By LASIS Staff

The LASIS team demands excellence, of ourselves and other journalists, too, and we took to the streets to protest for quality reporting.

Click on photo to enlarge and see from left to right, back row: (Publisher) Jethro Lieberman, with megaphone; Jessica McElroy, demanding punctuation; Jaclyn Tyndorf, loving free speech; Leah Braukman, needing nothing but LASIS; and (Editor) Michelle Zierler and Drew Carroll, with raised arms, Occupying LLAW Street. From left to right, front row: Ryan Morrison enjoying a mid-protest smoke; Meghan Lalonde, singing her heart out; and Halina Schiffman Shilo, earnestly studying her iPad.

We wiill be taking time off for a while while our reporters are busy with their summer jobs.  We may have an infrequent post or two but for the most part, this is it for a while.

We thank you for reading us, and for all your comments, and wish all of you a great summer!

By Jessica McElroy

Mississippi plumber Johnny Valentine and his wife Sandra Day wed in 1993 and didn’t enjoy the happiest of marriages. Mr. Valentine was a drinker and gambler who showed no signs of changing no matter how many times the missus threatened to leave.  In 1998, an unhappy and fed up Ms. Day began having an affair with her boss, Jerry Fitch, a wealthy oil and real estate businessman.

The following year, Ms. Day gave birth to a baby girl whom Mr. Valentine assumed was his daughter– until he didn’t.  Seven months after the little girl was born, Mr. Valentine took a paternity test.  He’d been right to be suspicious; the girl was Mr. Fitch’s child. Ms. Day continued adulterous relationship with Mr. Fitch, and Mr. Valentine filed for divorce.

Shortly after that, Mr. Valentine brought another suit – this time, against Mr. Fitch – essentially accusing him of stealing his wife.  Mr. Valentine won, and earlier this year,  the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the jury verdict against Mr. Fitch including $754,500 in compensatory and punitive damages– plus 8 percent annual interest.

Yikes.

Mr. Fitch’s big payout to Mr. Valentine came courtesy of Mississippi’s common law tort of alienation of affection.

LASIS wasn’t even aware that such a law, even if on the books, could still being litigated in today’s courts. It may not be nice to have an affair with someone married but how the heck can it be illegal?  We were intrigued, and investigated.  

Only eight states still recognize some form of the original “heart balm” torts that include alienation of affection (interfering with a marriage), criminal conversation (sleeping with a married man/woman), seduction, and breach of promise to marry.  (The states are: Illinois, Hawaii, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, South Dakota, and New Hampshire).  So – no Ashley Madison happening in these states, we’re guessing.

Heart balm laws date back to a time when a woman was considered the property of her husband, and any cuckold could sue and seek damages against the man who interfered with, or stole, his property. It didn’t work both ways.  A woman with an unfaithful husband had no legal recourse or right to bring any of these claims.

Today, these old fashioned laws are used by men and women alike. (We’ve come a long way, baby?)

Let’s look more closely at an ongoing case involving a heart balm statute.

Last year, Melissa Oliver, sued Veronica Filipowski for breaking up her marriage.   The North Carolina Court of Appeals recently denied a motion to dismiss, and Ms. Oliver is appealing.

Ms. Oliver argues that that her fundamental rights to privacy and free speech were violated because North Carolina is trying to regulate adult, consensual sexual conduct.  In other words, says Ms. Oliver, the law is unconstitutional.

The case Ms. Oliver bases her argument on is Lawrence v. Texas, decided by the Supreme Court in 2003. The Court struck down an anti-sodomy criminal law, holding that the due process clause of the 14^th amendment prohibited government intrusion into “personal and private life of the individual.”

Proponents of North Carolina’s heart balm laws interpret Lawrence narrowly, arguing that the case merely prohibited states from criminalizing consensual homosexual conduct.

And the Filipowski case, these folks say, involves heterosexuals, and furthermore, the sex was not entirely consensual – just ask Mrs. Filipowski.

The contrary argument, of course, is that the Supreme Court didn’t frame the Lawrence issue narrowly at all; indeed, the Court broadly stated that sexual behavior is “a personal relationship that, whether or not entitled to formal recognition in the law, is within the liberty of the persons to choose without being punished.”   And further, such behavior is protected by the 14th amendment.

