text:
Jack Balkin:
jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman
bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres
ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider
corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak
mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin
joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber
mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin
sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz
jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler
jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman
akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman
msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson
slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban
david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca
gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone
mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain
lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail
mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale
pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily
npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen
michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein
dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes
rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen
dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus
raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph
alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel
siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super
david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha
btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe
nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet
mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler
winkler at ucla.edu
Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases
The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC
The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic)
Recent Posts
John Yoo on Court-Stripping
Thursday, October 19, 2006
John Yoo on Court-Stripping
Marty Lederman
In today's Wall Street Journal [thanks to Howard Bashman for the link], John Yoo correctly emphasizes that the primary impact of the Military Commissions Act is, as Jack has explained, to attempt to eliminate any judicial checks on the Executive's conduct of the conflict against Al Qaeda:
"Most of the press and the professional punditry missed the big story," namely, that the MCA attempts to cut off judicial review.
Odious as it is to find Yoo right about anything (you know the feeling, obviously), he's not far wrong. The NYT and WaPo news pages were slow to pick up on this and not terribly good at getting it out when they did. I was complaining about the exclusive focus on the torture issues on Sept. 18. After the "moderates" caved on torture, the media moved on to noticing the court-stripping problems, a little bit.
I think it's safe to say that the general public didn't pick up on court-stripping as an issue, to say nothing of its implied rubber-stamp for the same administration that most of that general public mistrusts.
As I recall, there never was any serious controversy within congressional Republican ranks over court-stripping. Sen. Graham, one of the three holdouts negotiating with the administration over other issues, always was a leader in the move to strip jurisdiction. He tried, and failed, to accomplish the same thing in the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act (and its creatively constructed legislative "history" that would have prevented the Hamdan case from being decided on the merits at all).
Specter and a pitiful handful of Republicans joined Democrats objecting to the habeas-stripping provisions, and the 51-48 vote rejecting his amendment was the closest vote in the consideration of the bill.
If that vote were to occur during the 110th Congress, the result might be different. But no one expects the issue to be reopened. So in that sense, Yoo's gloating may prove well founded.
Professor Balkin:
[T]here are several inaccurate statements in John's Op/Ed, including these:
1. "The writ of habeas corpus had never been understood to benefit enemy prisoners in war. The U.S. held millions of POWs during World War II, with none permitted to use our civilian courts (except for a few cases of U.S. citizens captured fighting for the Axis)."
Wrong. As I've previously written: [The habeas-stripping provision of the MCA] would appear to overrule not only the recent Rasul decision, which recognized habeas rights for detainees at Guantanamo, but also the holdings in the World War II cases of Quirin and Yamashita, which dealt with alien detainees in the U.S. and in an occupied insular possession, respectively. In each case, the Court rejected the President's assertion that he could deny the detainee the right to challenge the legality of military-commission proceedings (and detention) by writ of habeas corpus.
I think that depends on whether you and Professor Yoo are referring to the same grounds for habeas review.
If Professor Yoo was arguing that alien enemy combatants have never been allowed in Britain or the US to use the writ of habeas corpus to challenge the determination by the military that the detainees were combatants or to challenge their detention by the military during for the duration of the conflict , then he would be correct.
If Professor Yoo is making a blanket statement that alien enemy combatants never had any access to the courts, then you have a point.
The Quirin and Yamashita courts expressly limited themselves to determinations of whether the military commissions being challenged were lawful under statute and Constitution. The Supreme Court reasoned that Congress created jurisdiction for the judiciary to consider this issue pursuant to a petition for a writ of habeas when it enacted legislation allowing the defendant to make a defense without restriction:
Finally, we held in Ex parte Quirin, supra, 317 U.S. 24, 25 , 63 S.Ct. 9, 10, as we hold now, that Congress by sanctioning trials of enemy aliens by military commission for offenses against the law of war had recognized the right of the accused to make a defense. Cf. Ex parte Kawato, 317 U.S. 69 , 63 S.Ct. 115. It has not foreclosed their right to contend that the Constitution or laws of the United States withhold authority to proceed with the trial. It has not withdrawn, and the Executive branch of the government could not, unless there was suspension of the writ, withdraw from the courts the duty and power to make such inquiry into the authority of the commission as may be made by habeas corpus. Yamashita, 327 U.S. at 8.
More importantly for consideration of judicial limitations enacted in the MCA, such reasoning implies that Congress may take away what it has given by placing statutory limits on judicial review of military commissions. Indeed, the Yamashita court recognized that the congressionally enacted Articles of War denied it jurisdiction to review whether the military commission committed errors in the trial of the petitioner. Yamashita, 327 U.S. at 8.
If [the MCA] had been in place in 1942 and 1946, and if such a withdrawal of habeas rights were constitutional -- which remains an unresolved question -- the Court would never have been able to address the merits of the questions presented in Quirin and Yamashita.
I would disagree for the most part. I don't see much practical difference between the system followed under Quirin and Yamashita and that available now apart from the procedural vehicle for review.
The petitions for writs of habeas corpus reviewed by the Quirin and Yamashita were considered after the military commission trials were finished.
In the case of the MCA, alien enemy combatants are denied habeas corpus but are permitted judicial review of their cases after the military commission trials are complete.
This would appear to me to be a distinction without much of a practical difference.
2. "[T]he traditional understanding [pre-Hamdan was] that Geneva does not cover terrorists, who are not signatories nor 'combatants' in an internal civil war under Article 3."
Also mistaken. As Justice Stevens rightly explained, the much more common "understanding" was that such detainees receive the baseline, minimum rights established by Common Article 3, which is all that the Hamdan Court held.
This is simply a clash of opinions between Professor Yoo and Justice Stevens on an issue which had not been decided previously. Although Yoo would appear to have the better founded argument based on the actual text of the Geneva Conventions, Yoo lacks Justice Stevens' power to rewrite Article 3 through his "interpretation." However, it appears that the Congress will have the final word on the matter by enacting the MCA under its plenary Article I power to set rules for Captures.
I wonder why Bart thinks that "Justice Stevens," not the Supreme Court of the United States, is responsible for Hamdan?
Anderson said...
I wonder why Bart thinks that "Justice Stevens," not the Supreme Court of the United States, is responsible for Hamdan?
Justice Stevens wrote the opinion for the Court, except for Section VI-D-iv in which he provided much of his own interpretation of what Common Article 3 required.
I'm a little tired of you guys talking about Yoo's positions as if they were rooted in constitutional, rather than partisan, concerns. He railed against Clinton's "outrages" during the Balkan crises, and he will switch sides again when/if another Democrat exercises the sorts of authority he's championing today.
Matt: I'm a little tired of you guys talking about Yoo's positions as if they were rooted in constitutional, rather than partisan, concerns.
Amen. So too for Scalia and a host of others.
Yoo's motives are obviously suspect, but one can be both partisan and right. So it's excellent that Balkin, Lederman, et al. take the trouble to refute him.
Otherwise, we get wingnuts crowing that "liberals hate John Yoo but they can't prove him wrong." Okay, well, we get that regardless ...
Anderson: So it's excellent that Balkin, Lederman, et al. take the trouble to refute him.
Another "Amen." It also helps students and political greenhorns (me) prepare for dialog with partisan posers. But while there are blogs aplenty of all political stripe, I'm particularly pleased with the tone of Balkinization. Our hosts set the standard for which I aim as I continue my education and activism.
Okay, well, we get that regardless ...
Ain't it the truth.
Oddly, I recall on a previous thread an argument about creation of "law free zones." I note that this issue has been ignored by administration apologists this time around. A pity we didn't have Yoo's words to support the claim on the previous iteration. This really is one of the more damning items in Professor Lederman's post, that there was consensus on needing to have detentions off of U.S. soil---as the first (and now failed) defense against judicial review of the administration's acts in this fallacious "war" on "terror".
Frankly, I can't see the basis for the left's fixation with John Yoo.
Yoo is simply one commentator among many who happened to draft a legal memo for DOJ when the Executive was trying to figure out how to handle al Qaeda and other enemy prisoners.
As with most legal commentators, I accept some, but not all, of what Yoo argues if it is supported by the law, which I can read for myself.
If you don't accept his arguments, move on and make your own, but support them with the law.
Demonizing Yoo only gives him more influence than he merits among your opponents.
I fully support substantive opposition to those we feel simply are being hypocritical. I personally find responding to such people a useful way to freshen up my argumentative skills. Also, often respectful replies that accept their bona fides leads to more respect for you.
