Category Archives: legal news

Let’s ask High Court to settle Cruz eligibility

cruz

The U.S. Supreme Court is in session.

Sure, the justices have plenty on their individual and collective plates. How about giving them one more issue to decide?

Let’s petition the court to decide whether U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is constitutionally eligible to run for president of the United States.

An essay in Salon suggests that upon closer examination, Cruz’s “natural born” credentials are showing signs of weakness. I’m not sure I buy that notion. I believe he’s eligible to run, despite being born in Canada; his father is Cuban, but his mother is American. U.S. law granted young Teddy citizenship the moment he came into this world.

But the question is swirling nonetheless over whether Cruz qualifies as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

What harm can be done by asking the court to take up the issue? It comprises a conservative majority. Oh, wait. The court is non-political, yes?

What might happen if the highest court in America decides against hearing the case? That could be construed as a tacit endorsement of the notion that the Texas Republican senator is, indeed, eligible to seek the presidency.

I don’t believe the issue is a terribly complicated one to settle once and for all.

The federal law that grants citizenship to anyone born to an American citizen — regardless of where the birth occurs — either is constitutional or it isn’t.

I believe Ted Cruz is qualified to seek the presidency.

Furthermore, I also believe it’s time for the nine men and women who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court to decide this issue — for keeps!

Just one more point . . .

Cruz criticized the court this past year for its narrow ruling allowing gay marriage, saying that “five unelected judges” shouldn’t be deciding what’s legal and what isn’t.

Would the senator say the same thing if, say, five unelected judges rule in his favor on the “natural born” citizenship question?

Grand jury turns tables on Planned Parenthood foes

Law-Concept-300x270

Grand juries cannot always be depended on to do precisely what some folks want them to do.

Take the case of a Harris County panel that had been impaneled to investigate Planned Parenthood’s activities. The district attorney launched the investigation at the urging of state officials — starting with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick — into whether Planned Parenthood “sold fetal body parts” in violation of state law.

Today, the grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing — and instead indicted two anti-abortion activists on charges of “tampering with government records.”

It was a serious surprise.

Here is part of how the Texas Tribune reported the story today:

“The indictments — part of the county prosecutor’s investigation into allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling fetal tissue — include charges against anti-abortion activists David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt for tampering with a governmental record, a second-degree felony that carries a punishment of up to 20 years in prison. The grand jury handed down a second charge for Daleiden for ‘Prohibition of the Purchase and Sale of Human Organs,’ according to the Harris County District Attorney’s office. That charge is a class A misdemeanor that carries a punishment of up to a year in jail.

“The grand jury cleared Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston of breaking any laws.”

Planned Parenthood has become a whipping child for foes in Congress — and some Republican presidential candidates — over a heavily edited video that purported showing staffers talking about selling organs from babies.

Planned Parenthood, with a mission that goes far beyond assisting women who want to terminate their pregnancies, sees this no-bill from the grand jury as a significant victory in this public-relations campaign being waged against it by political adversaries.

Will this end calls to defund the organization? Probably not. It’s possible that we’ll hear complaints from those who consider this some kind of “political decision.”

Grand jurors lock themselves behind closed doors, listen to presentations by prosecutors and other witnesses. They are charged with weighing the evidence dispassionately and then deliver a decision based solely on what they hear in that room.

Unless I hear otherwise — and grand jurors are sworn to secrecy about what they say and hear during the presentation of evidence — I’ll presume the grand jury did its job properly.

Constables: Who needs ’em?

Constable_Flag

Chris Johnson’s campaign signs are popping up all over southern Amarillo.

He is spending a good bit of dough seeking re-election to one of the more curious public offices I’ve ever seen.

He won’t get my vote. It’s not that I have anything against Johnson. I don’t know him. I’ve never had any dealings with him.

He’s a constable in Randall County, Texas.

Constable. What is that? He’s a politician/cop whose duties include (a) serving papers, such as subpoenas and summonses and (b) providing security for justice of the peace courts.

Let me stipulate a couple of things here.

One is that I’ve had a longstanding antipathy toward the very idea of electing constables. Why? We don’t need them. My wish would be for the Texas Legislature to propose a state constitutional amendment to do away with the office. The duties done by the constable can be done by sheriff’s deputies or municipal police officers.

