Search This Blog

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Lawrence Lessig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig

Lawrence Lessig
Lawrence Lessig May 2017.jpg
Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
In office
2009–2015
Preceded byDennis F. Thompson
Succeeded byDanielle Allen
Personal details
Born
Lester Lawrence Lessig III

June 3, 1961 (age 58)
Rapid City, South Dakota, U.S.
Political partyDemocratic
Spouse(s)
Bettina Neuefeind (m. 1999)
Children3
EducationUniversity of Pennsylvania (BA, BS)
Trinity College, Cambridge (MA)
Yale University (JD)
InstitutionsUniversity of Chicago
Stanford University
Harvard University
WebsiteOfficial website

Lester Lawrence Lessig III (born June 3, 1961) is an American academic, attorney, and political activist. He is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the former director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University. Lessig was a candidate for the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, but withdrew before the primaries.

Lessig is a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark, and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications. In 2001, he founded Creative Commons, a non-profit organization devoted to expanding the range of creative works available for others to build upon and to share legally. Prior to his most recent appointment at Harvard, he was a professor of law at Stanford Law School, where he founded the Center for Internet and Society, and at the University of Chicago. He is a former board member of the Free Software Foundation and Software Freedom Law Center; the Washington, D.C. lobbying groups Public Knowledge and Free Press; and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

As a political activist, Lessig has called for state-based activism to promote substantive reform of government with a Second Constitutional Convention. In May 2014, he launched a crowd-funded political action committee which he termed Mayday PAC with the purpose of electing candidates to Congress who would pass campaign finance reform. Lessig is also the co-founder of Rootstrikers, and is on the boards of MapLight and Represent.Us. He serves on the advisory boards of the Democracy Café and the Sunlight Foundation.

In August 2015, Lessig announced that he was exploring a possible candidacy for President of the United States, promising to run if his exploratory committee raised $1 million by Labor Day. After accomplishing this, on September 6, 2015, Lessig announced that he was entering the race to become a candidate for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination.[10] Lessig has described his candidacy as a referendum on campaign finance reform and electoral reform legislation. He stated that, if elected, he would serve a full term as president with his proposed reforms as his legislative priorities. He ended his campaign in November 2015, citing rule changes from the Democratic Party that precluded him from appearing in the televised debates.

Academic career

Lessig earned a B.A. degree in economics and a B.S. degree in management (Wharton School) from the University of Pennsylvania, an M.A. degree in philosophy from the University of Cambridge (Trinity) in England, and a J.D. degree from Yale Law School in 1989. After graduating from law school, he clerked for a year for Judge Richard Posner, at the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, Illinois, and another year for Justice Antonin Scalia at the Supreme Court.

Lessig started his academic career at the University of Chicago Law School, where he was professor from 1991 to 1997. As co-director of the Center for the Study of Constitutionalism in Eastern Europe there, he helped the newly-independent Republic of Georgia draft a constitution. From 1997 to 2000, he was at Harvard Law School, holding for a year the chair of Berkman Professor of Law, affiliated with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. He subsequently joined Stanford Law School, where he established the school's Center for Internet and Society.

Lessig returned to Harvard in July 2009 as professor and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics. In 2013, Lessig was appointed as the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership; his chair lecture was titled "Aaron's Laws: Law and Justice in a Digital Age."

In popular culture

Lessig was portrayed by Christopher Lloyd in "The Wake Up Call", during season 6 of The West Wing.

Political background

Lessig speaking with Harvard internet law professor Jonathan Zittrain
Lessig has been politically liberal since studying philosophy at Cambridge in the mid-1980s. By the late 1980s, two influential conservative judges, Judge Richard Posner and Justice Antonin Scalia, selected him to serve as a law clerk, choosing him for his supposed "brilliance" rather than for his ideology and effectively making him the "token liberal" on their staffs. Posner would later call him "the most distinguished law professor of his generation."

Lessig has emphasized in interviews that his philosophy experience at Cambridge radically changed his values and career path. Previously, he had held strong conservative or libertarian political views, desired a career in business, was a highly active member of Teenage Republicans, served as the youth governor for Pennsylvania through the YMCA Youth and Government program in 1978, and almost pursued a Republican political career. 

What was intended to be a year abroad at Cambridge convinced him instead to stay another two years to complete an undergraduate degree in philosophy and develop his changed political values. During this time, he also traveled in the Eastern Bloc, where he acquired a lifelong interest in Eastern European law and politics.

Lessig remains skeptical of government intervention but favors some regulation, calling himself "a constitutionalist." On one occasion, Lessig also commended the John McCain campaign for discussing fair use rights in a letter to YouTube where it took issue with YouTube for indulging overreaching copyright claims leading to the removal of various campaign videos.

Internet and computer activism

Lessig with fellow Creative Commons board member Joi Ito

"Code is law"

In computer science, "code" typically refers to the text of a computer program (the source code). In law, "code" can refer to the texts that constitute statutory law. In his 1999 book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Lessig explores the ways in which code in both senses can be instruments for social control, leading to his dictum that "Code is law." Lessig later updated his work in order to keep up with the prevailing views of the time and released the book as Code: Version 2.0 in December 2006. 

