At the outset, the bench, also comprising Justices S.K. Kaul and K.M. Joseph, asked the Centre what if it sought details of the decision making process without the technical details and the prices of the Rafale fighter jets. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said details on the deal cannot be shown to anybody in the interest of national security and other issues involved in the defence procurement process. “We are not on the issue of pricing and suitability of the Rafale jets but only on the decision making process,” it said. It added that the court was seeking the information only to satisfy itself, without considering the averments made in the petitions. The Centre sought dismissal of the PILs on various grounds. It said they were not public interest litigation petitions and were filed to gain political mileage. Moreover, it added, such issues cannot be reviewed judicially. The apex court was hearing various petitions seeking directions, including asking the Centre to reveal details of the deal and the comparative prices during the UPA and NDA rule in a sealed cover to the apex court.
Lawyer M.L. Sharma, who has sought a stay on the Rafale fighter jet deal between India and France, claimed in his plea that the inter-government agreement to buy 36 Rafale fighter jets must be quashed. It was an “outcome of corruption” and not ratified by Parliament under Article 253 (Parliament has power to make any law for implementing any inter-government agreement) of the Constitution, he said. Singh said the SIT should probe the reasons for cancelling the earlier deal entered into by the UPA government for the purchase of 126 fighter jets. Rafale deal is a defence agreement signed between the governments of India and France for the purchase of 36 Rafale fighter aircrafts in a fly-away condition as a part of the upgrading process of Indian Air Force equipment. The Rafale fighter is a twin-engine Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) manufactured by French aerospace company Dassault Aviation. Indian Air Force had advanced a proposal to buy 126 fighter aircraft in August 2007 and floated a tender. Following this, an invitation was sent to various aviation companies to participate in the bidding process.
The last ABA national conference on professional liability featured a panel on ethical issues related to representing clients involved in the legalized marijuana business. For this reason, there is a risk for lawyers of facing professional discipline for providing legal services to marijuana businesses. Now comes news that the Ohio board that oversees attorney conduct decided last week that attorneys aren’t allowed to help someone establish a legal medical marijuana-related business in the state because using, growing and selling marijuana remains a federal crime. So, on the positive side, this decision does provide clear guidance for lawyers in Ohio. But, obviously, on the negative side, it is not what lawyers representing clients in this particular business would want to hear. I have not read the opinion itself, though, so I can’t provide an opinion on it. I just read the news in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin, which did not link to the opinion itself. Thanks to Lloyd Snyder (Cleveland-Marshall College of Law) for the update. UPDATE (8-19-16): The Law for Lawyers Today has an update on the story here. UPDATE (9-16-16): Faughnan on Ethics has a comment on the story here. UPDATE (9-20-16): The Ohio Supreme Court has adopted an amendment to Ohio Rule 1.2 to allow representation of clients in the legal marijuana business. Go here for more.
The Appellate Court’s decision yesterday in Maksym v. Board of Election Commissioners, No. 1-11-0033 (the Rahm Emanuel case), has got the Tribune in a positive dither this morning. The paper accuses the Maksym majority of “startling arrogance and audaciously twisted reasoning” and ignoring “more than 100 years of legal precedent” to boot. Whether Maksym will remain good law will be determined — soon — by a petition for leave to appeal already filed in the Illinois Supreme Court. Contrary to the clear expectations of the newspaper editorialists and the TV talking heads, the Illinois Supreme Court need not weigh in on this case. The Illinois Supreme Court turns away 98 or 99 cases for every one it accepts. Regardless of the merits of his cause, Mr. Emanuel is not automatically entitled to Supreme Court review. Whether or not review is granted, people should realize that questions of residency (or the related, but not identical, concept of domicile) frequently arise in the courts of this state.