I'd add sometimes we are wrong, are inconsistent to some degrees ourselves, or not likely to convince outside the "choir" on simple "you can't take them seriously" grounds. Even with plenty of evidence.
It is clear to me that Yoo is simply put a supporter of a very strong executive. Many here would add "conservative" but the first part is definitely clear. Thus, he finds it strange that people are so dismissive of his views on how the President has some rather broad war making power.
Also, let's compare this to his view on Congress. His essay in a collection Prof. Levinson helped put together on constitutional stupidities/tragedies continues to seem rather telling. Yoo finds McCulloch v. MD quite tragic since it promoted a broad view of congressional power.
But, his rather broad view on executive power -- for an originalist (not even going into policy grounds) surely if anything much more ahistorical -- seems to him a good thing on some policy level.
His opposition to Clinton suggests the "ox being gored" problem. This is why Glenn Greenwald's efforts to compare and contrast are so useful.
Also, let's compare this to his view on Congress. His essay in a collection Prof. Levinson helped put together on constitutional stupidities/tragedies continues to seem rather telling. Yoo finds McCulloch v. MD quite tragic since it promoted a broad view of congressional power.
But, his rather broad view on executive power -- for an originalist (not even going into policy grounds) surely if anything much more ahistorical -- seems to him a good thing on some policy level.
Absolutely right! Anyone who reads the Constitution and documents of the time with anything approaching an open mind will see that the Founders saw federal power as originating in Congress. Many people almost treated federal power and Congressional power as synonymous. Of course, the Constitution also provides for an independent executive because it was assumed at the time that liberty was threatened if either the legislature usurped executive power or the executive usurped legislative power.
Well, several things have changed since then. Federal power and Congressional power have expanded spectacularly. The size and power of the executive relative to the other branches of government has expanded beyond what anyone in the 18th century could have foreseen.
And the separation of powers theories has been (partially) disproven. In many parliamentary governments today, the legislature has usurped all executive power and liberty is none the worse for it. I know of no country in which the executive has seized the legislative power and liberty has survived. John Yoo, and others who would scale back Congressional power to some past golden age, yet leave the executive untouched, are effectively proposing just that.
"The only reason they are desperate to shut the courts out is that their conduct is of such dubious legality."
Professor Lederman, you can't possibly mean that literally. One needn't be an out-and-out legal realist to understand that litigation and adjudication involved a variety of practical considerations. Litigation imposes real costs, nonfinancial and financial, which may be sufficiently high to make litigation avoidance a desireable option, quite apart from the guilty conscience you allege.
Furthermore, if you truly believed that no party with utter confidence that the courts will find the party's conduct to be legal, then you would agree that the Supreme Court does not need to allow for petitions for rehearing, and that the Court should never DIG a petition, or that the Court should never reverse course on previous precedent.
Quite frankly, the Court is not infallible. Sometimes the Court gets issues wrong. Why shouldn't the Administration guard against that possibility?
I had an incomplete thought in there.
My second-last paragraph should have read:
Furthermore, if you truly believed that no party with utter confidence that the courts will find the party's conduct to be legal would want to avoid litigation, then you would agree that the Supreme Court does not need to allow for petitions for rehearing, and that the Court should never DIG a petition, or that the Court should never reverse course on previous precedent.
Finally, I must admit my surprise by your invocation of Yamashita as grounds for suggesting that a prisoner in an insular possession has a right to the writ of habeas corpus.
Setting aside the fact that our sovereignty over the Philippines in 1941 is quite different from our nonsovereignty over Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, today, the fact is that in 1941 Congress expressly extended habeas relief to prisoners in the Philippines. That statute was repealed in 1948.
Justice Jackson explained all of that in Eisentrager!
How would the MCA "overrule" Yamashita, when the latter nowehere suggested that Congress could not control the extension of habeas to military prisoners?
As with Yamashita, and Yoo, context matters. To comment upon the legal scholar first, in some ways I see professor Yoo as the Athenian in Aristotle's Poetics seeking catharsis. To address the abusive military leader, Yamashita was guaranteed as the defeated leader to earn the wrath of commissions however configured. In some of the early anti-MCA argumentation, similarly, I heard invocations of Nuremberg trials; there is little the moderate center can do save let Nuremberg pass. War crimes trials obey the rule of carthasis as much as the other more genteel rules of society; usually the persons on trial are involved in visible and unfair actions even though they were leaders. A few detainees at Gitmo are in that category; some putatively are not. It seems to me MCA gives a few seams for entering courts, but they are untested yet, or tests are just beginning.
Recalling the nomination hearings for both Roberts and Alito, I think the administration will do all in its power to keep those new justices from an opportunity to adjudicate habeas matters, as they are strong supporters of nobles who gained the rights King J relinquished a long time ago.
Early in Gtmo's establishment as a detainee site there was a court case, which I thought would address more strongly, as the commenter above has, Gitmo's status as ad hoc occupied territory.
One of the interesting ways ML phrases the turning point decision whether to the brig onshore or the 'facility' offshore, is important, I think, as it expresses a significant new element in geographic location which is written into UCMJ and other rulebooks; namely, transportation is so much easier now than in times past. It is much more feasible now to transport the detainees from the scene where found to some sequestered place for interrogation and imprisonment and further processing. This ease of transport, I think, weakens the imperative for MCs vs other more standard tribunals with better rules of evidence. UCMJ is very explicit about some sense of reasonableness in this regard even expressing it as it does in experiential military terms written by the service which understands armed conflict as its primary business protecting the nation.
I also posted this over at Volokh.
Yoo said the following:
"The Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts in peacetime, and also declares that habeas corpus can be suspended 'in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion' when 'the public Safety may require it.'"
Congress may very well have the power to curtail the Court's appellate jurisdiction (see below), but the habeas provision constitutes an obvious limitation on that power. If not, then the habeas provision is (potentially) a nullity. Even McCardle doesn't go as far as the current statute, since that involved only the elimination of the Court's appellate jurisdiction -- the District Courts could and did hear the writ petition. A statute which purports to eliminate all jurisdiction to hear habeas cases seems clearly to violate the habeas clause (unless the conditions precedent are met, which they indisputably are not).
Frankly, I don't understand the accepted view that Congress can deprive the Court of appellate jurisdiction. I know that the courts have always construed Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 2 that way. I don't read it like that. To me, it simply allows Congress to modify whether that appellate jurisdiction consists of law or fact. In other words, we should read it as if the Court "shall" have appellate jurisdiction, but Congress can regulate whether the Court reviews the facts or simply the law.
This reading eliminates what otherwise appears to be a conflict with the language of Art. III, Sec. 1 vesting all the judicial power in the Court and the similarly inconsistent provision of Art. III, Sec. 2 stating that such power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under, etc.
Quite frankly, the Court is not infallible. Sometimes the Court gets issues wrong. Why shouldn't the Administration guard against that possibility?
Your argument is that the Administration ought to oppose habeas review because it might lose? That's your argument? Seriously?
Guantanamo Bay is under US sovereignty for all practicial purposes until such time as the United States hauls down the flag and returns the land to Cuban control.
To suggest otherwise is preposterous sophisty -- in short, a typical neo-fascist FRAUD.
Why should it even matter?
And why should you be so keen to treat others unfairly in violation of the law??
I wanted to write here titles of a couple documents I am re-reading: The first I wish was footnoted, as Katyal on page 80 of the March 2006 rebuttal opens discussing Quirin and 'Bereford'.
The other also is a substantial document by Green in 84 Wash L Rev a thoughtful review of Rutledge's work, applied in revised detail to the Justice's work on executive detention from Yamashita forward in time to Hamdan http://ssrn.com/abstract=905119 interestingly Green first posted it in May 2006 and updated it September 22, 2006; see also this view. Rutledge dissented in Yamashita; the other dissent (Murphy) is interesting, but much more truncated; 327 U.S. 1 (1946).
"To comment upon the legal scholar first, in some ways I see professor Yoo as the Athenian in Aristotle's Poetics seeking catharsis."
Huh? Sure you don't mean the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue by Thucydides?
since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. * * *
Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. And it is not as if we were the first to make this law, or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist for ever after us; all we do is to make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do.
Legal realism, indeed.
As I noted in my post on Monday night, Carl Schmitt's program for the expansion of Executive power following the promulgation of the Enabling Act had a very clear first step: silencing the autonomous judiciary. He was convinced that they presented the sole serious challenge to the new notion of Executive authority, and they had to be dealt with quickly through a variety of techniques. Once more, John Yoo's Journal piece travels down Carl Schmitt's well charted path. And it reminds of several other Schmittian elements in the process, such as the plan to assure that the detention facilities created in the wake of the act were beyond the reach of courts and lawyers. The parallels are amazing. And chilling.
