Law School Conservative

"Presidential claims of a right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative demands have figured prominently, though intermittently, in executive-congressional relations since at least 1792. Few such interbranch disputes over access to information have reached the courts for substantive resolution, the vast majority achieving resolution through political negotiation and accommodation. In fact, it was not until the Watergate-related lawsuits in the 1970's seeking access to President Nixon's tapes that the existence of a presidential confidentiality Authority was judicially established as a necessary derivative of the President's status in our constitutional scheme of separated powers. Of the eight court decisions involving interbranch or private information access disputes, three have involved Congress and the Executive but only one of these resulted in a decision on the merits. The Nixon and post Watergate cases established the broad contours of the presidential communications Authority. Under those precedents, the Authority, which is constitutionally rooted, could be invoked by the President when asked to produce documents or other materials or information that reflect presidential decisionmaking and deliberations that he believes should remain confidential. If the President does so, the materials become presumptively privileged. The Authority, however, is qualified, not absolute, and can be overcome by an adequate showing of need. Finally, while reviewing courts have expressed reluctance to balance executive Authority claims against a congressional demand for information, they have acknowledged they will do so if the political branches have tried in good faith but failed to reach an accommodation.

"Over the last several years, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has conducted a thorough survey of campus speech codes at over 350 American colleges and universities and compiled the data in one location on FIRE's website..."

The tragic death of Philadelphia police Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski is being used for shameless pandering by politicians and pundits in Philly. 

Mayor Michael Nutter and Governor Ed Rendell have used Sgt. Liczbinski's murder to call for more gun control. Specifically, they're calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles like the one the career criminal used against the veteran of the police force. 

Columnists like Jill Porter use a senseless killing to chide gun owners for failing to support gun-control measures that won't make Philadelphia one bit safer. 

You don't hear Nutter, Rendell or Porter mention the extensive criminal history of Howard Cain, the man who killed Sgt. Liczbinski. You don't hear them mention his long rap sheet, or the fact that he should have been in prison, not out on the streets to commit armed robberies and murder. 

About a decade ago, Howard Cain was sentenced to 18 years behind bars. In spite of his criminal record, he got probation the first time he was eligible. Halfway into his 18-year sentence, he was back on the streets. The gun-control crowd is trying to say that a semi-auto ban would have somehow prevented Cain from obtaining a gun. But Cain was already subject to his own personal gun ban. As a convicted felon, it was illegal for him to own one bullet, much less a firearm. But to a guy like Cain, laws are meant for other people to obey. That's why he should have been behind bars. 

You can't make a city safer by banning firearms. Ask the residents of Washington, D.C., how well that's worked out. If you want to improve the safety of residents in Philadelphia, it's going to take time and money. Fully staff the police department. Make sure that those violent criminals on parole are being supervised. Go into the schools with anti-gang programs. Reach children before it's too late. And fully prosecute the gang members and drug dealers who are turning Philadelphia into their own personal killing fields. No plea bargains. No sweet deals. Throw the book at bad guys who've decided to prey on good people. 

Until the politicians decide to go after those responsible for the violence on their streets, nothing will change. The people of Philadelphia should ask themselves why their elected leaders are trying so hard to paint gun owners as the scapegoat instead of doing what they truly know would make their citizens safer.

Barack Obama just can't escape the gun issue. As gang violence continues to plague Chicago, the senator sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times to talk about guns and gun control. 

Obama wouldn't say how he feels about the legality of Chicago's ban on handguns, and he wouldn't give an opinion on the constitutionality of the D.C. gun ban, either. He did say that it's clear the bans aren't working, but still expressed his belief that these cities should be able to pass and enforce any gun-control law they want.