Remix culture

Lessig has been a proponent of the remix culture since the early 2000s. In his 2008 book Remix he presents this as a desirable cultural practice distinct from piracy. Lessig further articulates remix culture as intrinsic to technology and the Internet. Remix culture is therefore an amalgam of practice, creativity, "read/write" culture and the hybrid economy.

According to Lessig, the problem with the remix comes when it is at odds with stringent US copyright law. He has compared this to the failure of Prohibition, both in its ineffectiveness and in its tendency to normalize criminal behavior. Instead he proposes more lenient licensing, namely Creative Commons licenses, as a remedy to maintain "rule of law" while combating plagiarism.

Free culture

Lessig and Aaron Swartz in 2002 at the launch party for Creative Commons 
 
On March 28, 2004 he was elected to the FSF's board of directors. He proposed the concept of "free culture". He also supports free and open-source software and open spectrum. At his free culture keynote at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention 2002, a few minutes of his speech was about software patents, which he views as a rising threat to free software, open source software and innovation.
In March 2006, Lessig joined the board of advisors of the Digital Universe project. A few months later, Lessig gave a talk on the ethics of the Free Culture Movement at the 2006 Wikimania conference. In December 2006, his lecture On Free, and the Differences between Culture and Code was one of the highlights at 23C3 Who can you trust?.

Lessig claimed in 2009 that, because 70% of young people obtain digital information from illegal sources, the law should be changed.

In a foreword to the Freesouls book project, Lessig makes an argument in favor of amateur artists in the world of digital technologies: "there is a different class of amateur creators that digital technologies have ... enabled, and a different kind of creativity has emerged as a consequence."

Lessig is also a well-known critic of copyright term extensions. 

Net neutrality

Lessig and Jimmy Wales at the iCommons iSummit07 in Dubrovnik

Lessig has long been known to be a supporter of net neutrality. In 2006, he testified before the US Senate that he believed Congress should ratify Michael Powell's four Internet freedoms and add a restriction to access-tiering, i.e. he does not believe content providers should be charged different amounts. The reason is that the Internet, under the neutral end-to-end design is an invaluable platform for innovation, and the economic benefit of innovation would be threatened if large corporations could purchase faster service to the detriment of newer companies with less capital. However, Lessig has supported the idea of allowing ISPs to give consumers the option of different tiers of service at different prices. He was reported on CBC News as saying that he has always been in favour of allowing internet providers to charge differently for consumer access at different speeds. He said, "Now, no doubt, my position might be wrong. Some friends in the network neutrality movement as well as some scholars believe it is wrong—that it doesn't go far enough. But the suggestion that the position is 'recent' is baseless. If I'm wrong, I've always been wrong."

Legislative reform

Despite presenting an anti-regulatory standpoint in many fora, Lessig still sees the need for legislative enforcement of copyright. He has called for limiting copyright terms for creative professionals to five years, but believes that creative professionals' work, many of them independent, would become more easily and quickly available if bureaucratic procedure were introduced to renew trademarks for up to 75 years after this five-year term. Lessig has repeatedly taken a stance that privatization through legislation like that seen in the 1980s in the UK with British Telecommunications is not the best way to help the Internet grow. He said, "When government disappears, it's not as if paradise will take its place. When governments are gone, other interests will take their place," "My claim is that we should focus on the values of liberty. If there is not government to insist on those values, then who?" "The single unifying force should be that we govern ourselves."

Legal challenges

In March 2003, Lessig acknowledged severe disappointment with his Supreme Court defeat in the Eldred copyright-extension case, where he unsuccessfully tried to convince Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had sympathies for de-regulation, to back his "market-based" approach to intellectual property regulation.
In August 2013, Lawrence Lessig brought suit against Liberation Music PTY Ltd., after Liberation issued a takedown notice of one of Lessig's lectures on YouTube which had used the song "Lisztomania" by the band Phoenix, whom Liberation Music represents. Lessig sought damages under section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which holds parties liable for misrepresentations of infringement or removal of material. Lessig was represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Jones Day. In February 2014, the case ended with a settlement in which Liberation Music admitted wrongdoing in issuing the takedown notice, issued an apology, and paid a confidential sum in compensation.

Killswitch

In October 2014, Killswitch, a film featuring Lawrence Lessig, as well as Aaron Swartz, Tim Wu, and Edward Snowden received its World Premiere at the Woodstock Film Festival, where it won the award for Best Editing. In the film, Lessig frames the story of two young hacktivists, Swartz and Snowden, who symbolize the disruptive and dynamic nature of the Internet. The film reveals the emotional bond between Lessig and Swartz, and how it was Swartz (the mentee) that challenged Lessig (the mentor) to engage in the political activism that has led to Lessig's crusade for campaign finance reform.
In February 2015, Killswitch was invited to screen at the Capitol Visitor's Center in Washington DC by Congressman Alan Grayson. The event was held on the eve of the Federal Communications Commission's historic decision on Net Neutrality. Lessig, Congressman Grayson, and Free Press (organization) CEO Craig Aaron spoke about the importance of protecting net neutrality and the free and open Internet.
Congressman Grayson states that Killswitch is "One of the most honest accounts of the battle to control the Internet -- and access to information itself." Richard von Busack of the Metro Silicon Valley, writes of Killswitch, "Some of the most lapidary use of found footage this side of The Atomic Café". Fred Swegles of the Orange County Register, remarks, "Anyone who values unfettered access to online information is apt to be captivated by Killswitch, a gripping and fast-paced documentary." Kathy Gill of GeekWire asserts that "Killswitch is much more than a dry recitation of technical history. Director Ali Akbarzadeh, producer Jeff Horn, and writer Chris Dollar created a human centered story. A large part of that connection comes from Lessig and his relationship with Swartz."