"I wanted to write here titles of a couple documents I am re-reading: The first I wish was footnoted, as Katyal on page 80 of the March 2006 rebuttal opens discussing Quirin and 'Bereford'."
"Bereford" is a transcription error -- the citation is Ex parte Burford, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 448 (1806); see, e.g.:
Hamdan Surreply
Center for Nat'l Security Studies Amicus
Re. Robert Link's debunking Marty's claim that there was, according to Robert, "consensus on needing to have detentions off of U.S. soil---as the first (and now failed) defense against judicial review," I wrote in an article posted 6/29/04, the following information:
While many share this view, few Americans know that the very reason the administration chose Guantanamo was in order to avoid a so-called habeas corpus challenge. This is not speculation. It was revealed in a 2002 essay by a student at the National War College who claimed he was privy to both classified and unclassified material. According to the student, Col. Daniel F. McCallum, Guantanamo was chosen, at least in part, because it presented a "minimal litigation risk." McCallum states baldly:
The litigation risk faced by DOJ was access to federal courts for the purpose of filing a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus requires judicial review of the detention of a person to determine if the detention is lawful. An important factor in assessing this risk is that this only applies to citizens and foreign nationals if they are held within the United States.
For Guantanamo, "since the property belong to Cuba, DOJ assessed the litigation risk as minimal," and "[c]onsidering the strained foreign relations we have with Cuba, [the Department of State] assessed the minimal negative impact acceptable" writes McCallum.
Scott Horton: The parallels [between Yoo and Scmittian thought] are amazing. And chilling.
Scott, I'm beholden to folks like you and the other names on the masthead for help in clarifying my thoughts and expressing "our" positions well. It's in that context that I want to ask: How can we keep from having observations such as yours, above, dismissively countered with statements like, "Just because the Nazi's did it doesn't make it wrong; that's bad logic! I suppose you want to throw out Algebra and Physics too?" Yoo and Schmidt argue for a stronger executive and weaker judiciary. We know how that worked out in Schmidt's case, but it still smacks of post hoc fallacy unless I can say *how* the policy invariably leads, or at least reasonably tends toward, the horrific abuses we saw in Germany. The best I've been able to do so far is try to personalize things, to try to lead folks to seeing how this could be used against them or their loved ones if ever there came to power an executive who deemed them an enemy (rather than the current state for most supporters of Yooish thought in which the "strong" executive "just happens" to be the supporters' party head.)
Too often I end up feeling like the whole mess comes from the current party truly believing it can never lose power---or turn to evil. Makes one wonder if any of them passed a history course.
Jennifer: Robert Link's debunking Marty's...
To quote the great Inigo Montoya, "I don't think that means what you think it means." ;) I was trying to steer the comments back to this issue because I thought it deserved more time than we were giving. In no way was I disagreeing with Professor Lederman; I was saying that the choice of location for detention arguably best proves the adminstration's intentional and willful malfeasance on such matters. Nor do I suspect there will ever be a time when I am in a position to "debunk" anything Professor Lederman writes, since the requirement for such an event would be him writing some "bunk" for me to "de-", and I just don't see that happening.
Peace, and thanks for the counterpunch link.
I am not a legal scholar and it is often hard for me to be able to follow the discussions about what is happening to the Republic.
I have these questions, though, that I list just to see if anyone else has the same or can say whether these are off-base.
1. What is the right role of _Military_ Justice in these matters?
This question came to my mind in the context of Executive authority. Senator L. Graham, on the Senate floor, said that he believes that, in times of war, the Executive ought to have deference in determining who is an enemy combatant, rather than a judge. The history of this principle, as I understood his explanation, is so that the military can shape the battlefield to its advantage.
My question, however, is what is "the battlefield" in international terrorism, except the streets and houses of non-US citizens? Do we really want the military 'shaping' this part of our international relations, _in general_?
We fought international terrorism for a long while before 9-11 (and it seems other nations, like Britain have too). What has changed since then? We have mobilized the Army (for Afghanistan). Well, is that just a circumstance or do we really need new legal principles, because of that event (an event which we do not expect to be frequently recurring, I hope)?
Last, why is the military the right choice? I can appreciate the difficulties of offering up criminal trials, but what is the argument against having a civilian tribunal set-up, rather than a military one? Is there any such precedent or is it just thought to be a terribly bad one?
Lindsey Graham was asking, "Do you believe 9-11 was an act of war or a crime?" (he even asked of Justice Alito, too).
I think most sensitive, non-lawyer folks believe that terrorists acts are "acts of war (or moral depravity) that we intuitively feel should be calmly and steadfastly prosecuted as crimes." Can the legal system be made to accommodate that tension?
2. What is a successful trial for international terrorists?
This question came up in watching Mary Jo White, et. al. on C-span yesterday.
How can we possibly NOT think of the 'effectiveness' of a trial as an extension of our counterterrorism efforts (although that hardly seemed a universal sentiment on the panel)? Clearly, al-qa'ida types believe that their trial is just the 'judicial phase' of their jihad, their public platform to show the political part of their political-violence.
It seems to me that 'success' goes beyond proving 'guilt' in a conspiracy, for example. We might define the public interest in paying for a trial, for Justice, to publicly re-enforce a broad-reaching counter-terror strategy, viz. that political violence is the wrong choice for social change, that individual pain or suffering does not justify all things to oneself, that terrorist acts are not moral championship but moral abdication, etc.
3. Should we look to specific cases to make good judgments about how to handle them or do we need a complete "framework"?
How much are decisions about what to do being driven by the number of new cases, how much by the similarity of cases, and how much by the uniqueness of cases?
Are we making choices about how to structure due process because we do not have "good cases" or "poor cases" against some people who we just do not want to let go?
Are we ready, as a public, to actually let someone go, because a confession was the result of CIA …er .. "righteousness", rather than regress the evidentiary rules so much that even hearsay is 'sufficient'?
4. How much do we need harmonize international approaches to prosecuting terrorists?
How much can the World's security net be set-up so that there are some minimum standards of evidence and perception that serving Justice to terrorists is not something that is so wholly dependent on jurisdiction?
Rather than take prosecutorial differences among nations as something that 'must be dealt with at trial', how much do we need to deal with it ex ante at the diplomatic and security arrangement level?
5. How much and how should 'fault tolerance' be included in the design of legal choices?
Are their unique implications for counterterrorism of Type-I and Type-II judicial errors and prosecution 'failure'?
Robert, thanks for the clarification. It's well-taken.
I have a question to all here about Yoo's statement that "Congress's power is even greater when it is correcting the justices' errors." (4th para. from bottom of article) My question is, where does this idea come from?
Amicus: Can the legal system be made to accommodate that tension?
Sorry to cherry-pick your lengthy post, but I think this one question and my answer are the best "bang for our buck."
There isn't really any tension in the legal system on these matters; it's the political arena that's tense. There is no legitimizing the "war" concept with regards to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There was no nation with which we can have an armed struggle---and that is the only understanding of the word war that can be legitimately supported by any system of Constitutional interpretation. Legally there is no question: the terrorists involved in the nine-one-one attacks are international criminals and should be pursued accordingly.
Ah, but politically those words are quick poison---even if we had the most enlightened of media and elected representatives (which we very much do not have.) The average person hasn't the depth to make the distinction, and PNAC has had a field day with this failing in our electorate, and they have had the willing support of an "embedded" media.
To tie the matters together, the political opportunism of an administration with (putting this gently) strong ties to the intelligence community and PNAC has lead to passage of quite a bit of bogus legislation, starting with AUMF on September 18, 2001, which gave legislative embodiment to the fallacious "war" on "terror." The tension in the legal system is that of a fortress, Law, under siege by barbarians, the neo-cons. Will Law survive? Frankly I'm glad I'm not a betting man because I wouldn't know where to put my money; PNAC might just carry the day, and carry the nation down that old well intended road with it.
Robert Link said...
There is no legitimizing the "war" concept with regards to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There was no nation with which we can have an armed struggle---and that is the only understanding of the word war that can be legitimately supported by any system of Constitutional interpretation.
Nowhere in the Constitution is there a restriction that war may only be declared against nation states. In a case very similar to our 2001 AUMF against al Qaeda and its allies, Congress declared formal hostilities against the Barbary Pirates on March 2, 1815.
Indeed, the US rarely declares formal war against non nation states like the Indians, the Barbary Pirates and the Moro rebels in the Philippines. However, the captures by the military in these conflicts were rarely treated as citizen criminal defendants. Instead, military rules were used to determine their fate.
Which shall it be, Bart, a Constitution of Original Meanings, or a Living Constitution of Interpretations? Your preference seems to shift, unsurprisingly, along partisan lines, as only that latter could embrace a "war" on poverty or a "war" on terror. Meanwhile, what of my earlier question: So when the Demoncrats (sic) get the White House the President can lock you up, determine you are an alien or otherwise subject to MCA treatment on any or no criteria, and neither you nor your partisans can do a damned thing about it, what then?
The answer, of course, will be more evasion and question begging; "it can't happen here," "no one would ever do such a thing," and on into the dark night of denial.
I'd just as soon not be addressed by you at all, but if you find you simply must answer my posts then how about starting with this one? "What then?" Your references to historical inconsistencies in Constitutional application aren't really to the point, and your attempts at debate class exploitation of our crimes of genocide against the natives of this continent is nothing short of repugnant.
robert, thanks for your reply (and no problem with cherry picking - it's a long list!).
I continue to watch what public discussions I can that are accessible to non-specialists.
My assessment is that, as a group, as a community, we have yet to come to a National Consensus or even two, interanlly consistent polar-consensus about what and how terror strategies really work.
Without a conceptual understanding of how political violence and its practitioners seeek to work, one cannot design appropriate counterterror (or counter-insurgency) policies.
I would argue that the criminal law purports to understand crime, at least we recognize different severities and so-forth. It also purports to understand remedies, implicitly.
It would seem that, until and unless one has an overall view of 'terrorism' and what to do about it, that trying to steer the development of law or of policy is a rudderless endeavor.
Hereis an article by the noted historian, Sir Michal Howard, on the mis-use of the word "war", in relationship to terrorism.
Here are some more words of his, dating all the way back to 2001:
Wednesday October 31, 2001
"Even more disastrous would be its extension... through other rogue states, beginning with Iraq, to eradicate terrorism for good and all," he said. "I can think of no policy more likely, not only to indefinitely prolong the war, but to ensure that we can never win it."
Phillip Bobbitt has argued that al'qa'ida is different (a "virtual state"), but I don't find that at all convincing. All that is different, in my mind, is that they have internet communications (ironically supplied by the very 'civilizations' that they deplore); otherwise, it would seem that all such political movements are constituted as a 'virtual' nation, one of ideas, that is.
Based on these perspectives, it would be reasonable to conclude that formalized 'war-footing' does not make sense, and therefore does not/would not make good law.
Robert Link said...
Which shall it be, Bart, a Constitution of Original Meanings, or a Living Constitution of Interpretations?
For those of you who are textualists as I am, the term war has had the same commonly understood meaning in and out of our Constitution for a couple millennia now. When our soldiers are in combat with an enemy of our nation, we are in fact at war no matter what resolutions Congress did or did not enact. You might want to quibble about whether we are authorized to be at war without a declaration, but the fact of war is indisputable. Enemy combatant detainees during a war are Captures under the Constitution, not citizen criminal suspects.
For those of you who use original intent, our country before and after the enactment of the Constitution always understood that enemy combatant detainees during a war are Captures. We never treated them as common criminals. Indeed, such treatment would have violates the laws of war at that time.
Mark Field: Do you realize that your view seems to imply that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any state court case involving minimal diversity, without regard to amounts in controversy? Because that is the natural outgrowth of your position. The constitutional diversity jurisdiction extends to such suits, but is contracted by statute. If Congress has no power over the Court's appellate jurisdiction except via reducing the ability to conduct factual review, then how can it purport to prevent the Court from overturning a state supreme court judgment involving citizens of differing states? Not that I think such a result is that likely, but do you think the Court has this power, despite the contrary jurisdictional statute? Likewise, are the finality statutes void as limitations on jurisdiciton that don't relate to the law/fact distinction?
I'm curious to know how you deal with these problems.
Mark Field: Do you realize that your view seems to imply that the SCOTUS has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from any state court case involving minimal diversity, without regard to amounts in controversy?
You ask good questions.
Yes, this is the implication of my suggestion. I don't have a real problem with it, because I don't see the SCOTUS taking very many such appeals (or, in fact, any at all).
Likewise, are the finality statutes void as limitations on jurisdiciton that don't relate to the law/fact distinction?
I think the answer here is that the Court would set its own time deadlines as rules of court rather than have Congress set them.
CG: I got a copy at FindLaw, and will visit those links, as well.
Anderson: Same Athenians, different perspective. My thesis, if you will, is Yoo knows fairly well the direction from which support for authoritarianist argumentation will derive, and cares little about its vector. As S.Horton comments hereabouts, context is of the essence, as a the territory is perilous once etched by exquisite theory. My impression is that many good willed people can serve in this and Yoo's diaphanous contexts, but it is important to reveal at the outset the kind of inverted obfuscation Yoo must employ to create the fiction which he conjures. I suppose the next step is the executive order which we await following the signing of MCA recently. This letter from DoJ was published a week ago; credit UPittJurist. I am sure CG is working in that new environment.
Helpful thread here.
"Bart" DePalma says:
For those of you who are textualists as I am, the term war has had the same commonly understood meaning in and out of our Constitution for a couple millennia now. When our soldiers are in combat with an enemy of our nation, we are in fact at war no matter what resolutions Congress did or did not enact. You might want to quibble about whether we are authorized to be at war without a declaration, but the fact of war is indisputable.
Which makes the Article I provision giving Congress the plenary power to "declare war" rather interesting. One rule of constitutional interpretation is to not make any law a nullity. If, as "Bart" maintains, a war is a war is a war no matter what Congress says, then these few words are just fluff and any such declaration as effectual as a non-binding "sense of the Congress" resolution to the effect that "Motherhood is declared to be good, Mondays to be a drag and 'Bart' an eedjit".....
"Bart" really needs to explain why he -- as a person that (self-proclaimedly) puts such a primacy on "textualism" -- thinks the Founders put this little bit of fluff in there. If he gets beyond that, he needs to explain why the founders would argue about this little piece of fluff, and make speeches as to why it's important that the Congress and not the preznit have the power to initiate and prosecute such "non-binding resolutions".
