.S. espionage activities, the topic of the legality of these activities has been raised both by the target governments and by the many news organizations reporting on the issue.For those interested in better understanding this controversy by learning more about international laws concerning espionage, here are some legal resources that may be useful.

The following is a list of multinational treaties relevant to spies and espionage:
Brussels Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War (1874).Although never ratified by the nations that drafted it, this declaration is one of the earliest modern examples of an international attempt to codify the laws of war.Articles 19-22 address the identification and treatment of spies during wartime.These articles served mainly to distinguish active spies from soldiers and former spies, and provided no protections for spies captured in the act.The Hagu…

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …