Constitutional Law – Page 34 – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Constitutional Questions Downunder

Post author:Anna High
Post published:June 26, 2013
Post category:Constitutional Law International Law & Diplomacy Public

I woke up this morning to find that Australia, for the time being, has no Prime Minister. The position is vacant following Julia Gillard’s resignation last night. For those of you unfamiliar with antipodean politics, our system is a hybrid “Washminster” system, fusing federal elements of the American system with the British concept of responsible government. The Australian Federal Parliament is bicameral (House of Representatives and Senate). The office of Australian Prime Minister is the apex of the executive structure, but is not directly elected by the Australian people. Citizens vote for Members of Parliament, and the leader of the political party with a majority of seats in the House of Representatives is appointed Prime Minister. Of course, Australians usually bear in mind the leader of each major political party (i.e. the contenders for the position of Prime Minister) when casting their ballots.

As a result of this system, it is possible for a change in Prime Minister to occur mid-term if the ruling Party decides to change leadership (historically, a rare occurrence). It was just such a change that made Julia Gillard Prime Minister in 2010, and today she has been deposed as Prime Minister by the same means.

SCOTUS Strikes Down DOMA

Post author:Lisa A. Mazzie
Post published:June 26, 2013
Post category:Constitutional Interpretation Constitutional Law Family Law Federalism Public

Just this morning, the United States Supreme Court released its opinion in United States v. Windsor, the case that challenged the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The Court declared DOMA unconstitutional in a 5-4 vote. More to follow.

Edward Snowden: Whistleblower or Traitor?

Post author:Lisa A. Mazzie
Post published:June 25, 2013
Post category:Civil Rights Computer Law Constitutional Law Intellectual Property Law International Law & Diplomacy Public

Earlier this month, I learned that as a Verizon Wireless customer, my cell phone records, and those of family, may very well be sitting in some National Security Agency (NSA) analyst’s cubicle.

According to The Guardian, which first reported the story June 5, Verizon is under a court order to turn over on an “ongoing, daily basis,” information such as “the numbers of both parties on a call . . . location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls,” and more. However, no subscriber’s personal information or contents of a call are covered by the order.

Shortly after the story broke, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former NSA contractor, came forward as the informant. Time Magazine quotes Snowden as saying, “The public needs to decide whether these programs and policies are right or wrong.” He has since been charged with theft of government property, unauthorized communication of national defense information, and willful communication of classified communications intelligence information to an unauthorized person. Snowden may currently be in Moscow and is rumored to be heading to Ecuador to seek political asylum there.

Because the information that Verizon turns over is considered metadata and not communications, the NSA needs no warrant to access it. Even so, by putting together enough metadata, one can fairly easily put together a profile of who is calling whom, for how long, and from where. While no actual content is turned over to the NSA, the breadth of this program—code named PRISM—should frighten any American because the information is handed over wholesale; no probable cause or suspicion of wrongdoing needed. And, boom. The NSA is keeping tabs on you.