Blog

I have absolutely no desire to see the newest Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson flick “The Internship,” which places the two comedians as interns at the Googleplex. However, this review in the Bits Blog offered one nugget:

Still, according to news reports, Google had some veto power: it jettisoned a scene in which one of its driverless cars crashed. (Instead, as the two stars stare at the empty driver’s seat, Mr. Wilson’s character says, “It’s scary because it’s new.”) Yet Google didn’t step in with other elements, like the Google employee who moonlights at a strip club.

So strip clubs good, autonomous-vehicle crashes, bad.

To be introduced next week.

Sec 1. SHORT TITLE
This Act may be called the “Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013.”

Sec. 2. FINDINGS
Whereas the Bill of Rights says in the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution that “the right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Whereas media reports indicate that the National Security Agency is currently collecting the phone
records of American citizens.
Whereas media reports indicate that the National Security Agency has secured a top secret court order
in April from a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) for the telephone records of millions of
American citizens.
Whereas media reports indicate that President Barack Obama’s Administration has been collecting
information about millions of citizens within the borders of the United States and between the United
States and other countries; and,
Whereas the collection of citizen’s phone records is a violation of the natural rights of every man and
woman in the United States, and a clear violation of the explicit language of the highest law of the land;

Sec. 3. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United
States Government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable
cause.

After many prominent democrats voted against a provision in the immigration bill that would have recognized same-sex marriages, I noted that Senator Feinstein was hoping SCOTUS would bail them out.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein cited Graham’s comments, then, saying, “I think this sounds like the fairest approach, but here’s the problem … we know this is going to blow the agreement apart. I don’t want to blow this bill apart.”

She cited the fact that the Supreme Court could strike down the Defense of Marriage Act provision that prevents same-sex couples from having equal immigration rights. She also noted the a bill to repeal DOMA is holding in the Senate, concluding, “I would just implore to hold up on this amendment at this time.”

Dick Durbin had hoped that that the Court would resolve the issue during the markup process.

Sen. Dick Durbin had optimistically raised the possibility last month that the Supreme Court would take the hot potato amendment off the table before the markup and amendment process was finished. “If they reach a decision while we’re in the process of markup, it may resolve the issue,” Durbin said,according to The Hill.

But this didn’t happen. Now, with the markup coming in July, many hope SCOTUS will just fix this problem.

A decision in the DOMA case is expected by the end of June. Senators are hoping to vote on the full immigration reform bill in early July. . . .

Liberal-leaning groups that support immigration reform are also hoping the issue will be taken off the table by the court.

“We’re hopeful that the issue will be solved by the Supreme Court,” said Ben Monterroso, an immigration reform advocate at the Service Employees International Union. “We expect the Supreme Court is going to do the right thing so it’s not going to be an issue.”

 

 

Hello everyone. I apologize for interrupting your summer vacations with this note. I have submitted grades for Property II.  I am very proud of all of you. On the whole, you nailed it. I put together really difficult fact patterns that were quite open-ended, with the intent that there would be many, many, many correct answers. I thought I had considered all the possible answers, but several of you came up with things I didn’t even think of. Well done.

Additionally, many of you incorporated various concepts we talked about in class that were not in the textbook (such as the Coase Theorem, various constitutional concepts, etc.).

Finally, despite all of your concerns, almost every single one of you managed to completely answer the question within the word limit. In other words, the differences between the A, B, and C was not due to an inability to write within the word limits.

You can download the exam here: Property2-Exam-Blackman-Spring2013. There was one small typo. In part 3 of question 1, I accidentally wrote “Gunston intervened.” I meant to write “Gayson intervened.” About 95% of the test-takers figured out what I meant, and I did not penalize those who missed it.

The Grades

First year classe are subject to the school’s mandatory grading curve (see p. 84 of the handbook):

grades assigned in classes of 40 or more students shall conform to a mandatory grading distribution. That distribution provides for a required 9-16 percent for A+/A, a required 16-30 percent for A+/A/A-; a required 16-30 percent for C+/C/C-/D+/D/F; and a required 9-16 percent for C/C-/D+/D/F. The class average shall be 2.85-3.15.

I think you will find that I maximized the grades here. I approached the upper limits of the grades allowed above an A-, and approached the lower limits of grades below C+. In addition, the class average was very close to the upper limit (3.15). In other words, there were more As than Cs, and the class averages were quite high.

Here is the full breakdown.

• Average: 3.147
• A and above -12.0%
• A- and above – 25.3%
• C+ and below: 17.3%
• C and below: 9.3%

 

Thank you all for a great semester.

It would seem that a lot of people may have had their calls recorded in light of the leaked FISA order. What made the Clapper case so difficult for purposes of standing was that no one could show they were actually recorded. It was all speculative.

This order would seem to show that Verizon customers had their calls turned over on a daily basis. So wouldn’t there be standing?

How soon till the ACLU or some other group starts rounding up affidavits of Verizon customers who placed calls during this period, and runs into district court. I have no idea what the merits are, but standing should be satisfied.

I will wait for Justice Scalia’s “panopticon” dissent in this case.

Update: Steve Vladeck comments on Clapper:

I realize that, for many, this order will seem either unsurprising, unalarming, or both. Such is the state of the world–and of the authorities under which the government operates on an increasingly routine basis. But contrast that mentality with the skepticism at the heart of Justice Alito’s opinion for the 5-4 Supreme Court majority in February’s Clapper v. Amnesty International decision, which, in rejecting standing to challenge (admittedly different) FISA-related authorities, dismissed the plaintiffs’ allegations that their communications might be intercepted as purely “speculative.”

Justice Alito’s specific analysis aside, it’s the mindset that I just don’t get. Reasonable people can certainly disagree about the normative desirability (and, I dare say, legality) of the degree of governmental surveillance that is now underway. But can reasonable people really continue to disagree that this is the world in which we’re living?

Update 2: ACLU notes that they will pursue more information in their pending FOIA lawsuit:

This disclosure is likely to have significant implications for the ACLU’s pending FOIA lawsuit. The Department of Justice is scheduled to file a brief in that case on June 13; the ACLU’s response is due on June 28, and oral argument is scheduled for July 11 in the Southern District of New York.

More information on the ACLU’s FOIA lawsuit requesting information on Patriot Act Section 215 is at:
aclu.org/national-security/section-215-patriot-act-foia