THE RULE OF BLAWG

Nov 4, A Legal-Philosophical Question:

Sun, 04 Nov 2007 08:43:07 GMT

Actually, I have two questions:

If a US law - any law, whether of a statutory, judicial, or executive-decision nature - does not protect an individual's life, liberty, and property, from where does it derive its legitimacy?
If a law does protect these things, from where does it derive its legitimacy?

Please email your answer to me. I want this to be a conversation, if anyone is interested. awallenwein@gmail.com I will post any answer here. Thanks.
Alex

Oct 7, Denver Attorney Locator

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:56:41 GMT

Listing of selected, highly experienced Denver attorneys practicing in high-demand areas of the law.

Oct 7, FORT. LAUDERDALEATTORNEY LOCATOR

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:54:33 GMT

Listing of selected, highly experienced attorneys practicing in hihe-demand areas of the law in Fort. Lauderdale.

Oct 7, CAPE COD ATTORNEY LOCATOR

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:42:51 GMT

Cape Cod Attorney Locator listing only highly experienced counsel in the most searched areas of law in Cape Cod.

Oct 7, ATLANTA ATTORNEY LOCATOR

Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:36:56 GMT

Listings of highly experienced Atlanta attorneys practicing in the areas of corporate, pension, and probate law.

Oct 5, Houston Attorney Locator

Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:15:05 GMT

A Houston attorney locator service reserved for attorneys with ten or more years of experience in their chosen field.

Oct 4, Attorney MICHAEL KREBS, Cape Cod Business Attorney

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:30:37 GMT

Cape Cod business attorney Michael Krebs has over ten years of experience in business law matters.

Oct 4, Attorney Charles P. Kazarian - Cape Cod Business Attorney

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:34:56 GMT

Information and contact form for Cape Cod Business Attorney Charles P. Kazarian

Oct 4, Attorney CRAIG J. MARTIN

Thu, 04 Oct 2007 20:33:14 GMT

Attorney Craig Martin is a Cape Cod Business Attorney with over ten years of experience in business litigation.

Oct 1, Attorney Alvin Nathanson - Cape Cod Business Attorney

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:30:28 GMT

Information and contact form for Cape Cod Business Attorney Alvin S. Nathanson.

Sep 7, COURT GUTS KEY GOVERNMENT-SECRECY PROVISION FROM "PATRIOT" ACT

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:30:30 GMT

On Thursday, September 6, 2007, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York, published his opinion in (see transcript below) in which he struck down the Patriot Act's "national security letters" (NSL) provisions as being an unconstitutional "prior restraint" on speech. I can only say this: I wish this man was on the Supreme Court. Maybe if Ron Paul gets elected, he can appoint him. According to my own initial, rather cursory, reading of the opinion, here is the crux of it:

"The issue now before the court is not whether, or under what circumstances the government should possess the authority to issue NSLs. Rather, the more fundamental questions is the extent of the authority that the First Amendment allows the government to exercise in keeping its use of NSLs secret, insofar as such secrecy inhibits freedom of speech."

Ron Paul couldn't have said it any better. Well, actually, he did. He said: "The government is supposed to be trnasparent and protect the privacy of its citizens, not invade their privacy and keep its own actions secret." (Paraphrased version of a statement made at the San Antonio fundraiser event on July 28, 2007). Feel like calling the judge and thanking him? His chambers' address and phone number is posted here.

Sep 6, Attorney Mark Snyder

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:19:16 GMT

Background amd practice information for Attorney Mark Snyder, Baltimore atv accident attorney.

Sep 6, Attorney Thomas V. Mike Miller

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:10:26 GMT

Background and practice information on Atlanta ATV accident attorney Thomas MIller.

Sep 5, Attorney Stephen L. Hopkins

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:47:18 GMT

Biographic and professional information of Attorney Stephen Hopkins.

Sep 5, Attorney Richard P. Traulsen

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:43:51 GMT

Background and practice information about Attorney Richard Traulsen.

Sep 5, Steve H. Patience, Phoenix Accident Lawyer

Wed, 05 Sep 2007 23:35:05 GMT

Background, practice,and contact information of Attorney Steve Patience.

Aug 28, BALTIMORE ATTORNEY LOCATOR

Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:29:33 GMT

Attorney Locator listing only highly experienced attorneys in the most searched areas of law in Baltimore, Maryland.

Aug 27, An 'Ultra Vires' President?

