Upcoming Events

New York City Council Speaker Gifford Miller's talk on "Progressive
Policy Experiments on the Local Level" has been postponed till Feb.
14th.  In the meanwhile, dont miss Delaware State Treasurer Jack
Markell's talk on the same topic on Tuesday Feb. 8th at 12:30, in
JG 101. Pizza will be served.

In addition to co-sponsoring the Voting Rights Symposium at CLS on Feb. 18th,
ACS will also be hosting former Acting Attorney General Eric Holder on March 23rd.

About Jack Markell...

Jack Markell was re-elected to a second term as Delaware State
Treasurer in November 2002. Mr. Markell promotes financial
education, and is working to make state government and the
Treasurer's Office more effective.

Financial education has been a cornerstone of Mr. Markell's vision
as State Treasurer.  The Delaware Money School, which he created,
offers free classes to Delawareans throughout the year on topics
such as saving for college and retirement planning. More than
10,000 Delawareans have attended Money School classes since its
inception. His office has also hosted conferences for thousands of
Delawareans on money management and fiscal responsibility.

In 2002, Governor Ruth Ann Minner asked Mr. Markell and Caroline
Glackin of the First State Community Loan Fund to co-chair the
Governor's Task Force for Financial Independence, a task force
charged with exploring strategies that would help Delaware families
- especially those of low-and moderate incomes be financially
secure. Governor Minner endorsed the Task Force's recommendations
developed to enable more Delawareans to build financial assets and
take greater control of their financial lives. The Task Force
report can be found here.

At the 2000 Democratic National Convention, Mr. Markell was selected
by the Democratic Leadership Council as one of the 100 "rising
stars" of the Party. That same month New Democrat Magazine
spotlighted him in a group of just ten innovative leaders from
around the country under the age of 40. In October 2001, Philly
Tech Magazine named Mr. Markell as the only Delawarean and the only
government official on its list of the ten most influential
technology leaders in the Philadelphia region.

This week in law and policy

Dog sniffs without suspicion of drug activity do not violate Fourth Amendment

The Court ruled that a person who is in possession of contraband has no reasonable expectation of privacy, thus rejecting the Illinois Supreme Court's ruling that a dog sniff performed without suspicion of possession enlarges a traffic stop into a drug investigation.

Accordingly, the use of a well-trained narcotics-detection dog —one that "does not expose noncontraband items that otherwise would remain hidden from public view," Place , 462 U.S., at 707 —during a lawful traffic stop, generally does not implicate legitimate privacy interests. In this case, the dog sniff was performed on the exterior of respondent’s car while he was lawfully seized for a traffic violation. Any intrusion on respondent ’s privacy expectations does not rise to the level of a constitutionally cognizable infringement.

Illinois v. Caballes, Supreme Court of the United States, Justice Stevens, January 24

Execution delayed despite Supreme Court ruling

The would-be first execution in New England in 45 years was delayed this morning despite a previous Supreme Court ruling allowing it to continue as questions were raised about possible conflicts of interest regarding his lawyer. Michael Ross, the convicted person originally scheduled to die at 2:01 this morning, has been trying to stop the process of appeal, insisting that he is prepared to die.

First convicted and sentenced to die in 1987 for four murders of women and girls, Ross eventually confessed to eight murders and stated that he often raped his victims before killing them. While Ross has stated that he wants his execution to continue so that victims' relatives can gain some measure of peace, opponents of the death penalty have claimed that he is simply masking the desire to commit suicide. While Ross did not support further appeals, his father and others argued that he was not mentally competent to waive his rights.

Elections in Iraq set for Sunday

Ahead of Jan. 30 elections, security measures in Iraq have escalated sharply. Baghdad's airport will close tomorrow, along with Iraq's borders with six neighboring countries. Driving between 7 pm and 6 am is now prohibited. On election day, Iraqi police and American military forces will guard polling places. Meanwhile, insurgents have attacked eight polling places; one attack in Khanaqin, a Kurdish town on the Iranian border 70 miles northeast of Baghdad, killed eight Iraqis. In addition, seven American soldiers were killed on Friday in the area around Baghdad.