The Electors Trust

In December 2016 Lawrence Lessig and Laurence Tribe established The Electors Trust under the aegis of EqualCitizens.US to provide pro bono legal counsel as well as a secure communications platform for those of the 538 members of the United States Electoral College who are regarding a vote of conscience against Donald Trump in the presidential election

Money in politics activism

Lessig having a discussion with former lobbyist Jack Abramoff
At the iCommons iSummit 07, Lessig announced that he would stop focusing his attention on copyright and related matters and work on political corruption instead, as the result of a transformative conversation with Aaron Swartz, a young internet prodigy whom Lessig met through his work with Creative Commons. This new work was partially facilitated through his wiki, Lessig Wiki, which he has encouraged the public to use to document cases of corruption. Lessig criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office to become lobbyists and have become beholden to special interests.
In February 2008, a Facebook group formed by law professor John Palfrey encouraged him to run for Congress from California's 12th congressional district, the seat vacated by the death of Representative Tom Lantos. Later that month, after forming an "exploratory project", he decided not to run for the vacant seat.

Rootstrikers

Despite having decided to forgo running for Congress himself, Lessig remained interested in attempting to change Congress to reduce corruption. To this end, he worked with political consultant Joe Trippi to launch a web based project called "Change Congress". In a press conference on March 20, 2008, Lessig explained that he hoped the Change Congress website would help provide technological tools voters could use to hold their representatives accountable and reduce the influence of money on politics. He is a board member of MAPLight.org, a nonprofit research group illuminating the connection between money and politics.
Change Congress later became Fix Congress First, and was finally named Rootstrikers. In November 2011, Lessig announced that Rootstrikers would join forces with Dylan Ratigan's Get Money Out campaign, under the umbrella of the United Republic organization. Rootstrikers subsequently came under the aegis of Demand Progress, an organization co-founded by Aaron Swartz.

Article V convention

Lessig speaking before Change Congress and the Sunlight Foundation
In 2010, Lessig began to organize for a national Article V convention. He co-founded Fix Congress First! with Joe Trippi. In a speech in 2011, Lessig revealed that he was disappointed with Obama's performance in office, criticizing it as a "betrayal", and he criticized the president for using "the (Hillary) Clinton playbook". Lessig has called for state governments to call for a national Article V convention, including by supporting Wolf PAC, a national organization attempting to call an Article V convention to address the problem. The convention Lessig supports would be populated by a "random proportional selection of citizens" which he suggested would work effectively. He said "politics is a rare sport where the amateur is better than the professional." He promoted this idea at a September 24–25, 2011, conference he co-chaired with the Tea Party Patriots' national coordinator, in Lessig's October 5, 2011, book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, and at the Occupy protest in Washington, DC. Reporter Dan Froomkin said the book offers a manifesto for the Occupy Wall Street protestors, focusing on the core problem of corruption in both political parties and their elections. An Article V convention does not dictate a solution, but Lessig would support a constitutional amendment that would allow legislatures to limit political contributions from non-citizens, including corporations, anonymous organizations, and foreign nationals, and he also supports public campaign financing and electoral college reform to establish the one person, one vote principle.

New Hampshire Rebellion

The New Hampshire Rebellion is a walk to raise awareness about corruption in politics. The event began in 2014 with a 185-mile march in New Hampshire. In its second year the walk expanded to include other locations in New Hampshire.
From January 11 to 24, 2014, Lessig and many others, like New York activist Jeff Kurzon, marched from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire to Nashua (a 185-mile march) to promote the idea of tackling "the systemic corruption in Washington". Lessig chose this language over the related term "campaign finance reform," commenting that "Saying we need campaign finance reform is like referring to an alcoholic as someone who has a liquid intake problem." The walk was to continue the work of NH Native Doris "Granny D" Haddock, and in honor of deceased activist Aaron Swartz. The New Hampshire Rebellion marched 16 miles from Hampton to New Castle on the New Hampshire Seacoast. The initial location was also chosen because of its important and visible role in the quadrennial "New Hampshire primaries", the traditional first primary of the presidential election.

2016 presidential candidacy

Lessig announced the launch of his long shot presidential campaign on September 6, 2015. On August 11, 2015, Lessig announced that he had launched an exploratory campaign for the purpose of exploring his prospects of winning the Democratic Party's nomination for president of the United States in the 2016 election. Lessig pledged to seek the nomination if he raised $1 million by Labor Day 2015. The announcement was widely reported in national media outlets, and was timed to coincide with a media blitz by the Lessig 2016 Campaign. Lessig was interviewed in The New York Times and Bloomberg. Campaign messages and Lessig's electoral finance reform positions were circulated widely on social media. His campaign was focused on a single issue: The Citizen Equality Act, a proposal that couples campaign finance reform with other laws aimed at curbing gerrymandering and ensuring voting access. As an expression of his commitment to the proposal, Lessig initially promised to resign once the Citizen Equality Act became law and turn the presidency over to his vice president, who would then serve out the remainder of the term as a typical American president and act on a variety of issues. In October 2015, Lessig abandoned his automatic resignation plan and adopted a full policy platform for the presidency, though he did retain the passage of the Citizen Equality Act as his primary legislative objective.
He announced the end of his campaign on November 2, 2015.

