Blog

Danielle Allan, a Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, has identified a possible error in the official transcript of the Declaration of Independence!

A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document produced by theNational Archives and Records Administrationcontains a significant error — smack in the middle of the sentence beginning “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” no less.

The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., concerns a period that appears right after the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original.

And that is a significant error!

That errant spot of ink, she believes, makes a difference, contributing to what she calls a “routine but serious misunderstanding” of the document.

The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she says. But as intended by Thomas Jefferson, she argues, what comes next is just as important: the essential role of governments — “instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” — in securing those rights.

“The logic of the sentence moves from the value of individual rights to the importance of government as a tool for protecting those rights,” Ms. Allen said. “You lose that connection when the period gets added.”

Finding the real answer is difficult, because the original charter is so faded:

But that document has faded almost to the point of illegibility, leaving scholars to look to other versions from 1776 to determine the “original” text.

And there, Ms. Allen argues, while those versions show subtle variations in punctuation and capitalization, the founders’ intent is clear: no period after “pursuit of happiness.”

The period does not appear in Jefferson’s so-called original rough draft(held in the Library of Congress), or in the broadside that Congress ordered from the Philadelphia printer John Dunlap on July 4. It also does not appear in the version that was copied into Congress’s official records, known as its “corrected journal,” in mid-July.

According to historical records, the Matlack parchment was signed on Aug. 2 after being compared with official texts — making it unlikely, Ms. Allen argues, that it would have contained a period after “pursuit of happiness.”

Remarkably the National Archives may change their online version.

And now the archives, after a meeting last month with Ms. Allen, says it is weighing changes to its online presentation of the Declaration of Independence.

“We want to take advantage of this possible new discovery,” William A. Mayer, the archives’ executive for research services, said in an email.

A discussion of ways to safely re-examine the badly deteriorated parchment, he added, is now “a top priority.”

Now, they only need to let people read the actual version at the Archives.

You may recall that the Constitution under glass actually has corrections for typos!

In Article I, Section 3, explaining Senate procedure upon the impeachment of the president, there is this doozy. The intended language is: “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside[.] The original uncorrected, verbless text is: “When the President of the United States the Chief Justice shall preside[.]”
How can you screw up and write something like that unless you are totally mentally wandering while doing it? This is the Constitution of the United States of America for crying out loud. You’d think you could focus. And if you can’t get it right the first time, then I say grab another sheet of parchment and start from the top of the page. Where is the craftsmanship?

I know this question is horrible, but here it is. When a plane makes an emergency landing, then takes off, and resumes its trip, does the passenger get an additional segment? Or, what happens if, after the emergency landing, the passenger needs to take a different plane to complete the destination. Are miles calculated based on the initial route, or based on the two legs?

We may have another follow-up to Town of Greece. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State have sent a letter to the City of Huntsville, Alabama, alleging that the City discriminated against a Wiccan priest by inviting him to offer a prayer, and then uninviting him.

The city’s treatment of Mr. Kirk violates “[t]he clearest command of the Establishment Clause”—“that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244 (1982). In Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court held that that if local legislatures invite speakers to deliver solemnizing messages at meetings, they must “maintain … a policy of nondiscrimination.” Id. at 1824. The town’s practices in that case were upheld because the town assured the Court “that a minister or layperson of any persuasion, including an atheist, could give the invocation.” Id. at 1816. Indeed, in the Town of Greece, “[a] Wiccan priestess who had read press reports about the prayer controversy requested, and was granted, an opportunity to give the invocation.” Id. at 1817. And even if the city ultimately invites Mr. Kirk to speak at a later meeting, the city violated the Establishment Clause by subjecting him to additional obstacles, including the requirement that he delay his remarks so that the city could introduce him “more gently” at a later date.

Nor may city leaders deny or delay Mr. Kirk’s opportunity to speak on the ground that certain members of the community dislike Wiccans. Community outrage or prejudice does not justify imposing special conditions on speakers from minority faiths. To the contrary, the First Amendment protects even speech that “may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effect.” Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4 (1949). Speech may not be “burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob.” Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 (1992). As the Supreme Court explained in Town of Greece, “[t]he First Amendment is not a majority rule, and government may not seek to define permissible categories of religious speech.” 134 S. Ct. at 1822.

I read Greece similarly, as imposing a nondiscrimination policy. But, not everyone agrees on this front.

For some reasons, Property students love the idea of the escheat. That is, when a person dies intestate, with no heirs ascertainable anywhere in the globe, the property goes to the state. These issues are very, very rare. It is almost always possible, if you bother looking, to find some distant relative. For most people with small assets, it may not be worth it.

But for Staten Island resident Roman Blum, who died at the age of 97 with a fortune of $40 million and no will, it becomes a big deal. I wrote about this story last year. Blum, a Holocaust survivor who outlived just about everyone in his family, had no interest in writing a will. And now, Richmond County (where I’m from) is trying to find someone, anyone to give the fortune to.

“This is the only case where there are no heirs, no lawful heirs, and also there are no children,” Richmond County Public Administrator Gary Gotlin explained.

