Archive for category Constitutional
It’s legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner
by Timothy B. Lee - July 19 2012, 10:03am CDT
Everyone loves texting.
In November 2009, police officers in the state of Washington seized an iPhone belonging to suspected drug dealer Daniel Lee. While the phone was in police custody, a man named Shawn Hinton sent a text message to the device, reading, “Hey whats up dogg can you call me i need to talk to you.” Suspecting that Hinton was looking to buy drugs from Lee, Detective Kevin Sawyer replied to the message, posing as Lee. With a series of text messages, he arranged to meet Hinton in the parking lot of a local grocery store—where Hinton was arrested and charged with attempted possession of heroin.
Hinton wasn’t Sawyer’s only target. According to a court decision summing up the facts, “Sawyer spent about 5 or 10 minutes looking at some of the text messages on the iPhone; he also looked to see who had been calling. Many of the text messages that Lee’s iPhone had received and stored were from individuals who were seeking drugs from Lee.”
So Sawyer texted one of the individuals on the list and asked him if he “needed more.” The individual, Jonathan Roden, replied, “Yeah, that would be cool. I still gotta sum, but I could use some more. I prefer to just get a ball, so I’m only payin’ one eighty for it, instead of two Ts for two hundred, that way.” (The court helpfully explained that a “ball” is “a drug weight equivalent to approximately 3.5 grams.”)
But can cops legally do this with seized cell phones? When their cases went to trial, Hinton and Roden both argued that Sawyer had violated their privacy rights by intercepting, without a warrant, private communications intended for Lee.
But in a pair of decisions, one of which was recently covered by Forbes, a Washington state appeals court disagreed. If the decisions, penned by Judge Joel Penoyar and supported by one of his colleagues, are upheld on appeal, they could have far-reaching implications for cell phone privacy.
“No longer private or deserving of constitutional protection”
“There is no long history and tradition of strict legislative protection of a text message sent to, displayed, and received from its intended destination, another person’s iPhone,” Penoyar wrote in his decision. He pointed to a 1990 case in which the police seized a suspected drug dealer’s pager as an example. The officers observed which phone numbers appeared on the pager, called those numbers back, and arranged fake drug purchases with the people on the other end of the line.
A federal appeals court held that the pager owner’s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure were not violated because the pager is “nothing more than a contemporary receptacle for telephone numbers,” akin to an address book. The court also held that someone who sends his phone number to a pager has no reasonable expectation of privacy because he can’t be sure that the pager will be in the hands of its owner.
Judge Penoyar said that the same reasoning applies to text messages sent to an iPhone. While text messages may be legally protected in transit, he argued that they lose privacy protections once they have been delivered to a target device in the hands of the police. He claimed that the same rule applied to letters and e-mail. (Police would still need to seize or search a phone or computer legally, and phones are much easier for cops to seize than computers, which generally require a warrant.)
“On his own iPhone, on his own computer, or in the process of electronic transit, Hinton’s communications are shielded by our constitutions,” he wrote, referring to both the state and federal constitutions. “But after their arrival, Hinton’s text messages on Lee’s iPhone were no longer private or deserving of constitutional protection.” Penoyar rejected Roden’s privacy arguments on similar grounds.
Mobile phones exist in a constitutional grey area. The law has well-developed doctrines protecting the privacy of our desktop computers, landline telephones, and filing cabinets. But modern cell phones perform all of these functions, and more. If the police are free to rummage through any cell phone that falls into their hands, every arrest would automatically give the police access to a treasure trove of private data that they would otherwise need a warrant, based on probable cause, to obtain.
The Washington State decision is not unprecedented. Last year, the California Supreme Court ruled that no warrant was required for the police to peruse a cell phone that was confiscated after its owner tried to sell ecstasy to an undercover police officer. In that case, the police obtained a text message that seemed to confirm the government’s case against the suspect. Two justices of the California Supreme Court dissented from the ruling.
One judge dissented from the Washington State rulings as well. “Sawyer engaged in a continuing search when he first searched the contacts list on Daniel Lee’s iPhone to find Hinton’s phone number,” wrote Judge Marywave Van Deren in her dissent. Sawyer “used Lee’s iPhone to send and receive messages from Hinton. Under these circumstances, I would hold that Sawyer was required to obtain a search warrant.”
