Blog

Between 2009 and 2020, Josh published more than 10,000 blog posts. Here, you can access his blog archives.

2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009

Constitutional Places: Richmond, Virginia – The Virginia Capitol, The John Marshall House, the Virginia Supreme Court, and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

December 12th, 2012

I recently took an unexpected trip to Richmond, Virginia to get sworn into the Virginia Supreme Court (not the Supreme Court I was planning on being sworn into that day). During my brief time there, I saw the Virginia Capitol, the Virginia Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, as well as the John Marshall House (which billed itself as the home of the “most influential” person never to be President–I disagree).

Here are some photos.

Virginia Capitol

I really enjoyed the Virginia Capitol.

Virginia’s state motto is “Sic Semper Tyrannis,” which means “Always to the Tyrant,” not “Death to the Tyrant.” Though, because John Wilkes Booth screamed this when he assassinated Lincoln, the tyrant line works.

Oh, funny note. Spielberg filmed many of the scenes of Lincoln (which I did not care for) in the Virginia Capitol in Richmond. Oh the irony is way too right.

Though Texas has flown under 6 Flags (Spain, France, Mexico, Texas, United States of America, and Confederate States of America–that’s where the Amusement Park chain 6 Flags got its name from), Virginia has only flown under three: British, United States of America, and Confederate States of America. Pictured here are some of the flags.

The original capital of Virginia was in Williamsburg. The tour guide mentioned that the Virginia state government has been in assembly since the 1600s, and is the oldest continuous legislature in the Western Hemisphere.

This was the second Capitol I’ve been to of defunct republics this year (I visited Austin in October). And speaking of Texas, the Capitol had a bust of Sam Houston who was the first Governor of the Republic of Texas.

There was also an exhibit explaining why Virginia was bigger before the Civil War. Do you know why? Hint: It’s that unconstitutional state formed from Virginia without its consent to the West. I’m looking at you West Virginia.

A recent addition to the Capitol was this nice statue of Thomas Jefferson.

On the side of the statue is a similar inscription as on Jefferson’s tomb in Monticello–this was his own request of how he was to be remembered.

Author, Declaration of Independence. Author, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Architect, Virginia State Capitol. Architect and Founder, University of Virginia.

What did they add? Architect, Virginia State Capitol. That’s not on the original. What’s missing? Oh, 3rd President of the United States.

Here’s the original:

 Before his death, Thomas Jefferson left explicit instructions regarding the monument to be erected over his grave.  In this document (undated), Jefferson supplied a sketch of the shape of the marker, and the epitaph with which he wanted it to be inscribed:

“…on the faces of the Obelisk the following inscription, & not a word more:

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independence
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
Father of the University of Virginia

“because by these,” he explained, “as testimonials that I have lived, I wish most to be remembered.”

I didn’t realize that Jefferson worked with an Architect, while in France, to design the Virginia Capitol. One of the Capitol’s most treasured possession is a model that Jefferson sent over from France to Virginia so the builders would know how to build the Capitol.

There was also a nice portrat of George Mason, the author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and the namesake of my law school. Of course I took a picture with him.

And a bust of Mason. I find it fascinating that Mason refused to sign the United States Constitution due to its lack of a Bill of Rights.

In the Rotunda of the Capitol is a hall honoring all of the Presidents from Virginia: Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, and (who does not belong in this list) Wilson.

In the center is a fantastic statue of George Washington sculpted by Jean-Antoine Houdon, who also took the life mask of Washington, that is held at Mt. Vernon. The General requested that he should not be depicted in a Roman toga, but wanted to be sculpted in his military uniform. The bundle of sticks to his right has 13 sticks, to represent each colony.

The tour guide mentioned that during the fires at Richmond, towards the end of the Civil War, the state Capitol was ransacked and many people took souvenirs from the Capitol. Yet, no one touched the Washington statue. Virginians, even of the Rebel persuasion, were still fond of the General, it seems.

Here’s Thomas Jefferson:

Here’s James Madison:

In addition to the 6 Presidents was a bust of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was like a son to General Washington. Lafayette sent a key to the Bastille to George Washington after its storming. That key resides in Washington’s home on Mt. Vernon.

The trial of Aaaron Burr, presided over by Chief Justice John Marshall riding Circuit, was held in the Virginia Capitol.

There was also a bust of CJ Marshall. More on the Chief later.

The room also had a bust of Patrick Henry, the great orator of the Revolution.

And George Wythe, the namesake of the William & Mary School of Law, and the teacher of Thomas Jefferson.

And this brings us to the John Marshall House, which unfortunately was closed when I visited (it is only open on Fridays and Saturdays).

I’m just glad the plaque said “Chief Justice of the United States” and not “Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

 

I couldn’t really see much about the house, though there were some quirky, and inaccurate signs about the property. Mostly this sign, which read  “The most influential man to never be president slept here.”

Not persuaded.