To cite just one other area of the law, insurance cases are frequently complicated by residency issues. If his parents are divorced, does the child reside with a non-custodial father for purposes of making a claim on the father’s underinsured motorist carrier? See, Coriasco v. Hutchcraft, 245 Ill.App.3d 969, 615 N.E.2d 64 (5th Dist. If an older child drops out of school, takes a job, and moves into an apartment, does he still ‘live with’ his parents for purposes of an auto liability claim? What if the father signed the lease for his son, and both father and son acknowledged that the son could not make it financially on his own? What if the son was still on his father’s health insurance, if he still got his mail at his father’s house, if he used his father’s address on his driver’s license and income tax returns? What if he left many of his possessions behind at his father’s house? Is it not as easy a call to make when all of these other facts are considered? In State Farm v. Taussig, 227 Ill.App.3d 913, 592 N.E.2d 332 (1st Dist. The truth of the matter is that in just about any case involving people, there may be an issue about where those people live or where they intended to live. The fair resolution of these questions may (and usually will) excite strong feelings on either side. A decision in such a case is not ‘arrogant’ merely because it is adverse.
I WANT TO BEGIN PART III with where I left off in Part II. ] is the degree of responsibility external forces have on and are involved with a person’s ability to succeed. Minimal state liberals tend to think there is very little degree of responsibility and therefore requires no external action to alleviate the problem. Active state liberals, on the other hand, believe that there is a high degree of responsibility and does require intervention to equalize the playing field so that each individual has an equal chance at success. With that, let me begin. ABRAHAM LINCOLN CAN BE THOUHT OF as the first “active state” liberal who sat in the White House’s Oval Office. 2, and they might be right; but it was Lincoln and the Republican Party who finally brought it into the mainstream political policy arena. Prior to Lincoln, there was a succession of minimal state liberal or conservative Democratic administrations after Jefferson beat Adams; the only real break was with John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, and Millard Fillmore, each with four year terms.
It took Lincoln and the Civil War to set in motion the idea that it was the central governments duty to see to the equality and liberty of all white males, then to all males, and finally to women. Each of these latter two sea changes in American life was bitterly contested by both conservatives and minimal state liberals; just for different reasons. In the conservatives case, the objection would be based on changes in the social class status quo; bringing women and blacks up to the same social and economic status as white males is not a Conservatives idea of good policy. Enter Abraham Lincoln and the philosophy of active state liberalism. It is the active state liberals belief that, under the Declaration of Indepence (Lincoln’s main inspiration) the U.S. Constitution for most others, the federal government has a duty to insure “of preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself”.
[Now, before I go on, I need to make clear that Lincoln was not a liberal as we think of one today. The fact is, he was bigoted against Blacks, as most of the other whites of his time in America. After Lincoln’s assassination, the cause for active state liberalism went into quick decline with, over then next two decades, the conservative Supreme Court taking the teeth out of 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Not only did they almost eliminate the federal governments ability to enforce the meaning of these amendments, they also went a long way in preventing the States from enforcing them as well. The Promise Of American Life Buy Now WHY ACTIVE STATE LIBERALISM? HERBERT CROLY TRIED TO DEFINE ACTIVE STATE LIBERALISM AS “HAMILTON MEANS FOR JEFFERSON ENDS”; an awesome task! Croly, with his book The Promise of American Life in 1909, laid down the first coherent intellectual foundation for the idea of active state liberalism. He was the inspirational force behind the ideas of Presidents Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt as they tried to bring the American Dream back to most of the American People.
One of the reasons active state liberalism never coalesced prior to Croly involved a concept called “space”. Contrary to current belief, however, these last two periods of American life were not great for most Americans; the separation between poor and rich increased dramatically, before the major equalizer, called the Great Depression, beset the nation. When “space” ran out, the pressure release valve was shut; it is not a coincidence that active state liberalism/progressivism took off at this point in time. No longer could people move westward to improve their lot in life, they were now stuck in an environment they could not get out of. Consequently, there had to be other ways for Joe Sixpack to see a way forward, a way to leave his children better off then he was. The only way to do that was to improve his status where he was, which meant change the status quo.
