Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 10/1/18: California Reforms Bail System

Posted on by September 28, 2018

Earlier this year California became the first state to eliminate cash bail, replacing it with a system based on assessment of a defendant’s risk to public safety. Critics of the cash bail system had long argued that cash bail perpetuates economic inequality. Under The California Money Bail Reform Act, which takes effect in October 2019, the court or a public agency would assess defendants to ascertain the risk of recidivism or pretrial flight before making recommendations for conditions for release. Defendants deemed high risk, including those arrested for violent felonies, would be deemed ineligible for bail. The ACLU has expressed opposition to the Act on the grounds that it does not sufficiently prevent racial bias from affecting the pretrial release process.

 

Legal Fact of the Week 9/24/18: Graffiti as Visual Art

Posted on by September 24, 2018

Graffiti artists whose work on the 5Pointz building in Queens NY was destroyed by the owner’s painting over them some ten months before the building was demolished, were deemed by the U.S. District Court in 2018 to be protected by the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. The court awarded them $6.75 million in damages. 5Pointz had become known as an informal outdoor museum of “aerosol art”.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 9/10/18: Filial Responsibility Laws

Posted on by September 10, 2018

Filial responsibility laws, otherwise known as ‘filial support laws’,  exist in about 30 states by statute, including CA and MA. These laws impose legal requirement for children to help support indigent parents or other relatives by providing or paying for food, shelter, clothing and health care, and allowing government agencies and health care providers such as nursing homes to sue for recovery of expenses related to care. Nearly all of the states had such laws, but the growth of Medicaid prompted many states to repeal them. The laws that remain on the books are rarely enforced.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 9/4/18: Walking and Texting

Posted on by September 4, 2018

A growing number of municipalities are outlawing texting and walking. Honolulu was the first to do so in 2017 under the “Distracted Walking Law”, which bans texting while crossing an intersection. Other cities have followed suit, although some laws ban even more: Montclair CA, for example, bans texting, using earphones or talking on a cell phone while crossing the street. The Massachusetts State House has been considering a bill that would fine pedestrians who ‘jaywalk’ while using headphones or a mobile device.

Ian’s Occasional Summer Legal Fact 6/4/18: The Original Thirteenth Amendment

Posted on by June 4, 2018

While the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, the original proposed Thirteenth Amendment was altogether different. Approved by Congress in 1810, the Titles of Nobility Amendment was designed to strip U.S. citizenship from any citizen who accepted an aristocratic title from a foreign country. Ratified by twelve states (the last in 1812) the proposed amendment is technically still pending but would require ratification by an additional twenty-six states. It was erroneously included as the Thirteenth Amendment in some early-nineteenth-century Constitutional publications despite never having been ratified. ‘Thirteenthers’ is a term sometimes used to refer to people who maintain it was in fact ratified, or those who support its ratification now. An interesting article from 2010 on attempts to ‘restore’ this proposed amendment in Iowa may be found here.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 4/17/18: Death and Taxes

Posted on by April 12, 2018

The Sixteenth Amendment, passed in 1913, is probably one of the least well-known and yet most unpopular amendments, as it grants Congress the ability to levy a federal income tax. While the first federal income tax was levied during the Civil War as a result of the Revenue Act of 1861 (replaced the following year), the annual income tax has been alive and well for over a century. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr’s quote in its defense — “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society” — is engraved on the front of the I.R.S. headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 4/9/18: Show Me the Money!

Posted on by April 6, 2018

Only two justices of the Supreme Court have appeared on U.S. Currency. John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice, appeared on the $500 bill; while Salmon P. Chase (the sixth Chief Justice) appeared on the $10,000 bill. Neither denomination is still in circulation.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 3/26/18: The Seventeenth Amendment

Posted on by March 23, 2018

The Seventeenth Amendment, ratified in 1913, provides for the direct election of members of the Senate by popular vote in each state, and also allows governors to make temporary appointments until a special election is held to fill vacancies. Originally, members of the Senate were elected by state legislatures. Seven states have not yet ratified the Amendment: Utah (which rejected it in 1913), Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia. Utah requested Congress consider an amendment to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment in 2016.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 3/19/18: Gun Control Laws

Posted on by March 18, 2018

A study in The Lancet, led by BU researchers and published in 2016, analyzed gun control laws across the U.S. and concluded that more than 80% of gun deaths could be prevented by national adoption of 3 laws: firearm identification through ballistic imprinting or microstamping; background checks for sale of ammunition; and universal background checks for gun sales.

Ian’s Legal Fact of the Week 3/12/18: The Incompatibility Clause

Posted on by March 12, 2018

The Constitution imposes several qualifications and restrictions on Congressional service, most notably in Article I, sections 2 and 3 (which sets out age, citizenship, and residency requirements), and the Incompatibility Clause in Article I section 6 which forbids members of Congress from also serving in the executive or judicial branches. Designed to foreclose patronage and corruption, it also effectively precludes a parliamentary-style of government in which office holders have both legislative and executive powers. Interestingly, it did not forbid simultaneous executive and judicial service – reflected by examples such as John Jay and John Marshall, both of whom served as Secretary of State while also serving on the Supreme Court. Such a practice would now be viewed as constitutionally suspect.