Constitution Day Trivia Tidbits

constitutionSeptember 17 marks Constitution Day, the day in 1787 on which delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the United States Constitution. Yesterday, the ABA Journal posted an interesting article to celebrate. The article contains 10 lesser-known facts about our Constitution, including these:

  • Most voters today would not have had the right to vote under the original Constitution. Voting rights were limited to propertied white males.
  • The word “God” never appears in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The source of all government power is in “the People.”
  • The word “democracy” never appears in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton claimed in the Federalist Papers that democracies were a disaster.
  • The First Amendment was not originally first. It started out as the third. For that matter, the Second Amendment was not originally the second. The original first and second amendments dealt with the size of Congress and with issues relating to Congress’s pay.

See here for the rest of the facts, and test your knowledge of the Constitution with the short quiz How well do you know the U.S. Constitution at the bottom of the page. It’s not as easy as you’d think! Next week, I’ll post on Professor Chad Oldfather’s interesting Constitution Day presentation on constitutional interpretation.

Continue ReadingConstitution Day Trivia Tidbits

Marquette Students Study Comparative Law in Germany

Giessen 2015This is week Two of the Summer Session in International and Comparative Law, taking place in Giessen, Germany.  Pictured to the left are my students in the class on Comparative Law.  They come from Mexico, Peru, Senegal, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Spain, Moldova, Vietnam, the Slovak Republic and, yes, even Wisconsin.  Along with my co-teacher, Thilo Marauhn from Justus Liebig University here in Germany, we have been comparing the constitutional systems of the United States and Germany, and also contrasting the quasi-constitutional structure of the European Union.  It may not look like it in the photo, but we are certainly having a great deal of fun.

Other classes this session include International Economic Law & Business Transactions, The Law of Armed Conflict, and International Intellectual Property Law.  The faculty come from the United States, Germany, Lithuania, and Great Britain.  The faculty are all experts in their fields and, judging from our dinner tonight, we all share an appreciation of German beer.

Continue ReadingMarquette Students Study Comparative Law in Germany

The Initial Appeal of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges

b599a34c0d512e42e3f5277e172bbebcd745dd98Rainbows abounded on the morning of Friday, June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court held 5-4 that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry and a right to have their legal marriages recognized in every state.

The Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges was not unexpected. The divide in the Court, too, was not unexpected: Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for himself, Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Elena Kagan, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

(An interesting side note: Justice Kennedy, a 1988 Reagan nominee, has authored all four of the major SCOTUS cases on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights: Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, United States v. Windsor, and now Obergefall v. Hodges. As well, three of those cases were handed down on June 26—Lawrence on 6/26/03; Windsor on 6/26/13; Obergefell on 6/26/15).

When I first read the Obergefell decision, I found myself skeptical. Make no mistake: I fully agree with and welcome the holding. However, I was concerned about the Court’s reasoning. My first thought, upon reading the opinion, was to wonder why the Court did not base its holding more on the Equal Protection Clause, like Judge Richard Posner did in his opinion in Baskin v. Bogan, 766 F.3d 648 (7th Cir. 2014). That seemed to me to be the easiest argument. There is simply no compelling justification for the State to distinguish between opposite-sex and same-sex couples when it comes to marriage.

So, when I got to Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent, it initially made some sense to me, and I could envision its appeal to many others.

Continue ReadingThe Initial Appeal of Chief Justice John Roberts’ Dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges