Friday, November 13, 2009

Update: Dallas Police Chief Kunkle

Remember our good friend Dallas Police Chief Kunkle from the last post? Interestingly enough, he announced his retirement early this week. Here is his Retirement Letter to DPD.

~Andréa

Monday, November 9, 2009

Speak English or Get Ticketed

Apparently, over the past 3 years Dallas police officers have issued 39 tickets for not speaking English. The fine - $204. After "discovering" that his officers had been issuing tickets for this non-existent charge, Dallas police Chief David Kunkle stated to the Dallas Morning News:

"I was surprised and stunned that that would happen, particularly in the city of Dallas....In my world, you would never tell someone not to speak Spanish."


Perhaps Chief Kunkle needs to come back to THIS world where HIS officers are doing just that. His city of Dallas is the same city that practically rioted when the pizza chain "Pizza Patron" started accepting pesos a few years back. This is the same Dallas whose DA's office was discovered to have a long-established practice of racially discriminating to get all-white capital case jurors. So I'm not sure that discriminating based on the language someone speaks is all that surprising (sorry!). Kunkle mentioned to the Dallas Morning News that he was worried this would damage the department's relationship with the Hispanic community. My response: (1) duh, (2) ship might have sailed on that one awhile ago.

So what will the outcome of all this be? Any outstanding tickets issued for not speaking English will be dismissed and those already paid will be reimbursed. The department is going to do an investigation, blah, blah, blah. In the meantime, if the writers for Reno 911 are short on material, this surely would make for a ridiculous show!

God Bless Texas
~Andréa

Monday, October 26, 2009

Is October Discrimination Month in the South?!

Apparently we didn't get the memo here at the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (not surprisingly). Two of the most blatant cases of recent discrimination come out of Louisiana and New Mexico.

Exhibit 1. (Unsolicited) Life Lessons from Keith Bardwell:

In this interesting case out of Louisiana, Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, denied a marriage license to an interracial couple because he was concerned for the children that the couple might have. According to Bardwell, neither Black or White society accepts mixed children so he wanted to save the couple's potential children from being ostracized. (Gee, what a great guy.) He also explained to them that in his experience, interracial marriages don't last long. But wait, he's not being racist. Look what he told AP news:
"I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else."
It's nice to know that he doesn't have separate facilities in his home, really. You go Bardwell. MLK would be proud.

Luckily Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal didn't buy it. He called for the state judiciary committee to review the incident and revoke Bardwell's license.


Exhibit 2. Anglicizing Your Hispanic Name

No it's not a facebook application or a Flavor Flav-esque nicknaming game. When Larry Whitten took over a failing hotel in Taos, New Mexico, he laid down some controversial new rules. Rule 1: don't speak Spanish in his presence (lest his workers talk about him behind his back). Rule 2: Change your name from Marcos to Mark. Rule 3: "there are too many Hispanics working at the hotel - I'm firing a bunch" (I paraphrase). Whitten, who has worked to place numerous hotels back on their feet, says he has always required his workers to Anglicize their names; it's less confusing for guests that way. However, residents in the Taos community embrace their Native American and Hispanic cultural background and find his actions extremely offensive. But Whitten claims he is not a racist:
"It has nothing to do with racism. I'm not doing it for any reason other than for the satisfaction of my guests, because people calling from all over America don't know the Spanish accents or the Spanish culture or Spanish anything." [From Yahoo News interview]
Clearly, nobody wants to travel or stay at a hotel where they might learn something about another culture - that's just crazy. Rather than trust the people of the community and take the time to learn about the culture he set up shop in, Whitten simply called the residents "mountain people" and "potheads who escaped society." I'm interested to see how well a Southwestern adobe-style hotel run by an all-white staff will fare in an area known for its vibrant and interesting culture.

Thankfully this month is almost over.

