The Problem With How We Treat Drug Addicts

The United States is facing an opioid and heroin epidemic that is killing and harming record numbers of people; more people died of overdoses in 2014 than in any other year on record.

One of the latest and most troubling images of this problem was a widely circulated photo of a couple passed out in their car with their four year old left watching from the back city. The City of East Liverpool, Ohio saw fit to share the photo on its Facebook profile to “show the other side of this horrible drug”. Continue reading

Advertisements

Space Law

When it comes to space exploration, law is probably furthest consideration from anyone’s mind. But an article in Foreign Policy examines the importance of developing a more sophisticated, comprehensive legal framework to govern human activities beyond Earth. A rather obscure U.N. agency, joined by similarly lesser known experts and institutions, recently convened a special session on this matter. Continue reading

Six Alternatives To Policing

While law enforcement of some form or another is as old as humanity, the use of an organized, permanent police for to maintain order emerged only around two centuries ago. This, along with mounting scrutiny and debate regarding the effectiveness of the law enforcement system, has led some, like Rolling Stone’s José Martín, to question whether police are even necessary.

It seems like a rash, if not unthinkable, claim; police are taken for granted in just about every place where stability and rule of law exist. It is an institution most people consider to be a given in civilized society, let alone something whose existence should be questioned. What would be the alternative?

Well, Martín lays out at least six of them, all of which have been proven effective, or at least feasible, to some degree. Continue reading

The Plight of Native Americans

Generations of plague, genocide, and oppression continue to take their toll on America’s indigenous people. The subsequent marginalization has made them the most victimized group when it comes to encounters with law enforcement. As The New York Times reports:

American Indians are more likely than any other racial group to be killed by the police, according to the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which studied police killings from 1999 to 2011 (the rate was determined as a percentage of total population). But apart from media outlets like Indian Country Today, almost no attention is paid to this pattern of violence against already devastated peoples.

When it comes to American Indians, mainstream America suffers from willful blindness. Of all the episodes of police violence listed above, only the killings of Mr. Williams and Mr. Goodblanket received significant news coverage outside Indian circles, the latter only in an article for CNN.com by the Oglala Lakota journalist and activist Simon Moya-Smith. The Williams shooting, which was the subject of public outcry, was covered by a major local news site, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, as well as by The New York Times.

The lack of public outcry towards this problem, and indeed towards pretty much all the issues affecting American Indians, has much to do with their low population and consequent lack of presence. Continue reading

Is The Constitution What’s Wrong With America?

The Atlantic’s Yoni Appelbaum makes the provocative case that what ails the United States’ political system is the very document it is founded upon. Put another way, the problem with America today is not that it has deviated from the Constitution, but on the contrary, its politicians and citizens remain too true and reverential to it.

This is idea is drawn from The Royalist Revolution: Monarchy and the American Founding, a 2014 book written by Harvard political theorist Eric Nelson. The argument begins by tracing the roots and sentiments of the American Revolution to Britain’s own historical debate about executive versus legislative power. It is a long excerpt, but it is well worth reading, since this is an often-overlooked context and influence for the Patriots.  Continue reading

Birthright Citizenship in the U.S. and Around the World

As a nation of immigrants, it is not surprising that the United States adheres to a concept of citizenship known as jus soli, or birthright citizenship, whereby anyone born on American soil is automatically a U.S. citizen — regardless of their parents’ legal status. My making it easier for people to become politically and civically integrated after just one generation, the U.S. has been able to harness the ideas, skills, and labor of the world, whilst also securing the loyalty and contributions of millions.

Birthright citizenship has been (an albeit controversial) bedrock of U.S. law and identity since the mid-19th century, around the time that immigration kicked into high gear. Before the U.S. Civil War, African Americans — even those freed from slavery or born to freed slaves — were emphatically not citizens; the Supreme Court ruled as such in Scott v. Sandford in 1857.

Only with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 — one of the three post-Civil War “Reconstruction Amendments” that greatly expanded political rights — were “all persons born or naturalized in the United States…citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”, to quote the first sentence of the amendment.