Abu Ghraib updates

German federal prosecutor Kay Nehm may not pursue war crimes charges filed against US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The charges, filed on behalf of four Iraqi citizens, allege that he was aware of and approved the torture of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq. The German press reports that charges may be pursued only if Germans are directly involved.

In Britain, an ongoing court martial revealed that a British soldier witnessed the torture at Abu Ghraib but failed to report it. The court martial involves three British soldiers accused of abusing and assaulting Iraqi prisoners. Meanwhile, the soldiers have accused their commanding officer of issuing orders for them to perform the acts of which they are accused.

Law reform will be taken up by Congress

Watch for tort reform and asbestos reform measures to come up for debate this week.

Who doesnt love blogging?

In lieu of a column today we have a message from ACS National....but not to distract you from writing for the CLS ACS Blog, the next three members who agree to write for our weekly column win a bottle of wine.

ACSBlog, is seeking to hire up to five law student volunteers as Editors-at-Large to publish biweekly analytical columns on the official blog of the American Constitution Society. New columnists will be selected based on a writing contest to be judged by the blog's current editorial team. Any current law student may enter; 1Ls are especially encouraged to apply.Since its inception in August 2004, ACSBlog has received over 100,000 visits and been linked to by leading blogs including the VolokhConspiracy, AndrewSullivan.com, BoingBoing.net and Slashdot.org. Entries should be between 250-750 words in length, and should focus upon a legal issue of national significance or interest. Additionally, entries should adhere to the following guidelines: ACS is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) educational organization. We do not lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific legal or public policy initiatives, cases, legislation, or nominations. Accordingly, entries should provide rigorous analysis rather than editorializing or presenting statements of opinion. In general, both sides of an issue should be fairly presented, although authors enjoy discretion as to which arguments are worthy of greatest emphasis. Opinions, including controversial and strongly stated opinions, voiced by reputable sources, may and should be quoted, with full attribution provided. Entries should be professional in tone and avoid ad hominem attacks. We emphasize brevity, good writing and accessibility for a readership that includes lawyers, law students and general readership interested in law and public policy issues. Appropriate uses of humor are encouraged, but must be genuinely funny. Quotations, third-party opinions, cases and statements of controversial legal or political theories should be cited. While Bluebooking is acceptable for materials unavailable online, the preferred method of citation is a hyperlink to the original source. Submissions will be judged based on relevance, clarity and entertainment value. Please avoid editorializing and statements of personal opinion. Forwriting samples, previously published columns are available atwww.acsblog.org. Entries should be submitted to Ian Millhiser, Editor-in-Chief atian@acslaw.org by January 31st. In addition, please include your name, phone number, the name of your law school, your expected date of graduation and a copy of your resume. The top ten entries will be published on ACSBlog, and between 3-5 entrants will be invited to join theblog staff as Editors-at-Large. In the event ACSBlog chooses to publish a particular submission, entrant grants the American Constitution Society first North American publication rights to their submission as consideration for ACS' effort in reading submissions.

Upcoming Events

This spring ACS will be sponsoring a lunchtime speaker series focused on "Progressive Policy Experiments on the Local Level."

On Feb. 1st at 12:30, we'll be co-hosting NYC Council Speaker Gifford Miller and on Feb. 8th at 12:30, Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell will be joining us. Location TBA. Pizza will be served. See you there.

Save the date: On Feb. 18th ACS will be co-sponsoring a Symposium on the Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act. Details to follow.

Roe v Wade anniversary

Roe v Wade was decided 32 years ago today.

"Jane Roe"--Norma McCorvey--now regrets her role in the case and has asked the Court to review it under FRCP 60(b), claiming that this decision, over time, has become unjust. The US District Court dismissed her challenge because too many years have passed; the Fifth Circuit found the case moot, though one judge wrote that changes in medical science did suggest that Roe should be reviewed. En banc review was denied October 18, and McCorvey filed her Supreme Court petition on January 14.

