Category Archives: constitution

why do these words sound so nasty?

Posted on Wednesday, 2003 July 09 by Anton

I don’t agree on much with my old schoolmate Eric Rasmusen, a newcomer to the weblog craze; but we’re similarly disturbed over Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia . . . probably would vote against the Texas sodomy law as a citizen. But as … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution | Leave a comment

truth in the courtroom, please

Posted on Tuesday, 2003 June 03 by Anton

Mary Lou Seymour writes, apparently parroting the Fully Informed Jury Association: This Wednesday, June 4, 2003, Ed Rosenthal is scheduled to be sentenced for growing medical marijuana in California. As you may recall, back in February after Rosenthal was convicted, … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution, drugwar | Leave a comment

corpus inhabebile?

Posted on Monday, 2003 April 07 by Anton

What’s a Latin term for someone to whom habeas corpus does not apply? Anyway, MoorishGirl reports that an Intel engineer, naturalized 14 years ago, is among the ‘disappeared’. Update: Aug 6: Mike pled guilty today to one count of his … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution, security theater | Leave a comment

the last veto

Posted on Tuesday, 2003 February 25 by Anton

Hey hey! Today’s headline in The Daily Review (Hayward, California) is: Jurors find merit in nullification. As I said before, nullification is not the whole story in the case that prompted this; but it’s good to see it in the … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution | Leave a comment

no favors

Posted on Friday, 2003 February 21 by Anton

Demons in a death penalty case – Ellen Goodman writes in the Boston Globe about the peculiar practice of forcibly medicating mad prisoners. I am particularly struck by the ruling in Ford v. Wainwright that it is “cruel and unusual … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution | Leave a comment

new Ninth Circuit gun case

Posted on Thursday, 2003 February 20 by Anton

Though Nordyke v King follows the Ninth Circuit’s gross misreading of US v Miller (1939) in its Hickman ruling, it’s interesting because Gould’s concurrent opinion says: I join the court’s opinion, and write to elaborate that Hickman v. Block, 81 … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution, weapons | Leave a comment

the right of defense

Posted on Thursday, 2003 February 06 by Anton

It’s odd to see US v Rosenthal spun (e.g. here) as a demonstration of the need for juries to be advised of their power to nullify, after some of the jurors said they would have nullified had they known all … Continue reading →

Posted in constitution, drugwar | Leave a comment