adult friend finder sex hot nude college girls teen women and adult friend finder sex hot nude college girls teen women and adult friend finder sex hot nude college girls teen women
Cara paling manjur mengobati virus herpes kelamin
obat herpes tradisional yang ampuh
obat herpes terbaik
obat herpes tangan
obat herpes tercepat
obat herpes tipe 2
obat herpes tradisional untuk bayi
obat herpes tenggorokan
obat herpes terbaru
obat herpes tablet
obat herpes tomcat
obat herpes tumbuhan
Kapur sirih untuk obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin medis
Obat menghilangkan kutil kelamin
Obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat minum untuk kutil kelamin
Obat medis untuk kutil kelamin
Merek obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin de nature
Nama obat kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional buat sipilis
Obat herbal buat sipilis
Obat dokter buat sipilis
Obat generik buat sipilis
Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri
Obat sipilis yang bagus
Obat china sipilis
Cara obat sipilis di apotik
Cara obat sipilis pada pria
Cari obat sipilis
Contoh obat sipilis
Obat sipilis Obat kutil kelamin obat wasirhttp://oplosanobatkutilkelamin.blogspot.com/
Nama salep obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi
Obat oles untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kutil di alat kelamin pria
Obat untuk kutil pada kelamin
Obat tradisional kutil pada kelamin
Obat penyakit kutil kelamin
Obat penghilang kutil kelamin
Obat perontok kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional kutil kelamin pada pria
Obat apotek untuk kutil kelamin
Apa obat untuk kutil kelamin
Obat alami untuk mengobati kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik
Dimana beli obat kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional buat kutil kelamin
Beli obat kutil kelamin
Obat salep buat kutil kelamin
Obat cina kutil kelamin
Cuka obat kutil kelamin
Obat cina untuk kutil kelamin
Obat cina penghilang kutil kelamin
Obat china untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kutil di kelamin pria
Obat tradisional kutil di kelamin
Obat kutil di daerah kelamin
Obat untuk menghilangkan kutil di kelamin
obat gonore tradisional
obat gonore tenggorokan
obat gonore paling efektif
obat gonore pada wanita
obat gonore atau kencing nanah
obat gonore apa
obat alternatif gonore
obat gonore yang ampuh
obat gonore yg ampuh
obat gonore yang paling ampuh
obat gonore yang dijual di apotik
obat buat gonore
obat bakteri gonore
obat gonore dijual bebas
obat pembunuh bakteri gonore
buah obat gonore
obat gonore dan klamidia
obat gonore dokter
nama obat gonore di apotek
jenis obat gonore di apotik
harga obat gonore di apotik
merk obat gonore di apotik
obat sifilis dan gonore
fungsi obat gonore
obat gejala gonore
obat gonore ibu hamil
obat gonore untuk ibu hamil
obat gonore untuk wanita hamil
harga obat gonore
obat injeksi gonore
obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik
obat kutil kelamin yg dijual di apotik
obat kutil di kemaluan wanita
pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria
pengobatan penyakit kutil kelamin pada pria
obat penyakit kutil pada kelamin pria
Pengobatan kutil kelamin aman dan tanpa operasi
obat kutil pada alat kelamin pria
pengobatan kutil kelamin
pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria dan wanita
pengobatan kutil kelamin pria
pengobatan kutil kelamin wanita
pengobatan kutil kelamin dengan cuka apel
pengobatan kutil kelamin di anus
Cara mengobati kutil di kelamin wanita hamil
pengobatan kutil kelamin di bandung
obat kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin di apotik
obat kutil kelamin tradisional
obat kutil kelamin wanita
obat kutil kelamin pada pria
obat kutil kelamin apotik
obat kutil kelamin murah
obat kutil kelamin de nature
obat kutil kelamin untuk ibu hamil
obat kutil kelamin dokter
Cara mengobati jengger ayam dan kutil kelamin
Obat untuk kutil kelamin pada wanita
Pengobatan kutil pada kelamin pria
Ciri ciri kutil kelamin dan obatnya
Cara mengobati wasir dengan cepat
Cara mengobati wasir dengan propolis
Cara mengobati wasir tanpa obat
Cara mengobati wasir yang sudah parah
Cara mengobati wasir berdarah secara alami
Cara mengobati wasir luar secara alami
Cara mengobati wasir dengan lidah buaya
Cara mengobati wasir setelah melahirkan
Cara mengobati wasir luar tanpa operasi
Cara mengobati wasir alami
Cara mengobati wasir akut
Cara mengobati wasir atau ambeyen
Cara mengobati wasir/ambeyen
Cara mengobati wasir atau ambien
Cara mengobati wasir/ambien
Cara mengobati wasir yang alami
Cara mengobati penyakit wasir ambeyen
obat sipilis untuk pria
obat untuk peyakit sipilis
obat sipilis untuk perempuan
obat sipilis pada pria
obat paten untuk sipilis
obat sipilis resep dokter
obat sipilis raja singa
obat gonore resep dokter
obat sifilis raja singa
obat sipilis ringan
obat sipilis resep dokter di apotik
obat sipilis dan raja singa
Obat kutil kelamin/jengger ayam
Obat kutil kelamin paling murah
Obat kutil kelamin dari dalam
Obat antibiotik kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin yang dijual di apotik
Beli obat kutil kelamin di apotik
Nama obat kutil kelamin di apotek
Obat kutil kelamin yang tersedia di apotik
Cuka apel obat kutil kelamin
Obat ampuh menghilangkan kutil kelamin
Obat alami menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat apotek untuk kutil kelamin
Apa obat untuk kutil kelamin
Obat alami untuk mengobati kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik
Dimana beli obat kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional wasir dan ambeyen
Obat alami ambeien dan wasir
Obat herbal wasir atau ambeien
Obat tradisional wasir ambeien
Obat alami wasir atau ambeien
Obat tradisional untuk wasir atau ambeien
Obat alami untuk wasir/ambeien
Obat tradisional untuk penyakit wasir atau ambeien
Obat tradisional wasir atau ambeien
Obat tradisional mengobati wasir/ambeien
Obat herbal untuk penyakit wasir/ambeien
Obat herbal untuk wasir atau ambeyen
Obat tradisional untuk ambeyen atau wasir
Obat tradisional ambeien atau wasir
Obat alami wasir atau ambeyen
Obat untuk ambeyen dan wasir
Obat wasir dan ambeien
Obat wasir ambeyen tradisional
Obat wasir atau ambeyen
Obat sipilis Yang manjur
obat sipilis denature indonesia
Obat sipilis resep dokter
Obat sipilis paling manjur
Obat sipilis pada wanita
Obat sipilis paling ampuh
Obat sipilis manjur
Obat sipilis antibiotik
Obat sipilis adalah
Obat sipilis generik
Obat sipilis ampuh
Obat sipilis atau raja singa
Obat sipilis herbal
Obat sipilis murah
Obat sipilis jogja
Obat sipilis apotik
Obat sipilis apa ya
Obat sipilis akut
Obat sipilis amoxilin
Obat sipilis apa
Obat sipilis anjuran dokter
Obat sipilis amoxicillin
Obat sipilis apa namanya
Obat menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional menyembuhkan kutil kelamin
Obat minum untuk kutil kelamin
Obat medis untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin DE NATURE
Merek obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin de nature
Nama obat kutil kelamin
Nama salep obat kutil kelamin
Obat kutil kelamin tanpa operasi
Obat oles untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kutil di alat kelamin pria
Obat untuk kutil pada kelamin
Obat tradisional kutil pada kelamin
Obat penyakit kutil kelamin
Obat penghilang kutil kelamin
Obat perontok kutil kelamin
Obat tradisional kutil kelamin pada pria
Obat untuk penyakit kutil kelamin
Propolis untuk obat kutil kelamin
Obat alami untuk penyakit kutil kelamin
Obat kutil pd kelamin
Resep obat kutil kelamin
Obat anti sifilis
Obat sipilis dijual di apotik
Obat sipilis murah di apotik
Obat alami sipilis pada pria
Obat sifilis ampuh
Obat sifilis apotik
Obat sipilis beli di apotik
Obat sipilis buat wanita
Obat sipilis buatan sendiri
Obat sipilis bagi wanita
Obat buat sipilis
Obat biotik sifilis
Obat antibiotik buat sipilis
Obat tradisional buat sipilis
Obat herbal buat sipilis
Obat dokter buat sipilis
Obat generik buat sipilis
Obat sipilis dengan bayam duri
Obat sipilis yang bagus
Obat buat sifilis
Obat sipilis.com
Obat sipilis ciprofloxacin
Obat china sipilis
obat kutil kelamin dan leher
obat alami menghilangkan kutil kelamin
obat tradisional untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin
kumpulan obat kutil kelamin
obat tradisional kutil kelamin
obat penyakit kutil kelamin
obat tradisional untuk kutil kelamin
obat herbal kutil kelamin
obat alami untuk menghilangkan kutil kelamin
obat alami kutil kelamin
Obat kencing nanah pria
Obat kencing nanah dan darah
Obat kencing nanah apotik
Obat kencing nanah antibiotik
Obat kencing nanah amoxicillin
Obat kencing nanah apa
Obat kencing nanah apa ya
Obat kencing nanah atau gonore
Obat kencing nanah akut
Obat kencing nanah ada di apotik
Obat kencing nanah di apotik umum
Obat kencing nanah paling ampuh
Obat kencing nanah yang ampuh
Obat kencing nanah secara alami
Obat kencing nanah bandung
Obat kencing nanah buatan sendiri
Obat kencing nanah yang bisa dibeli di apotik
Obat herbal untuk mengobati kencing nanah
Obat kencing nanah paling bagus
Obat kencing nanah yang bisa dibeli di apotek
Obat kencing nanah di apotik bebas
Obat kencing nanah yang dijual bebas
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Sipilis
Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kencing Nanah
Obat Kencing Nanah Ampuh
Obat Kelamin Keluar Nanah
Obat Sipilis Pada Pria
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah Di Apotik
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Obat Kencing Nanah 3 Hari Sembuh
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
This is my first time visit at here and i am in fact happy to read all at single place.
Obat Kutil Kelamin
Cara Mengobati Kutil Kelamin
Pengobatan Kutil Kelamin
Obat Menghilangkan Kutil Kelamin
Obat Kutil Kelamin Tradisional
Obat Kutil Kelamin De Nature
Obat Kutil Kelamin Herbal
Pengobatan Herbal Penyakit Kelamin
Obat Sipilis Kencing Nanah Wasir Kutil Kelamin
Ambeien Kutil Kelamin Sipilis Kencing Nanah
Sipilis Kencing Nanah Kutil Kelamin Wasir
Sipilis Apakah Menular
Apakah Sipilis Bisa Sembuh Sendiri
Apakah Sipilis Bisa Sembuh Total
Apakah Sipilis Bisa Kambuh
Sipilis Cure
Sipilis Dan Cara Penularannya
Sipilis Dan Pengobatannya
Sipilis Disebabkan Oleh Bakteri
Sipilis Dan Gonore
Sipilis Dan Hiv
Tanaman Obat Herbal
Hubungan Sipilis Dan Hiv
Obat Sipilis Herbal
Sipilis Itu Penyakit Apa Sih
i am in fact happy to read all at single place.
