Blog

It’s been no secret that Google wants to disrupt transportation with their self-driving car. The next iteration of this technology, the driverless car that does not even have a steering wheel, stands to revolutionize how we travel.

The company has begun building a fleet of 100 experimental electric-powered vehicles that will dispense with all the standard controls found in modern automobiles. The two-seat vehicle looks a bit like the ultracompact Fiat 500 or the Mercedes-Benz Smart car if you take out the steering wheel, gas pedal, brake and gear shift. The only things the driver controls is a red “e-stop” button for panic stops and a separate start button.

Think about a fleet of Uber-powered driverless cars. You could call one, it will pick you up, and then drop you off wherever you want to go. When you’re done, another car can take you home. The need to actually own a car becomes much, much less important.

The car would be summoned with a smartphone application. It would pick up a passenger and automatically drive to a destination selected on a smartphone app without any human intervention.

If Taxi drivers hate Uber, they should fear this driverless car. It will quickly relegate them to the land of horse-and-buggy.

Last year, Lawrence D. Burns, former vice president for research and development at General Motors and now a Google consultant, led a study at the Earth Institute at Columbia University on transforming personal mobility.

The researchers found that Manhattan’s 13,000 taxis made 470,000 trips a day. Their average speed was 10 to 11 m.p.h., carrying an average of 1.4 passengers per trip with an average wait time of five minutes.

In comparison, the report said, it is possible for a futuristic robot fleet of 9,000 shared automated vehicles hailed by smartphone to match that capacity with a wait time of less than one minute. Assuming a 15 percent profit, the current cost of taxi service would be about $4 per trip mile, while in contrast, it was estimated, a Manhattan-based driverless vehicle fleet would cost about 50 cents per mile.

The only thing standing in the way would be the same cartel they use to fight Uber today.

Even moreso, this technology should serve as a note of caution for proponents of expensive and time-consuming high-speed rail.

“Obviously it will take time, a long time, but I think it has a lot of potential,” he said. “Self-driving cars have the potential to drive in trains much closer together and, in theory, in the future at much higher speeds.

“There is nothing to say that once you demonstrate the safety, why can’t you go 100 miles per hour?”

If a series of these small, fast, autonomous cars can drive in dedicated lanes, people can easily travel between cities without much effort.  Think of Minority Report:

Rahm Emanuel has proposed new measures to address gun violence, Chicago’s “most urgent problem.”

The proposal would restrict gun purchases for individuals to one a month and would mandate that all gun sales be videotaped, an effort to deter buyers from using false identification. Under the proposed ordinance, employees in gun stores would be required to undergo background checks and complete training to help them spot the common signs of gun traffickers. Retailers would be subject to a quarterly audit of inventory in an effort to reduce theft. In addition, the plan would impose a 72-hour waiting period to buy handguns and a 24-hour waiting period to buy rifles and shotguns.

Mr. Emanuel planned to introduce the report at a City Council meeting Wednesday morning.

“Chicago’s violence problem is largely a gun problem,” the report said. “Every year, Chicago police officers take thousands of illegal guns off the street. But, despite these efforts, it remains far too easy for criminals to get their hands on deadly weapons.”

Is there any indication how many guns criminals are using originate from lawful transactions, including straw purchases?

Anyway, the videotaping is a new one. I haven’t heard of that before.

Update: ThinkProgress summarizes the report:

Between 2009 and 2013, 60% of guns recovered in crimes in Chicago were originally purchased in other states – suggesting that interstate gun trafficking is a major source of street guns in Chicago. In fact, this level of crime guns originally purchased in other states is double the nationwide average for portion of interstate crime guns (30% according to a 2010 report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns).

Mayor Emanuel’s report highlights that there are a number of way that laws could be strengthened further to make it harder for Chicago’s criminals to obtain and carry firearms. At that state and local level, the report recommends tighter gun dealer monitoring laws, noting that just four gun stores supply nearly 20% of Chicago’s crime guns. 

This year for my ConLaw exam, to add a difficult wrinkle, I situated the question at some historical period in time. The students were asked to consider a constitutional dilemma, but could only cite the extent precedents at the time. Now, students know how things turn out, and can use that, but they cannot rotely cite a precedent, but must explain a progression. This forces the students to understand the arcs our Constitution has travelled over. It is not enough to know the text, or the current case law. You need to understand everything in between. For example, on a sample exam, I asked the students to consider a law similar to Obamacare enacted during the 1930s.