Unfortunately, I was not allowed into the Virginia Supreme Court, because the Court was not in session (because the Justices were swearing us in at the Richmond Civic Center). The rest of the building was draped during some construction.

 Here are some pics of the Louis Powell, Jr. U.S. Courthouse.

 

District Court Finds Florida Drug Law That Lacks Intent Requirement “Facially Unconstitutional Because it Results in a Strict Liability Offense With a Harsh Penalty, Stigma, and Overbroad Regulation of Otherwise Innocuous Conduct”

July 27th, 2011

WSJ Law Blog links to a habeas opinion from the Middle District of Florida in which a District Court Judge found the Florida Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law–which criminalizes the delivery of a controlled substance– facially unconstitutional because it lacks an intent requirement.

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – – except in Florida.2

Florida exempts itself from the age-old axiom: “The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty.”

Here is how a brief digest of some of the key quotes from the section finding the statute facially unconstitutional:

Petitioner’s facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute is properly premised on allegations that the State’s affirmative elimination of mens rea and scienter from this felony offense violates due process.  . . .

Petitioner’s facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute is properly premised on allegations that the State’s affirmative elimination of mens rea and scienter from this felony offense violates due process.  . . .

To be sure, the law recognizes the authority of government to fashion laws that punish without proof of intent, but not without severe constraints and constitutional safeguards.  . . .

From this body of law it is clear that while “strict liability offenses are not unknown to the criminal law and do not invariably offend constitutional requirements,” their use is very limited and they are accorded a “generally disfavored status.”  . . .

Thus, under Staples and its progeny, the tripartite analysis for evaluating a strict liability offense under the strictures of the Constitution involves consideration of: (1) the penalty imposed; (2) the stigma associated with conviction; and (3) the type of conduct purportedly regulated.

With this framework, the Court finds that the law “violates due process because the penalties are too severe” (a 2nd degree felony, punishable by up to 30 years), the law “violates due process because it creates substantial social stigma,” (the law can “‘gravely besmirch’ a person’s reputation”), and  the law “violates due process because it regulates inherently innocent conduct ” (“Florida’s statute does not require even the minimal showing that the Defendant knew he was delivering any illicit substance as an element of the offense charged”). Based on these factors, the Court found the law unconstitutional.

Under this analytical framework, FLA. STAT. § 893.13 cannot survive constitutional scrutiny when considered in relation to the conduct it regulates—the delivery of any substance.

The court in footnote 7 lists the name of 38 law profs who joined an Amicus filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Here are all the names (usually briefs are cited, if at all, without listing the signatories).

7 A full explication of the elimination of mens rea as atavistic and repugnant to the common law is eloquently and thoroughly set forth in the memorandum filed by Amici Curiae, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Drug Policy Alliance, Calvert Institute for Policy Research, and thirty-eight Professors of Law: (1) Bridgette Baldwin (W. New England Coll. Sch. of Law); (2) Ricardo J. Bascuas (Univ. of Miami Sch. of Law); (3) Caroline Bettinger-López (Univ. of Miami Sch. of Law); (4) Guyora Binder (Univ. at Buffalo Law Sch.); (5) Jennifer Blasser (Benjamin N. Cardozo Sch. of Law); (6) Vincent M. Bonventre Albany Law Sch.); (7) Tamar R. Birckhead, (Univ. of N.C. Sch. of Law); (8) Darryl K. Brown (Univ. of Va. Sch. of Law); (9) Paul Butler (The Geo. Wash. Univ. Law School); (10) Michael Cahill (Brooklyn Law Sch.); (11) Matthew H. Charity (W. New England Coll. Sch. of Law); (12) Lucian E. Dervan (S. Ill. Univ. Sch. of Law); (13) William V. Dunlap (Quinnipiac Univ. Sch. of Law); (14) Sally Frank (Drake Univ. Law Sch.); (15) Monroe H. Freedman (Hofstra Univ. Sch. of Law); (16) Bennett L. Gershman (Pace Law Sch.); (17) Andrew Horwitz (Roger Williams Univ. Sch. of Law) (18) Babe Howell (CUNY Sch. of Law); (19) Renée Hutchins (Univ. of Md. Sch. of Law); (20) John D. King (Wash. & Lee Univ. Sch. of Law); (21) Jeffrey L. Kirchmeier (CUNY Sch. of Law); (22) Richard Daniel Klein (Touro Coll. Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Ctr.) (23) Kelly S. Knepper-Stephens (The Geo. Wash. Univ. Law School); (24) Alex Kreit (Thomas Jefferson Sch. of Law); (25) Donna Hae Kyun Lee (CUNY Sch. of Law); (26) Mary A. Lynch, (Albany Law Sch.); (27) Dan Markel (Fla. State Univ. Coll. of Law) (28) Ellen S. Podgor (Stetson Univ. Coll. of Law); (29) Martha Rayner (Fordham Univ. Sch. of Law); (30) Ira P. Robbins (Am. Univ. Wash. Coll. of Law); (31) Jenny M. Roberts (Am. Univ. Wash. Coll. of Law); (32) Ronald Rotunda (Chapman Univ. Sch. of Law); (33) Stephen A. Saltzburg (The Geo. Wash. Univ. Law Sch.); (34) William A. Schroeder (S. Ill. Univ. Sch. of Law); (35) Michael L. Seigel (Univ. of Fla. Levin Coll. of Law); (36) Laurie Shanks (Albany Law  Sch.); (37) Rodney Uphoff (Univ. of Mo. Sch. of Law); (38) Ellen C. Yaroshefsky (Benjamin N. Cardozo Sch. of Law).