Obat Sipilis Jakarta
Dokter Sipilis Jakarta
Sipilis Kaskus
Sipilis Kulit
Sipilis Kencing Nanah
Sipilis Karena Apa
Obat Sipilis Kencing nanah Wanita
Sipilis Pada Ibu Hamil
Apakah Sipilis Bisa Disembuhkan Atau Tidak
Sipilis Primer
Sipilis Pada Pria
Sipilis Stadium 1
Sipilis Atau Raja Singa
Sipilis Akut
Sipilis Awal
Obat Sipilis Pada Pria
Obat Sipilis
Obat Sipilis Tradisional
Gejala Sipilis Kencing Nanah
Ciri Ciri Sipilis
Cara Mengobati Sipilis
Penyakit Sipilis
Obat Sipilis Alami
We accept the love we think we deserve.Post a Comment
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya
Books by Balkinization Bloggers
Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023)
Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin's Press, 2022)
Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022)
Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022)
Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021).
Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021).
Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020)
Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020)
Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020).
Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020)
Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020)
Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019)
Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018)
Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018)
Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017)
Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016)
Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015)
Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015)
Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015)
Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014)
Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution
Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014)
Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013)
John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013)
Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013)
Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013)
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues
Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012)
Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012)
Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012)
Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011)
Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011)
Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011)
Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011)
Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010)
Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic
Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010)
Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010)
Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010)
Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009)
Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009)
Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009)
Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009)
Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009)
Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008)
David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007)
Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007)
Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007)
Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006)
Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006)
Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006)
Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006)
Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005)
Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004)
Balkin.com homepage
Cultural Software
The Information Society Project
Useful Links
Syllabi and Exams


text:
Every long weekend needs a jam playlist to go with your fun plans! So whether you're planning to chill all weekend or hit up your first holiday party, check out our picks for your perf Thanksgiving weekend playlist!
1. Justin Bieber's "Roller Coaster"
Justin is coming to the end of his popular Sunday night music releases, with only two more songs left. His latest track, "Roller Coaster" is a lot more upbeat than his previous releases but still has the same hip-hop vibe to it. Thinking about having friends over for a Friendsgivukkah party? This track would be an awesome addition to your hang out!
More From Seventeen
2. Danielle Bradbery "Talk About Love"
Danielle Bradbery, aka the latest winner of The Voice, is taking country music by storm with her latest track—"Talk About Love." And America didn't fall in love with Danielle for no reason—girl can really sing. Her super-adorbs new song is just another reason to love her. Catch the track here:
3. Fifth Harmony "Stays"
Fifth Harmony has amazing original tracks, but part of the reason we fell in love with this adorbs five-some are their amazing cover songs. This time they tackle Rihanna's "Stay"—let's just say, they aren't called Fifth Harmony for no reason! Check out the amazingly-awesome cover here:
4. Beyonce "God Made You Beautiful"
New music from Queen Bey will always be excitement to our ears. SoBeyonce made our #MusicMondays for the month when she released her new ballad "God Made You Beautiful," especially since it's so friggin' ahh-mazing! This would be the perfect song to play on repeat while chilling out over break, driving to the movies with your BFFs, or hitting up the mall for Black Friday! Listen to "God Made You Beautiful" here:
5. Ariana Grande's "Love Is Everything"
What's better than officially starting the holiday off with Ariana Grande?! The pop singer just released a new Christmas tune "Love Is Everything," and it's not just a perfect holiday song—the lyrics have an awesome message, too! Listen to the inspiring song here:

subset: commoncrawl


text:
As we speak, the polls show that people blame Republicans more than Democrats for "shutting down the government."
The people believe a lie: Republicans are shutting down OBAMACARE; it is the DEMOCRATS who are shutting down EVERY OTHER PART OF GOVERNMENT. As I will document below.
But first let me talk a little about "the people" and "the polls."
Founding Father John Adams put it thus:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
I have long given up on the American people as a good or decent people. We have crossed the moral Rubicon and we are going down. That is why we are following the world – and particularly socialist nations/regions such as Europe has been – rather than following our Constitution. And we are going to pay for our national wickedness. The Bible doesn't mention the United States in the last days because America will either have become so diminished it no longer matters, or because it will soon outright collapse as a viable nation.
That's why the polls are pretty much irrelevant to me these days. Bad people believe lies and want bad things and vote for bad things and bad people ultimately perish because of all the bad things that they have surrounded themselves with. That's why we can point to all the cultures and nations that have risen to glory and perished ignominiously throughout history as their people "fundamentally transformed" into BAD people. Today we have a media that is so propagandist and so ideologically biased that it is beyond unreal who outright lie to the American people, and we have an American people who are becoming – if they have not already become – a bad people who prefer lies to the truth.
So if the polls say that people blame Republicans more than Democrats or Obama for the government shutdown, I couldn't care less. Because these are the same sort of people who were once screaming, "Give us Barabbas!" (Luke 23:18), and "Crucify Him!" (Luke 23:20) when Jesus was offered to them by a feckless Pontius Pilate and his big government who were desperate to appease the days' "Occupy" mob.
I couldn't care less about the opinion of such people. And while it may shock me as much today that the people have become so toxic just as it would have shocked me in Jesus' day that the people had become so toxic, I care about TRUTH and the FACTS.
So let's consider the facts as to how the Democrats are conducting themselves.
First, let's consider Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who demonized Republicans as killing children with cancer because the NIH was going to have to shutdown services. But then the TRUTH comes out that Republicans were only too-willing to fund the NIH BUT THAT IT IS HARRY REID WHO IS KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO HE CAN ACCUSE REPUBLICANS OF KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn't try to help "one child who has cancer" by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: "Why would we want to do that?"
Consider this exchange between Harry Reid and CNN correspondent Dana Bash:
"If you can help one child, why won't you do it?" asked CNN reporter Dana Bash.
"Why, why, why would we want to do that?" countered Reid.
"I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home," because of government employee furloughs, he told Bash and a roomful of other journalists. "They have – they have a few problems of their own."
"This is – to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you're as irresponsible and reckless."
The CNN correspondent had challenged Senate Democrats' earlier lament that clinical trials for pediatric cancer therapies were among government services cut off Monday at midnight. The two houses of Congress, run by opposite parties, were unable to agree on the terms of a continuing resolution to fund the government in its new fiscal year.
"You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials," she began. "The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren't you playing the same political games that Republicans are?"
House Republicans have pressed forward with a collection of six legislative proposals to independently fund specific portions of the federal government through the length of the shutdown.
Why are 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base siting at home? Republicans have offered to fund the Air Force. The fact of the matter is, those 1100 people are sitting at home because Democrats refuse to ALLOW them to go back to work. Just so they can demonize the Republicans for keeping them sitting at home.
But of course that's not anywhere near the worst of Harry Reid's dishonesty: Democrats are so vile that they accuse Republicans of killing children when DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO THEY CAN SLANDER AND DEMONIZE THE GOP. And when one correspondent had the guts to challenge the Democrats about their lies, well, they treated her like she was some hybrid between Fox News and the GOP (more on Democrats' unhinged demonic slandering of their opponents later).
Democrats are terrible, wicked, evil, demon-possessed human beings. And those are facts.
In the same way, Republicans are perfectly willing to fund things like the World War II monument. And do you know that such monuments have NEVER BEFORE been targets in ANY of the previous seventeen government shutdowns before? Take for example the Lincoln Monument; it has NEVER been shut down before because we've never had a "president" so cynical and so demonic that he would be so deliberately vindictive. But that's what we have now. That's because Democrats have never been so willing to sink so low in their effort to hurt as many people as possible just so they could blame Republicans for the damage that DEMOCRATS are causing.
Don't believe me? Believe the Washington Times:
The Park Service appears to be closing streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they're only here to help.
"It's a cheap way to deal with the situation," an angry Park Service ranger in Washington says of the harassment. "We've been told to make life as difficult for people as we can. It's disgusting."
Yeah. Democrats are DISGUSTING. Because it is Obama and Democrats who ordered those park rangers to close down everything they possibly could and make life as difficult as they could for as many Americans as they could. Just to bring the shutdown home as much as they could so they could demonize Republicans as much as they could.