In a slightly different context, the Obama administration has also held that the contents of cell phones enjoy constitutional protection. Earlier this year, the Department of Justice filed a brief in a Maryland case arguing that Baltimore police had violated a man’s constitutional rights—including his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure—when they seized his phone and deleted videos he had taken of the officers’ conduct.
- It’s legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner (arstechnica.com)
- It’s legal: cops seize cell phone, impersonate owner (whptv.com)
- Judge says it’s OK to use your seized phone to impersonate you and entrap your friends (boingboing.net)
- Court Rules Cops Can Impersonate You With Seized iPhone Anytime They Want (cultofmac.com)
- If The Cops Get Your Smartphone, They’re Free To Impersonate You (appadvice.com)
- Yes, The Cops Can Text You From Your Drug Dealer’s iPhone To Bust You (forbes.com)
- How To Quickly Send Out A Text Message Instead Of An iMessage Directly From Messages App On iPhone (redmondpie.com)
- The Text Message Era (mycricket.com)
- Court: Cops can read suspect’s texts, spring text trap (news.cnet.com)
- How to Change iPhone Usage Statistics to zero without Reset Date ? (onhax.wordpress.com)
Under Citizens United, Public Employees Are Compelled to Pay for Corporate Political Speech – NYTimes.com
How Pensions Violate Free Speech
By BENJAMIN I. SACHS
Published: July 12, 2012
A CENTRAL principle of American political life is that everyone gets to choose which candidates to support. The idea that the government could force us to support those we oppose is anathema. But this unacceptable state of affairs is one of the unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2010 Citizens United case.
That’s because the vast majority of people who work in the public sector — state, local and federal employees — are required to make contributions to a pension plan. Nearly all states make participation in a pension plan mandatory and a “condition of employment” for public employees. To get and keep your job with the government, you have to give some of your paycheck to the pension plan.
Public pensions, moreover, are so-called defined benefit plans, which means that employees don’t have a say in how their mandatory contributions are invested. The employees cannot request, for example, that their money be used only to buy government bonds or that it be invested only in certain mutual funds or only in select corporations.
Instead, the employees’ money is invested according to whatever decisions the pension plan’s trustee makes. And, not surprisingly, pension plans invest heavily in corporate securities: in 2008, public pensions held about $1.15 trillion in corporate stock.
Here’s the problem. In its Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court held that companies have a First Amendment right to make electoral expenditures with general corporate treasuries. And they’ve done so, with relish, pouring millions into the political system.
What Citizens United failed to account for, however, is that a significant portion of the money that corporations are spending on politics is financed by equity capital provided by public pension funds — capital contributions that the government requires public employees to finance with their paychecks.
This consequence of Citizens United is perverse: requiring public employees to finance corporate electoral spending amounts to compelled political speech and association, something the First Amendment flatly forbids.
Contrast this situation with how the court treats political spending by unions. In many states, public employees are required to pay dues to a labor union. If the public employees union were to spend any of the money raised through dues on politics, the court has ruled, the dues requirement would amount to forced political speech and association. To prevent this First Amendment violation, the court has held that no union may use an employee’s dues for political purposes if the employee objects.
The same should be true for pension funds and corporate politics. In a world where corporations can use their general treasuries for political spending, no government should be allowed to require employees to finance the purchase of corporate securities through a pension plan, unless the government provides those employees with a meaningful way to object to financing corporate politics.
The good news is that the rules governing union dues and political spending provide a road map for restructuring public pensions in order to bring them back into conformity with the First Amendment.
Here’s one way it could work: Pension plans would determine the number of employees that object to financing corporate political spending. They would then negotiate “opt out” rights with the corporations in which they invest. These corporations would calculate the percentage of their annual expenditures that go to politics and promise to return to the pension plan an amount equal to the objecting employee’s pro rata share of the corporation’s political budget.
Whatever the route to reform, however, public pension plans need to ensure that employees are not compelled to finance corporate political speech. Until they do, these pension funds will be vulnerable to the challenge that they are violating the First Amendment.