Electoral College reform

In 2017, Lessig announced a movement to challenge the winner-take-all Electoral College vote allocation in the various states, called Equal Votes. Lessig is counsel for plaintiffs in Baca v. Colorado Department of State, an electoral law case in Colorado.

Awards and honors

In 2002, Lessig received the Award for the Advancement of Free Software from the Free Software Foundation (FSF). He also received the Scientific American 50 Award for having "argued against interpretations of copyright that could stifle innovation and discourse online." Then, in 2006, Lessig was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
In 2011, Lessig was named to the Fastcase 50, "honoring the law's smartest, most courageous innovators, techies, visionaries, and leaders." Lessig was awarded honorary doctorates by the Faculty of Social Sciences at Lund University, Sweden in 2013 and by the Université catholique de Louvain in 2014. Lessig received the 2014 Webby Lifetime Achievement award for co-founding Creative Commons and defending net neutrality and the free and open software movement.

Personal life

Lessig was born in Rapid City, South Dakota, the son of Patricia, who sold real estate, and Lester L. "Jack" Lessig, an engineer. He grew up in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.
In May 2005, it was revealed that Lessig had experienced sexual abuse by the director at the American Boychoir School, which he had attended as an adolescent. Lessig reached a settlement with the school in the past, under confidential terms. He revealed his experiences in the course of representing another student victim, John Hardwicke, in court. In August 2006, he succeeded in persuading the New Jersey Supreme Court to restrict the scope of immunity radically, which had protected nonprofits that failed to prevent sexual abuse from legal liability.
Lessig is married to Bettina Neuefeind, a German-born Harvard University colleague. The two married in 1999. He and Neuefeind have three children: Willem, Teo, and Tess.

Defamation lawsuit against the New York Times

In 2019, during the criminal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, it was discovered that the MIT Media Lab, under former president Joichi Ito, had accepted secret donations from Epstein after Epstein had been convicted on criminal charges. Ito eventually resigned as president following this discovery. After making supportive comments to Ito, Lessig wrote a Medium post in September 2019 to explain his stance. In his post, Lessig acknowledged that universities should not take donations from convicted criminals like Epstein who had become wealthy through actions unrelated to their criminal convictions; however, if such donations were to be accepted, it was better to take them secretly rather than publicly connect the university to the criminal. Lessig's essay drew criticism, and about a week later, Nellie Bowles of The New York Times had an interview with Lessig in which he reiterated his stance related to such donations broadly. The article used the headline "A Harvard Professor Doubles Down: If You Take Epstein’s Money, Do It in Secret", which Lessig confirmed was based on a statement he had made to the Times. Lessig took issue with the headline overlooking his argument that MIT should not accept such donations in the first place and also criticized the first line of the article which read "It is hard to defend soliciting donations from the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard Law professor, has been trying." He subsequently accused the Times of writing clickbait with the headline crafted to defame him, and stated that the circulation of the article on social media had hurt his reputation.
In January 2020, Lessig filed a defamation lawsuit against the Times, including writer Bowles, business editor Ellen Pollock, and executive editor Dean Baquet. The Times stated they will "vigorously" defend against Lessig's claim, and believe that what they had published was accurate and had been reviewed by senior editors following Lessig's initial complaints.

Notable cases

Bibliography

Filmography


  • The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz, 2014 documentary film
  • Killswitch, 2015 documentary film

  • Second Constitutional Convention of the United States

    rom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

    The calling of a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States is a proposal made by some scholars and activists from across the political spectrum for the purpose of making substantive reforms to the United States Federal government by rewriting its Constitution.

    Background

    Since the initial 1787–88 debate over ratification of the Constitution, there have been sporadic calls for the convening of a second convention to modify and correct perceived shortcomings in the Federal system it established. Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for amending the nation's frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds majority of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds majority vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".

    In 1943, Alexander Hehmeyer, a lawyer for Chicago-based Marshall Field's department store as well as Time Inc., wrote A Time for Change (Farrar & Rinehart), in which he proposed a second Constitutional Convention to streamline the Federal Government. In the late 1960s, Senator Everett Dirksen called for a constitutional convention by appealing to state legislatures to summon one.

    Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by proponents of particular issues to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Article V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) permit the states to include factors other than equality of population in drawing state legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under most circumstances. The campaign for a popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with "prodding" the Senate to join the House of Representatives in proposing what became the Seventeenth Amendment to the states in 1912, while the latter two campaigns came very close to meeting the two-thirds threshold in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. In 2013, the number of states calling for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment was believed to be either 33 or 20, and the tally may depend on rulings about whether past state applications have been rescinded. In 1983, Missouri applied; in 2013, Ohio applied.

    In January 1975, Congressman Jerry Pettis, Republican from California, introduced a concurrent resolution (94th H.Con.Res.28) calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. In it, Pettis proposed that each state would be entitled to send as many delegates to the convention as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress and that such delegates would be selected in the manner designated by the legislature of each state. Being a concurrent rather than a joint resolution, the legislation would not have—had it been adopted by both the House and Senate—triggered a national Article V convention. Rather, it would have conveyed the sentiments of Congress that one be called. On August 5, 1977, Representative Norman F. Lent, Republican from New York, introduced a similar concurrent resolution (95th H.Con.Res.340). Both were referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further action on either was taken. 