Obama and Democrats are putting up "Barrycades" to stick it to as many Americans as they possibly can. And even though Republicans have voted to fund all this stuff it's supposed to be all their fault because not supporting ObamaCare and taking the mark of Obama on your right hand or forehead is somehow numerically equivalent with wanting ALL of government shut down like the Democrats are doing.
Republicans are saying something that is morally obvious to any decent person: if we can't reach any compromise (because Democrats refuse to negotiate) on what we can't agree upon, THEN WHY DON'T WE AT LEAST AGREE ON WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON AND FUND THOSE THINGS??? But Democrats say that Republicans are "terrorists" and "jihadists" because they're "holding ObamaCare hostage" WHEN DEMOCRAT JIHADIST TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING EVERY POPULAR PIECE OF GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE unless they get their beloved ObamaCare without ANY change or ANY delay (let's not mention that Obama has himself abrogated the law and the Constitution by delaying a full THIRD of ObamaCare out of cynical political calculations).
WWII veterans – who frankly may die before they have another chance to see their monument – broke down the barricades that Obama put up to stop them.
And so Republicans voted to fund "spending for veterans, the District of Columbia and the Park Service."
The RNC said it would pay for half of the WWII memorial to remain open out of their own budget if the Democrats National Committee would pay half. Democrats basically said, "We are the Party of exploiting OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. We won't use our OWN money to help the veterans of the greatest generation of Americans."
Democrats and their media propagandist tools despicably accused Republicans of "grandstanding" and "politicizing" because Republicans tried to do something THAT ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET WOULD AGREE IS A GOOD THING TO DO.
WHO is trying to fund the WWII memorial and the rest of the National Park Service??? Republicans. WHO is refusing to fund those things??? The same Democrats who are demonizing Republicans for what DEMOCRATS are actually doing.
But it actually gets worse.
Democrats are accusing Republicans of being "economic terrorists." But let's take a look at our "Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF":
Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.
Obama said he was "exasperated" by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.
The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money's ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.
But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.
Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.
In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.
"This time's different. I think they should be concerned," Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.
"When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble," Obama said.
Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.
During the first day of the government shutdown, the market actually went UP. What was good for America wasn't good for Obama, who as a fascist needs to fearmonger a crisis, though. Obama needs financial chaos and calamity for his plan to create suffering so he can blame his enemies for it.
So Obama deliberately roils the markets and of course they are plunging after Obama's fearmongering.
So now he can blame Republicans for the financial disaster that HE wants to create so he can blame Republicans.
But – and this is frankly incredible – the sheer Democrat VILENESS actually gets even WORSE.
Again, Obama and his DEMOnic bureauCRATS want to foment and fearmonger a crisis so they can blame Republicans for the crisis they created. So Obama sends out his chief intelligence stooge who fomented a national intelligence crisis:
Did anyone take the nation's Director of National Intelligence (DNI) seriously when he told Congress this week that the government shutdown will put the country in danger, cause "insidious" damage and risk spy missions?
What about the part where he said financial stress—presumably created by not getting paid—could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bought off by foreign spies? It's almost comical though it sounds really dramatic and quite distressing. Could it be true or was James Clapper putting on a show for lawmakers this week?
"The risk is 75 percent more than it was yesterday," Clapper told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The danger here… will accumulate over time. The damage will be insidious so each day that goes by, the jeopardy increases." This is due to all that valuable intelligence that's being lost because there are fewer workers to track targets, according to a news report of the hearing. Before anyone loses any sleep, the DNI chief assured that he's keeping enough employees on the payroll to guard against "imminent threats to life or property."
Then he upped the ante by insinuating that financial stress could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bribed by enemy governments. "This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence service to recruit, particularly as our employees already, many of whom subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, are going to have, I believe, even greater financial challenges," Clapper said.
Look, if we've got a national intelligence crisis, PLEASE ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO FUND OUR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES!!! But no way. Democrats and Obama hope there's a terrorist attack so they can blame Republicans for it EVEN THOUGH THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE ON THE HOUSE BILL TO FUND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OR PRETTY MUCH ANY OF THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT.
That is about as evil as it gets. Democrats remind me of the Arab states following the 1948 war in which Israel miraculously successfully fought for its right to exist. Thousands of Palestinian refugees were created, but the Arab states refused to take them into their own countries or take care of them in any way. No, because they wanted to be able to point a finger of blame at Israel and say, "Look at what Israel did to these poor people!" And of course that is still the situation to this very day. Israel has brought in Jews from all over the world while Arab states won't even allow Arabs in from next door just so they can blame Israel for the plight of the poor Palestinian refugees.
The Democrat Party is the party of genuine evil in America today. It is the Party of Romans chapter one and the wrath of God that follows. It is the party of sodomy worship and baby murder. And it is the party of lies and deceit.
Obama has been all-too willing to negotiate and compromise with America's worst enemies and with the terrorists who would joyfully murder us all. He's been willing to negotiate and be "more flexible" with the Russians (and see here) who have been America's chief enemy for the last sixty freaking years. He's been willing to negotiate with and compromise with the Syrians after they murdered over a hundred thousand of their own people and repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction. He's now willing to be the first president since the failed Jimmy Carter years to negotiate with and compromise with the Iranians who seek to get nuclear missiles and launch Armageddon.
But he won't BUDGE and WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH OR COMPROMISE WITH anyone who loves America.
So he announces repeatedly that HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE with Republicans even as he accuses them of not being willing to compromise and blames them for everything under the sun. Democrats of course used to blame George Bush for everything under the sun even though Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate just because a Republican was president. But now the last man on earth who can be blamed for ANYTHING is the Democrat President who has been nothing short of a coward and a fascist thug since the day he took office.
So Obama calls for a meeting with Republicans at the White House to negotiate while saying HE won't in any way, shape or form negotiate. Why? So he can dishonestly and deceitfully present himself as the one who was willing to do what he himself said he WON'T do:
The White House says President Barack Obama has told congressional leaders he still won't negotiate over re-opening the government or raising the nation's borrowing limit.
Obama and top lawmakers met for more than an hour at the White House on Wednesday, the second day of a partial government shut down. The leaders emerged to say no progress had been made.
I mean, what a surprise after the president says he won't budge a nanometer that the leaders would come out of such a charade meeting to say no progress was made.
Let me close this up by pointing out all the incredibly demonic slandering rhetoric coming from Democrats as they get shriller and shriller and more and more hateful. Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and jihadists and anarchists with bombs strapped to their chests and accused them of being "legislative arsonists" (Nancy Pelosi) and blackmailers and extortionists (Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney) and – as I cited above at the beginning of this article – literally child murderers (Harry Reid). Oh, and Obama accused them of holding the nation for ransom, which I believe would be a prosecutable crime. Hateful, inflammatory rhetoric.
Think about the Democrats' position: unless the Republicans fund EVERYTHING they will fund NOTHING and shut the whole nation down. Unless the Republicans fund ObamaCare Democrats will cut off the funding for veteran's benefits. And Republicans are supposed to be the "terrorists."
What is most ironic about that is the second worst domestic terrorist attack in American history was committed by a Muslim terrorist named Major Nidal Hassan. This terrorist – who carried business cards that announced himself as a "Soldier of Allah" and shouted "Allah Akbar!" as he gunned down fourteen American servicemen and wounded another thirty-two; who had been in email contact with al Qaeda, etc., etc., – COULDN'T BE CALLED A TERRORIST, said the Obama administration. Nope. it was just a case of "workplace violence."
Democrats reserve the title of "terrorist" and "jihadist" for Republicans, rather than actual TERRORISTS. Democrats refuse to call people who murder American servicemen while screaming "Allah Akbar!" terrorists, but they will call Republicans who are guilty of the crime of using their constitutional powers terrorists with rabid spittle dripping from their poisonous socialist fangs.
These are wicked people. And if a nation is wicked enough to support them, then let that nation say, "Let it be on our heads and on the heads of our children!" as they shouted once before.
Update, 4 Oct 2013: If you want to know how Obama REALLY thinks about this, consider the following acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal by a SENIOR Obama official:]
Said a senior administration official: "We are winning…It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result."
Wait a minute….. WHO'S "winning"??? I want Obama to identify the average Americans who are "winning" right now the way his rabid inner circle says THEY'RE winning.
I'll be replaying this line again and again if the nation goes off the debt ceiling cliff and America defaults on its debt. I'm thinking this Obama official is like Charlie Sheen in the sense of "not bi-polar, but bi-WINNING."