This month's "Atlantic" contains an interview titled "Letting Go of Roe." The argument is that holding on to the decision has been destructive, particularly to Supreme Court nomination battles, and that letting the decision be overturned would force anti-abortion conservatives to deliver on the legislation they continually promise to their constituents. They would lose, argues Benjamin Wittes, becuase the pro-abortion-rights majority is still solid.

In a recent article titled "Is There Life After Roe?", Frances Kissling notes both that she believes in women's basic human right to decide what to do about a pregnancy--but also that more is at stake than rights, as she writes:

This brings us to the second value of a good society: respect for life, including fetal life. Why should we allow this value to be owned by those opposed to abortion? Are we not capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time; of valuing life and respecting women's rights?

How should progressives balance women's rights against fetal rights, 32 years after Roe? How should we think about such rights in a medical era that has moved "viability" back into the fifth and sometimes even fourth month of pregnancy? Does "viable" life confer human rights? How can those who remain adamantly pro-choice compass and respect rights-talk within their arguments?

And, most crucially: is it time to let go of Roe?

This week in law and policy

The major news this week is, of course, Condoleezza Rice's imminent confirmation as Secretary of State. For a great entry about some of the implications, see Simon's "A test of progressive values" just below. The confirmation will occur amidst worsening news from Iraq, including more bombings ahead of elections projected for January 30 and retired four-star General Gary Luck's recommendations that the United States send thousands of Army "advisers" to work with individual Iraqi security units. At the same time, growing dissatisfaction among House members has led to a congressional report, drafted by Rep. Marty Meehan (D MA), that proposes removing the "vast majority" of US troops from Iraq within the next 12-18 months. Given Dr. Rice's indications that no significant changes in Iraq policy are forthcoming, the implications of such developments are unclear.

Jurist reports that Judge Leon of the DC District Court dismissed the habeas corpus petitions of seven Guantanamo Bay detainees this week (Khalid v. Bush and Boumediene v. Bush); the judge apparently relied on this summer's SCOTUS decision mandating tribunal review of detainees' requests:

Thus, to the extent these non-resident detainees have rights, they are subject to both the military review process already in place and the laws Congress has passed defining the appropriate scope of military conduct towards these detainees. The extent to which these rights and conditions should be modified or extended is a matter for the political branches to determine and effectuate through either Constitutional amendments, appropriate international entities. Thus, until Congress and the President act further, there is similarly no viable legal theory under international law by which a federal court could issue a writ.

Judge Leon also ruled that foreign nationals captured and held outside the United States have no constitutional rights and that the post-September 11 Congressional authorization of the GWOT gaive the President the power to detain terrorist suspects anywhere in the world. Link to the decision via http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/01/federal-court-dismisses-gitmo.php.

DC District Judge Joyce Hens Green is currently deciding whether to grant a government motion to dismiss another habeas case involving Guantanamo detainees. If Judge Green follows Judge Leon by granting the motion, she would strengthen the government's argument that Guantanamo Bay detainees have no rights that US courts must respect. If so, the June 28 ruling on Rasul/Al Odah v US and Hamdi v Rumsfeld would seem a hollow victory. Watch for that decision soon.

In another decision affecting Guantanamo detainees, the Supreme Court declined to review the constitutionality of military tribunals set up there; the Court preferred to allow the DC Circuit Court to hear the case first. It's scheduled for March 8.

SCOTUSblog has published a detailed list of the March arguments at www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/.

A test of progressive values

This is not going to be a long post or even one that offers an opinion. Inspired by Condoleeza Rice’s appearance for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, this post posits a simple question: do ACS’ values counsel for a swift departure from Iraq? Many Senators on both sides of the aisle pressed Rice for an exit strategy, and, more relevantly for this post, for a timeline. But does the apparent focus on an imminent withdrawal comport with progressive, and, dare I say it, American values?

Certainly, progressive sentiment ran staunchly against the initial military engagement. The arguments against war were so oft-repeated by its opponents that they’ve become cliché. They range from the dangers associated with preemptive war to the inevitability of a humanitarian catastrophe. Beyond ideology, the paucity of evidence that Saddam Hussein posed a credible latent threat, the danger of destabilizing the region, and the threat to international organizations all led reasonable voices to advise extreme caution.