Obama also displayed an amazing lack of information about the Tiahrt Amendment, claiming it blocks ATF from sharing gun-tracing information with local authorities. As I've pointed out before, the reason the Tiahrt Amendment became law back in 2003 was the lawsuit filed by Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. Back in the 1990s, Daley wanted access to ATF crime trace data from outside of Chicago, and he wanted to try to use that information to sue gun manufacturers and dealers. The Clinton-era ATF blocked the release of the information, and law enforcement agencies around the country begged the federal government to keep this information in the hands of law enforcement only. The Tiahrt Amendment doesn't do anything to stop law enforcement from getting access to these records. It only blocks the public and grandstanding politicians from trying to use these sensitive law-enforcement tools for their own purposes.

Senator Obama says he doesn't like empty rhetoric. But that's all we hear from the senator when it comes to the Second Amendment. His attempts to pander to gun owners by expressing vague support for the Second Amendment won't fly. Not when his legislative record is littered with votes against the Second Amendment and for more gun control.

In a recent interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Barack Obama once again expressed his opposition to Right-to-Carry laws. That's not surprising. After all, Obama is a politician from one of two states in the union without any Right-to-Carry law on the books. But when Senator Obama says he hasn't seen any evidence that Right-to-Carry laws "make anyone safer," I have to say to Barack Obama: You're not looking hard enough.

Senator, meet Charles Todd, a Right-to-Carry holder from Memphis who defended himself against an armed carjacker last week. 

Senator, meet Jane Downey, a Right-to-Carry holder who defended herself against an intruder in her sister's home earlier this month. 

Senator, meet James Spiers, a Right-to-Carry holder and pizza delivery driver. Spiers was just trying to do his job when he was robbed late last month. With a gun held to his head by the criminal,  Spiers shot and wounded his attacker. The single father of a ten-year-old girl was fired from Pizza Hut for violating company policy by legally carrying his firearm. Would you prefer, senator, that Mr. Spiers not have had his gun? Would you like to explain to his daughter why Right-to-Carry doesn't work?

The simple fact is that 40 states have "shall-issue" Right-to-Carry laws on the books. There are millions of armed citizens in this country, and if they were a problem, we'd know about it. In fact, there are plenty of studies that show a decrease in crime after Right-to-Carry laws are passed. 

Barack Obama's opposition to Right-to-Carry isn't based on logic or reason. It's just the knee-jerk emotional response of an anti-gun politician. But his knee-jerk emotional response, if put into law, would make us all less safe and less free.

In a few months, the members of the U.S. Olympic Shooting Team will head to Beijing for the 2008 Olympics. The host country is expected to provide stiff competition for our men and women. But did you know that the Chinese shooters stand to make millions if they win five gold medals?

Chinese state-run media have reported that a company that makes an alcoholic drink called baijiu have promised the team more than ten million dollars if they capture at least five medals. In a country where the average income is just over $2000 a year, that's quite a payday. 

Our own shooters don't stand to make millions if they bring home some gold, but they'll be fierce competitors nonetheless. They're representing the home of liberty and freedom, and they don't need to be bribed with the promise of riches to do their best.

Animal rights extremists are trying to invade classrooms in Washington, D.C. 

With the passage of the "Animal Protection Amendment Act," they'd be able to go into schools and indoctrinate children with their bizarre notion of “humane education.” 

The bill would require the D.C. Department of Education provide such instruction. It would also get rid of the phrase "animal owner" in the District of Columbia. No longer would you own a dog or a cat. Now you'd be their "animal guardian."

It's easy to dismiss these attempts at indoctrination as silly. But the animal rights extremists are serious. They want to change the way you think, the words you use, and the way you live to fit into their agenda. And they won't stop until they get their way.

SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS INDIANA VOTER ID LAW WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled today 6-3 in favor of the Indiana Voter ID law which requires registered voters to present a valid form of identification when they go to the polls. Since early voting is already in progress in Indiana for their primary, this law is much needed in the state's efforts to eliminate voter fraud. In an amicus brief submitted by The American Civil Rights Union on this case, General Counsel Peter Ferrara explains that, "No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99% of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of driver's licenses, passports, or other identification." The ACRU supports the Indiana law because it protects, rather than infringes, the rights of legitimate voters, by helping to ensure that their votes are not watered down by illegal voters. The full report can be found here. ### You can read ACRU's amicus brief by going here