But no-o-o-o-o! We’ve got to have another elected official assigned to do these things.

The other thing is that during my nearly 32 years living in Texas, I’ve voted for one man as a constable. Jeff Lester used to hold the office that Johnson now occupies. Lester, who retired recently from the Amarillo Police Department, ran for the office with one pledge: to get rid of it.

He held the title of constable, but didn’t do anything. He didn’t get paid. He referred all the duties to the sheriff’s department. He wanted to keep the office inactive long enough to enable the Randall County Commissioners Court to abolish the office, which state law empowers it to do after a period of time had lapsed.

Then came reapportionment after the 2010 census had been completed. The county had to redraw political boundaries based on shifts in population as required by state law. County commissioners then reapportioned Lester out of the precinct he had served as constable, meaning he couldn’t run for re-election.

That’s when Johnson ran — and won.

I must reiterate that I have nothing personal against Constable Johnson. It’s the office he holds that bugs the bejeebers out of me.

I get that some counties have a need for constables. The experience in Randall and Potter counties, though, has been spotty at best. We’ve elected constables who haven’t done anything while drawing their salaries. One Potter County constable — who’s since resigned — would suit up in all the gear and the requisite hardware just to serve legal papers.

I’m digging deep trying to remember a time I’ve ever heard of a constable in this part of the state making an arrest, or being involved in a high-profile criminal activity. Have I been asleep all these years?

So, I guess that Constable Johnson will get re-elected this year. Good for him. I’ll kick in my piddling portion to help pay his salary, although I won’t like doing it.

In this era when people say they’re sick of government inefficiency, I keep wondering: Where is the anger over paying for a superfluous law enforcement entity that — from my vantage point — need not exist?

We have plenty of county and municipal law enforcement personnel who are quite capable of doing the constables’ job.

 

Conservatives dig in against Obama appointments

90

U.S. Senate Republicans had better hope that the nine men and women who comprise the U.S. Supreme Court are still on the job when President Obama checks out of the White House.

Politico is reporting that conservative lawmakers are set to all but block future presidential appointments for the remainder of Obama’s term.

Why am I not surprised?

They’ve been holding up presidential appointments all along, so it doesn’t come as any shock that they’d lay down that marker.

I keep coming back to the highest court in the land.

The president already has selected two members of that court — Justices Sonya Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. It still has a narrow conservative majority, but some of the conservatives on the court — as well as some of the liberals — are getting a bit long in the tooth. Don’t misunderstand me here. I do not wish ill on any of them.

But suppose the president must make an appointment . . .

That’s just a single example of how the legislative branch can gum up the process that allows the president to make these critical selections.

I totally understand that the Constitution gives the Senate the power to “consent” to such appointments. I honor that provision. However, as one who long has stood behind the principle of presidential prerogative, I believe the “advise and consent” constitutional clause can be abused.

If Senate conservatives are merely intending to stick it in the president’s ear just because they can, well, that’s not in keeping with the concept of good government . . .  in my humble view.

El Chapo saga takes strange turn

CCkRgg

I’m trying to figure this one out and, so help me, this item has me puzzled to the max.

Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman escaped six months ago from a maximum-security prison in Mexico. He is one of the world’s most notorious drug lords, responsible for dealing in death while peddling meth, heroin and assorted other killer drugs.

So, as one who practiced journalism for more than 36 years, I find myself asking tonight: If given a chance to interview this notorious criminal, would I accept the chance to do so or would I blow the whistle on his whereabouts to the authorities who are looking for him?

The actor Sean Penn took the former course. He interviewed El Chapo for a Rolling Stone interview several months ago.

I don’t think I would have done that.

Then again, Penn is an actor.

I’m also wondering tonight whether Penn has the same sense of outrage that El Chapo was on the lam that many others — such as yours truly — have had as he avoided capture by the authorities.

The Mexican police caught up with him and Guzman is now facing extradition to the United States.

I believe it’s fair to ask: What was Sean Penn thinking?