    A report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2011 described the movement for a convention as gaining "traction" in public debate, and wrote that "concern over a seemingly dysfunctional climate in Washington and issues ranging from the national debt to the overwhelming influence of money in politics have spawned calls for fundamental change in the document that guides the nation's government." For several years, state lawmakers approved no Article V Convention calls at all, and even went so far as to adopt resolutions rescinding their prior such calls. However, in 2011, legislators in Alabama, Louisiana, and North Dakota (in two instances) approved resolutions applying for an Article V Convention. All three of these states had adopted rescissions in 1988, 1990, and 2001, respectively, but then reversed course in 2011. The same was true in 2012 with New Hampshire lawmakers who had adopted a resolution to rescind previous convention applications as recently as 2010.

    Columnist William Safire
     
    A report by analyst David Gergen on CNN suggested that despite serious differences between left-leaning Occupy movements and the right-leaning Tea Party movements, there was considerable agreement on both sides that money plays "far too large a role in politics." Scholars such as Richard Labunski, Sanford Levinson, Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Reynolds, Larry Sabato, newspaper columnist William Safire, and activists such as John Booth of the Dallas movement RestoringFreedom.org have called for constitutional changes that would curb the dominant role of money in politics. Scholar Stein Ringen in his book Nation of Devils suggested that only a "total overhaul" of the constitution could fix the "years of accumulated damage and dysfunction," according to a report in the Economist in 2013. French journalist Jean-Philippe Immarigeon suggested in Harper's Magazine that the "nearly 230-year-old constitution stretched past the limits of its usefulness". A report in USA Today suggested that 17 of 34 states have petitioned Congress for a convention to deal with the issue of a balanced budget amendment. A report on CNN suggested that 30 state legislatures are considering resolutions either calling for a constitutional convention or else proposing changes to the Constitution. David O. Stewart suggested that possible topics for Constitutional amendments might include the elimination of the electoral college and switching to direct election of the president, a ban on procedures in the United States Senate which utilize a supermajority vote requirement as a means to prevent minorities or powerful Senators from blocking legislation, term limits for Senators and Representatives, and a balanced budget amendment.

    Questions

    Numerous questions surround the issue of how such an unprecedented convention might be conducted. There is no consensus on how such a convention may be organized, led, or who may be selected to be in such a body.
    Because there has not been a constitutional convention since 1787, efforts have been clouded by unresolved legal questions: Do the calls for a convention have to happen at the same time? Can a convention be limited to just one topic? What if Congress simply refuses to call a convention? Scholars are split on all those issues.
    — report in the Indianapolis Star, 2011

    Precedent

    While there is no precedent for such a convention, scholars have noted that the original 1787 Convention, itself, was the first precedent, as it had only been authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to draw up an entirely new frame of government. According to The New York Times, the action by the Founding Fathers set up a precedent that could be used today. But, since 1787, there has not been an overall constitutional convention. Instead, each time the amendment process has been initiated since 1789, it has been initiated by Congress. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated there. The convention option, which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) believed would serve as a barrier "against the encroachments of the national authority", has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states. 

    Scope of a possible convention

    There have been calls for a second convention based on a single issue such as the Balanced Budget Amendment. According to one count, 17 of 34 states have petitioned Congress for a "convention to propose a balanced budget amendment." But Congress has been reluctant to "impose limitations on its spending and borrowing and taxing powers", according to anti-tax activist David Biddulph. Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit" and that calls for a convention to focus on only one issue "may not be valid", according to this view. According to Paulsen's count, 33 states have called for a general convention, although some of these calls have been pending "since the 19th century."

    According to a New York Times report, different groups would be nervous that a convention summoned to address only one issue might propose a wholesale revision of the entire Constitution, possibly limiting "provisions they hold dear." Such groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, the John Birch Society, the National Organization for Women, the Gun Owners Clubs of America and conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly. Accordingly, they are opposed to the idea of a second convention. Lawrence Lessig countered that the requirement of having 38 states ratify any proposed revision—three-quarters of all state legislatures—meant that any extreme proposals would be blocked, since either 13 red or 13 blue states could block such a measure.

    Language

    Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe noted that the language in the current Constitution about how to implement a second one is "dangerously vague", and that there is a possibility that the same interests that have corrupted Washington's politics may have a hand in efforts to rewrite it. Politicians and scholars who are reluctant to have a second constitutional convention may insist that all 34 state petitions to Congress must have an identical wording or otherwise the petitions would be considered invalid. It shall also be necessary for one state to initially create a resolution and subsequently pass; and then this same resolution, which passes, must circulate among the several states and be approved by the necessary two thirds before a convention would be held. In other words, one document would be drawn up and passed by the states that would state the rules governing such a convention. The Founding Fathers allowed for such flexibility within the U.S. Constitution.