But over a swell of protest, President Bush was afforded a sweeping war resolution by Congress. He swiftly used that authority – opening Pandora’s Box – and engendering a mixed reaction from the Iraqi populace. At least as far as can be gleaned from media accounts, it seems impossible to characterize the reaction of “average” Iraqis as monolithic. Some appear truly grateful to the United States as liberators, while others condemn the United States for meddling in their domestic affairs and failing to guarantee security, prosperity, or basic services. It’s particularly difficult for me to believe that the various militants are linked by a common theme. To be sure, many resent the introduction of Western troops onto sovereign Iraqi soil. For these elements, the continued presence of US forces is persistently antagonistic, fueling the flames of resentment and further encouraging domestic elements opposed to the United States to align themselves with foreign fighters.

Other militant factions, however, seem to be using the presence of the United States opportunistically to mask parochial agendas. These elements would seek the overthrow of any democratically elected successor government (or really any government indisposed to their particular ideology), and are targeting their attacks not against US military personnel, but against Iraqi security forces. Moreover, these sentiments all but guarantee that in the vacuum created by a US withdrawal, the situation would devolve further and a sovereign government would have tremendous difficulty maintaining its sovereignty over the whole of Iraq, regardless of how rapidly national security forces are trained.

This leads to several haunting questions: Would a democratically elected government stand a chance without American servicemen and women acting as guarantors for the foreseeable future? Once engaging in the conflict, does the United States have a moral responsibility to ensure peace and prosperity, even if it means a prolonged presence of American troops in the country, continued intervention, and reinforced anti-American attitudes?

With tremendous turmoil and civil strife in the country, I am forced to reflect on Colin Powell’s earlier warning to President Bush: if we break it, we buy it. Dubbed the Pottery Barn rule, this seems to be a central progressive value. If the United States mucks something up, it ought to seek to fix it, no matter how long it takes.

It was a much different time and a much different war, but the United States administered Japan for some six years following World War II.

Anyway, just some fodder for discussion…

Event at Fordham.

The Fordham Law Chapter of the American Constitution Society and The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Law Student Association present

LIFE AFTER LAWRENCE : The Current State of Marriage Equality in America

TUESDAY, 01.18.05 , 6:00p.m. MCNALLY AMPHITHEATRE

Moderated by Fordham Law School Professor Elizabeth Cooper Reporter for the NYSBA special committee to study issues affecting same-sex couples

Panel:
Mark Strasser Professor, Capital University. School of Law
Author, On Same-Sex Marriages, Civil Unions, and The Rule Of Law: Constitutional Interpretation At The Crossroads and Marriage and Same-Sex Unions: A Debate
Suzanne Goldberg Professor, Columbia Law School
Former Lambda Legal Counsel
Trial counsel in Lawrence v. Texas
Rose Saxe Staff attorney, American Civil Liberties Union
Susan Sommer Lambda Legal supervisory attorney
Litigation counsel, Lawrence v. Texas
Counsel in current New York same-sex marriage litigation

Beer & Wine Reception to Follow , Free & Open t o t h e P u b l i c

For more information, visit w w w . f o r d h a m a c s . o r g, or contact acs@fordham.edu

Upcoming Events

This spring ACS will be sponsoring a lunchtime speaker series focused on "Progressive Policy Experiments on the Local Level."

On Feb. 1st at 12:30, we'll be co-hosting NYC Council Speaker Gifford Miller and on Feb. 8th at 12:30, Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell will be joining us. Location TBA. Pizza will be served. See you there.

FedSoc Blog

The Columbia Federalist Society has re-launched their blog and has a couple interesting posts on Wednesday's sentencing decisions. Check them out here. They invited us to comment, and if any one would like, post a response. Email Liz at eaa2101 if you are interested.

This week in law and policy

Each week, I'll be posting a brief rundown of some of the week's major law and policy developments. Comments welcome!