According to the New York Times: “Mr. Penn and Mr. Guzmán spoke for seven hours, the story reports, at a compound amid dense jungle. The topics of conversation turned in unexpected directions. At one stage, Mr. Penn brought up Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate; there were some reports that Mr. Guzmán had put a $100 million bounty on Mr. Trump after he made comments offensive to Mexicans. ‘Ah! Mi amigo!’ Mr. Guzmán responded.”

Perhaps there’s something about this story that goes over my head. I’ll admit that I’ve never been given a chance to interview one of the world’s most wanted fugitives . . . so I have no direct knowledge of how I’d respond to such an opportunity.

Still, I find it strange in the extreme that a celebrity of Penn’s stature — someone with no apparent experience as a journalist — would seemingly turn a blind eye toward the circumstances that led to an interview subject’s arrest and conviction while he is seeking to avoid being thrown back into the slammer.

Is it fair to question Penn’s loyalty?

Hmmm. I think I just did.

 

 

‘Five unelected lawyers’ have lots of power

Supreme_Court_US_2010

I saw a news clip last night that, frankly, stunned me.

I’d seen it before, but had forgotten how ill-informed the person featured in it seemed to be when he made a particular statement.

Sen. Ted Cruz is a smart guy. Harvard Law grad. Former law clerk to the current Supreme Court chief justice. Solicitor general for Texas.

He’s running for the Republican nomination of president of the United States.

But when the Supreme Court voted 5-4 this past year to legalize gay marriage throughout the country, Cruz said it was wrong for “five unelected lawyers” make such profound decisions. He sought to make the case, it appears to me, that the federal judicial system — as established by the founders of this country — was fatally flawed.

See Cruz’s statement.

I do not intend to lecture this bright young lawyer about the Constitution, but I do want to make this point.

The nation’s government framework gives the Supreme Court enormous power. That’s why making appointments to that court is arguably the most important decision a president ever makes during his time in office. Cruz knows that . . . I’m sure.

When the court rules on the constitutionality of issues, its word is final. That’s how the framers set it up. They entrusted the highest court in the land to make these decisions without qualification. Yes, some of these decisions have been reversed over time. By and large they’ve been overturned with good reason.

However, one shouldn’t trivialize these court rulings as being the mere opinions of “five unelected lawyers.” They’ve been given a huge responsibility by the very government for which Sen. Cruz, himself, works as a legislator.

The court has made decisions over the years with which I disagree. However, I honor and accept those decisions as part of the constitutional process.

At least, though, the nation’s Supreme Court comprises nine lawyers, individuals who’ve studied the law and know it pretty well. The founders didn’t require justices on that court to be lawyers in the first place.

I trust Sen. Cruz knows that to be the case as well.

 

Gay marriage . . . it’s back

moore

Let’s see if we can clarify something.

The U.S. Supreme Court comprises nine individuals who are charged with interpreting the constitutionality of laws. They decide whether certain laws are in keeping with the nation’s founding governing document. The justices are diverse in their thinking. Their judicial philosophies cover the entire length of the judicial/political spectrum.

The highest court in the land ruled not long ago that people are entitled under the equal protection clause of the Constitution to marry others of the same sex. The court, therefore, legalized gay marriage in all 50 states.

That settles it, right? The nation’s highest court ruled that gay people are entitled to marry whoever they love with no regard to sexual orientation.

Not so fast. An Alabama state supreme court chief justice — Roy Moore — has told probate judges in his state that they shouldn’t issue marriage licenses to gay couples. Why? Chief Justice Moore said the nation’s highest court’s ruling is inconsistent with Alabama court rulings on the subject.

OK, then. Which court’s rulings carry more weight? The U.S. Supreme Court, which is where the judicial buck stops? That court’s rulings are supposed to be final, definitive. Or does a state court have the authority to overrule the nation’s highest court?

Chief Justice Moore is not new to notoriety. He once thrust himself into the limelight over whether to display the Ten Commandments on public property.

This time, he has spoken out of turn . . . in my humble view.

The U.S. Supreme Court has settled the issue about gay marriage. The Constitution, a majority of justices ruled, grants all Americans the same protection under the law. It doesn’t single out heterosexual people, granting protections to them and not to homosexuals.

Can we simply just allow the nation’s highest judicial body’s ruling stand?