    Particular views

    Lawrence Lessig

    Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has argued that a movement to urge state legislatures to call for a constitutional Convention was the best possibility to achieve substantive reform:
    But somebody at the convention said that "what if Congress is the problem—what do we do then?" So they set up an alternative path ... that states can call on Congress to call a Convention. The convention, then, proposes the amendments, and those amendments have to pass by three fourths of the states. So, either way, thirty eight states have to ratify an amendment, but the sources of those amendments are different. One is inside, one is outside.
    — Lawrence Lessig, 2011
    Lessig argued that the ordinary means of politics were not feasible to solve the problem affecting the United States government because the incentives corrupting politicians are so powerful. Lessig believes a convention is needed in view of Supreme Court decisions to eliminate most limits on campaign contributions. He quoted congressperson Jim Cooper from Tennessee who remarked that Congress had become a "Farm League for K Street" in the sense that congresspersons were focused on lucrative careers as lobbyists after serving in the Congress, and not on serving the public interest. He proposed that such a convention be populated by a random drawing of citizens' names as a way to keep special interests out of the process.

    Sanford Levinson

    Constitutional scholar and University of Texas Law School professor Sanford Levinson wrote Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong and called for a "wholesale revision of our nation's founding document." Levinson wrote:
    We ought to think about it almost literally every day, and then ask, 'Well, to what extent is government organized to realize the noble visions of the preamble?' That the preamble begins, 'We the people.' It's a notion of a people that can engage in self-determination.
    — Sanford Levinson, 2006
    Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, in a keynote speech at Harvard Law School, said the movement for a new convention was a reflection of having in many ways "the worst political class in our country's history."

    Political scientist Larry Sabato believes a second convention is necessary since "piecemeal amendments" have not been working. Sabato argued that America needs a "grand meeting of clever and high-minded people to draw up a new, improved constitution better suited to the 21st century."

    Author Scott Turow sees risks with a possible convention but believes it may be the only possible way to undo how campaign money has undermined the "one-man one-vote" premise.

    Few new constitutions are modeled along the lines of the U.S. one, according to a study by David Law of Washington University. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg views the United States Constitution as more of a relic of the 18th century rather than as a model for new constitutions, and she suggested in 2014 that a nation seeking a new constitution might find a better model by examining the Constitution of South Africa (1997), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950):
    I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.
    — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2012

    Tuesday, January 21, 2020

    Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times an individual is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.

    Prior to the ratification of the amendment, the president had not been subject to term limits, but George Washington had established a two-term tradition that many other presidents had followed. In the 1940 presidential election and the 1944 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to win a third term and then later a fourth term, giving rise to concerns about the potential issues involved with a president serving an unlimited number of terms. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states (as neither Alaska nor Hawaii had been admitted as states), and its provisions came into force on that date.

    The amendment prohibits any individual who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, an individual who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting greater than two years is also prohibited from winning election as president more than once. Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it only applies to presidential elections.

    Text

    Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
    Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

    Background

    Notwithstanding that the Twenty-second Amendment was clearly a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to an unprecedented four terms as president, the notion of presidential term limits has long been debated in American politics. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively (alongside broader questions, such as who would elect the president, and the president's role). Many—including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents, while others favored fixed terms appointments. Virginia's George Mason denounced the life-tenure proposal as tantamount to establishment of an elective monarchy. An early draft of the United States Constitution provided that the President was restricted to a single seven-year term. Ultimately, the Framers approved four-year terms with no restriction on the amount of time a person could serve as president.

    Though dismissed by the Constitutional Convention, the concept of term limits for U.S. presidents took hold during the presidencies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As his second term entered its final year in 1796, George Washington was exhausted from years of public service, and his health had begun to decline. He was also bothered by the unrelenting attacks from his political opponents, which had escalated after the signing of the Jay Treaty, and believed that he had accomplished his major goals as president. For these reasons, he decided not to stand for reelection to a third term, a decision he announced to the nation through a Farewell Address in September 1796. Eleven years later, as Thomas Jefferson neared the half-way point of his second term, he wrote,
    If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.
    Since Washington made his historic announcement, numerous academics and public figures have looked at his decision to retire after two terms, and have, according to political scientist Bruce Peabody, "argued he had established a two-term tradition that served as a vital check against any one person, or the presidency as a whole, accumulating too much power". Numerous amendments aimed toward changing informal precedent into constitutional law were proposed in Congress during the early to mid-19th century, but none passed. Three of the next four presidents after Jefferson—James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson—served two terms, and each one adhered to the two-term principle; Martin Van Buren was the only president between Jackson and Abraham Lincoln to be nominated for a second term, although he lost the 1840 election, and so only served one term. Before the Civil War the seceding States drafted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which in most respects was similar to the United States Constitution, but one change was limiting the President to a single six-year term.

    Cartoon showing Ulysses S. Grant handing a sword to James Garfield, who is holding a rolled-up paper.
    Ulysses S. Grant is shown surrendering to James A. Garfield after losing the 1880 Republican presidential nomination to him, in this satirical Puck cartoon.
     
    In spite of the strong two-term tradition, a few presidents prior to Franklin Roosevelt did attempt to secure a third term. Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876. Interest in a third term for Grant evaporated however, in the light of negative public opinion and opposition from members of Congress, and Grant left the presidency in 1877, after two terms. Even so, as the 1880 election approached, he sought nomination for a (non-consecutive) third term at the 1880 Republican National Convention, but narrowly lost to James Garfield, who would go on to win the 1880 election.

    Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on September 14, 1901, following William McKinley's assassination (194 days into his second term), and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1904. While he declined to seek a third (second full) term in 1908, Roosevelt did seek one four years later, in the election of 1912, where he lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself, despite his ill health following a serious stroke, aspired to a third term. Many of Wilson's advisers tried to convince him that his health precluded another campaign, but Wilson nonetheless asked that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1920 Democratic National Convention. Democratic Party leaders were unwilling to support Wilson, however, and the nomination eventually went to James M. Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding. Wilson again contemplated running for a (nonconsecutive) third term in 1924, devising a strategy for his comeback, but again lacked any support; he died in February of that year.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to four terms, was president from 1933 until his death in 1945.
     
    Franklin D. Roosevelt spent the months leading up to the 1940 Democratic National Convention refusing to state whether he would seek a third term. His Vice President, John Nance Garner, along with Postmaster General James Farley, announced their candidacies for the Democratic nomination. When the convention came, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention, saying he would run only if drafted, saying delegates were free to vote for whomever they pleased. This message was interpreted to mean he was willing to be drafted, and he subsequently was renominated on the convention's first ballot. Later, during the 1940 presidential election, Roosevelt won a decisive victory over Republican Wendell Willkie, becoming the first, and to date only, person to exceed eight years in office. Roosevelt's decision to seek a third term dominated the election campaign. Willkie ran against the open-ended presidential tenure, while Democrats cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.

    Four years later, Roosevelt faced Republican Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 election. Near the end of the campaign, Thomas Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years (a direct reference to the president's tenure in office four years hence), is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." He also discreetly raised the issue of the president's age. Roosevelt, however, was able to exude enough energy and charisma to retain the confidence of the American public, who reelected him to a fourth term.

    While he effectively quelled rumors of his poor health during the campaign, Roosevelt's health was in reality deteriorating. On April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died. He was succeeded by Vice President Harry Truman. In the midterm elections 18 months later, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate. As many of them had campaigned on the issue of presidential tenure, declaring their support for a constitutional amendment that would limit how long a person could serve as president, the issue was given top priority in the 80th Congress when it convened in January 1947.

    Proposal and ratification


    Proposal in Congress

    The House of Representatives took quick action, approving a proposed constitutional amendment (House Joint Resolution 27) setting a limit of two four-year terms for future presidents. Introduced by Earl C. Michener, the measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats, on February 6, 1947. Meanwhile, the Senate developed its own proposed amendment, which initially differed from the House proposal by requiring that the amendment be submitted to state ratifying conventions for ratification, rather than to the state legislatures, and by prohibiting any person who had served more than 365 days in each of two terms from further presidential service. Both these provisions were removed when the full Senate took up the bill, but a new provision was, however, added. Put forward by Robert A. Taft, it clarified procedures governing the number of times a vice president who succeeded to the presidency might be elected to office. The amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor, on March 12.

    Several days later, the House agreed to the Senate's revisions, and on March 24, 1947, the constitutional amendment imposing term limitations on future Presidents was submitted to the states for ratification. The ratification process for the 22nd Amendment was completed on February 27, 1951, 3 years, 343 days after it was sent to the states.

    Ratification by the states

    A map of how the states voted on the Twenty-second Amendment
     
    The Twenty-Second Amendment in the National Archives
     
    Once submitted to the states, the 22nd Amendment was ratified by:
    1. Maine (March 31, 1947)
    2. Michigan (March 31, 1947)
    3. Iowa (April 1, 1947)
    4. Kansas (April 1, 1947)
    5. New Hampshire (April 1, 1947)
    6. Delaware (April 2, 1947)
    7. Illinois (April 3, 1947)
    8. Oregon (April 3, 1947)
    9. Colorado (April 12, 1947)
    10. California (April 15, 1947)
    11. New Jersey (April 15, 1947)
    12. Vermont (April 15, 1947)
    13. Ohio (April 16, 1947)
    14. Wisconsin (April 16, 1947)
    15. Pennsylvania (April 29, 1947)
    16. Connecticut (May 21, 1947)
    17. Missouri (May 22, 1947)
    18. Nebraska (May 23, 1947)
    19. Virginia (January 28, 1948)
    20. Mississippi (February 12, 1948)
    21. New York (March 9, 1948)
    22. South Dakota (January 21, 1949)
    23. North Dakota (February 25, 1949)
    24. Louisiana (May 17, 1950)
    25. Montana (January 25, 1951)
    26. Indiana (January 29, 1951)
    27. Idaho (January 30, 1951)
    28. New Mexico (February 12, 1951)
    29. Wyoming (February 12, 1951)
    30. Arkansas (February 15, 1951)
    31. Georgia (February 17, 1951)
    32. Tennessee (February 20, 1951)
    33. Texas (February 22, 1951)
    34. Utah (February 26, 1951)
    35. Nevada (February 26, 1951)
    36. Minnesota (February 27, 1951)
      Ratification was completed when the Minnesota Legislature ratified the amendment. On March 1, 1951, the Administrator of General Services, Jess Larson, issued a certificate proclaiming the 22nd Amendment duly ratified and part of the Constitution. The amendment was subsequently ratified by:
    37. North Carolina (February 28, 1951)
    38. South Carolina (March 13, 1951)
    39. Maryland (March 14, 1951)
    40. Florida (April 16, 1951)
    41. Alabama (May 4, 1951)
    Conversely, two states—Oklahoma and Massachusetts—rejected the amendment, while five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action.