- Op-Ed Contributor: Under Citizens United, Public Employees Are Compelled to Pay for Corporate Political Speech (nytimes.com)
- The Court – Citizens United – NYTimes.com (mbcalyn.com)
- Montana attempts to buck the Supreme Court on Citizens United – The Washington Post (mbcalyn.com)
- US Supreme Court: Citizens United (goodolewoody.wordpress.com)
- Our View: Pension plans using rose-colored crystal ball? (appeal-democrat.com)
- California the sixth state to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC (blogforarizona.com)
- Democracy in the hands of idiots. Part II (english.pravda.ru)
- Former justice predicts cracks in Citizens United decision (firstread.msnbc.msn.com)
- Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Citizens United (nytimes.com)
- Initiative declaring corporations aren’t humans certified for Montana ballot (missoulian.com)
They need their own Constitutional amendment. By Paul G. Cassell – How Can We Fix the Constitution? – Slate Hive
Standing for Victims
They need their own Constitutional amendment.
The legal options of Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, parents of Trayvon Martin, would be affected by a Victims’ Rights Amendment
Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images.
This month, some of Slate’s legal eagles are proposing their favorite Constitutional amendments, in the service of our effort, with Me the People author Kevin Bleyer, to rewrite the founding document. Here are proposals about theright to trial by jury, protecting informational privacy, amending the Constitution by national referendum, electing the attorney general, moving up the date of the presidential inauguration,restoring the balance of war powers, Supreme Court term limits, forcing Congress to fix the rules of congressional procedure, a right to health care, a right to vote, campaign finance, and elections.
Victims’ Rights (New Amendment)
Our Constitution should include a Bill of Rights for crime victims, along the lines of the Victims’ Rights Amendment which has been introduced in Congress. This amendment is rooted in the simple idea that victims of crime deserve a role in the criminal process. It matches constitutional protections for criminal defendants with rights for crime victims. They would be guaranteed the rights to notice of court hearings, to attend those hearings, and to speak when appropriate, for example, at proceedings for bail, plea bargains, and sentencing. Victims would also have the right to see their cases proceed without unreasonable delay, to be notified when an offender is released or escapes, to have judges consider their safety before granting bail, and to restitution from a convicted offender.
These rights restore victims to their original place in the criminal justice system. When the Constitution was drafted, victims could actively pursue criminal cases, even serving as their own private prosecutors. The diminishment of their role over time shortchanged their interest in the outcome of government-determined prosecutions. Prompted by the victims’ rights movement of the last few decades, more than 30 states have enshrined victims’ rights in their own constitutions since 1988. And in 2004, Congress passed the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, which gave victims rights in federal court.
The growing number of state amendments, along with the federal law, reflects a growing national consensus that victims belong inside the criminal justice process—with a voice in decision-making. And yet, as Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe has observed, victims’-rights provisions have too often failed in the face of bureaucratic habit, traditional indifference, or the potential for conflict with the rights of the accused—even when those rights are not genuinely threatened. In the late 1990s, a study by the National Institute of Justice found that “large numbers of victims are being denied their legal rights.” For example, even in several states identified as giving “strong protection” to victims’ rights, fewer than 60 percent of victims were notified when defendants were sentenced and fewer than 40 percent were notified of the pretrial release of the defendant. A follow-up analysis found that racial minorities were the least likely to be afforded their rights. Former Attorney General Janet Reno concluded that the current “haphazard patchwork” of rules is “not sufficiently consistent, comprehensive or authoritative to safeguard victims’ rights.” At the federal level, in 2008 the General Accountability Office gave the Crime Victims’ Rights Act a mixed review for efficacy. In court, cases testing the law, have produced uneven results and even crushing defeats. For example, in 2008 the parents of a murder victim in Salt Lake City were blocked from delivering a victim impact statement at the sentencing of the man convicted of illegally selling the murder weapon to her killer.
The Victims’ Rights Amendment to the Constitution was first proposed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 (the only constitutional amendment endorsed by his administration) and has since garnered congressional support across the ideological spectrum, from Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Jon Kyl to Democrats Joseph Biden and Dianne Feinstein. Critics have focused their attacks not on the amendment’s underlying principles but rather on the mechanics of implementation. Some opponents have argued that the rights of crime victims do not belong to be in the Constitution because they do not concern the country’s political architecture. Yet the amendment promotes the grand theme of the Bill of Rights—protecting citizens against governmental misconduct—while also advancing the goals of later amendments that increase citizen participation in governmental processes (as I argue at greater length here). Nor does the amendment challenge the Warren Court rulings that expanded the protections for criminal defendants, as the ACLU has charged. The idea is merely that we should make a national commitment to ensuring that victims receive equal treatment.