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 17:27:28 GMT

On July 17, 2007, president Bush has signed an executive order claiming the right to "block" all property of any person in the US if his Secretary of the Treasury "determines" that the person has committed a "violent act" or that the person "poses a significant risk" of committing such an act in the future that may have the effect of impairing US policy in Iraq. He claims that he is empowered to make this executive order by the "International Economic Emergency Powers Act." That act, however, applies only to foreign persons and their property, or property in which a foreign person or country has an interest. 50 USC 1702(a)(1)(A) and (B). The most egregious power this EO claims is the authority of the Secretary to simply "determine" that someone may commit (i.e., poses a "significant risk" of committing) a violent act in the future! That means any war protester is fair game. Good bye, rule of law. Hello, Minority Report! This is patently in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, particularly the Fifth Amendment due process clause. It also has a serious 'chilling effect' on free speech. Can Congress nullify this executive order? Can the Supreme Court strike it down? What happens if these two departments of the government do nothing? Do the citizens have any legal recourse?

Jul 9, Excuses for Judicial Tyranny

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:00:53 GMT

Judge Posner's comment on Griswold v. Connecticut (referenced in the rightmost column in this law school discussion of originalist vs. non-originalist interpretation of the Constitution) claimed that the Constitution must allow for judicial leeway to invalidate a state law banning contraceptives as being "too oppressive." In his view, the US Supreme Court stands as a sort of "bulwark" against state "legislative tyranny". In doing so, he stands the principle of limited government that is so clearly enunciated in the provisions and structure of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - on its head. Under the guise of heading off "state tyranny" he assumes the US government's judicial branch has the right to tyrannize the people of the states by imposing federal standards upon their legislatures - standards for which the Constitution does not provide. Posner represents a perfect example of what's wrong with non-originalist judges. In short: They can't read English. Example: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What could be clearer than that? How about this one: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"... shall not be infringed." Hmm... "Infringed" means "encroached upon" or "interfered with." Has the people's right to bear arms been interfered with by the Brady Bill for example? One would think so. Is federal judicial tyranny permissible when it dictates to the states under the cloak of confronting "state legislative tyranny"? Is it permissible when it seeks to "do good" (as in preventing gun violence)? In other words: do social considerations or opinions outweigh legal considerations? What could be done to counteract this tendency of the Supreme Court to arrogate power to itself?

Jul 9, Ron Paul, Lawyers, and the Constitution

Mon, 09 Jul 2007 16:06:16 GMT

How will the practice of law be affected by a president who uses the power of the highest office in the country mainly to reduce the power and influence of his own government, to bring it back within the limits foisted upon it by the founders and the people? How will lawyers be impacted by a president whose favorite past time is reminding his fellow public servants of their limited power, and the people of the country of their greater power? A president, of course, has no right or power whatsoever to tell the Supreme Court how it can and should rule on constitutional matters - but a president most definitely appoints the Justices to that Supreme Court, and thereby has huge sway over the likely course future rulings will take. A president also has the constitutional power, yes, even the constitutional obligation according to his oath of office, to veto laws passed by Congress that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution. If Ron Paul has done anything at all during his nearly thirty years in Congress, then he has demonstrated his absolute and principled unwillingness to vote for the passage of laws that are not so authorized. A president also has almost exclusive power to determine how the several departments of the executive branch are being run - and whether they should continue to be run at all. He has stated that one of his first acts as president will be the disbanding of the IRS, which is part of the Department of the Treasury and therefore under his executive power. Education and Homeland Security will be close seconds and thirds. Energy will be fourth. So far, Ron Paul has not given any indication that he will fail to do what he promised he will do - one of his personal idiosyncracies that have earned him the to many people oxymoron-prone title of honest politician. If he gets elected, the likelihood of him actually doing what he said he will do is therefore high. Naturally, that will have an enormous impact on our fellow jurists who practice the art of the tax attorney, not to mention tax accountants and tax preparers. They, as well as estate planning and probate lawyers, wills and trusts attorneys, and a host of others will never operate in the same universe they now live and work in, again. Needless to say, this means that these groups will most likely exert considerable pressure in order to get Ron Paul banned from future debates, if not dropped entirely from the Republican roster of candidates. Nobody wants to see his entire career and livelihood disappear like that. But how about their oath of office? Does that oath mean anything? Should it mean anything? If so, what? Are lawyers free to interpret the Constitution any which way they see fit?

