The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The President of the United States effectively has one formal legislative power—he can sign or veto any bill passed by Congress. This power fits within the general scheme of the separation of powers, where the President can check Congress’ legislative actions. Of course, as time has passed, the President has gained more powers that resemble lawmaking, from heading administrative agencies that introduce regulations to issuing executive orders. Another practice that arguably is legislative is the President’s ability to attach signing statements to bills he has approved. These signing statements are written pronouncements that communicate the President’s thoughts on a bill, ranging from commenting on a bill’s effectiveness to pointing out perceived constitutional deficiencies and explaining how he will interpret and execute the law. This raises questions on whether the President has overstepped his powers and whether signing statements are unconstitutional.
0 Comments
 By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. After the tragedy in Parkland, Florida, there has been a renewed national debate on gun control, and one that thankfully seems to be different than those in the past. Media attention has been sustained, and students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas and elsewhere have effectively organized walk-outs and marches. Many proposals that have arisen through this debate are worth considering, from an assault weapons ban to limits on the size of magazines. However, although I support a broad range of gun control provisions, one proposal being seriously discussed would run into immediate constitutional and legal issues—the proposal to raise the gun-purchasing age to 21. According to current federal law, it is illegal for federally licensed gun dealers to sell a handgun to someone under 21 years of age. [1] However, while handguns can be sold to 18-year-olds in private sales and gun shows, long guns such as rifles and shotguns can be sold to 18-year-olds by both licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers. [1] Clearly, there are still a wide variety of ways an 18-year-old can legally buy a gun, which has raised concerns among gun-control advocates and even traditional gun-rights advocates—Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott has recently signed a bill that, among other things, raises the minimum age for purchasing rifles to 21, and politicians such as President Donald Trump, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Kansas Senator Pat Roberts have signalled their support for such a proposal. [2][3] After all, the shooter in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School was 19-years-old and had used his own legally purchased semi-automatic rifle to kill. [3] Many others have pointed out current law allows a person who cannot legally buy alcohol to be able to walk into a store and purchase an AR-15 with little difficulty. [4] Clearly, the argument goes, the law needs to be fixed to resolve this absurdity.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. One of the long-forgotten clauses of the United States Constitution is the Treason Clause, among the few crimes defined in the document. With many Americans today engaging in attacks against the United States through terrorism or cyber-warfare, two of the biggest threats the country faces, an interesting question can be raised: can those people be charged and convicted with treason?  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The controversy over state and local governments declaring themselves to be so-called “sanctuaries” for undocumented immigrants may have been more salient months ago, but it hasn’t died down. In mid-January, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen announced she would look for ways to file criminal charges against sanctuary cities for refusing to cooperate with federal deportation efforts. [1] There have been many other efforts by the federal government and Republicans to curb efforts by mainly Democratic states and cities to shield undocumented immigrants from federal enforcement agencies, all based on accusations of illegal and unconstitutional efforts by state and local governments to obstruct and nullify federal immigration law. However, unlike many other partisan issues these days, the law seems clear cut here: cities and states are perfectly entitled to set themselves up as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. This claim may seem counterintuitive on its face—how can states and local governments pick and choose whether to enforce federal law? After all, our Constitution clearly states that federal law shall be supreme over state and local law; some have even asserted that sanctuary cities harken back to a time when states and cities would defy the federal government during the Jim Crow era. [2] In addition, there are specific federal statutes that require state and local officials to aid federal immigration authorities; Section 1373(a) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code says state and local governments can’t ban officials from sending or receiving information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of people to the Department of Homeland Security. [3] President Trump has chosen to enforce this particular statute through a withdrawal of federal grants and funds for violators, as per a January 25, 2017 executive order. [4]  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. After President Trump announced he was planning to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord, several states announced that they would defy the president and adhere to the accord themselves. In particular, California has tried to step up and fill the void the United States has left behind, meeting and striking climate deals with foreign governments like China. [1] In addition, a New York Times report revealed that governors are increasingly conducting the diplomacy they believe the Trump administration is neglecting: they are going abroad and meeting with foreign leaders, assuring them of America’s stance on climate change and trade. [2] All of these developments raise an interesting question: can a state conduct what appears to be foreign policy without the federal government? The Constitution does not explicitly grant the power to conduct foreign policy in general to any particular institution, but it gives to the President power to negotiate treaties, to lead the armed forces, and to receive foreign ambassadors. [3] It also grants Congress the power to approve of treaties, the military budget, and the President’s nominee for the Secretary of State, as well as the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to declare war. [3] All this seems to imply that the federal government has the exclusive right to conduct foreign policy, a view that the Supreme Court has long held. In 1840, the Court held in Holmes v. Jennison that “it was one of the main objects of the constitution to make us, so far as regarded our foreign relations, one people, and one nation; and to cut off all communications between foreign governments, and the several state authorities.” [4]  