~Posted by Jane Smith (the blogger formerly known as Andréa Villarreal)

Monday, October 19, 2009

Why Strict Construction and Originalism Cannot Be A Moral Way Of Interpreting The Constitution

Submitted by TJCLCR Staffer Elliott Becker:

Strict Construction and Originalism have a fair amount of cachet in conservative constitutional jurisprudence and that is fine as they have their merits, but unlike other judicial philosophies are only one (Originalism is a type of Strict Construction) to make the grandiose claim to being the only legitimate method of constitutional interpretation. The idea goes something like this: federal judges are unelected political officials, so judges, unlike the legislature or executive, should defer as much as possible to these elected bodies. For Strict Construction, it means going by what the words say. For Originalism it means going by what the words meant at the time the law was adopted.

This is a nice sounding idea, and certainly at least somewhat worthy of its due, but there are significant problems with it for constitutional interpretation, all the more so if it is the only method. There are actually enough problems with this methodology to write a book on the topic and there probably are one or two out there already. Nevertheless, I wanted to focus on a couple issues, particularly as regards the Orginalism strand, but this applies to Strict Construction more generally as well.

The very first thing to note is that the American Revolution was a break with the legitimate rule of the British government. By legitimate I don’t mean to make a moral judgment, but instead merely to note that while many people believed that revolution became necessary to overthrow an unjust rule, the government of Britain was both the original government most of colonists had become colonists under and that the government was continuous, there was no junta that took over, it was the British monarchy throughout. But a revolution did occur and the newly independent United States lived under the Articles of Confederation for a few years before deciding they weren’t working and a big enough group of states emerged to adopt the new Constitution. When some states broke with the Articles of Confederation, the Articles required unanimity to end them, and yet that is not what happened. The always intransigent Rhode Island refused to end them, so the other states just ignored Rhode Island. So the states weren’t following the law there. To recap then, in two of the U.S.’s fundamental moments, carried out by our venerated founding fathers, they weren’t following the expressly written rules. But OK, they are patriots, and to some people’s mind a better group of people than at any other time.

How about this then, the Constitution was written in secret and the provisions for amending the Constitution are literally the most difficult in the world according to Prof. Sanford Levinson. Originalism says that judges ought to abide by this constitution’s terms regardless of any manifest injustice they would work. Really? A constitution, drafted in secret by a small group of white men hundreds of years ago, with ridiculously difficult to affect terms, and judges should just do what it says. Really.

Alright, what about the issue of enfranchisement? Black people and women have both been enfranchised over the course of U.S. history, but when the constitution was amended to make that change it wasn’t followed up with a new constitutional convention. No, instead black people and women were just told to enjoy their votes (and not even often that) and accept the constitution they were given. That is the exact opposite of what a constitution is supposed to be. A constitution is supposed to be a contract by a society with itself on how it is going to govern itself. It isn’t meant to be imposed on a particular polity and told they have the tools to alter the contract. It would be like if I made you live in a house I had made, and told you if you didn’t like it that you had a screwdriver and that was the only way you were allowed to alter things. It might seem a bit unfair.

The above is meant to be the basis of an attack on Orginalism at the roots. We can’t simply accept the Constitution as it arrives to us, laden with injustice already as it is. To continue the attack to the end is beyond the scope of this post, but other the part is less theoretical and more practical, showing how Originalism is frequently used as mere pretext and discarded as needed by its advocates (Scalia in Heller for example). Also, some discussion is needed of the futility of trying to come to some sort of consensus on what words mean or meant when originally written (how do you define ‘right’?). Nevertheless, on its own the above should serve adequately to explain the moral bankruptcy of Originalism and Strict Construction.

But what of the Supreme Court, bereft of Originalism, with no lodestar to guide them in their grave tasks. In a shocking turn of events, the justices will have to come to judgments based on justifying their arguments to each other and the public. Law is a complicated mix of justice, social norms, institutional interactions and other things, and it should come as no surprise that there is no magic formula that produces the right result in all cases. Therefore a variety of methods, including Strict Construction and Originalism, should be used to produce a just result for society.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Upcoming Events

Please check out the upcoming events we've got going on! We have some interesting speakers coming that you don't want to miss. We'll keep a running list of them to the right so make sure to keep checking back!

