Law school graduation

Law school recognition ceremony

Five years ago, I applied to the University of Maryland Law School and was denied. Four years ago, I applied and was denied again. After spending a year at UDC, I transferred into Maryland. Today I got my revenge: I am graduating magna cum laude and one of the top students in my class.

Found in the yard

Near the BWI Rail Station

Deconstructing a misleading tweet, one photo at a time

I found this tweet today:

Over 6,000 RTs! Except there's one problem. The two bottom pictures, which purport to show "white people in Baltimore looting"? The first was published on sfgate.com last November:

And the second was taken from reddit in January (and was also published on sfgate.com). Both pictures are apparently from an unrelated event in Oakland.

When confronted by this, the tweeter resorted to old faithful: "the narrative:" Where have we heard this before?

Conflicts between the federal government and the states: who wins?

My good friend Joshua Marpet asked me on Facebook to compare the following two situations: 

Medical Marijuana is legal to states, but federally illegal. On the other hand, he cited an article where a state Representative in Texas was attempting to pass a state law which would seek to criminalize the public recording of police, or otherwise exempt only a defined set of news media from such criminalization.

These two issues are both related and different. Let's tackle the marijuana issue. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act; and its manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution is illegal by federal law. That some states have legalized marijuana for medical uses (or for recreational uses) does not change this fact. This is a Supremacy Clause issue. That clause reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

What this means is that when federal and state laws conflict, the federal law wins.  So the federal government could go into every state that has legalized marijuana in any way, and shut down their operations. People who otherwise would be permitted to use marijuana by their states could still be subject to federal criminal penalties for those uses.  Such actions would be fully consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution. The only difference here is that the federal government has largely chosen to acquiesce to the states on this issue (probably as a result of growing public acceptance). But this doesn't prevent the federal government from changing its mind regarding the enforcement of federal laws in the future. Another administration less tolerant of state marijuana laws could, consistent with the Supremacy Clause and the Constitution, enforce federal law in states that have otherwise legalized marijuana.

A good example of a proposed law that would likely fail on Supremacy Clause grounds (and for other reasons, such as separation of powers) is a proposed Utah law to cut off water to the new NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah. Proposed laws like these, and others under the category of nullification (a long-ago discredited doctrine), simply don't pass muster.

The second issue involves whether a state can proscribe (or prohibit) conduct which is presumably legal under federal law. A short aside: the cited article suggests that criminalizing the recording of police "could be considered an act of defiance to mountains of legal precedent set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States." To be sure, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the specific issue of whether citizens have a legal right to film the police. The case that the article cites is Glik v. Cunniffe, which is a First Circuit case. The holding in this case only applies to the First Circuit; but for the purposes of this post, let's assume that indeed, the Supreme Court had affirmed the Glik decision.

In the area of individual rights, the federal government (or more precisely, the federal courts) set the minimum standard as to what is permitted. The states can provide more protection to individual rights, but not less; so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Here are two examples. First, in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Supreme Court held that DUI checkpoints were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Nonetheless, a number of states have found such checkpoints to violate the state constitutions or have otherwise outlawed them. Here, the states are providing more protection to individual rights of its citizens than the federal government, and as a result, this is permissible. Second, the Supreme Court has held that people generally do not have freedom of speech in private shopping centers; but on the other hand, California's constitution provides greater protection to speech than the First Amendment. So in California, people can exercise free speech even in a privately-owned shopping center. This too is permissible.

The proposed legislation in the cited article appears to do expressly the opposite: it purports to provide less protection to individual rights than is already permitted by federal law (again, assuming that Glik had been affirmed by the Supreme Court). When states attempt to restrict the rights of its people more than the federal government does, this rules afoul of--you guessed it--the Supremacy Clause. Even now--when there is no Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of people to film the police--I suspect a state law like the one proposed above would violate the First Amendment.

I hope this adequately answers the question!