In an earlier era, judges might have been able to informally accommodate victims’ interests. But today the coin of the criminal justice realm is federal constitutional rights. Without this level of recognition, victims inevitably become second-class citizens, with judges too often giving automatic precedence to the asserted claims of defendants rather than searching for reasonable alternatives that can accommodate the interests of both sides. To change that, here’s the Victims’ Rights Amendment, as proposed in the current Congress:
SECTION 1. The rights of a crime victim to fairness, respect, and dignity, being capable of protection without denying the constitutional rights of the accused, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State. The crime victim shall, moreover, have the rights to reasonable notice of, and shall not be excluded from, public proceedings relating to the offense, to be heard at any release, plea, sentencing, or other such proceeding involving any right established by this article, to proceedings free from unreasonable delay, to reasonable notice of the release or escape of the accused, to due consideration of the crime victim’s safety, and to restitution. The crime victim or the crime victim’s lawful representative has standing to fully assert and enforce these rights in any court. Nothing in this article provides grounds for a new trial or any claim for damages and no person accused of the conduct described in section 2 of this article may obtain any form of relief.
SECTION 2. For purposes of this article, a crime victim includes any person against whom the criminal offense is committed or who is directly harmed by the commission of an act, which, if committed by a competent adult, would constitute a crime.
SECTION 3. … This article shall take effect on the 180th day after the date of its ratification.
- How Can We Fix the Constitution? – Slate Hive (tribuneofthepeople.com)
- Larry Tribe Proposes a Constitutional Amendment to Fix Campaign Finance (pubcit.typepad.com)
- General Mills Opposes MN Marriage Amendment (bilerico.com)
- Kevin Bleyer Rewrites the Constitution (wnyc.org)
- by Public Citizen (socialactions.net)
- Rep. Keith Ellison urges constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United (rawstory.com)
- A constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United? (politico.com)
- More on a Constitutional Amendment to Authorize Campaign Finance Regulation (pubcit.typepad.com)
- TDS Staff: Kevin Bleyer “Me the People” (colbertnewshub.com)
- Dear Cinda. About HJRCA49. (preaprez.wordpress.com)
The Constitution should make party primaries open to all voters. By David S. Law – How Can We Fix the Constitution? – Slate Hive
Where’s the Party?
The Constitution should make party primaries open to all voters.
Voters cast their ballots voting booth during a Republican primary
Photograph by Jessica Kourkounis/Getty Images.
This month, some of Slate’s legal eagles are proposing their favorite constitutional amendments, in the service of our effort, with Me the People author Kevin Bleyer, to rewrite the founding document. Here are proposals about theright to trial by jury, protecting informational privacy, amending the Constitution by national referendum, electing the attorney general, moving up the date of the presidential inauguration,restoring the balance of war powers, Supreme Court term limits, forcing Congress to fix the rules of congressional procedure, a right to health care, a right to vote, victims’ rights, campaign finance,elections, and the death penalty and solitary confinement.
Open Primaries (Article I)
For better or for worse, political parties are an essential part of modern democracy. In this country and elsewhere, they make large-scale political competition possible. The majority of the world’s constitutions recognize their importance: Two-thirds of constitutions today, for example, contain an explicit right to form parties. Yet the U.S. Constitution doesn’t acknowledge their existence. In fact, the Framers swept the idea of political parties even further under the constitutional rug than slavery (which they at least addressed obliquely). Their failure to confront the prospect of party politics quickly proved disastrous. They designed a system in which presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the same party could tie one another, first in the Electoral College and then again in the supposedly tie-breaking House of Representatives—which is precisely what happened in the election fiasco of 1800. While the 12th Amendment was soon adopted to prevent that specific scenario from repeating itself, the underlying defect remains unresolved: The design of the Constitution simply does not factor in the consequences of the party system.
