Published on December 16, 2014.
1. The current legal regime on privacy is based on a 19th-century understanding of the press. The influential Harvard Law Review article of Dec. 947 more words
I have many conservative friends, and, prudently, when in their presence I avoid the usual dangerous topics when I can: religion, politics, history, taxes, etc. But every now and then a polemic discussion rears its inevitable head, and I can’t fight back the urge to inject my subversive, sarcastic, and eristic words. 1,164 more words
The United States has a complicated past regarding disputes over legalization of marijuana. In recent years, it has become a topic of hot debate; despite two states legalizing its use for recreational purposes, use of marijuana remains a federal offense. 512 more words
by Lori Lowenthal Marcus
December 29, 2014
There’s an ugly tempest brewing at Brandeis University and it’s based, at least in part, on free speech, tolerance and student safety. 82 more words
There doesn’t appear to have been research done of Brandeis lately, but I have found 3 Brandeis-related items worth relating.
https://twitter.com/USCitizenAbroad/status/548679501354242049 The 1967 case of Afroyim v. Rusk is playing a major role in the life of "Americans abroad". (This is the Supreme Court decision that establishes that Congress cannot simple "strip people of U.S. citizenship" without their consent. I wrote about the possible impact of Afroyim on the treatment of Americans abroad in an earlier post. There is a strong consensus that Americans abroad are being forced to renounce their citizenship. Yet, in Afroyim, Justice Black reminds us that:
Citizenship is no light trifle 268*268 to be jeopardized any moment Congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. In some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world—as a man without a country. Citizenship in this Nation is a part of a co-operative affair. Its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.As of late there there has been some discussion of a legal challenge to citizenship-based taxation (or at least aspects of it) by using the 14th amendment arguments. I suggest that the above quote from Justice Black's decision should be a leading part of the that challenge. The argument would be: 1. Maybe citizenship-based taxation is NOT unconstitutional per se; but 2. The rules that U.S. government is imposing (under the guise of citizenship-based taxation) are forcing people to renounce U.S. citizenship and are therefore unconstitutional. The lawyer representing Afroyim (at least in the early stages was Nanette Dembitz. Nanette Dembitz was a niece of Justice Louis Brandeis. Interestingly the impact of Justice Brandeis and people like Nanette Dembitz - who recognized the importance of the individual - carry on today.