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The administration of President Donald Trump has been embroiled by scandal, and as various former and current officials testified before Congress, the issue of executive privilege has been raised from the front pages to the congressional committee rooms. Questions of whether President Trump might invoke executive privilege at a later stage are also being asked. But what exactly is executive privilege, what is its scope, and how can it be used? Executive privilege is the presidential claim to a “right to preserve the confidentiality of information and documents in the face of legislative” and judicial demands. [1] Although such a privilege is not an explicit right the Constitution grants to the executive branch, its justification is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers. The argument is that if the internal communications, deliberations, and actions of one branch can be forced into public scrutiny by the other two co-equal branches of government, it will impair the supremacy of the executive branch over its Constitutional activities. This is because the president benefits from the executive branch’s advice and exchange of ideas , and forcing it all into public scrutiny can harm the integrity of these discussions. Additionally, it undermines the ability of the executive branch to hold sensitive military, diplomatic, and national security information. [2]  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. On November 8th, 2016, in a referendum overshadowed by the presidential election, voters in the District of Columbia voted overwhelmingly in support of statehood for the District. The topic of D.C. statehood has been debated for decades, with strong arguments on both sides. However, one important thing that must be considered is the potential constitutional problems that might arise if the District does move towards statehood; after all, the District of Columbia has always been a unique situation in the nation’s history, and has been specially created and treated by the Constitution and the laws of our country. The District of Columbia was created in 1790 as the seat of government of the United States, carved from land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. A special federal district was needed to prevent the federal government from being beholden to any particular state government for its everyday needs. [1] As such, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the district. [2] As the population of Washington grew, calls for voting rights led to the passage of the Twenty-Third Amendment, which specifically gave D.C. residents the right to vote in presidential elections. It is in this context that proponents of D.C. statehood will have to navigate in order to achieve their goals.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. In a recent court case in Germany, a Syrian refugee attempted to seek an injunction against Facebook after fake news articles that were shared on the site used a selfie he took with German chancellor Angela Merkel to link him with terrorist attacks across Europe. [1] The court ruled in favor of Facebook, reasoning that because Facebook had not manipulated the content, they were therefore not legally responsible for the distribution. But this is surely just the first of many more legal fights that will take place across the world as the role of fake news grows in our society, and as we begin to ask: who should be responsible for the spread of this misinformation? It is commonly accepted that fake news articles that were predominantly shared across social media platforms like Facebook fueled vast amounts of misinformation among the electorate during the 2016 U.S. election. An infamous example is the so-called Pizzagate conspiracy, which accused Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton of being involved in a child sex ring based in the evidently non-existent basement of a pizza parlor. [2] Like many other fake news articles, this one made potentially libelous accusations about a public figure and added to the vast amounts of misinformation that could potentially have had influence on the voting population. A democratic society cannot function properly if voters are seriously misinformed, and libel is one of the few types of speech that the First Amendment does not protect. But since many fake news articles are written anonymously behind computer screens across the world, it appears to some people that the only way to solve this problem is by holding the online platforms that spread the misinformation legally accountable.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. It is an indisputable fact that women face more barriers than men in the world. As a man, I cannot possibly understand the full extent of this injustice; as a human being, I can empathize and support efforts to limit and hopefully eradicate it from society. Perhaps the most ambitious effort intended to achieve this aim in the United States has been the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment designed to guarantee equal rights for women. By the ratification deadline, 35 states had ratified it, just three short of the required number, meaning the Amendment never became part of the Constitution. [1] But if three more states had ratified it and it was the law of the land, what would America be like? The key part of the Amendment reads as follows: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” [1] It would’ve been only the second time the Constitution ever explicitly mentions sex or gender; the first was the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women’s suffrage. [2] It would’ve also been the first guarantee in the Constitution that men and women are truly equal before the eyes of the law.  By Justin Yang
Justin Yang is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Politics, Philosophy, and Economics. The rule of law is absolutely fundamental in liberal democracies to enable the democratic institutions to work well. It is the rule of law that ensures that peaceful transitions of power will occur and those in power cannot prevent their political adversaries from taking offices they are rightfully elected to. But if the situation allows for it, the law can also be exploited and weaponized, twisted to make anti-democratic or even dictatorial actions legal. These situations have popped up many times in history, and the most recent case is happening right now in Hong Kong. In an election on September of this year, six localist candidates were elected to the city’s legislature, the Legislative Council. These candidates advocate for much greater autonomy for Hong Kong, or even independence from China. In an admittedly immature act of protest, some of these new legislators purposefully stated the oath of office that pledges allegiance to China incorrectly. Thinking of it as an internal matter, the President of the Legislative Council invalidated their oaths but allowed them to retake it at a later date and take their seats as democratically elected legislators. However, the executive branch, the head of which is chosen by a committee of Beijing loyalists, took the unprecedented and blatantly political step to sue the legislative branch. [1] |
|
|