The result is that our Constitution fails to describe how our system of government actually operates. And it is operating in increasingly dysfunctional ways that the Framers neither intended nor anticipated. In the name of preventing tyranny, the Constitution sets out a system of government that is designed to deliver a good deal of gridlock by dividing up power along multiple dimensions—both horizontally, among the branches of government (the “separation of powers” with “checks and balances”), and vertically, between the national government and the states (“federalism”). But adding politically divided government to the mix, as occurs whenever one party controls the presidency and the other controls the House, the Senate, or both, takes things to a whole new level of paralysis and conflict.
This constitutional design flaw is aggravated by the increasing distance between the parties. Take it from the political scientists who have devised fancy statistical techniques for studying this exact phenomenon: Political polarization really is getting worse. Some relatively moderate politicians are heading for the exits on their own, while others are discovering that the middle of the road is increasingly a place where you get run off the road by your own party. That’s an especially big problem in states like Utah or Texas, where the real action takes place in the primary.
The Supreme Court, alas, has been rather unhelpful on this front. It has ruled that parties have a constitutional right to decide who gets to participate in their candidate selection processes, and it has struck down “blanket primaries,” in which all candidates from all parties are listed on a single ballot and voters can choose the candidate they most prefer from any party. If that is how the court is going to interpret the Constitution, then it is time to change the Constitution.
A constitutional guarantee of open primaries would accomplish a number of things. It would help to keep political polarization in check. It would enhance voter choice by giving people the opportunity to pick the candidate they most prefer, regardless of party affiliation. And it would give us a Constitution that reflects reality instead of pretending that political parties don’t exist. One little sentence could do the trick:
No person shall be denied the opportunity to vote in a primary election for the office of Senator, Representative, President, or Vice-President, on account of his or her party affiliation or lack thereof.
- How Can We Fix the Constitution? – Slate Hive (tribuneofthepeople.com)
- Kevin Bleyer Rewrites the Constitution (wnyc.org)
- Independent Party primary in Oregon will feature 15 contested races (oregonlive.com)
- State’s June 5 primary will be independents’ day (sfgate.com)
- How Pure Is Your Democracy? (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Dr. Jill Stein, the victor in the Green Party presidential primaries (wed-gie.com)
- How Pure Is Your Democracy? (heritage.org)
- Thousands Ineligible for Likud Primaries (israelnationalnews.com)
- San Francisco: Misprint lists wrong voter party on primary ballot stubs (mercurynews.com)
FCC finds AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile not in the public interest
The proposed $39 billion deal now goes to a hearing before an administrative law judge at the FCC
November 22, 2011, 4:16 PM —
The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s staff has found AT&T’s proposed $39 billion acquisition of rival T-Mobile USA to be contrary to the public interest, with officials there saying the deal would result in the largest single concentration in the U.S. mobile market in history.
The FCC, in a draft order released Tuesday, found the merger to be anticompetitive, echoing a similar conclusion in August by the U.S. Department of Justice. The FCC is now required to send the merger request to a hearing before an administrative law judge, where AT&T and T-Mobile USA will have the opportunity to argue against the FCC’s conclusion, FCC officials said.
The merger would result in unprecedented concentration of market power in the mobile market, FCC officials said in a press briefing in which they spoke under the condition they not be named.
At the same time, the FCC approved, with conditions, AT&T’s application to purchase $1.9 billion worth of spectrum in the lower 700MHz band from Qualcomm. The 12MHz of Qualcomm spectrum would cover 300 million U.S. residents, including 70 million people in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
AT&T said it was disappointed with the FCC’s decision. “It is yet another example of a government agency acting to prevent billions in new investment and the creation of many thousands of new jobs at a time when the U.S. economy desperately needs both,” Larry Solomon, AT&T’s senior vice president of corporate communications, said in a statement. “At this time, we are reviewing all options.”
FCC officials said they found no evidence that AT&T would roll out its 4G mobile broadband service faster if it was allowed to buy T-Mobile, as the company has suggested. The FCC’s staff also rejected AT&T promises saying the merger would lead to tens of thousands of new jobs. FCC officials instead said it would be likely to lead to “massive” layoffs as the two companies cut duplicative jobs.
Public Knowledge, a digital rights group opposed to the merger, praised the FCC’s decision. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski “is to be applauded for standing up to AT&T’s lobbying machine and moving forward to a hearing designation,” said Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge’s president.
