Former AG Mukasey to Speak at National Policy Conference on 4/27

The RNLA is pleased to announce that former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey will speak at the National Policy Conference on Friday, April 27.  Tickets and more information are available here.  Unlike previous years, walk-up registration will not be available this year.

Judge Mukasey has had a distinguished career of public service and private practice, supporting the rule of law for many years:

Michael B. Mukasey, of counsel to [Debevoise & Plimpton LLP], recently served as Attorney General of the United States, the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. As Attorney General from November 2007 to January 2009, he oversaw the U.S. Department of Justice and advised on critical issues of domestic and international law. Judge Mukasey joined Debevoise as a partner in the litigation practice in New York in February 2009, focusing his practice primarily on internal investigations, independent board reviews and corporate governance. 

From 1988 to 2006, Judge Mukasey served as a district judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, becoming Chief Judge in 2000. 

From 1972 to 1976, Judge Mukasey served as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and as Chief of the Official Corruption Unit from 1975 to 1976. His practice consisted of criminal litigation on behalf of the government, including investigation and prosecution of narcotics, bank robbery, interstate theft, securities fraud, fraud on the government and bribery. From 1976 to 1987 and from 2006 to 2007 he was in private practice.

Judge Mukasey wrote a few years ago in defense and praise of the exceptional nature of our system of separation of powers and federalism established by the Constitution:

Ours is the only nation on earth to define itself and the rights of its citizens based not on blood or land, but rather on adherence to a document: the Constitution.  Moreover, that document was architected in large measure to protect those rights. Here I emphatically do not refer to the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments – but rather to the structure of the government defined in the body of the Constitution, with powers of governance divided among the three branches, and, as to legislative powers, between the two Houses of Congress, so as to assure that interests would always be pitted against competing interests. That structure was put in place with explicit awareness, as Madison famously wrote in Federalist 51, that neither men outside government nor those inside it are angels, and thus governments are necessary to govern the former, and limits on government are necessary to control the latter; but as between the two, government is bottom up, not top down. . . .  

What protects our rights as Americans is not their recitation in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, but rather the structure put in place in the body of the Constitution -- with specifically enumerated legislative powers lest the legislature overreach; and a president given “the executive power” – all of it – but compelled to swear allegiance to the Constitution and to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” lest he overreach. . . .  

Neither judicial-legislative symbiosis, nor judicial parasitism, was foreseen by the Founders. In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton portrayed the judiciary as “the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution,” and possessed of a “natural feebleness” that left it in constant jeopardy from the other branches, at least so long as it remained separated from legislative and executive powers. 

No rules, even those contained in the splendidly crafted Constitution, can determine their own application. The Constitution, even though it is responsible for so much of our exceptionalism, and for keeping our rights safe from infringement, is virtually never itself the subject of serious study in schools. It appears, at least to me, that more people are familiar with cases decided under the Constitution than with the Constitution itself. If what so defines us and sets us apart is to continue to do so, that is going to have to change. Failing such change, we may wake up to find that, like those who reside in the countries of the European Union, we are governed not from the bottom up, but from the top down.   

We are honored for Judge Mukasey to address the RNLA at the end of April, and we invite you to join us. 

RNLA Honors Prof. Ron Rotunda on His Passing

Professor Ron Rotunda, a stalwart leader of the conservative and Republican legal movements, has unexpectedly passed away.  A consummate scholar, he was an expert on constitutional law, federalism, free speech, professional responsibility, legal history, and many other areas of law.  His legal and political analysis was always insightful and witty, enabling non-lawyers and lawyers alike to easily understand complicated concepts and making him a sought-after commentator on many issues.  

RNLA President Elliot Berke said: "When I was in law school, Ron became a legal giant to me as a Constitutional Law scholar. He had worked on Watergate with my Con Law professor so I then only knew him by reputation. Within a few years of graduating, I was fortunate to work with him in the Independent Counsel's office and to become his friend. He leaves behind a tremendous legacy in the law and will be greatly missed." 

Here are some recent highlights from his prolific writing and speeches:

John Marshall and the Cases That United the States of America - published in January, this critically acclaimed book contains Prof. Rotunda's rewritten and condensed version of Beveridge's biography of John Marshall.  It is a fascinating read for scholars of legal history and constitutional law.