Congrats to all the Profs!

I’ll be curious to see how the Defense Bar applies this opinion to a number of other strict liability offenses.  I think the Federal Government also has a number of strict liability crimes for which a guilty mind is not required–many of which can have quite severe penalties.

Cross-Posted at ConcurringOpinions.com

Pic: Dave Kopel Testifying At Kagan Confirmation Hearing

July 1st, 2010

Sadly, Dave’s wardrobe pales in comparison to Ron Rotunda’s ensemble.

FedSoc LiveBlog: Federalism and the Economic Crisis featuring John C. Eastman, Malcolm M. Feeley, and Ilya Somin

November 12th, 2009

Federalism: Federalism and the Economic Crisis 3:45 p.m. – 5:15 p.m.  Grand Ballroom

Moderator: Hon. Jeffrey S. Sutton, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

John Eastman

Discussing spending clause, and need to have it related to enumerated power. Spending had to be for general welfare, not local or regional welfare. General meant national welfare, like common defense.

President would veto bills in 19th Century as unconstitutional that spent on local concerns.

Malcolm Feeely

They need someone from Berkeley and John Yoo is too busy working for John Eastman.

Brutus warned people to be aware of Federalist 78.

Federalism is not a viable idea in modern administrative state, and almost all federalism doctrine is incoherent.

Federalism is just a euphemism for decentralization

Ilya Somin

Judge Sutton zings him for going to Amherst, #2 to Williams.

Discussing his article about Federalism and Star Trek.

Consider the impact of federalism on the current economic crisis. He will suggest there are 2 ways the current crisis poses a threat. Reliance of state govs on federal funds, and expansion of federal regulations.

Why should we care which functions federalism prefers? We should value decentralization. Much of beneficial decentralization can only be achieved if we have constitutional and other structural constraints on the Federal Gov.

We want federalism to protect diversity of policy in a large nation with diverse interests. Need decentralization of authority to achieve some of that.

Diversity and competition promotes innovation and better policy. If states compete for labor and capital, incentive to adopt better policies. Enable people to vote with their feet and at the ballot box. Foot voting ahs important benefits over ballot box voting. With ballot box voting we tend to be rationally ignorant. Little chance vote can change the outcome, not much of an incentive.

Economic crisis has expanded federal power. States reliant on federal grants for revenue sources

If you can get money from federal sugar daddy, why get it from states?

Federal policies requires states to follow certain policies, decreases range of issues to engage in competition and innovation. Grants unlikely to be rolled back after crisis ends. Just because crisis ends doesn’t mean states won’t continue to lobby.

General welfare clause does not mean whatever Congress said it mean. Pessimistic court will roll it back. Courts are moving further in wrong direction.

Easier to bribe states through spending clause than through commandeering.

Roderick M. Hills

Federal courts can’t and shouldn’t and don’t need to impose limits on Congress’s spending clause power.

There are constitutional limits on spending power, and are rooted in general welfare clause, but have never been enforced by Courts, they have been enforced by President.

6th Circuit case discussing No Child Left Behind, split 8-8. (Judge Sutton is on the panel).

Judge Sutton, Moderating

Why can’t there be a judicially enforced federalism?

Feeley- Political problem, political will. not a federal system in the world that has a judicially enforced federalism system.

Somin- general welfare cannot be read so broadly to subsume common defense clause. Judges often vote their policy preferences, but over time as we develop a precedent, there can be a cross-ideological agreement.

Question- There are no interest groups in favor of federalism? States do not want federalism. Interest groups do not want it.

Hills- I do want federalism, but spending clause takes care of itself.

Somin- 17th amendment did not destroy Senators. Most states had committed to have popular election of senators. State legislatures like federal funds, have reasons to support expansion of federal power, not obvious that popularly elected senators, many of whom are bad people, may not represent federalist needs.

Ron Rotunda Question- States cannot turn down money. In stimulus bill, state legislature can override Governor’s veto. Governor from South Carolina turned it down, but then he went on a vacation to Argentina.

Feely- No one would fight for their state. Sutton: Ever go to a Ohio State/Michigan Game?

Pics after the jump

(more…)