Jun 1, RON PAUL, LAWYERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION - Part 2

Fri, 01 Jun 2007 15:22:41 GMT

Can the legal profession survive a return to the Constitution and the rule of law? I must admit that even after having attended two courses in Constitutional Law and after graduating from law school, I knew precious little about this least-enforced of all laws in the United States. I had no idea that its limits on the power of the government it created were, at least theoretically, still in force. That fact was never discussed in law school. The only thing I learned was that whatever limits there once were had been continuously eroded, and thats just how it was. Sorry. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison, the US Supreme Court - the source of all wisdom and force of law when it comes to constitutional interpretation as far as lawyers are concerned - has continued to syphon more and more power away from the people and the states and to the central government. It did so by consistently finding exceptions to the strict and straight-forward limitations the Constitution places on what government may and may not do. A virtually irreconcilable conflict arose, for example in the way the Supreme Court has analyzed and interpreted taxing statutes. In the early years after the passage of the first post-16th amendment income tax act of 1913, the Court ruled in Gould v. Gould, that taxing statutes are to be most strictly construed against the government and in favor of the citizen unless they specifically point out the object of taxation. By 1955, that old and venerated principle of strict construction has given way to the exact opposite analysis. In Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., the Court held in effect that Congress applied no limitations as to the source of taxable receipts, nor restrictive labels as to their nature. And the Court has given a liberal construction to this broad phraseology in recognition of the intention of Congress to tax all gains except those specifically exempted Another example would be the Courts well-known continuous expansion of federal power over interstate commerce by re-interpreting what constitutes such commerce in the broadest manner possible. An even more egregious and direct assault on the idea that governments have limited powers was launched in very recent times by the controversial Kelso decision in which the Court rubber-stamped a local governments right to strip a private property owner of his property by the power of eminent domain for even private purposes. These shifts in interpretation are, of course, not the Supreme Courts sole fault. The cases argued before the Court that led to such rulings were argued by lawyers. Lawyers who put their own clients anticipated victory above their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Not an unusual practice, by any means, and actually encouraged by everyone around you when you study and practice law. So, how would a Ron Paul presidency impact the legal profession in its daily practice, then? Alex Wallenwein

May 30, RON PAUL, LAWYERS, AND THE CONSTITUTION - Part 1

Wed, 30 May 2007 17:48:42 GMT

Can the legal profession survive a return to the Constitution and the rule of law? Some may still laugh and jeer, but Texas Congressman Ron Pauls chances of actually winning the GOP nomination for US president next year are, if not yet all that good, at least rising rapidly. This can be attributed to an enormous outpouring of grass roots support from the online community, where his popularity has eclipsed even that of Paris Hilton, bumping the queen of sleaze from her online search-numbers throne. His post-debate online poll successes were nothing short of staggering, even on such stalwart mainstream media outlets as ABC News, MSNBC, Fax News, and others. His little tiff with Rudy Giuliani at the second debate hosted by Fox News has catapulted his public recognition numbers from previous levels of near-obscurity to a national celebrity, albeit currently of the so-called maverick variety. At the same time, his rather considerable army of online and offline activists has begun to educate itself about offline campaigning tactics of the more traditional kind. He is known - even infamous - for his unwavering support for and reliance on constitutional principle and the sage advice of our founding fathers when determining which congressional bills to vote for - and which ones to greet with an ever-louder refrain of No. So, the question of how the legal profession will be impacted by a possible Ron Paul victory at the primary and presidential election polls next year is not an unjustified one. Can the legal profession survive a return to the Constitution and the rule of law? That question is not exactly an uncontroversial one. All lawyers must swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States as part of their swearing-in ceremonies. Yet, subsequent to that initial exposure, few lawyers ever have to deal with the US Constitution or even their respective state constitutions in their daily practice, and many often forget whatever they once knew about these legal documents. So, how about their oath of office? Does that oath mean anything? Should it mean anything? If so, what? Are lawyers free to interpret the Constitution any which way they see fit? Are they under a legal and professional duty to follow Supreme Court authority, no matter what? If their highest legal and professional duty is to their client, and if their clients interest conflicts with the strict mandates of the Constitution (i.e., if their individual client would benefit from and enlargement of government power at the behest of the Supreme Court) then which duty prevails? Which duty should prevail? Does their oath of office create a legal duty for lawyers to uphold and defend the Constitution? Does it create a professional one? A moral one? Which one of these, if so created, should prevail? These are the issues that will be discussed in this Attorney-Local Rule of Law Blog, or simply The Rule of Blawg. Alex Wallenwein

May 1, Yahoo Authentication

Tue, 01 May 2007 16:27:42 GMT

Apr 29, Presidential Signing Statements

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 19:07:34 GMT

This is a non-controversy - or at least it should be. But unfortunately, it is not. The Constitution gives the President the power to flat-out veto a bill, not to reshape it or rewrite it according to his own preference. Very troublesome, however, is the fact that Sam Alito, the man who rationalized the expanded use of signing statements in 1986 while working as the Deputy Assistant US Attorney General in 1986, now sits on the US Supreme Court, which may soon be asked to rule on their constitutionality.