The results of the exam were fascinating. Some students did an excellent job with it, and exquisitely explained how constitutional law existed before and during World War II, based on little more than Civil War precedents like Ex Parte Milligan. Others missed the mark altogether, and could not divorce themselves from how the current Supreme Court looks at the law. But all papers, at some level, forced themselves to consider the issues without the benefit of hindsight, which is exactly what I wanted to achieve.

The first question put together a fact pattern where Japanese-Americans were training to fly, but not land planes shortly after Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt locked them up on Alcatraz Island. The students had to tease out the threads between Quirin and Hamdi, without the benefit of either decision. Plus, for good measure, I had some jurisdiction stripping (Ex Parte McCardle), seizure of the airline industry (Youngstown), sterilization of disloyal Americans (Buck), and a deep policy question (“In times of war, the laws fall silent“). And who wouldn’t want want to write a memo as a law clerk for Justice Jackson (other than William Rehnquist, I suppose). Here is the A+ answer.

Enjoy!

—

Instructions: The year is 1942. Following the surprise attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on December 7, 1941, a “day that will live in infamy,” the United States has formally declared war on Imperial Japan, and shortly thereafter on Nazi Germany. In response, President Franklin D. Roosevelt has issued three executive orders, and Congress has enacted two laws, that severely curtail the rights of Japanese-Americans. You are a law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson. He has asked you to prepare a memo of no more than 1,000 words addressing five issues present in this case.

 

—

The United States Army learns that twelve Japanese-Americans, all natural-born United States citizens, have been taking flying lessons at flight schools in California, Oregon, and Washington. Their instructors have informed the Army that these students are only interested in piloting planes midair, and have not shown interest in learning about taking off or landing. These reports are consistent with coded transmissions intercepted in the Pacific Theater by a young intelligence analyst named John Paul Stevens (who enlisted on December 6, 1941). The information suggested that sleeper cells of Japanese-Americans within the United States were training to fly suicide Kamikaze (“Divine Wind”) missions, where they would hijack commercial airplanes in-flight, and pilot them into high-value targets such as the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

In response to this wartime threat, the United States government takes the following four actions.

1. President Roosevelt issues Executive Order #1 (“EO1”), ordering that these twelve citizens be detained immediately on Alcatraz Island, a prison off the coast of San Francisco, California. In the dark of night, the dozen are rounded up without any warning, and hauled to Alcatraz. One month after these individuals are detained, Congress passes, and the President signs into law the War Commissions Act (“WCA”), which names these twelve individuals, and denies them the ability to challenge their detention in any court.

2. Concerned about the looming threat of Japanese-Americans who may still be loyal to Japan, President Roosevelt issues Executive Order #2 (“EO2”), which provides that the military general of each state can charge, and prosecute, any American of Japanese ancestry before a military tribunal for disobedience. A week after it is enacted, both houses of Congress unanimously issue a proclamation in support of Executive Order #2.

3. President Roosevelt issues Executive Order #3 (“EO3”), ordering that the Secretary of War shall seize control of and manage all commercial airlines. Executive Order #3 specifies that a member of the United States Army must pilot all commercial flights in the United States. President Roosevelt cites as authority for Executive Order #3 a treaty between the United States and Great Britain the Senate ratified earlier that year, concerning aviation security during time of war. Congress is silent concerning the implementation of Executive Order #3. 

4. Congress enacts, and President Roosevelt signs into law the War Purity Act of 1942 (“WPA”). This Act mandates that all Americans of Japanese ancestry renounce all allegiances to Japan, and swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. Those that decline to take the oath are afforded a trial before a military jury. If a unanimous military jury, finds that the individual is not entirely loyal to the United States, the individual is to be sterilized (either through the removal of the Fallopian Tubes, or a Vasectomy).

—

Four lawsuits are filed challenging these four governmental acts.

1. Fred Korematsu, an attorney in San Francisco, filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Northern District of California against the President of the United States, on behalf of the 12 detainees being held at Alcatraz. The writ seeks to challenge their ongoing detention. He also files a constitutional challenge to Executive Order #1 and the War Commissions Act on behalf of the detainees. Korematsu challenges that Executive Order #1 was an exercise of power beyond the President’s Article II powers. Korematsu further claims that the War Commissions Act fails to justify the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, and was an unconstitutional removal of jurisdiction. Korematsu does not challenge Executive Order #1 as violating due process of law, or equal protection of the laws. Korematsu has not been able to talk to or see the twelve detainees, as the military has kept them on total lockdown.