Supreme Court decides US v. Booker and US v. Fanfan

From the SCOTUS Blog: "The Supreme Court ruled today that the Sixth Amendment, as interpreted by the Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, does apply to the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Justice Stevens, writing for a 5-4 majority, established that basic constitutional point. But, in a separate opinion written by Justice Breyer for a different 5-4 majority, the impact of the Stevens' opinion is merely that the Guidelines can no longer be mandatory, although judges must consult them, subject to an appeals court's review based on a standard of 'reasonableness.'" For more, see http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/.

Death penalty for minors?

The only decision remaining from the October session is Roper v. Simmons, which will determine the constitutionality of the death penalty for minors. The United States currently stands alone as the only nation in the world that still actively executes minors.

Stickers singling out evolution as a "theory" not permissible, federal court rules

In a case filed by the ACLU of Georgia and concerned parents, a federal court has ruled that stickers identifying evolution as a "theory" to be studied critically are unconstitutional. Because creationism (or "intelligent design") is currently the only viable alternative to evolution, the sticker unfairly advocates religion, the judge ruled. Additionally, the stickers single out evolution as a "theory," though the curriculum presents hundreds of scientific theories (like gravitation and relativity) without informing students that they should be evaluated critically. Read more at http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Evolution-Stickers.html.

Defense rests in trial of Spec. Graner; Justice Dept. opens abuse investigation

The defense concluded its case in the first contested court-martial to follow allegations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq. While the prosecution presented Spec. Mark Graner as a maverick who refused to follow orders and exceeded his authority--and military policy--by abusing detainees, the defense claimed that Graner was following orders. In a related development, the Justice Department has opened a major investigation into FBI reports of detainee abuse in both Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. The investigation was prompted in part by the ACLU's successful FOIA lawsuit, which released more than 20,000 documents relating to prisoner abuse. The Justice Department's inquiry follows a military inquiry already in progress. Human Rights Watch criticized the proceedings, arguing that a special prosecutor should be appointed to maintain the objectivity and credibilty of the investigation.

"Terror" tradeoffs?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Is a prisoner's right to be protected from torture unalienable? Is a prisoner's right to be charged or set free (or to have assurance of release at a foreseeable end to hostilities) unalienable? Is our national manifesto's declaration of human rights limited and contingent--good for Americans and allies only--or is it universal?

Alberto Gonzales' upcoming confirmation as Attorney General provides an opportunity for meditation on these questions. President Bush ought to have his choice of cabinet members, barring gross malfeasance. But two larger issues should encourage progressives to keep a close watch.

First, Gonzales will almost certainly be nominated to the Supreme Court. And second, he authored now-infamous memos on torture and indefinite detention.

Regardless of how Americans interpret his authorship of these documents, we still need to reflect on the international outrage sure to follow his confirmation. Regardless of whether Gonzales was "just doing his job," he countenanced--and perhaps recommended--ignoring arguably the most important international instrument that we have to protect human rights in wartime: the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of prisoners of war.

Gonzales' sophistry enabled the government to argue that it may indefinitely imprison those currently held at Guantanamo Bay (and apparently "Guantanamo Takes on Look of Permanence," NYT 10 January 2005). Presumably, the same arguments will indefinitely detain those currently held in the prisons at Abu Ghraib and in Afghanistan (more prisoners determined by the US to be outside POW protections were recently captured in Iraq; "U.S. Said to Hold More Foreigners in Iraq Fighting," NYT 8 January 2005).

Though imprisonment without charge or foreseeable end violates clear international human rights standards, Bush Administration officials have likened the situation to WWII, asking whether we could have predicted its end from the perspective of war's height. Of course we could not. But during WWII, we held enemy soldiers as POWs, not unlawful combatants. We did not hold them in cages and subject them to humiliation and torture. Detaining men and women indefinitely in these conditions deprives them of dignity and hope, and deprives America of its sacred honor.