After the Lawrence decision, several states, including Virginia, adopted the Court’s reasoning and overturned the state’s anti-fornication law that criminalized sex between unmarried persons.

But North Carolina is resisting peer pressure, standing firmly behind its alienation of affection and criminal conversation laws.  There was a time when it seemed willing to relent.  In 1984, the state Court of Appeals struck down the law.  In a one-page opinion, the state’s Supreme Court overturned the ruling, and reminded the Court of Appeals that it did not have authority to strike down the higher court’s precedent.

The North Carolina General Assembly has tried to get around the courts and abolish these arcane torts through legislation, but none of the bills were ever ratified and the torts remain intact, though with some new limitations.

We’re still shocked these laws still exist.  According to Mrs. Filipowski’s lawyer, the heart balm laws are important, because state has an interest in protecting the sanctity of marriage.

The following fact can cut both ways:  North Carolina has one of the highest divorce rates in the country.   Are the heart balm laws are making no difference at all?  Or do they lead to many, many North Carolinians getting divorced rather than just cheat on their spouses?

Either way, the laws don’t make sense to us.

By LASIS Staff

A little birdie alerted us that the media have been chirping about a formal protest launched against the city of Chicago because of how it chose the company to run its public bike share system, Alta Bicycle Share.

The protest comes from Josh Squire, owner of Bike Chicago, who alleges that “the entire RFP process was tainted.”

Mr. Squire competed and lost in the Chicago contest.

Legitimate protest or sour grapes?

We reviewed the complaint, and in our estimation, Mr. Squire has it right.  There were many improprieties and plenty Chicago will have to answer for.

With public bike shares rolling out all across the country, we wondered whether any other cities might be guilty of improper conduct. And though we can’t say for sure, we didn’t have to look further than our own backyard.

New York City Department of Transportation:  Say it ain’t so.  

We obtained this timeline, which includes these facts pertinent to the New York bids.

November 22, 2010: New York City issues its RFP for the operation of its bike share program.

December 8, 2010:  DC Director of Transportation, Gabe Klein, who helped choose Alta (the very same company that would be chosen in NY) for the bike share in Arlington (and through that, the bike share in DC), steps down.

January 2011 – March 2011:  Mr. Klein is a consultant to Alta in responding to the New York RFP.

Mr. Klein states that he recused himself from the selection process in Chicago where he became Commissioner of the Departmet of Transportation– but there is evidence to the contrary.

It seems choosing Alta was preordained in both New York and Chicago.

This is especially so because its supplier, Public Bike Share Company, had been having problems for many months before Alta’s selection in New York.

The situation has not improved.

Press reports now tell us that the software Alta had planned on using in Chattanooga, Tennessee, is kaput.   This is the same software that Alta would be bringing to New York.

More and more, citizens are demanding transparency.

And it seems that as far as the selection process for public bike share systems go, we’re not getting it.

By Russell Smith

President Obama hasn’t hesitated to silence critics of his military policy.

First, he kept Private Bradley Manning in solitary confinement for months after Pvt. Manning allegedly leaked thousands of military documents revealing U.S. human rights abuses to the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. Then President Obama pressured Yemen to jail a journalist who uncovered evidence that the U.S. was lying about missiles lent to Yemen and used in a strike that killed Yemeni citizens. Now President Obama is discharging U.S. Marine Corp Sergeant Gary Stein for posting critical comments of the president and his military leadership on Facebook.

Sgt. Stein is 26 years-old, a nine-year veteran, and a Tea Partier. His Facebook group, Armed Forces Tea Party, critiques liberal politicians and policies. An example the group’s sharp wit: superimposing the faces of President Obama, Vice President Biden and Rep. Nancy Pelosi onto the movie poster for “The Incredibles“, but with renamed title, “The Horribles“.

Okay, not that witty. But perfectly legal.

In 2010, the notoriety of the Armed Forces Tea Party got Sgt. Stein an invite to appear on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews” – but at the Marine Corps’ command, Sgt. Stein declined. At the time, Sgt. Stein was also directed to put a disclaimer on the Armed Forces Tea Party group, indicating it was not affiliated with the Marine Corps. He agreed and did so.

But two years later, Sgt. Stein received notice that his political postings constituted “serious misconduct” mandating the termination of his service to his country.