What was the status quo in the late 1800s and early 1900s? It was complete domination of business interests over the people leaving the playing field for 90% of Americans at almost an 80° angle with the people at the bottom, looking up. There was no recourse to government or the courts because they just spent the last 30 years undoing any progress toward leveling the field the Lincoln and Grant administrations may have made. Something had to give and it was the political and social dynamic of America; thus active state liberalism.was born. THE FIRST THING TO KNOW ABOUT ACTIVE STATE LIBERALISM is that it is not Socialism. The two philosophies are antithetical to each other. For one, Liberalism, believes totally in individual liberty while the other, Socialism, suppresses individualism in favor of Class benefit. Where one, Socialism, believes the best course is for the State, or some other overarching organization, take control of the means of production for the benefit of all. The chance which an individual has to compete with his fellows and take the prize is vitally affected by by material conditions over which he has no control.
It is as if a competitor in a marathon cross-country run were denied proper nourishment or proper training, and was required to toe the mark against rivals who had every benefit of food and discipline. It would be absurd to claim that because all rivals toed the same mark, a man’s victory or defeat depended exclusively on his own efforts. This is a very different view from the minimal state liberals even though each believes the role of the government is to “give security for the pursuit of happiness”, to put it in Sumner’s words. Using Croly’s example, the active state liberal sees a need for government intervention to correct the problem causing the “denial of proper nourishment or proper training”; the minimal state liberal does not. This is a prettly simple concept and presents a clear separation between approaches to individual liberty. ] The democracatic principle requires an equal start at the race; all runners must start at the same point, while, at the same time, expecting an unequal finish.
But, Americans who talk this way seem wholey blind to the fact that under a legal system which holds private property sacred, there may be equal rights, but there cannot possibly be any equal opportunity for exercising such rights. Where, as we saw in the last Part, minimal state liberals believe freedom and equality are about the same thing, what Croly is saying is that freedom and equality are not the same thing. AND THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE in world-view between minimalists and activists. Further, active staters’ think that equality, where in conflict, is supreme to freedom (liberty); minimal staters would believe the opposite. We owe it to each other to guarantee rights. Rights do not pertain to results, but only to chances. Each has a right to acquire and possess property if he can. Rights should be equal because they pertain to chances, and all ought to have equal chances so far as chances are provided or limited by the action of society.
] are obliged, as we have seen, to invoke the action of the central government to destroy those economic discrimination’s which its former inaction encouraged. Only with this can the promise of American life be fulfilled. The arduous and responsible political task which a nation in its collective capacity must seek to perform is that of selecting among the various prevailing ways of exercising individual rights, those which contribute to the national property and integrity. This is not a call for socialism, not even close, because the focus is on the individual. What Croly suggests is that certain “liberties” must give way in order to insure that all have equal chances to succeed. This is just the opposite of minimal state liberals who, as we have seen in Part II, think that “full equality”, as Jefferson defines it, must give way to insure absolute liberty. If fact, to minimalists, all equality is that the starting point in the race be equal, not the opportunity to succeed.
Active staters, on the other hand, think it is incumbent on the central government to make sure the opportunities are equal, not the starting points. Why not the starting points? Because, as a matter of reality, they are not equal, nor will they ever be. One class in society will always be in a better place to succeed than another, lower class. As a consequence, in an activist’s world, even though the starting points are not the same, the opportunity to move from a lower class to a higher one is much brighter than it is in a minimalist’s world. AND WHAT ROLE GOVERNMENT? WELL, THE LAST CROLY QUOTE sort of sums it up, the central government has a large role to play, mainly because it played virtually no role at all the previous, in Croly’s timeline, 120 years. What advances had been made toward balancing equality with liberty were reversed by the Supreme Court up until that time. 1964 and 1965, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act which closed the final loopholes left open with the original amendments designed to provide equality in America.