"Facebook, Russian Interference and the Monsters on Maple Street" - Verdict, Dec. 18, 2017:

There is nothing new under the sun and there is nothing new about Russian interference. The Russians (and the Soviets before them) spread agitation-propaganda, or “agitprop,” a Russian blend of agitatsiya (agitation) and propaganda (propaganda). Its purpose is to sow discord, fan hatred. . . . 

Non-democracies spread fake news to undermine democracy and manipulate people. . . . There is nothing unusual, or even new, in all of this. When we express surprise, we emulate French Captain Renault in Casablanca who said, “I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!” (Right after that, an employee says to him, “Your winnings, sir.”) 

What we know of Russian interference tells us much about Putin, the former KGB operative, and much about ourselves. Russia used Facebook and other social media in the year or so preceding the 2016 presidential election, and the period following, to sow discord and mayhem. The point is to amplify social divisions . . . by promoting opposite sides of the political spectrum . . . .

"Using the Licensing Power of the Administrative State: Model Rule 8.4(g)" - The Federalist Society's National Lawyers Convention, Nov. 18, 2017: Prof. Rotunda provided a chilling, yet amusing, analysis of free speech implications of the American Bar Association's new Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(g).

"George Wallace at Harvard—The Good Old Days of Campus Free Speech" - Verdict, May 8, 2017: 

Every generation must relearn the lessons of free speech. It is no accident that Eastern European Communists suppressed speech and art as well as politics and religion. And when the people overturned the Communist dictators of Eastern Europe, they regarded freedom of expression as a premier right. The Czech revolution began in the theatres, and that country’s first freely elected president since World War II was a playwright.

"An English Teacher Corrects Shakespeare" - Verdict, Apr. 10, 2017:

There is also the problem of free speech. People have a right to use ordinary English. Perhaps because we have passed 1984 unscathed, we often ignore the significance of George Orwell’s “Newspeak”. Words both reflect and mold the way that people think, which is why they are so powerful and why the First Amendment is so important. [Northern Arizona University's] Dr. [Anne] Scott is using her power of grading as a way to control how people talk. . . . 

There are limits to the power of words, but there is also a magic in them: not the magic of “abracadabra,” but magic nonetheless. Words have the ability to confuse and to clarify, to help legitimate policies, to generate loyalty, to give the appearance of action, to mold people’s perceptions of the world, to affect the way they approach a problem, and to reflect their innermost thoughts. When people argue about “mere words,” they are talking about fundamentals, about infrastructure, not superstructure. 

When Dr. Scott and Northern Arizona University force students to use certain words and shun others, they are tapping into this power—a power easy to abuse. That is why we have the First Amendment. The government should not punish people for using words that our dictionary blesses.

"The Electoral College Works Fine, Just as It Is" - Verdict, Dec. 5, 2016:

Our Electoral College system prevents candidates with only regional appeal from winning. Statistically, a rule requiring the winner to prevail in a number of sub-elections produces a better result for the country. For the same reason we count the number of games won in the World Series (rather than the total number of runs, which would be heavily influenced by an anomalous game). After all, if Clinton in 2016, won 100% of the popular vote in her home State of New York, thereby prevailing in the nationwide popular vote, those extra votes would not show she had more support nationwide, only that she is a candidate popular in one very populous state. 

The Electoral College penalizes political parties that have only regional strength. In the 2016 election, the Democrats had regional appeal. If you look at a map of the vote for president based on counties, with counties colored red (for Republican), you will see the country painted with a sea of red except, primarily, at the seashores. This regional influence extends in congressional races as well. In the House of Representatives, just three coastal states, California, Massachusetts and New York, now account for a third of all House Democrats. 

The Framers of our Constitution built for the long term and created a system to last for generations. They established a democracy while protecting the rights of the minority. . . . 

The structural limits do not stop here. They created the Electoral College to protect the residents of the smaller states, and they rejected government by simple majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictators, such as Hitler & Benito Mussolini. In modern form, plebiscites arose out of the French Revolution. Madison feared what he called “tyranny by the majority.”

"The ABA Decision to Control What Lawyers Say: Supporting 'Diversity' But Not Diversity of Thought" - The Heritage Foundation Legal Memorandum, Oct. 6, 2016: 

These changes show that the ABA is very much concerned with what lawyers say and who teaches them. The only thing that does not concern the ABA is diversity of thought. The language that the ABA uses to promote its latest foray into political correctness makes this all too clear. Moreover, what the ABA does affects all of us, even if we are not lawyers, because of its governmental power. . . . 