While the language of the amendment made it very clear that black Americans would enjoy U.S. citizenship, things weren’t so cut-and-dry for other groups. In particular, it did not address the status of Native Americans born on reservations, which were and remain legally sovereign entities (a very complex arrangement that is often subject to disputes to this day). And what about children born to Chinese immigrants, who were explicitly prohibited from being naturalized citizens via the 1882 Chinese Exclusion ActContinue reading

U.S. Government Rules Against Bans of Homeless People Sleeping Outside

Boise, Idaho is one of a multitude of cities across the United States that prohibits homeless people from sleeping or camping in public spaces. Following a lawsuit against the city brought by the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP), the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in with a statement of interest that could greatly impact local policy towards homeless people well beyond Boise.

The crux of the DOJ argument is that these bans violate the Eighth Amendment’s protections against cruel and unusual punishment. The reasoning is as follows:

When adequate shelter space exists, individuals have a choice about whether or not to sleep in public. However, when adequate shelter space does not exist, there is no meaningful distinction between the status of being homeless and the conduct of sleeping in public. Sleeping is a life-sustaining activity—i.e., it must occur at some time in some place. If a person literally has nowhere else to go, then enforcement of the anti-camping ordinance against that person criminalizes her for being homeless.

According to the New York Timesthis is the first time in twenty years that the Justice Department has gotten involved in this “still-unsettled” area of law. In doing so, the federal government is basically warning cities across the nation to treat homelessness more humanely. Either lift the bans, or ensure that there is adequate shelter space and housing so that homeless people do not have to sleep outside in the first place. Continue reading

Americans Have the Right to Insult Police Officers

Given the frequent reports of police brutality and misconduct in the U.S., particularly during the course of pullovers and arrests, Americans might be surprised to learn that they have a well-established right to be rude and even downright nasty to police officers. As The Atlantic’s CityLab column notes:

The courts have made it clear that individuals have a right to insult police officers. In 1987, the Supreme Court decided in City of Houston v. Hill that the First Amendment allows for a “significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers,” ruling against a Houston, Texas, ordinance making it “unlawful for any person to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty, or any person summoned to aid in making an arrest.”

The case involved a gay rights activist who had been arrested numerous times for allegedly interfering with the police.

The First Amendment, the court noted, does not protect “fighting words,” statements “that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” But criticism, even when angrily voiced, is protected.

“The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest,” Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote for the majority, “is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

That case built upon the 1974 decision in Lewis v. City of New Orleans, when the court ruled against an ordinance in that city making it “unlawful and a breach of the peace for any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.”

The Lewis case involved a couple following behind a squad car that was taking their young son away. Another officer pulled them over and, after the woman got out, allegedly said, “you get in the car woman. Get your black ass in the god damned car or I will show you something.” The police officer testified that the woman said, “you god damn m.f. police – I am going to [the Superintendent of Police] about this.” The woman denied using any profanity. Either way, the court ruled that the ordinance under which she was arrested was so broad as to apply to “speech, although vulgar or offensive, that is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., in a concurring opinion cited by Justice Brennan in the 1987 case, wrote that police should be able to deal with more offensive language than a private citizen—meaning that verbal abuse had to reach a higher threshold to count as fighting words when they are directed at a cop.

That abuse can run quite high and stay within constitutional bounds, something that a cottage industry of people who make a point of testing cops on their First Amendment knowledge by giving them the middle finger has proven.

Continue reading

Same-Sex Marriage Legalized in the U.S.

As most readers have no doubt already heard, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country.

As the New York Times notes, this landmark decision was the culmination of a rapid arc of progress that first came to the fore back in the early 1990s, when the first states began explicitly banning gay marriage. Only in 2003 did a sole state, Massachusetts, allow for gay and lesbian couples to marry.

screenshot-www.nytimes.com 2015-06-26 13-13-16

This rise in marriage equality was the result in a rapid turnaround in public opinion: from only 27 percent public approval in 1996, according to Gallup, to 60 percent as of this year. As The Washington Post observes, this is far more rapid and dramatic a change than most social issues (such as abortion and capital punishment).

The decision was based primarily on the Fourteenth Amendment, namely its Equal Protection Clause, which requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.  Continue reading