Sgt. Stein’s “other-than-honorable” discharge – resulting in a loss of rank and veteran’s benefits – has drawn reactions from politicians to pundits. Lawyers from the ACLU and the U.S. Justice Foundation have claimed that discharging Sgt. Stein for his political speech would violate his first amendment rights and have pledged to file a federal lawsuit on his behalf.  But some members of the media disagree, arguing that soldiers must give up their first amendment rights and fall in line behind their commander-in-chief.  

While it is true that members of the military have less free speech rights than average citizens, the military’s blanket ban on critical speech from service members violates the first amendment.

A March 1 Facebook posting apparently provided the military with the impetus for Sgt. Stein’s discharge. In that post, Sgt. Stein wrote:

“As an active duty Marine, I say screw Obama and I will not follow all orders from him; will do my job better than the next guy. But as for saluting Obama as Commander in Chief, I will not.”

Another marine posted a reply, reminding Sgt. Stein of his military oath. Sgt. Stein responded:

“You’re right. It said to defend the — I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Obama is the economic enemy. He is the religious enemy. He is the “fundamentally change” America enemy. He is the domestic enemy.”

Within five minutes of posting, another marine who served as an administrator of the Armed Forces Tea Party group deleted Sgt. Stein’s comments. But not before a third marine screen-captured the conversation and sent it Sgt. Stein’s commanding officer.

Sgt. Stein has since clarified his comments, saying that all he meant was that he would not follow “unlawful orders” from President Obama. A careful reading of the post reflects that this is actually the most plausible understanding. He wrote that he would not follow “all orders” from President Obama –implying that he would follow some orders. (Tea partiers aren’t the only ones who believe that our president has issued arguably illegal military orders in the past and shown a willingness to continue to do so in the future.)

After a hearing in front of the Administrative Separation Board, Sgt. Stein was fired from the Marine Corps because: (1) he maintained the Armed Forces Tea Party Facebook group in violation of a Department of Defense directive that bans members of the military from participating in partisan political activities and (2) his March 1 post allegedly violated a provision in the Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibiting speech detrimental to the “good order and discipline in the armed forces.”

As David Loy, the legal director for the ACLU foundation of San Diego, points out, according to military precedent it is doubtful that Sgt. Stein even broke one of those rules. But even if he did, even if he broke both these rules, the first amendment should shield Sgt. Stein from such an unconstitutional discharge.

“Political speech” intended to rally public support for a particular position, candidate or issue is considered to be at “core” of the first amendment.  Both Sgt. Stein’s Facebook group which advanced a directly political agenda, and his March 1 post that advanced his opinion of President Obama’s policies are examples of core political speech.

At the same time, the military has a long history of punishing speech that civilians wouldn’t imagine being criminal. Take for example the rule that Sgt. Stein is charged with breaking: engaging in speech that is detrimental to the “good order and discipline in the armed forces.” Historically, this rule has been applied to punish speech that is merely disrespectful or insulting.

Recognizing the need for obedience in the military, the Supreme Court has weakened the first amendment’s protections for members of the military. In 1974, the Court said in Parker v. Levy that the military could punish Captain Howard Levy for urging African-American soldiers under his command to not fight in the Vietnam War. Then, in 1980, the Court upheld an Air Force rule in Brown v. Glines that required that officers get approval from their commanders before distributing any petition on their base. Finally, in 1986’s Goldman v. Weinberger, the Court approved an Air Force dress code that prohibited Mr. Goldman from wearing his yarmulke.

But these cases do not permit the military to restrict speech that occurs off of the military base.  And the rationale that requires obedience and respect among the enlisted men and women and their commanders rarely makes sense off the base.  In Goldman, for example, there is at least some logic behind the notion that banning Mr. Goldman from wearing his yarmulke while on the base forged unity among the members of the Air Force. But what if the dress code was still in force when Mr. Goldman visited his parents’ home on the holidays? How would the dress code be creating unity among members of the Air Force then?

The constitutional problem with a dress code that extends to your parents’ house is called overbreadth. A regulation of speech that has a substantial number of its applications that don’t make sense is unconstitutionally overbroad. Most recently in 2010, in United States v. Stevens, the Supreme Court struck down a law that intended to ban depictions of animal cruelty because it also criminalized a substantial number of legitimate depictions of hunting.