2. Mitsuye Endo, a natural born United States citizen of Japanese ancestry, is arrested in Seattle by the military commander for violating the curfew of 8:00 p.m. The curfew was only imposed on those of Japanese ancestry, as determined by the United States Army. Endo responds that she was arrested for sitting on her own porch at 7:45 p.m., and was not in violation of the curfew. Endo is charged and convicted by a military tribunal for violating her curfew, and is sentenced to one year in military prison. Endo files a writ of habeas corpus in federal court against the commander of the prison. She asserts that Executive Order #2 denies her the equal protection of the law. She does not raise any other claims.

3. Howard Hughes, the President of Trans World Airlines, files suit against the Secretary of War challenging Executive Order #3. He claims that the President does not have the authority to order the seizing and commandeering of his airline.

4. Carrie Buck, whose great-grandfather lived in Japan, was charged by the military commander, General Josef Mengele, as a person of Japanese ancestry who was not loyal to the United States. Citing the War Purity Act as authority, the commander ordered Buck to read a statement concerning American patriotism, and sign an oath professing loyalty to the United States. Buck, who could not read, was not able to complete the exercise. Buck was hauled in front of a military trial, and was not offered a lawyer. The only piece of evidence admitted into the record was the blank oath form that was not signed. Buck was allowed to testify on her behalf. She testified that while she was proud to be an American, the way the government had been treating Japanese-Americans since the War began was shameful. Based on the evidence at trial, the military jury unanimously found that Buck violated the War Purity Act, and sentenced her to be sterilized. Buck filed a writ of habeas corpus in federal court, asserting that the sentence of sterilization imposed under the War Purity Act violated her 5th Amendment rights in two ways: her liberty interests protected by the due process clause, and the procedures required by the due process clause. She does not raise any other claims

—

All four of these suits are unsuccessful in the lower courts, and are consolidated on appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Justice Jackson has asked you to prepare a memo of no more than 1,000 words addressing the following five issues.

1. Does the President have the Article II powers to enact Executive Order #1, and detain the twelve American citizens under his authority? What is the impact of the subsequent enactment of the War Commissions Act on the President’s authority to detain the twelve American citizens? Does the WCA suspend the writ of habeas corpus? Does WCA validly remove jurisdiction from the courts to review these detentions?

2. Was the enforcement of Executive Order #2, with respect to the conviction of Endo, constitutional? Focus on whether subjecting Endo to the military tribunal during this time violated her right of equal protection under the law. Please explain what is the importance, if any, of Congress’s unanimous declaration supporting Executive Order #2.

 

3. Does the President, pursuant to his Article II powers and Executive Order #3, have the authority to order the Secretary of War to seize the airlines? Please address the importance, if any, of (1) Congress’s silence on this seizure, and (2) the treaty signed with Great Britain, on the President’s Article II powers.

 

4. Does Carrie Buck’s sentence of sterilization violate her 5th Amendment rights of both liberty and process? Please focus on the state’s countervailing interests.

 

5. In talking over the difficulties of this case, Justice Jackson muses, “In times of war, the laws fall silent.” Consider this maxim in the context of actions taken in the heat of World War II. Address both sides of this issue—whether the Court should, and should not invalidate these laws. 

We are honored to announce the winners of the 2014 Harlan Institute-ConSource Virtual Supreme Court competition. This year, the students were asked to write briefs, and participate in oral arguments for the case of NLRB v. Noel Canning. The question, was: “Resolved: What is the scope of the President’s recess appointment power?“

We received over 100 excellent submissions from high school students across the country. We were able to narrow down our brackets to four teams. Each team participated in oral arguments over Google+ Hangouts. Our engaged judges asked the students tough and challenging questions, and they had to think on their feet. In the end, we were extremely impressed with all of the winners.

Here are the final standings of the teams:

• Grand Prize – Michelle McEvoy and Uma Chatterjee, Frisco CTE, Frisco, TX. Here is their brief supporting the Respondent. Michelle and Uma won a free trip to Washington, D.C. to attend ConSource’s 2014 Constitution Day celebration.
• Second Prize – Dante Barnes and Peter Kim, Wicomico HS, Wicomico, MD. Here is their brief supporting the Petitioner. Dante and Peter each won an iPad.
• Third Prize – Luke Segovia and Jacob Shaw, Del Valle HS, Del Valle, HS. Here is their brief supporting the Petitioner. Luke and Jacob each won a $100 Amazon Gift Card.
• Honorable Mention – Jennifer Gomez and Jason Cano, Del Valle HS, Del Valle, HS. Here is their brief supporting the Respondent.