Card catalog history

This card catalog is located at the University of Maryland's McKeldin Library. Of course, it's not actually in use anymore. It's there as a historical exhibit. A museum piece. Do you feel old yet?

Women suffragists picketing in front of the White House, 1917

Not the recommended way to exit the ship

This is probably an important part of the ship

I didn't realize cruise ships (or ships in general) had Voyage Data Recorders, although it's not surprising. This one was mounted above the bridge (it's difficult to tell from the second photo, but this is on the 10th deck). I was surprised that it was more or less accessible, and that the cable to the bridge was exposed.

The thermostat in our stateroom. With an interface.

Why oh why didn't I bring my tools?!

 

People play Bingo for money. So these wireless devices are secure, right?

Has anyone ever played Bingo with one of these wireless devices? How much do you want to bet that the data is not encrypted, or is otherwise manipulable? To be clear, I did not have the right equipment with me to test these devices--I'm just guessing here.

Why do some stairwells have two handrails?

Building codes? Aesthetics? Functional? Decorative? Any ideas?

Edit: just to be clear, in response to Eric's comment below (since I can't seem to add a comment myself). I'm not talking about a handrail on each side of the stars. I'm talking about two individual handrails on the same side; in the images below, both the wooden handrail and the metal handrail six or eight inches below and beside it.

 

This seems legit

Adventures from the strange police department files

In yesterday's post about the Veterans Affairs Police, I questioned whether it was necessary for every executive branch department to have their own branded police department. Rather, I thought it might be worthwhile to consider a government-wide, cross-agency, federal police department that staffs each executive branch agency as appropriate, without having to deal with an extra layer of bureaucracy of individual departments in each agency. But I did not question whether the VA needed police. On the other hand, you might reconsider your position about this one:

Yes, look again. The D.C. Public Library Police. It does exist--or, at least it used to exist. There is some evidence that it may have been wrapped up into the Protective Services Department. Still, Library Police. Better get those overdue books turned in!

The grave of Edgar Allan Poe

So the Veterans Administration has their own police department...

It's understandable that federal agencies and departments would need police forces, but I'm not sure I understand why agency each needs its own distinct police force. It seems like there could be a generic government-wide police force that is assigned to the various agencies.

VA Police cruiser on the southeast corner of Baltimore and Paca Streets.

Vending machine licenses...what are they good for?

In Maryland, the license fee is $2.50 for each vending machine. Apparently, no one renews these licenses because many of the vending machines I have encountered have expired licenses. In fact, all of the vending machines where I took this photo had expired licenses. Perhaps there is another explanation.

Pursuant to Maryland law, an inspector could "seal the vending machine to prevent further use." Md. BUSINESS REGULATION Code Ann. § 17-1905(c)(2)(i) (2013). Selling through a vending machine without license is a misdemeanor subject to a fine not exceeding $100. § 17-1906(b).

Other than paying $2.50 for the license, Maryland law does not appear to have any provision to inspect the machines or for any sort of regulation. Other than generating revenue, I don't really see the point of these licenses. By not enforcing them, Maryland apparently doesn't see the point either. So why not eliminate them?

Remember when the government actually abolished something?

Ok, it's been awhile. The Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995.

I couldn't think of a name for this nitpicky post

My initial observations about UM Carey Law have been almost entirely positive. Well, not today. Consider the following:

Some description is in order. Along the aisle, the floor slopes up gently from the left to the right so that each row of desks is slightly higher than those in front. However, the floor also slopes down from the aisle to the row. The result is that there is a small area of floor (roughly triangular in shape, as indicated by the red lines) which is not flat. No problem, except this small area of floor is also the same area of floor where the person sitting along the aisle sites. As a result, the chair doesn't sit flat. The only alternatives are to push yourself into the desk or to shift into the personal space of the person to the left of you. Well, there is another alternative--move to another spot. After a few classes and too much back pain from sitting crooked, I moved.

Who designed this floor and thought it would be a good idea?

Ok, yes, this is nitpicky. But it needed to be said. :-)