Similarly, the military’s efforts to extend its rule against partisan affiliation on Facebook would create constitutional overbreadth problems. There are countless partisan positions – from the farm subsidies to the gold standard – a member of the military could advocate for on Facebook that couldn’t conceivably cause disunity. If Sgt. Stein’s upcoming lawsuit challenges the military’s rule against partisan affiliation, the federal court would likely strike down the rule as an overbroad infringement of free speech.

Note that if a soldier rants about what a jerk his commanding officer is on Facebook, his speech may be punished under the rule against disrespectful conduct because of the personal tension it would cause between the soldier, the commanding officer, and the rest of their unit on the base.

But Sgt. Stein’s less than civil criticisms of President Obama would not likely cause a similar disruption among the members of his unit. When balancing Sgt. Stein’s right to engage in core political speech versus the government’s interest in respectful discourse, a federal court would likely conclude that applying the rule against speech that is detrimental to the “good order and discipline in the armed forces” to Sgt. Stein’s March 1 post violates his first amendment rights.

Discharging Sgt. Stein has brought much more attention to his political perspective than if he’d simply been allowed to speak freely. And while Sgt. Stein may enjoy a new platform from which to express his views (he’s already been approach to do some talk radio), other members of the military, fearing an “other-than-honorable” discharge, will have their speech chilled.

As the Obama Administration vigorously protects torturers and launches civilian killing drone strikes, maybe that’s exactly what it wants.

By Drew Carroll & Nadia-Elysse Harris

Cheap and delicious pizza is as New York as the lights in Times Square. After a drunken night of partying, in between afternoon classes, or just in lieu of cooking – one dollar in New York City can get you a slice of pizza that will have you savoring every last greasy crumb.

There are 773 pizza restaurants on the island of Manhattan according to menupages.com, (pizza is also available at plenty of other places not actually listed as pizza restaurants, too) but on a small section of Avenue of the Americas between 37th & 38th Streets two restaurants serving pizza think that there is, perhaps, just one place too many. And each of them is pointing at the other.

A price war resulted and for now, at least, you can get pizza at both these joints for 75-cents a slice. In New York, where movies go for $13 and the rent is too damn high, this is newsworthy.

According to the New York Times, Bombay Fast Food/6th Avenue Pizza, an eatery offering –you guessed it — Indian food and pizza, was less than pleased to welcome its new just-next-door neighbor last October — 2 Bros. Pizza, part of a growing chain of New York pizza shops.

Bombay’s manager, Mohit Kumar Mitra, willingly states the obvious: that Bombay felt the pressure from 2 Bros., and decided to take competitive action, lowering the price of a slice to 79 cents. Mr. Mitra told us that, “within two hours,” 2 Bros. put a sign in front of their restaurant advertising 75-cent pizza. Bombay felt it had no choice but match it.

The Times reported that Bombay’s owner is “contemplating checking with a lawyer” to see if something could be done.  Bombay was being held hostage to its new neighbor’s lower price offerings, and though he didn’t say it, he was clearly worried that his business would suffer, he’d go out of business, and then 2 Bros. could raise its prices again.  There ought to be a law…But was there?

We figured we’d help the mom and pop shop out and do a little research. And while we were at it, have a slice or two ourselves.  

Arriving at the battlefront on a mild Saturday afternoon, we find competitive spirits high. Bombay is in the middle of replacing its large storefront sign, which was maroon colored and weather worn. The new one is a vibrant white, similar to 2 Bros., and prominently advertises Bombay as the “Pizza King.” The name is new, as marketing has become just another part of the war for pizza supremacy. The sidewalk in front of the two restaurants is cluttered with signs advertising 75-cent pizza.

On the inside the two stores could not be more unalike. 2 Bros. looks brand new with gleaming white tile, bright lights, and the entire storefront opens up to the sidewalk, offering a tempting respite for passing tourists. Despite the welcome from the inside, though, once inside the seating options are limited to either standing at tall tables in the front, or perching on low barstools at tables in the back.

Bombay is more dimly lit, and feels smaller. It seats probably half as many people as 2 Bros., taking on the look and feel of a local hangout. Looking around, we spot a group of Indian students looking well settled in a corner, with one fellow kicked back in a cozy looking leather armchair. Nobody here looks like first timers. (Interestingly, Bombay Fast Food also serves Mexican dishes. “Bombay Fast Food/Pizza King and Mexican Cuisine” is a bit of a mouthful, though).