Gotlin has been tasked with searching the globe for secret heirs or a hidden will. The task has been complicated because so many of Blum’s relatives from Poland died in the Holocaust.

“We have all of his paperwork, all of his financials, all of his private letters,” Gotlin said.

Gotlin and his team went so far as to use a Geiger-type device and cameras to look behind and inside the walls of his home. They found gold and jewelry, but no will.

Blum’s attorney urged him to write a will, but he didn’t. With no family, his money is in limbo.

“He had no children, spouse, sisters, brothers, parents, grandparents, or first cousins, or first cousins once-removed,” Trusts and Estate Attorney, Herb Nass explained.

As you may expect, lots of people are suddenly claiming the inheritance.

That fact has not stopped thousands of people from trying to cash in.

Hundreds of letters — most coming from Europe and including include photos, family trees, and sad stories — have come from people who claim to have a connection to the man with the millions.

One letter told of a woman who said that she and Blum had been lovers during the war.

So far, none of the submissions has turned up an heir.

And if no heirs are found, the money would escheat to the state.

Carlin reported the money will likely end up in the New York State Unclaimed Fund, which includes forgotten bank accounts and totals $12 billion. Blum’s fortune will simply sit there.

 

Things are getting really weird in Colorado. Last week I blogged about a clerk in Boulder, CO who decided the 10th Circuit’s stayed opinion finding Utah’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, compelled her to disregard Colorado’s ban–which was still valid. The clerk said that it “feels” right, and “I want to act immediately to let them carry out that wish.”

The  Colorado Attorney General ordered her to stop, and she refused.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers’s office has told Boulder County officials that they plan to go to court Wednesday if Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall does not stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Suthers’s office responded Tuesday to county officials’ request for additional time to consider a proposal to allow the state’s supreme court to resolve the question of whether Hall can issue the marriage licenses. Colorado Solicitor General Dan Domenico wrote that the county could have until July 10 to respond to the proposal only if Hall stopped issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples during that time.
“If she elects to continue after today, I am afraid we will be forced to take legal action,” Domenico wrote.

The county attorney, in an utter disregard for how the rule of the Circuit works, declined, arguing that the 10th Circuit case required them to give the licenses:

Boulder County’s county attorney, Ben Pearlman, wrote to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday, stating that the office has determined that the county is issuing marriage licenses because “the unconstitutionality of enforcing a same-sex marriage ban is established by both 10th Circuit law and the clearly established weight of authority.”
Specifically, Pearlman wrote, “Clerk Hall is prohibited from knowingly violating an individual’s constitutional rights.”
Perlman concluded by stating that the county officials would like to work with the attorney general’s office to resolve the situation but that they “are not willing to continue negotiating only on the condition that Clerk Hall immediately stop issuing licenses.”

And then things get really, really weird. Chris Geidner (whose reporting on this matter has been impeccable) summarizes the issue nicely:

In order to stop a county clerk from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, the Colorado attorney general went to court Wednesday asking a federal court to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages. …

In Wednesday’s filing, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who supports marriage equality, joined Suthers in asking the federal court to strike down the state’s ban on same-sex marriages — but, in doing so, also to enter a stay stopping same-sex couples from marrying at this time.
The newly filed lawsuit could thus reach a quick, although indefinite, resolution. The move, though, also is Suthers’s best way of seeking a clear legal basis for stopping Boulder County Clerk Hillary Hall from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples — something she has been doing for the past week.
Hickenlooper and Suthers disagree about whether the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals was correct in striking down Utah’s similar ban last week. In the Wednesday filing in federal court, though, they both agree to a ruling from the trial court that the appellate ruling in the Utah case means that Colorado’s ban also is unconstitutional.
“[T]he Defendants do not oppose the entry of a preliminary injunctive relief in favor of the Plaintiffs based on their constitutional claims at this time,” Suthers wrote, adding, however, that they wish for that injunction “to be stayed pending until all final appeals in the [Utah] case are resolved.”

This motion is surreal.

To provide a clear record – the Attorney General – speaking alone as Defendant, representing the interests of the State of Colorado, believes the majority in the Tenth Circuit’s 2-1 decision in Kitchen is incorrect for the reasons stated in his motion for summary judgment and reply in support thereof in the pending state case, (Brinkman et al. v. Long, et al. No. 13CV32572 (D. Ct. Adams Cnty Colo.)), and for the reasons stated in the amicus brief Colorado joined in the Kitchen case (Amicus Br. of Indiana et al., Case Nos. 13-4178, 14-5006 (10th Cir. 2014)). To further clarify the record – the Governor and Denver Clerk – speaking alone as Defendants, believe the majority decision in Kitchen was correctly decided.

In other words, Colorado is asking the court to strike down its ban on same-sex marriage, but stay such a ruling until the 10th Circuit, or the Supreme Court, finishes its disposition of the Utah case. They’ve given up their defense of the law. With this order, and stay, hopefully the Boulder clerk should, in theory at least, stop issuing the marriage licenses. But who knows, right?

We are through the looking glass. Or, as one essay recently put it in response to my posts, we are dealing with Schrödinger’s Constitution.