Those who argue that these "terrorists" "deserve" such treatment have not sufficiently meditated on the fact that in the great majority of cases, these detainees have not been proven criminals--and often, no evidence at all has been adduced against them. So much for Secretary Rumsfeld's claim that Guantanamo held some of the most dangerous terrorists on earth. But still, though "the vast majority of the 550 prisoners at...Guantanamo no longer had any intelligence value and were no longer being regularly interrogated," the Defense Department palns to "hold hundreds of them indefinitely, without trial" ("U.S. Said to Hold More Foreigners in Iraq Fighting," NYT 8 January 2005).

The indefiniteness of their detention reflects the fact that we have no way of knowing when, if ever, the "war on terror" will end. America has declared war on a tactic, not a nation state, thereby initiating a conflict without a resolution. If the "war" never ends, the detainees will never be free.

Gonzales' confirmation hearings overlapped the trial of Spec. Charles Graner, the first contested court-martial of a serviceman accused of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gonzales certainly did not authorize Graner's actions, but it seems clear that his reasoning helped to create an atmosphere of tolerance for unimaginable abuses of human rights, bodily integrity, and dignity. Graner's lawyer opened his defense by comparing the use of naked and hooded detainees to make a human pyramid to the activities of American cheerleaders; the New York Times further reports that the lawyer compared "putting naked prisoners on leashes" to "what parents in airports do with their toddlers." He denied that the treatment constituted abuse; rather, he argued, the detainees were being kept under control ("Portraits Differ as Trial Opens in Prison Abuse," NYT 11 January 2005).

I don't know what to say about comparisons so far beyond the pale of human decency. I would say this, though: we are a proud country, strong because of our democratic traditions and our respect for the dignity and integrity of the human individual. If we acquiesce to a system that holds people indefinitely without charging them or producing evidence of any crime; if we look the other way when that system tortures individuals purely for the purpose of humiliating and breaking them; if we fail to protest, loudly and often, against a regime that is about to elevate a torture apologist and Geneva Convention scofflaw to the highest law enforcement office in our country--we will lose a great deal more than any terrorist could ever take from us.

The Race Based Marketing of Prescription Drugs

Something to think about.

This year a drug company is going to ask the FDA to approve a heart failure medicine for African Americans. Not Caucasian patients. Just black ones. With little or no guidance on what it is or means to be white or black. Why should this be of interest to the legal community? Well, the FDA shouldn’t be able to do this, and it’s debatable whether or not it’s really a good idea.

A little background. Last November, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study about BiDil, the aforementioned drug. BiDil treats heart disease and has been tested in the past, unsuccessfully, in a diverse community. When researchers went back and analyzed the data, they discovered that while the drug was ineffective overall, it was fabulously successful in treating folks that were identified as African American. In fact, when the researchers initiated a study whose only participants self-identified as being African American, they had to stop it prematurely, because the drug was so effective they felt it would be wrong to withhold it from the control group.

The FDA, which falls under the umbrella of the Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for certifying all prescription drugs as being safe and effective before they are put on the market; there is no real question that everything they do constitutes state action. Thus, if they choose to label something on the basis of race, shouldn’t this action be strictly scrutinized? If so, the approval of BiDil solely for African Americans must advance a compelling government interest by the least restrictive means necessary. No doubt, the treatment of heart failure serves a compelling government interest. Even more so if we look at BiDil’s story through the lens of affirmative action. African Americans suffer from a variety of health problems at disproportionately high rates due to a variety of environmental factors. BiDil’s approval for African Americans may just be one step towards righting past health care wrongs. Still, despite the fact that this drug will help African Americans suffering from heart disease in the short term, allowing the FDA to slap a race-based label on the drug may not be least restrictive means of putting it on the market and is probably not a good thing for the African American community in the long term.

For years, scientists, researchers and other academics have been shouting that race is a social construct. In fact, the preliminary sequencing of the human genome told us that regardless of whether or not our physical characteristics (a.k.a., " phenotype" to geneticists) identify us as black, white or Asian, we are pretty much genetically identical to one another. And yet, here we have a drug company implying that African American heart failure patients are physically (read: genetically) different from white heart failure patients. How can they do this? Were the social construct theorists wrong?