We did our research before heading to midtown, and we’re ready to tell Mr. Mitra what we’ve learned.

What Bombay is accusing 2 Bros. of is predatory pricing. Put simply, predatory pricing occurs when a business offers its product below market price in order to drive similar businesses out of the market. And, well, it’s illegal.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is a federal statute intended to encourage competition and prevent large businesses from monopolizing entire markets. It expressly prohibits activities that restrict interstate commerce and competition in a particular market. Cases alleging predatory pricing under the Act usually involve usually involve large companies, as its those companies that tend to monopolize markets involving more than one state.

That’s certainly not the case between Bombay and 2 Bros. While the owners of Bombay would like to paint the picture of a larger than life chain coming in and stealing its business, let’s face it – 2 Bros. is no Pizza Hut. We’d never seen a commercial for it, or even heard of it. And reporter Nadia Harris is a pizza aficionado.

2 Bros. today is a chain of 11 small New York pizza parlors. In the grand scheme of things, Bombay and 2 Bros. are on equal footing. The Federal Trade Commission might even consider a pricing battle between these two businesses to be healthy, vigorous competition.

And so we turn to New York State law. Many states have laws that prohibit predatory pricing, but unfortunately for Bombay, New York is not one of them. The only “below cost law” in the Empire State is one that prohibits predatory pricing for cigarettes.  But it seems like pizza is fair game.

There is, however, a state law that mirrors the Sherman Antitrust Act. Section 340 of New York General Business Law does not specifically address predatory pricing, but it does prohibit businesses from “unlawfully interfering with the free exercise of any activity in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce.” Bombay may be able to seek remedy under state law after all. 2 Bros. is interfering with Bombay’s business… but is discounting a slice of pizza by 25 per cent interfering with the “free exercise” of a competitor’s business? That may be a harder thing to prove.

This wouldn’t be the first time two similarly situated Big Apple food fixtures went head to head.

Papaya King opened its doors for business in 1932. In subsequent years, Papaya Kingdom, Original Papaya and (probably the most well-known of its competitors) Gray’s Papaya all opened their doors. All of the shops sell similar fruit concoctions, but the product that tourists and native New Yorkers alike stand on long lines outside of these “papaya” shops for are the flavorful leathery hot dogs.

In 1990, Papaya King decided to take on Papaya Kingdom for infringing on its trade name. Papaya King was successful in its suit and Papaya Kingdom later changed its name to “Papaya Ingdom.” The suit proved hugely detrimental to the newly (oddly) named Papaya Ingdom brand, and the store closed its doors shortly thereafter.

But that was a trademark case. And Bombay and 2 Bros. don’t share a name in common. While Papaya King and Papaya Kingdom both sold the unique combination of fruit drinks and hot dogs, the only thing these two shops sell in common is pizza and soda. Bombay can hardly challenge 2 Bros.’ right to sell that.

And so we approach Mr. Mitra, prepared to give him all the pros and cons of suing 2 Bros., and we’re surprised to see him smiling, and eager to talk about how happy he is about the price wars. “This situation is good for us,” he says. Apparently the Times article got the word out about cheap pizza. Business, he says, is booming.

So, no legal counseling needed on this case after all.

There was only one thing left for us to do. The taste test. We shared a slice at each establishment, and we’re not telling our favorite. We liked both, and we’re going to stay out of this particular battle.

But if you’re in the area, by all means, stop in and have a slice at either one.  For 75-cents it’s a really good deal.

By LASIS Staff

Alabama’s Alcoholic Beverage Control Board has banned the sale of Dirty Bastard beer in its state.

This, despite the fact that Fat Bastard beer and Ragin’ Bitch beer are both widely available in Alabama. Asked to comment on this discrepancy, Bob Martin, an attorney for the state agency had this to say:

“I have no idea how or why or exactly when that went through.”

LASIS has an idea why, Mr. Martin.

Last April, the same issue was taken up in Michigan, which had wanted to ban Ragin’ Bitch beer. We explained why we thought the state would have to permit the beer to be sold.

And as it turned out, we were right.

So if Dirty Bastard beer decides to fight your ban, you might want to start making room for it on your shelves.

By Tara Krieger

President Obama assured him it would be “just like riding a bicycle.” The ex-president would remember what to do. But former President Bill Clinton described that night in December 2010 when Mr. Obama ceded him the White House podium another way.