Congratulations to all the students. Also, congratulations to their excellent teachers. Ben Ewald at Frisco CTE, Christina Murray at Wicomico High School, and Michael Cunningham at Del Valle HS. We are so proud of these educators who inspire their students to accomplish great things.

Also, we extend our deepest thanks to our excellent judges who graciously volunteered their time to help judge the competition: Bryan Gividen, Timothy Huffstutter, Carl Cecere, and Lawrence Dietz. And always, my deepest thanks to my colleague and friend, Julie Silverbrook, the Executive Director of Consource for her tireless work in promoting constitutional education.

If you like our programs, please consider supporting the Harlan Institute and ConSource. We offer all of these programs to students at no cost, and rely on generation donations to cover our costs, and the students’ prizes.

 

You can watch the video of the semifinals, involving the teams from Wicomoco, Del Valle, and Frisco.

The video of the championship round (broken into two segments) between Wicomoco and Frisco is here:

Grand Prize – Frisco CTE, Frisco, TX

Uma Chatterjee was born in Queens, NY and lived there until she was 11. She has lived in the North Dallas area for seven 7 years. She sings competitively. She is considering going to school at American University of the University of Texas at Dallas, and wants to double-major in political science and psychology. Uma wants to work as an attorney focusing on civil liberties, ideally with the ACLU.

Michelle McEvoy was born in Livingston, New Jersey. She plans on attending New York University, majoring in Political science with a minor in international affairs. She is a member of the French club, Future Farmers of America, and the enjoys photography, volunteering.

Uma Chatterjee (left) and Michelle McEvoy and (right).

Second Prize – Dante Barnes and Peter Kim, Wicomico HS, Wicomico, MD.

Dante Barnes is a sophomore at Wicomico High School in Salisbury, Maryland. He is currently enrolled in AP government. He plans on joining the Army after high school.

Peter Kim is a sophomore who attends Wicomico High School in Salisbury, Maryland. He was born in South Korea and likes to play must. He plans on going to college to become a doctor after high school.

IBM’s Watson, fresh off victories on Jeopardy!, and successfully diagnosing diseases, is now training for a skill that hits rather close to home–being able to debate and form legal arguments:

And now Big Blue has taken Watson technology one step further with a system that can form logical arguments for or against a complex issue–rather than just answering questions–once it absorbs relevant information.

At the Milken Institute’s annual conference in Beverly Hills, John Kelly III, IBM’s director of research, unveiled an artificial intelligence project called the Debater that has new capabilities to think—and argue– like a human. In a demonstration, Kelly asked the Debater to provide arguments for and against this statement: The sale of violent videogames to minors should be banned. The contraption scanned 4 million Wikipedia articles and narrowed them down to a handful that seemed most relevant. Then, in a synthesized voice, it spit out answers.

Among the reasons to support a ban: “Exposure to violent videogames can cause adolescents to commit acts of aggression in real life,” the Debater explained. ”On the other hand,” it went on, “the sale of violent videogames to minors has not been causally linked with aggressive tendencies.” Doing the research and rattling off several statements, pro and con, took about 45 seconds.

How does it work? Rather than retrieving stored information, and answering simple questions, it can develop arguments to resolve a complicated issue.

The technology breakthrough here is the ability to understand spoken and written language in context, then applying computing power to a question that arises from that language. The human brain is far better at contextual learning than computers, because we can almost instantly ascertain whether a word like “fair” pertains to a square deal or a carnival with a Ferris wheel. A few minutes of speech or a few paragraphs of writing might contain dozens of such associations, leaving a typical computer stupefied, no matter what its processing speed or RAM.

This will hit close to home, as these are skills that lawyers use daily.

Though, reflecting a point I’ve made several times–this isn’t about replacing humans. It’s about working with humans, and improving reasoning.

Kelly envisions the Debater having a seat at the table — either in the flesh, so to speak, or through the cloud — when people in disparate fields develop projects to solve complex problems. It can listen to conversations and contribute meaningful information through real-time data crunching. The Debater also learns as it listens, adding information gleaned from its human interlocutors to its gigantic database. “It’s not man versus machine,” Kelly insists. “It’s man and machine reasoning together.”

I, for one, welcome our new robotic overlords.