~Andréa

Sunday, October 4, 2009

Is Texas' Ban on Gay Marraige Unconstitutional?

A judge out of Dallas thinks so. Two men who were married a few years ago in Massachusetts and then moved to Texas came to her courtroom on Thursday seeking a divorce. Legally, since they have residency here in Texas, it was the only state they could be divorced in. Rather than trying to make any kind of narrow ruling, the judge said that our state's ban on gay marriage violates the guarantee of equal protection.

I think this is a big step. And it was an interesting way to take it. After all, in order to legally release someone from a marriage, you have to recognize it as a legal marriage in the first place. I don't even have to dust off my crystal ball to tell you to expect some interesting litigation (and some unnecessary slandering) in the near future.

Here's a link to the Dallas Morning News article about it:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/100109dnmetgaymarriage.1d5a0d50d.html

~Andréa

Monday, September 21, 2009

Welcome Back! 2009-2010

On behalf of the board of the Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights I would like to welcome our new members! We had a wonderful showing of students interested in joining the staff and are pleased with the quality of our new staffers. This year should be the best one yet! Stay tuned for details on what we're working on.

And now, let's get down to it:
As you might have heard, last week Ohio prison workers had some unexpected trouble giving Romell Broom the lethal injection. Broom reportedly winced and cried while flexing, tugging on the tourniquet, turning from side to side, and doing everything in his power to help the prison workers find a vein strong enough to take the lethal injections. After 2 hours and 23 minutes of poking, prodding, and even inserting a shunt into Broom's leg, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland finally called the execution off...and rescheduled it.

This has raised some serious Constitutional concerns: Mr Broom's lawyer has filed lawsuits alleging that Broom's civil rights would be violated by another execution attempt, and others are debating the legal question of whether subjecting Broom to a second execution amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment.

But apparently this isn't the first time Ohio has had this problem. The ACLU reports that this is the 3rd time in 3 years.

Supposedly lethal injection is the "most humane" or at very least "most accepted" method of execution - but should that be reassessed? Just the first attempt - 2 hours and 23 minutes of being stuck with needles sounds like torture to me. But if the 2nd attempt were successful would it simply negate the 1st? At what point would his civil rights be violated - and do you take his crimes into consideration?

What do you think?

~Andréa

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

When are warrantless car searches ok?

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court answered this question in Arizona v. Gant.

The case involved Rodney Gant, a man arrested in Arizona for driving with a suspended license. After police placed him in the patrol car, they searched his vehicle and found cocaine. Gant's counsel argued that this was an improper search barred by the Fourth Amendment.

Since New York v. Belton was decided in 1981, courts had been relying on this precedential language: “when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident to that arrest, search the passenger compartment.” The problem - how "contemporaneous" does it have to be? Up until Tuesday, this limited authority to perform a warrantless search had arguably been expanded to allow "routine" car searches after suspects (for any crime involving a vehicle) had already been placed in custody.

In Tuesday's 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the only way police can conduct a warrantless search of a car as part of an arrest is if the person being arrested is (1) within reach of the car or (2) the police officers have reason to believe that “evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle.” The "within reach" test is to protect the officers and the second part is to prevent tampering with evidence.

The Court said that there was no way Gant could have reached his car to tamper with evidence nor did he pose any safety threats to the officers - he had been searched unconstitutionally.

~ Andréa

Friday, April 10, 2009

Welcome!

We're in the process of building and launching a new TJCLCR blog and website. Please bear with us as we get things off the ground!

Here's a little bit about what we do:

The Texas Journal on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights is a publication coming out of the University of Texas School of Law in Austin. The Journal synthesizes and analyzes current thinking on issues in various areas of civil liberties and civil rights through articles by legal scholars, practicing attorneys, state and federal judges, and students. We publish twice a year [subscribe] in conjunction with the Individual Rights and Responsibilities (IRR) Section of the State Bar of Texas. The IRR provides us with funding and a readership base while the journal publishes IRR news and announcements. The Journal is also available on Westlaw, Lexis, and HeinOnline, and is carried by the majority of important institutions.