Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

We Write Emails

Mr. Dan Grech
WLRN Miami Herald News Director

Dear Mr. Grech,

I am a law professor at the University of Miami. I am writing to express my concern about something I heard on WLRN this morning during the Miami Herald News segment. The segment concerned the discussion held yesterday in the Miami Herald editorial offices between competing candidates for Congress in FL-22. (I was in my car, but I believe it ran shortly after 7:30am. I can't find it online.)

In the discussion of the candidates' differences over immigration, Allen West's position was described as “hardline”; his position was that babies born in the US should not have citizenship. Whatever the merits of this idea as social policy (the so-called 'anchor babies' to which he referred have been shown to be pretty much mythical) it does listeners, most of whom are not professors of constitutional law, a great disservice to call this a “hardline” position. It is not a matter of policy that could be changed by Congress or the Executive. It is, quite simply, part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Either the candidate is proposing that we ignore the Constitution as it has been understood for generations, or he is proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment. Proposals to violate the law, or to amend basic rules that have served us for generations, may be called many things — I'd call them “radical” — but they cannot fairly be called “hardline” without substantially more context than your report offered.

We might call differences on how aggressively to attempt to enforce immigration laws — e.g. what resources to devote to factory or farm-worker raids — as an issue to which the “spend more on enforcement” position is fairly abbreviated as “hardline”. But the “ignore the Constitution” or the “repeal the 14th Amendment” positions are something else entirely, something I hope your future reports — even the very short ones — will make more clear.

Yours Sincerely,

A. Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law

Posted in Politics: 2010 Election, The Media | 7 Comments

They Said It Couldn’t Be Done

OneMillionGiraffes project reaches, nay, exceeds, its goal of collecting one million giraffe images.

At least, they say they have. I didn’t count them all.

Posted in Internet | Comments Off on They Said It Couldn’t Be Done

This Looks Like a Trend

SiteProbe Goes For-Pay.

IMPORTANT: Xmarks Sync to be Discontinued

Sadly, Xmarks will be shutting down our free browser synchronization service on January 10, 2011. … For more detail on why we're closing our doors, please see our blog post.

I like Xmarks (formerly Foxmarks). Between it and Dropbox moving between my laptop and my desktop, not to mention between home and office, has become a lot easier.

Let it be noted that Xmarks are going out classy: they promise to delete user data, not to try to monetize it, and they have provide browser-specific instructions on how to migrate to alternate syncing tools.

Thank you guys — you were great.

Posted in Software | Comments Off on This Looks Like a Trend

Privacy is a Key Part of Liberty

Lest you think there's nothing at stake when people decide how much leeway to give the government to search, question and monitor, here's Digby, Mission Creeps — The New Surveillance State, with pointers to two articles which when read together give you a good idea of the rather discouraging state of play: Glenn Greenwald, The Obama administration's war on privacy and a little case study, Daniel Rubin, An infuriating search at Philadelphia International Airport.

Posted in Law: Right to Travel | 1 Comment

Liberty Gets Used Up Only When Not in Use

For some interesting stuff about a US Citizen's almost-never-exercised right to remain silent when re-entering the United States, and the punitive responses it incites from our public servants, see Paul Karl Lukacs, I Am Detained By The Feds For Not Answering Questions and the sequels, 10 Brief Responses To 700 Comments About Refusing To Answer Questions At Passport Control and More Law: Refusing To Answer Questions At U.S. Passport Control.

Here's how it begins:

I was detained last night by federal authorities at San Francisco International Airport for refusing to answer questions about why I had travelled outside the United States.

The end result is that, after waiting for about half an hour and refusing to answer further questions, I was released – because U.S. citizens who have produced proof of citizenship and a written customs declaration are not obligated to answer questions.

* * *

“Why were you in China?” asked the passport control officer, a woman with the appearance and disposition of a prison matron.

“None of your business,” I said.

Her eyes widened in disbelief.

Lawyers and others may want to read Split Circuits, N.D. Georgia Notes Split Re: Whether Use of Pre-Arrest Silence in Government’s Case-in-Chief Violates Fifth Amendment

(Found via Pogo Was Right, Pointer: More Law: Refusing To Answer Questions At U.S. Passport Control)

Posted in Law: Right to Travel | 4 Comments

The Package Saga, Round Two

package.jpgYes, it's what I ordered….but it's defective. One of the major features just doesn't work.

I've emailed the seller for an RMA.

Not sure if I want an exchange, or my money back and try getting it somewhere else.

I Am Not Happy.

Posted in Shopping | Comments Off on The Package Saga, Round Two