Even when a court does not enforce this rule by disbarring or otherwise disciplining the lawyer, the effect will still be to chill lawyers’ speech, because good lawyers do not want to face any nonfrivolous accusation that they are violating the rules. The ABA as well as state and local bar associations routinely issue ethics opinions advising lawyers what to do or avoid, and most lawyers follow this advice. . . . 

Is it the best use of scarce bar resources to discipline lawyers who may violate a vague rule that prohibits speech because that speech violates the new Rule 8.4(g)? It is not as if the disciplinary authorities are looking for things to do. There are plenty of lawyers who are incompetent, who commingle trust funds, or who cheat third parties. 

The purpose of the new Rule 8.4(g) is to promote a “cultural shift” in the United States. Until now, that was not within the job description of the ABA or of the Rules Governing Professional Conduct.

Rest in peace, Professor Rotunda.

Improvement But Concerns Remain About DHS's Role in Our Election Process

There is a push in some quarters to have a larger role for the Department of Homeland Security in our elections.  Last Friday, once again, news came out that should cause all to pause in consideration of such an idea. 

The Department of Homeland Security said earlier this year that it had evidence of Russian activity in 21 states, but it failed to inform individual states whether they were among those targeted. Instead, DHS authorities say they told those who had "ownership" of the systems — which in some cases were private vendors or local election offices.

To be clear, the Trump Administration Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been better than the Obama Administration DHS.  At least they are telling people what is happening. 

"Most importantly, DHS acknowledged that they had contacted the wrong people at the state level and will rectify that going forward by communicating with each state's chief election officials," says [National Association of Secretaries of States] spokesman Stephen Reed. "Finally finding out this information from DHS allows the chief elections officials to move forward on this matter."

However, this whole process calls into question and continues to raise concerns about what a future DHS may do.  It bears remembering that the Obama DHS when considering how to counter a Russian hacking threat drew up plans that included sending armed law enforcement agents to polling places.  As Time magazine reported earlier this year:

President Obama’s White House quietly produced a plan in October to counter a possible Election Day cyber attack that included extraordinary measures like sending armed federal law enforcement agents to polling places, mobilizing components of the military and launching counter-propaganda efforts.

While all can agree that DHS is doing better, serious concerns remain about a larger role in elections for DHS going forward, such as with the designation of election systems as critical infrastructure.  

Concerns with Klobuchar-Graham Election Security Amendment

Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have co-sponsored an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act providing for federal funding for state election security measures.  While the security community has embraced this amendment, and we thank Sen. Graham for taking the problem of election security seriously in a way that attempts to respect state power, we have some concerns about this measure:

• It is a serious amendment of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) that should be approached carefully, and the process should include hearing where various stakeholders testify.
• It places enormous new responsibilities on the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), an agency which has struggled to fulfill its existing mandate and operate its existing advisory boards, which faces a budget crisis, and which may not have the authority to accomplish what the amendment requires.
• The EAC already accomplishes many of the functions in this amendment, but the amendment adds more bureaucracy and spends more money to do it.  It is an enormous aggregation of federal power.
• It formalizes the role of the Department of Homeland Security and the Executive Branch to set standards, which the states are required to meet to receive federal funding.  Currently, the EAC is the only federal standard-setting standard entity for elections, and it is an independent agency.
• An existing voluntary program to certify voter registration systems appeared to be working well, aside from DHS withholding important security information from the states last fall.  States are agreeing to this new measure because they are already doing these things on a voluntary basis and need the funding, but a voluntary program and a mandatory (at least, from the perspective of funding) program are vastly different in terms of who is controlling the election security standards and systems.
• It excludes states that use direct recording electronic (DRE) voting machines.  While there have been some serious problems with DRE machines (and Virginia decertified all DREs in the state last week), DREs are the only machines many localities have and they make voting easier for voters with disabilities.
• It would allow states to implement mandatory voter registration and other progressive reforms with federal funds.

This amendment needs some serious study and input from election administration experts--not just computer, national security, and cybersecurity experts--before it moves forward in the Senate.

Among other burdens placed on the EAC, the amendment requires it and a commission to conduct an investigation of the foreign interference in the 2016 election and the potential for interference in future elections.  An existing commission, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, is already investigating election security and voting machines as part of its mission to study the U.S. election system and what promotes or decreases voter confidence in the system.  The next meeting of the commission is tomorrow, from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM Eastern.  RNLA will be live-tweeting the meeting.