Wednesday round-up
on Sep 18, 2013 at 8:37 am
I covered Justice Scalia’s speech commemorating Constitution Day in yesterday’s round-up. At Crime and Consequences, Kent Scheidegger responds to Elizabeth Wydra’s post on the speech, in which she contends that the Justice “left out the history of the Articles of Confederation and our Founders’ desire to remedy the Articles’ failings by creating an appropriately strong federal government”; Scheidegger counters that “[n]othing in the Articles of Confederation background that Wydra lays out contradicts the view of originalists that the Constitution must be enforced as originally understood unless and until amended via Article V. That includes the proposition that the powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.”
At Mother Jones, Dana Liebelson discusses United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California – in which the Court has been asked to consider the constitutionality of a warrantless search of an arrestee’s cellphone – along with “everything you need to know about these searches, and whether the Supreme Court might stop them.”
At Wired, David Kravets reports on Jeffries v. United States, in which an Iraq war veteran has asked the Court to determine when the government can prosecute a speaker for a threat made online. The Justices are scheduled to consider the petition at their September 30 Conference.
As part of ACSblog’s Constitution Day symposium, William Marshall discusses competing visions of judicial activism and argues, citing an ACS issue brief, that “the myth that conservatives follow the Law while liberals seek only results has it exactly backwards.”
[Disclosure: Kevin Russell of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Riley. However, the author of this post is not affiliated with the law firm.]