No. The reality is that BiDil’s efficacy likely has little to do with race as commonly perceived. "African American" is just filling in as a proxy for the genetic markers that code proteins which ultimately lead to the ways in which the human body interacts with the drug. Anyone may have these genetic characteristics. Allowing BiDil’s marketers to make the quick leap from "genetic markers" to "race" may have long term implications for medical and social policy if not fully thought through by policy makers now, before the FDA has acted. It would be a huge injustice for the FDA to keep BiDil from patients who could benefit from it. Nevertheless, BiDil’s makers and the FDA should not be permitted to shortcut the drug approval process by referring to BiDil’s efficacy within one community. The drug company should be required to find out what exactly is making the drug so effective in the African American community. The FDA should compel BiDil’s makers to research what exactly "race" is serving as a proxy for and approve the drug for all individuals with such characteristics, whatever their ancestry.

The last thing we need is the FDA’s stamp of approval on dubious biological differences between races. This could open up a whole can of worms. For starters, how do we decide who qualifies as African American? Is it a phenotypic designation? More research is needed to identify how people self-select their racial identity. Again, it would be wrong to deny sick patients an effective drug. Therefore, the FDA should approve BiDil for African Americans only so long as it takes to develop a test to identify all the individuals who could be treated by BiDil, whatever their race. In the words of Francis Collins, "a true understanding of disease risk requires a thorough examination of root causes. ‘Race’ and ‘Ethnicity’ are poorly defined terms that serve as flawed surrogates for multiple environmental and genetic factors in disease causation, including ancestral geographic origin, socioeconomic status, education and access to health care. Research must move beyond these week and imperfect proxy relationships to define the most proximate factors that influence health."

Young Professionals for Spitzer

ACS is not a political organization and does not endorse or support political candidates. We are a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization. We do not, as an organization, lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific issues, cases, legislation, or nominations. The views expressed on this blog are those of individual ACS members and are not written on behalf of the organization. That being said, the following event may be of interest and is a great way to support fellow ACS member, 1L Jenny Bell.

What: Young Professionals Open Bar Fundraiser for Spitzer
When: January 10, 8-11 pm
Where: Spirit 530 West 27th Street New York City
Why: Support Spitzer and celebrate the first day of classes with an open bar!
RSVP: Email Jenny at jlb2136@columbia.edu or Sarah at bells@gtlaw.com
Minimum ticket price: $50/ person in advance or $75/person at the door

If you can not make this event but are interested inothers, there will be plenty more--e-mail the bells@gtlaw.com or jlb2136@columbia.edu if you would like to be put on the e-maillist.

Happy New Year.

Today dawns a new era in ACS blogging.

From now on....

Each Monday, a current ACS board member will post to this site upcoming events, and ACS-related news.
Each Wednesday, a guest columnist from the CLS student and practitioner community will be sharing with us their thoughts on current legal issues.
Each Friday, 1L Mary Kelly Persyn will be doing a weekly news round-up of events and articles that may be of interest to the progressive legal community.

Each month will also feature a different Point/Counterpoint discussion with the CLS Federalist Society.

Upcoming Events and News: Week of Jan. 3rd.

Today dawns a new era in ACS blogging.

From now on....

Each Monday, a current ACS board member will post to this site upcoming events, and ACS-related news.
Each Wednesday, a guest columnist from the CLS student and practitioner community will be sharing with us their thoughts on current legal issues.
Each Friday, 1L Mary Kelly Persyn will be doing a weekly news round-up of events and articles that may be of interest to the progressive legal community.