“So weird.”

The nation’s 42nd president had appeared in the briefing room to lobby a tax cut bill when his Democratic successor whispered—moments before the cameras began rolling—that he would be ducking out early to appease the First Lady at a Christmas party.

“He hit me right between the eyes when we were standing there,” said Mr. Clinton, who fielded questions for an hour Thursday night from the event’s moderator, Thane Rosenbaum.

(This author, a former LASIS staff writer, feels the macrocosmic parallel of reassuming a role she once performed regularly, and is grateful for the opportunity to pen one final article before she graduates next month.)

Nearly a dozen years have passed since Mr. Clinton last occupied the Oval Office. His hair is a little whiter, his Arkansas drawl a bit hoarser, and his physique, after his much-touted conversion to a vegan lifestyle, much leaner, but he remained ever as likeably outspoken on Thursday night, the centerpiece of a conversation brought to us by the Forum on Law, Culture & Society at Fordham Law School, as part of its annual Conversation series.

Indeed, said Professor Rosenbaum, the Forum’s director, the Clinton administration feels like “another lifetime ago.”  He reminded us of that seemingly-long-ago era before the peace and prosperity of the 1990s yielded to war, terrorism, and economic strife; before a Congress that once worked together became horribly fragmented; before a budget surplus gave way to colossal debt; before traditional print and broadcast media were supplanted by the Internet and 24-hour news networks. The dualities are far from that simply pronounced—among other things, the Clinton era also featured government shutdowns and partisan impeachment hearings—but a longing for those rosier times could explain Mr. Clinton’s continued involvement as a “crusading diplomat on the world stage.”

Since leaving office in early 2001, Mr. Clinton has partnered with other political leaders—including unlikely ones such as former Senator Bob Dole and both former President Bushes—and been deployed by the United Nations, all in the name of humanitarian work, raising money for families of 9/11 victims and recovery efforts after the South Asian tsunami, Hurricanes Ike and Katrina, and the earthquake in Haiti.

In 2005, he established the William J. Clinton Foundation, a sort of global think tank that brings together philanthropists, heads of non-governmental organizations, and members of the media to form “creative networks of cooperation” to address problems such access to HIV/AIDS and malaria medication, childhood obesity, and climate change.

“If I were a lawyer, I’d say I got a disaster practice here,” said Mr. Clinton.

Well-known is that Mr. Clinton, who Thursday night offhandedly professed a love for the Socratic Method, graduated from Yale Law School in 1973. Less well-known is that his first post-law school job was teaching law at the University of Arkansas.  

“I was the new guy on the block and they made me teach everything they didn’t want to teach,” said Mr. Clinton, whose classes included antitrust, agency law and partnership, criminal law, criminal procedure, constitutional law, and admiralty law (apparently some of the lakes in Arkansas feed into ships passageways).

He wasn’t there long, as in 1974 he ran unsuccessfully for the House of Representatives against Republican incumbent John Paul Hammerschmidt—“a guy with 85% approval rating and 99% name recognition and I had zero-zero.” But Mr. Clinton recounted with great pride the slim margin by which he lost (51.5%-48.5%), and the percentage-by-percentage breakdown of the voters he won over (Mr. Clinton had 66% name recognition by election day).  Another matter of pride to him: not until after the primary was over did Mr. Clinton give up his day job at the law school.

Although he no longer campaigns for office, Mr. Clinton’s competitive fire intensifies when he discusses any political topic from the budget deficit to health care reform.

Asked whether he misses the Oval Office. Mr. Clinton replied that he didn’t. He is truly gratified by his humanitarian work. But there is, he said, one job that he has recently found himself coveting. “I wish I’d been solicitor general in the health care case before the Supreme Court,” Mr. Clinton said. “It’s an easy case.”

As proof, he cited Wickard v. Filburn, which extended the bounds of what Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause to intrastate transactions that had a substantial effect on interstate commerce, as well as an individual mandate on seamen enacted by President John Adams in 1798. (“Scalia loves the founding fathers.  Last time I checked, John Adams was a founding father.”)