Imagine if the government shut down under George W. Bush, and people weren't getting the services they needed and couldn't go to the jobs they and their families depended upon. Oh, and children were dying of cancer and the nation was no longer safe from terrorist attack and all that stuff because of the shutdown that Bush was presiding over. And some high-ranking Bush official turkey had been quoted as saying, "It doesn't matter because it's all about us and it's all about our partisan politics and woo-hoo we're winning." Imagine the screams of outrage that would have resounded throughout the mainstream media and the Democrat Party talking points then. But the mainstream media are as hypocritical and as dishonest as the Democrat Party, and so the absence of any moral outrage is treasonous.
It's just a game to Obama and his minions. And they don't give a flying damn who gets hurt or how many get hurt. In fact, the more who are hurt, the better to them. And like the fascists they are, they are willing to fight to the last dead citizen to get their way.
You want more? How about this: just LISTEN TO ONE OF OBAMA'S DEMONIC SPEECHES. He's giving speech after speech just flat-out DEMONIZING John Boehner and the GOP. You listen to one and you find JUST ONE WORD of a real leader trying in any way, shape or form to reach out to the other side, to reach some kind of agreement. Nothing. Just the rabid ideological partisan rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hate from our "president." Why? Because Obama doesn't WANT a deal on the government shutdown or the debt ceiling or anything else. No. He wants an issue to demonize the Republicans on in the 2014 elections. He wants the same dictatorial political tyranny that he enjoyed for the first two years of his tyrant presidency. He WANTS the government to shut down; he WANTS America to default on the debt; he WANTS as much harm and misery and damage to the U.S. economy as he can foment SO HE CAN BLAME THE GOP and run against them in 2014. Is that the mark of a real leader? Even the Los Angeles Times says it is the exact OPPOSITE of what a leader who isn't demon-possessed would do.


text:
I don't know where to begin, but I'll try.
This is my phone…
I mean…
It was my phone.
When my parents moved to a different state while I was in college, they got it for me.
I didn't really think I needed a cell phone. Honestly, I used to make fun of people who had cell phones.
When your folks are footing the bill, it's tough to say no.
This Nokia became my primary form of communication from 2001 to 2002.
Then, my parents started to get upset at the roaming charges (whatever those are) that were starting to rack up on their phone bill, so they discontinued service to my phone.
Like I said, I didn't really think I needed a cell phone, so I never bothered to set up a service plan of my own.
I did, however, hold onto the phone. After all, I've got a whole lot of people's phone numbers in it.
Truth be told, I still look up numbers on my Nokia ever once in a while.
In October of 2002, I started dating a beautiful young lady named Kara.
She would eventually become my bride…
After dealing with my not having a cell phone for 10 years, she bought me one for my birthday in 2012…
Even though I never really thought I needed one, I figured I could use the phone for photo and video content on the wine blog that I had just started the year before.
At this point, can say that my phone is the most important piece of blogging equipment I own.
This morning, I got the news…
Stay Rad Wine Blog is now a finalist in the 2013 Wine Blog Awards for Best Original Photography or Video…
Needless to say, at this point, I'm stoked to the hella.
I'm especially stoked to be in the running along side some amazing blogs in the same category.
Please take some time today to dive into The Journey of Jordan, What's in the Bottle, Chasing the Vine, and my personal favorite, 4488: A Ridge Blog. You'll be glad you did. They have some killer content!
If you feel so inclined, you can vote for your favorites at WineBlogAwards.org.
Of course, if you're a fan of this…
or this…
or maybe even this…
I'd love to have your vote here!
Thank you so much for taking the time out of your day to spend it with me… Me and my phone, that is.
Stay Rad,


text:
1999-2007(Classic) GMC Sierra 1500 Front Suspension Lift Kit & Extended Pro Comp Shocks 2WD 4x2
Sold out.
- 2x Front Poly Lift Spacers
- 2x Front ProComp Extended Shocks
- Installation instructions
IMPORTANT: Does not fit Extended Cab Models
For those who are interested in a quick, effective way to level out the front of your truck, or even just for an easy fix to get rid of that saggy front look from old over compressed springs, we recommend our poly front lift kit. Injection molded from ultra-high density urethane, and impregnated with special conditioners to never dry or rot, these spacers have proven time and again to provide customers with the fastest, most hassle-free install, while absolutely maintaining your smooth factory ride quality.
Supreme Suspensions is proud to carry Pro Comp's upgraded shock series to replace your factory shocks when you install your lift kit. These are top of the line Nitrogen charged struts that are engineered with performance in mind. They are a twin-tube construction with a hardened piston rod vs. the factory single tube construction and contain a 10-stage velocity sensitive valving which provides amazing comfort AND toughness. We guarantee you will notice the difference in performance over your factory shocks.
NOTES: Will not fit extended cab models. An alignment is always recommended after altering the height of your vehicle.
*Shocks may ship in a separate package if ordered with a lift kit and may arrive before or after the lift kit.


text:
By Prairie L. Markussen
You had steel girders for cheekbones,
a fortified frame, a daily team to polish
your many metals, tighten your edges
You had a crew to winterize you—
and bring you back to spring again.
You didn't age, or sink
into the leveled ground. Everything stayed
nearly as promised: you were as fresh
as the first blueprints that inked eager hands.
Through the shimmering frame—a swirl of dust motes,
colliding and conceding,
the sun hitting at the right angle, blinding.
And a forgotten slab of basement concrete tilting
downward ever so slightly: a sneaky subtraction of degrees.
A corner keeping watch
over a family of possums. A fluff of gauzy
insulation pushing its way out.
A person might feel, on some cooler night,
the degree that was missing, the unprotected space
and shiver, glancing suspiciously toward measured walls.


text:
Doneil Henry is heading back to Canada.
The Vancouver Whitecaps announced Friday they have acquired the Canadian international and former Toronto FC centre back from West Ham United of the English Premier League via Major League Soccer's allocation process.
Henry was Toronto's first academy product to sign a professional contract back in 2010, scoring five times in 93 appearances across all competitions before leaving for Europe in 2015.
The 24-year-old from Brampton, Ont., spent the bulk of his time with West Ham on loan at other clubs, including then-Championship side Blackburn Rovers.
Henry, who has played 22 times for Canada, was honoured with the country's under-20 player of the year award in 2012.
But the six-foot-two, 180-pound defender never gained much traction at West Ham, where he played just one first-team match in the 2015-16 UEFA Europa League, before suffering a significant knee injury in November 2016 while on loan to Denmark's AC Horsens.
"Doneil is an athletic centre back who's strong in the air. He will be a good complementary piece to our core of defenders," Whitecaps head coach Carl Robinson, who was co-captain at TFC when Henry was wearing the armband for its academy, said in a statement. "His experience in Europe will serve him well.
"Doneil has a point to prove and we look forward to bringing him in."
The Whitecaps already have Kendall Waston and Tim Parker as mainstays in the centre of defence, along with Aaron Maund.
Vancouver announced earlier this month it wasn't picking up the contract option on fellow Canadian international David Edgar, who suffered a season-ending knee injury in December 2016 in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident, but added at the time the club and player remained in talks.
The Whitecaps finished third in Major League Soccer's Western Conference in 2017 and won their first-ever playoff game before falling to the Seattle Sounders in the second round.
Vancouver opens pre-season training on Jan. 22, with its 2018 MLS schedule set to begin March 4 against the Montreal Impact at B.C. Place Stadium.
The Canadian Press


text:
2013 Lotus Evora gets $68,285 base priceTue, 23 Oct 2012
Lotus is adding its Intelligent Precision Shift automatic transmission to the supercharged version of the Evora for the 2013 model year. The automatic was available on the naturally aspirated Evora for the 2012 model year, while the Evora S offered only a six-speed manual.
The base 2013 Lotus Evora carries a sticker price of $68,285 including $1,485 in destination, while the S model with the rear seats will sticker at $80,085. That's an increase of about 1 percent over last year's prices. The IPS transmission adds $2,850 to the sticker.
Power is unchanged for 2013. The basic Evora uses a 276-hp 3.5-liter V6, sourced from Toyota. The Evora S adds a supercharger, bumping output to 345 hp. That's in a package that weighs just more than 3,000 pounds.
The IPS transmission offers four driving modes: (1) fully automatic for cruising and traffic, (2) automatic with Sport mode engaged, which sharpens throttle and transmission, (3) manual paddle shift and (4) manual paddle shift with Sport mode engaged for the most fun. Hitting the sport button also raises the rev limit and changes the stability control to give the driver a bit more leeway before stepping in. The function also opens the active exhaust.
2013 Lotus Evora S badge
By Jake Lingeman