Each month will also feature a different Point/Counterpoint discussion with the CLS Federalist Society.
*********************
Upcoming Events
February 6th: Delaware State Treasurer Jack Markell will share his thoughts on what is like to be a young person in politics and progressive policy experiments at the local level.
February 18: ACS co-sponsors Columbia's Voting Rights Act Symposium
April 8-10: The Constitution in 2020: A conference at Yale Law School

ACS Competition Info

1. ACS National Student Comment Competition

The American Constitution Society proudly announces its first annual ACS National Student Comment Competition. This annual competition for law students nationwide is an opportunity to recognize legal scholarship that enhances the understanding and advancement of progressive legal theories.
Overview:
The University of Pennsylvania Law School's American Constitution Society chapter and the national American Constitution Society will sponsor an annual legal writing competition for law students nationwide. Papers will be judged on their effective use, analysis, and/or expansion of progressive legal scholarship. This year's judging committee includes the Honorable Marsha Berzon, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit; the Honorable Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; the Honorable Robert Pratt, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa; Professor Randall Kennedy, Harvard Law School; and Professor Seth Kreimer, University of Pennsylvania School of Law; Alan Morrison, Stanford Law School; and Akua Asare, Editor-in-Chief, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. The student authors of the top three papers will receive a special award at the national convention and a cash prize for their work. The top paper will receive an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law.

Checklist of requirements:
Eligibility: Any full-time or part-time student currently enrolled in a J.D. or LLM program at an American law school.
Format: Submissions should be unpublished academic works, 25-50 pages including footnotes, 12 point courier font, 1 inch margins.
Deadline: Submissions are due on February 11, 2005. Papers received after this date will not be considered.
Previous publication/use: No paper previously published will be considered. However, papers currently being considered for publication, papers related to research done by the author and/or submitted to fulfill a course requirement or law journal credit requirements may be submitted.
Content: Submissions may deal with any aspect of the law so long as the overall theme relates to the competition theme, "The Constitution in the 21st Century." Submissions must develop a progressive vision of the Constitution in the 21st century, or critique a conservative interpretation or theory. Submissions may focus on one specific area of the law, legal theory, or jurisprudence, or may broadly cover multiple areas or major themes, so long as the submission as a whole relates to the topic.
Author: Submissions must be an original work written by a single author.

2. ACSBlog Student Writing Contest

Submissions due January 31, 2005
ACSBlog, is seeking to hire up to five law student Editors-at-Large to publish biweekly analytical columns on the official blog of the American Constitution Society. New columnists will be selected based on a writing contest to be judged by the blog's current editorial team. Any current law student may enter; 1Ls are especially encouraged to apply.

Since its inception in August 2004, ACSBlog has received over 100,000 visits and been linked to by leading blogs including the Volokh Conspiracy, AndrewSullivan.com, BoingBoing.net and Slashdot.org.

Entries should be between 250-750 words in length, and should focus upon a legal issue of national significance or interest. Additionally, entries should adhere to the following guidelines:

ACS is a not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) educational organization. We do not lobby, litigate, or take positions on specific legal or public policy initiatives, cases, legislation, or nominations. Accordingly, entries should provide rigorous analysis rather than editorializing or presenting statements of opinion. In general, both sides of an issue should be fairly presented, although authors enjoy discretion as to which arguments are worthy of greatest emphasis. Opinions, including controversial and strongly stated opinions, voiced by reputable sources, may and should be quoted, with full attribution provided.
Entries should be professional in tone and avoid ad hominem attacks. We emphasize brevity, good writing and accessibility for a readership that includes lawyers, law students and general readership interested in law and public policy issues. Appropriate uses of humor are encouraged, but must be genuinely funny.
Quotations, third-party opinions, cases and statements of controversial legal or political theories should be cited. While Bluebooking is acceptable for materials unavailable online, the preferred method of citation is a hyperlink to the original source.

Submissions will be judged based on relevance, clarity and entertainment value. Please avoid editorializing and statements of personal opinion. For writing samples, previously published columns are available at www.acsblog.org.

Entries should be submitted to Ian Millhiser, Editor-in-Chief at ian@acslaw.org by January 31st. In addition, please include your name, phone number, the name of your law school, your expected date of graduation and a copy of your resume. The top ten entries will be published on ACSBlog, and between 3-5 entrants will be invited to join the blog staff as Editors-at-Large.

In the event ACSBlog chooses to publish a particular submission, entrant grants the American Constitution Society first North American publication rights to their submission as consideration for ACS' effort in reading submissions.