“I kind of think they will uphold it,” said Mr. Clinton. “But it’ll be close. [James] Carville says they don’t want another rotten decision on their scorecard —  they’ve already got Bush v. Gore, which is one of the worst cases of my lifetime, probably since Korematsu,” which allowed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

“I feel sorry that for Governor Romney to get nominated he had to forego one of his best arguments,” Mr. Clinton said, describing the success of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, adding that Mitt Romney “can’t claim credit for that, because in the Spanish Inquisition that was the Republican primary, if he flunked that question, they’d say, ‘You’re outta here.’”

Mr. Clinton also decried Newt Gingrich for his “selective memory” in helping to balance the budget while he was Speaker of the House of Representatives, noting that over 90% of the Republicans in at the time voted against the bill that was responsible for most of the basis of the plan.

He blamed today’s radical politically fragmented climate on the electorate—“when people vote for polarization, they get it”—but felt some sympathy for the “freshman Tea Partiers” in Congress, because “all they did is what they promised to do.” Still, he was optimistic about the eventual prospects of bipartisan cooperation.

“We live in a time when conflict is good politics and cooperation is good policy,” Mr. Clinton said.

He also spoke with veneration for our current Secretary of State. “I want you to marry me, but you shouldn’t do it,” he said he told Hillary Clinton when he proposed.

“You’re the most talented person of your generation,” he said then, urging her to move to a big city and seek political office, rather than following him to Arkansas on a “fool’s errand.”

Mrs. Clinton is resigning at the end of her term next year, leaving Washington without a Clinton for the first time in decades. Perhaps only the 22nd Amendment stood in the way of the former President seeking another term.

“It’s a waste of time taking an hour of your life and wishing you could do something you can’t do anymore,” he said of being President.

Yet he seems ever at ease remaining “active in areas that I cared about when I was President that I could have an impact.” For Mr. Clinton, should that translate into another official political office someday, he’d likely find the task just like riding a bicycle.

The event was first-come-first-serve, and was free of charge.  It felt up close and personal, and I was fortunate to get a “golden ticket” and attend.

NB:  We actually have a question for Professor Rosenbaum:  How do you put on such consistently outstanding and memorable events?

By LASIS Staff

Eighty year old retired chemistry professor Julien Heicklin is happy that the charges against him for jury tampering in Manhattan were dismissed, though you might not know it from his master of understatement-esque reaction: “This is better than having them throw me in jail.”

According to federal judge Judge Kimba Wood, Mr. Heicklin is off the hook because he was trying to influence all jurors, for any and all cases, and not specific jurors for a specific case.  For that reason, Judge Wood didn’t even have to wrestle with thorny first amendment issues.

Back in March, 2011, LASIS did.

And though she threw out the charges on other grounds, Judge Wood’s decision is the win for free speech we predicted.

By Drew Carroll

Yankee Stadium comes into view out the window of a Bronx bound 4 train and I feel a tinge of excitement.

I’m not going to a game, though.  Instead, I get off at the next stop, from where I head for my weekly visit to a seventh grade classroom inside Jordan L. Mott Middle School.

My mission: To teach the class of minority students – mostly black and Latino—about the Constitution.  Lately, the lessons have had real world practicalities for these kids.

Trayvon Martin’s shooting in Florida has sparked a nationwide discussion about that state’s “Stand Your Ground Law.” People in New York City are also talking about the New York Police Department’s “Stop-and-Frisk” policy, which is said to apply disproportionately to minorities.

The statistics bear out such suspicions: of the 684,330 stops last year, 87 percent were either black or Hispanic. The NYPD says that this is not due to racial profiling, but because more cops are assigned to high crime (mostly minority) urban areas.

Though some lawmakers are trying to craft legislation to curb the racial profiling inherent in the city’s Stop-and-Frisk Policy, it’s the law for now, and one that these seventh graders are familiar with, from their parents, siblings, or even from personal experience – though they are only 13.

My visit to the school is coordinated through Street Law, Inc., a non-profit organization that provides information to underprivileged communities about law. The program was created in honor of the slain Robert F. Kennedy, and in the 40 years since it was created, Street Law has expanded into a million dollar operation bringing legal education to the underserved across the United States and in 40 countries worldwide. Over 100 law schools participate, offering practical legal lessons in their communities.

New York Law School’s Street Law program is designed specifically to meet the challenges presented to minority communities by the city’s Stop-and-Frisk policy. For ten Fridays in the spring, New York Law School students travel to the South Bronx, lesson plans in hand. With the fourth amendment as the focal point, middle school students learn about the law governing police stops, frisks, searches, and arrests, read Supreme Court cases about their rights as students, and then argue both sides of the issues. It may be hard to imagine a group of middle school students sitting around talking about a Supreme Court case, but that is the beauty of Street Law. As one student recently told me, “I need to talk about this,” and with Street Law, she gets that chance.  