 

Are all rights absolute?

barack

Barack Obama made a number of interesting points today as he laid out his strategy to use his executive authority to reduce gun violence.

One of them dealt with the First Amendment and whether we should treat it as an absolute right. Yes, the president said, we have the right of free speech, but we cannot yell “fire!” in a crowded theater.

We also have the right to religious freedom, but the law prohibits human sacrifice.

The Second Amendment is seen by many in this country as being an absolute right. The men who wrote the constitutional amendment meant that all Americans had the right to “keep and bear arms.”

Sure thing. I, too, have read the amendment and I get it.

I keep asking, though: Aren’t there measures that we can take that regulate the sale of these weapons while protecting the integrity of the Second Amendment? Gun-owner-rights groups — namely the National Rifle Association — keep insisting that the two principles are mutually exclusive. You can’t regulate firearms in any manner without watering down the Second Amendment, they say.

I guess I’ll just have to disagree with such a notion.

President Obama isn’t seeking to “legislate” through executive order, as his critics suggest he’s seeking to do. He has a team of constitutional lawyers who are advising him on what he can do legally. He wants to make it tougher for criminals or mentally disturbed individuals to put their hands on firearms and said today he has no intention of stripping law-abiding Americans of their constitutional right to own a gun.

Doesn’t that goal protect the amendment while trying to make the nation safer from bad guys with guns?

 

Yes, impeachment was about sex

bumpers

Now that Donald Trump has dredged up the Bill Clinton impeachment travesty, it’s good to take a brief moment to remember someone who arguably had the best sound bite of all regarding that tawdry political episode.

Dale Bumpers was a former governor and U.S. senator from Arkansas, President Clinton’s home state. Bumpers died this week at the age of 90.

He once described himself as the “best lawyer in a one-lawyer town.” His self-deprecating wit would be welcome today in an era when too many politicians take themselves as seriously — if not more so — than their public service calling.

Well, it was Bumpers who offered up a fascinating quote regarding the president’s impeachment. You’ll remember that special counsel Kenneth Starr started looking at a real estate deal involving President and Mrs. Clinton. He expanded his probe to include a wide range of issues.

Lo and behold, he discovered that the president had improper relationship with a White House intern. A federal grand jury questioned Clinton about it; the president was less than truthful. Thus, came the ostensible grounds for impeachment.

Bumpers, though, told the truth about it.

“When they say this impeachment isn’t about sex,” Bumpers said, “it’s about sex.”

He was right.

The impeachment itself turned out to be a political travesty of the first order.

The House did its job by impeaching the president. The Senate — which included Bumpers — did its job as well by acquitting him.

 

Yes, Mr. Justice, ‘religious neutrality’ is in the Constitution

No-religious-test-of-office-320x1241

I am about to do something that gives me the heebie-jeebies. I am going to challenge a premise by one of the nine people who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Antonin Scalia told a group of high school students this weekend in New Orleans that the U.S. Constitution does not compel “religious neutrality.”

Well, Mr. Justice, I believe it does.

Scalia, a deeply religious Roman Catholic, told the students that the Constitution prohibits government from adhering to a specific religion, but it does not compel government to ban references to religion in general.

He said it’s all right for government officials to invoke God in public.

Sure it is. Presidents of both parties have been ending public speeches for as long as I can remember — and that goes back a ways — with the words ” . . .  and may God bless the United States of America.”

But I have been reading the Constitution since I was old enough to read anything and I can find precisely two uses of the word “religion” or “religious” in that document. It’s in Article VI, where it says there shall be “no religious test” required of any individual seeking any public office at any level in the United States of America; and it’s also in the very First Amendment, where it says Congress “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

The rest of it is secular by design.

I agree with Justice Scalia that “God has been good to us” as a nation. But he seems to be getting a bit ahead of himself when he implies that “religious neutrality” seems intended to deprive Americans the right — or the desire — to worship as they see fit.

The individuals who founded this nation knew exactly what they were doing when they created the Constitution. They meant for it to be free of religious dogma. Yes, some have taken that intent too far by suggesting that we should remove “In God We Trust” from courtroom walls or from our currency.

However, I happen to quite comfortable with “religious neutrality” as it relates to our government.

I’m still free to go to church and pray to God. I will do so again today.