An administrative hearing will allow AT&T to present additional evidence showing how it believes the merger will create jobs, Sohn said. That result “would run contrary to every other takeover AT&T has engineered,” she said. “There is ample evidence in the record that this deal would destroy jobs.”
The FCC’s decision to refer the merger to a hearing means that the agency has “substantial and material” questions about the deal, added Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director of Media Access Project, a nonprofit law firm focused on digital rights.
The hearing “means the FCC has found merit in our arguments that a combined AT&T/T-Mobile will create a duopoly in the wireless market which will increase prices for service and for handsets,” he said.
Grant Gross covers technology and telecom policy in the U.S. government for The IDG News Service. Follow Grant on Twitter at GrantGross. Grant’s e-mail address is email@example.com.
- FCC Finds AT&T’s Purchase of T-Mobile not in the Public Interest (pcworld.com)
- FCC finds AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile not in the public interest (macworld.com)
- Update: FCC finds AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile not in the public interest (infoworld.com)
- FCC threatens merger of AT&T and T-Mobile, AT&T cries foul (arstechnica.com)
- FCC Will Not Bless AT&T/T-Mobile, Asks For Hearing On Merger (paidcontent.org)
- FCC Asks For Hearing On AT&T/T-Mobile Deal (forbes.com)
- Report: FCC chief wants hearing on AT&T, T-Mobile merger (zdnet.com)
- FCC chairman comes out against AT&T’s T-Mobile buy (news.cnet.com)
- FCC Chairman: AT&T/T-Mobile deal not in public interest, hearing requested, reports WSJ (digitaltrends.com)
- AT&T faces new hurdle in T-Mobile bid (usatoday.com)
Obama’s healthcare law appealed to Supreme Court
(Reuters) – Twenty-six states and a small business group appealed on Wednesday to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to strike down all of President Barack Obama’s signature 2010 healthcare law.
The states and the National Federation of Independent Business said in separate appeals the entire law should be invalidated because Congress exceeded its powers requiring that Americans buy health insurance or face a penalty.
They urged the high court to quickly decide the issue in its upcoming term, which begins next week and lasts through June 2012. The Obama administration also is expected to ask the Supreme Court to decide the healthcare law.
The National Federation of Independent Business, a group representing 350,000 U.S. small businesses, had joined the states group led by Florida, in challenging the law in court.
A U.S. appeals court in Atlanta in August declared unconstitutional the individual insurance requirement, but refused to strike down the entire law.
The ruling by the appeals court in Atlanta conflicted with rulings by other appeals courts that have upheld the law or have rejected legal challenges, including a lawsuit by the state of Virginia that was dismissed earlier this month on procedural grounds.
The law, passed by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010 after a bruising political battle, is expected to be a major issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another four-year term. The major Republican presidential candidates oppose it.
Obama, a Democrat, has championed the law as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow soaring healthcare costs while expanding health insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.
The Supreme Court long has been expected to have the final word on the law’s constitutionality. The dispute has important legal, political and financial implications for companies in the healthcare field.
Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said the states filed their appeal and that it was time for a Supreme Court ruling.
“Individual citizens who have to plan for their families’ futures, businesses that might be considering adding new jobs, and state governments across the country that are looking at enormous new burdens need to know what the rules are,” he said.
Legal experts have said the nine-member Supreme Court, with a conservative majority and four liberals, most likely will be closely divided on whether the individual mandate requiring insurance purchases exceeded the power of Congress.
The Obama administration earlier this week said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the insurance requirement unconstitutional.
That decision cleared the way for the administration to go to the Supreme Court. The administration has said it believes the law will be upheld in court while opponents say it represents an unconstitutional encroachment of federal power.
Police corral marchers near stock exchange; demonstration enters 2nd week
Police carry away a demonstrator Saturday in a march organized by Occupy Wall Street in New York. About 80 were arrested.
updated 9/24/2011 10:12:53 PM ET
Police arrested about 80 demonstrators near the New York Stock Exchange on Saturday as they marched through lower Manhattan.
The first arrest came shortly after noon near the stock exchange. Several blocks away, another protester, who identified himself as Robert Stephens, was arrested after kneeling in the middle of the street outside the Chase Bank building.
Why the fight to save Troy Davis was doomed
The right will never be convinced by an argument hinging on “doubt”