At the conclusion of the program the middle school students are invited to the law school to participate in a moot court competition. For those of you who have not been to law school, at moot court participants argue a case before a panel of “judges” who often interrupt to ask questions. The young students get the chance to show and audience how much they have learned about the law – and to think on their feet.

The program’s notable alumni include current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts, who, at his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee cited it as part of his pro bono experience. Then Judge Roberts hardly needed to pad his illustrious resume, so it is telling that he highlighted his experience with Street Law, with which he’s remained active in since his law school days, providing video lessons to be distributed throughout the country. His involvement speaks volumes about how well regarded the program is in the highest legal circles.

And there’s this: Senator Ted Kennedy, on the other side of the fence from then nominee Roberts on many issues, piped up during the discussion of Street Law at the confirmation hearings to say, “that is a marvelous program. I commend you for your involvement in that.” John Roberts and Ted Kennedy weren’t often in agreement, but the value of Street Law was a consensus-builder.

Katie Smelas, a third year law student and the current director of Street Law at New York Law School, says the program has allowed her to merge two great passions: the law and kids. Leading a room full of middle school students provides law students with invaluable experience. “You never know what to expect,” says Ms. Smelas, “which keeps you on your toes.”

Each week presents a challenge for the law student mentors to figure out how to convey complex information in a way that middle school students will not only understand, but also enjoy. Melissa Nuruzzaman, a third year student at New York Law School, has been involved in Street Law the past two years. At first she struggled to keep her students on task. Seems they were too preoccupied throwing paper at one another to focus on Street Law. Then Ms. Nuruzzaman decided to improvise. She had the students write down questions on small pieces of paper. Each time students answered a question incorrectly, he was subjected to a paper ball attack.  Not only did the game get the students on task, it encouraged them to formulate difficult questions to stump their classmates.

Street Law is inspiring the next generation of attorneys while educating young teenaged students about issues that affect their daily lives. The students are able to apply their legal knowledge to real life situations. Though encouraged to never be disrespectful to the police, these students are taught to use their legal skills to avoid trouble situations, and defuse bad ones.

Some of them even express the desire to become policemen. Or lawyers. Robert Kennedy once said, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Street Law inspires students, both middle and law school, to reach for meaningful futures.

By LASIS Staff

In January, LASIS reporter Russell Smith wrote that Occupy activist Timothy Osmar would not prevail on a first amendment claim that he had a right to scrawl chalk messages outside of a City Hall in Orlando, Florida. While Mr. Osmar’s 18-days behind bars was absurd, Mr. Smith wrote, the City had acted in accordance with the law.

Well, Mr. Osmar sued the City anyway, alleging that his arrest was unlawful and in violation of his freedom of speech. And guess what — he won.

On Friday, U.S. Magistrate Judge David A. Baker ruled that Mr. Osmar’s actions were clearly protected by the first amendment. The decision means that the City will be required to compensate Mr. Osmar for both his wrongful imprisonment and attorneys’ fees.

Mr. Smith’s article expressed doubt that Mr. Osmar would be able to prove that the City selectively enforced the ordinance prohibiting “writing advertising matter of sidewalks” based on political nature of his message. To do so, we explained, Mr. Osmar would need evidence that the City had not come down when chalking other, non political, messages on the plaza outside City Hall. Fat chance of that evidence existing, we thought.

But as it turned out, such evidence exists, and it shows that for several years the City had blessed a Rotary Club’s chalk-art festival on the same plaza outside City Hall. Judge Baker seized on this point in his decision, concluding that “the city may not selectively interpret and enforce the ordinance based on its own desire to further the causes of particular favored speakers.”

At the start of the case, the City hired the Orlando law firm Akerman Senterfitt & Eidson – at least in part because of the firm’s appellate expertise and this case’s likelihood for appeals. But since the firm charges upwards of $625 an hour for its services, perhaps the City would be wise to read the writing on the –er – sidewalk, and just let things be.

In any case, this is the first time LASIS made an incorrect prediction. And we like Judge Baker’s ruling. We hope the decision stands.