    Affected individuals

    The 22nd Amendment's two-term limit did not apply (due to the grandfather clause in Section 1) to Harry S. Truman, because he was the incumbent president at the time it was proposed by Congress. Truman, who had served nearly all of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term and who was elected to a full term in 1948, was thus eligible to seek re-election in 1952. However, with his job approval rating floundering at around 27%, and after a poor performance in the 1952 New Hampshire primary, Truman chose not to seek his party's nomination. He theoretically also would have been eligible in later elections.

    Since coming into force in 1951, the amendment has applied to six presidents who have been elected twice: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama

    It could have impacted two who entered office intra-term due to their predecessor's death or resignation: Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford. Johnson became president in November 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, served out the final 1 year and 59 days of Kennedy's term, and was elected to a full four-year term in 1964. Four years later, he briefly ran for a second full term, but withdrew from the race during the party primaries. Had Johnson served a second full term – through January 20, 1973 – the total length of his presidency would have been 9 years and 59 days; as it happened, Johnson died two days after this date. Gerald Ford, who became president in August 1974 following the resignation of Richard Nixon, served the final 2 years and 164 days of Nixon's term, and attempted to win a full four-year term in 1976, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. Johnson was eligible to be elected to two full terms in his own right, as he had served less than two years of Kennedy's unexpired term, whereas Ford was eligible to be elected to only one full term, as he had served more than two years of Nixon's unexpired term.

    Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment

    As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former-president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).

    Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession. Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).

    The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. In 1980, former president Gerald Ford was mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, and there were some negotiations between the two camps, but nothing ever came of the idea. During Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, she jokingly said that she had considered naming her husband Bill Clinton as her vice presidential running mate, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional. Most likely, the constitutional question raised will remain unanswered unless the situation actually occurs.

    Attempts at repeal

    Over the years, several presidents have voiced their antipathy toward the amendment. After leaving office, Harry Truman variously described it as: "bad", "stupid", and "one of the worst that has been put into the Constitution, except for the Prohibition Amendment". In January 1989, during an interview with Tom Brokaw a few days prior to leaving office, Ronald Reagan stated his intention to push for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, calling it "an infringement on the democratic rights of the people." In a November 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, out-going President Bill Clinton suggested that, given longer life expectancy, perhaps the 22nd Amendment should be altered so as to limit presidents to two consecutive terms. On multiple occasions since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has questioned presidential term limits and in public remarks has jokingly talked about violating the 22nd Amendment. For instance, during an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he said that he would remain president "at least for 10 or 14 years."
    The first efforts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment were undertaken in 1956, only five years after the amendment's ratification. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the ensuing half-century (through 2008) 54 joint resolutions seeking to repeal the two-term presidential election limit were introduced (primarily in the House); none were given serious consideration. Between 1997 and 2013, José E. Serrano (D-NY) introduced nine resolutions (one per Congress, all unsuccessful) to repeal the amendment. Repeal has also been supported by senior congressmen such as Barney Frank and David Dreier and Senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid.

    Philosophy of sex

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Philosophy of sex is an aspect of applied philosophy involved with the study of sex and love. It includes both ethics of phenomena such as prostitution, rape, sexual harassment, sexual identity, the age of consent, homosexuality, and conceptual analysis of concepts such as "what is sex?" It also includes questions of sexuality and sexual identity and the ontological status of gender. Leading contemporary philosophers of sex include Alan Soble and Judith Butler.

    Contemporary philosophy of sex is sometimes informed by Western feminism. Issues raised by feminists regarding gender differences, sexual politics, and the nature of sexual identity are important questions in the philosophy of sex.
    • What is the function of sex?
    • What is romantic love?
    • Is there an essential characteristic that makes an act sexual?
    • Are some sexual acts good and others bad? According to what criteria? Alternatively, can consensual sexual acts be immoral, or are they outside the realm of ethics?
    • What is the relationship between sex and biological reproduction? Can one exist without the other?
    • Are sexual identities rooted in some fundamental ontological difference (such as biology)?
    • Is sexuality a function of gender or biological sex?
     
     

    History of the philosophy of sex

    Throughout much of the history of Western philosophy, questions of sex and sexuality have been considered only within the general subject of ethics. There have, however, been deviations from this pattern out of which emerge a tradition of speaking of sexual issues in their own right. 

    The Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love is a professional group within the membership of the American Philosophical Association.

    Sexual desire

    Moral evaluations of sexual activity are determined by judgments on the nature of the sexual impulse. In this light, philosophies fall into two camps:

    A negative understanding of sexuality, such as from Immanuel Kant, believes that sexuality undermines values, and challenges our moral treatment of other persons. Sex, says Kant, "makes of the loved person an Object of appetite". In this understanding, sex is often advised only for the purpose of procreation. Sometimes sexual celibacy is considered to lead to the best, or most moral life.

    A positive understanding of sexuality – such as from Russell Vannoy, Irving Singer – sees sexual activity as pleasing the self and the other at the same time. 

    Putative perversions

    Thomas Nagel proposes that only sexual interactions with mutual sexual arousal are natural to human sexuality. Perverted sexual encounters or events would be those in which this reciprocal arousal is absent, and in which a person remains fully a subject of the sexual experience or fully an object.

    Consent

    Space travel in science fiction

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_travel_in_science_fiction Rock...