Dan, Suzy, Glad to see you guys putting law/politics front-and-center 
on the ALSB agenda.  Soon, it looks like we'll be entering another 
episode in statescraft/partisan bickering.  After Obama took the 
Republican House to school last week, I expect they'll be very 
cautious sparing with him in a White House conference on 
healthcare.   Since we know the system is broken, that millions are 
not covered, and that medical costs are skyrocketing, it's about time 
we heard of a Republican alternative.

Congrats Carol and Cindy!

==========================
>This is in response to Susan's post.
>
>One wonders whether many members of the modern (by which I mean 
>post-1932) Republican party have ever been truly committed to due 
>process (at least for anyone besides themselves).  I don't think 
>Sen. Joe McCarthy or Congressman, then Senator, then Vice President 
>and then President Richard Nixon were big supporters of due process, 
>for example.  Nor do I think President George W Bush or VP Dick 
>Cheney had much respect for that concept (for anyone besides 
>themselves, anyway -- they refused, for example, to testify under 
>oath before the 9/11 Commission, which certainly suggests to me that 
>they were not committed to full, fair and truthful testimony and 
>feared criminal prosecution for telling falsehoods).
>
>A major feature of Richard Nixon's campaign for President in 1968 
>was "Law and Order" (those hippies and drug users and antiwar 
>protesters and civil rights protesters needed to be brought into 
>line!!), and people on the right often talked about liberal judges 
>who "coddled criminals."  Then Watergate happened in June 1972 (an 
>old common-law crime, burglary, committed in this case for partisan 
>political purposes) and it turned out that Nixon himself and many 
>people in his administration were criminals (Nixon was an 
>un-indicted co-conspirator) and very many people in Nixon's campaign 
>and administration went to prison.  Without President Gerald Ford's 
>pardon, Nixon himself may well have been sentenced to prison.  And 
>prison for Nixon may have been a very good thing for the 
>Constitution, demonstrating to the nation and the world that in 
>America, no one is above the law, not even our Presidents.
>
>Nixon complained about "activist judges" and promised to appoint 
>"strict constructionist" judges, meaning presumably judges who would 
>not write or sign on to opinions like Gideon v Wainwright or Miranda 
>v Arizona and other such "liberal" opinions issued by the Warren 
>Court, which were designed to protect the rights of criminal 
>defendants to due process, a fair trial, and the right against 
>compelled self-incrimination.
>
>Dan
>
>Daniel Andrew Henschel Levin, JD, MBA
>Associate Professor of Business Law
>Minnesota State University, Mankato
>College of Business
>Mankato, MN 56001
>507.389.1827
>[log in to unmask]
>SSRN Author Number 31379
>- - - - - - - - - -
>>I have been somewhat...amazed...at recent statements by Susan Collins and
>>other members of Congress that seem to advocate dispensing with
>>long-established Due Process rights (Miranda warnings, the right to an
>>attorney) in criminal proceedings, on grounds that if the crime may be
>>classified as terrorism, such things are unnecessary.
>>
>>I always thought a main premise of our Constitution was that guilt not be
>>pre-judged, no matter what the circumstances.
>>
>>As a matter of policy, what about "as you judge, so shall you be judged"?
>>If the US govt. is to dispense with what I thought we regarded as
>>fundamental rights, can we expect Americans abroad to be treated any
>>better?  I remember when the Soviets  detained Americans for spying, and
>>much of the world was outraged at the travesty of the proceedings.
>>
>>I have no idea if the hikers detained currently in Iran are reckless
>>tourists, spies, or innocents somehow gone astray over a border.  But from
>>the standpoint of the Iran government, I can see how they can make a case
>>that their presence alone is evidence of hostile intent (after all, this
>>was the grounds for detention of a number of men in Guatanamo, according
>>to the DOD).
>>
>>It seems to be a very dangerous slope to be on.
>>
>>And I also think that if it is true that Congressional leadership is
>>unaware that the FBI procedures involve upholding the 5th and 6th
>>Amendments, as they appear to be currently claiming, I consider them unfit
>>for their jobs.
>>
>>I hope this won't be regarded as flaming the board, but I am curious as to
>>how fellow legal scholars view the situation!
>>
>>cheers,
>>Suzy