Month: November 2013

Posted on

Constitutional Law You Won’t Hear in the Classroom

By Tyler Stoff

James E. Fleming’s lecture on October 31 entitled, “The Myth of Strict Scrutiny for Fundamental Rights,” both explained constitutional law as it relates to fundamental rights and rebutted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s legal philosophy – therefore correcting assumptions about rights and their legal categorizations.

Drawing from his recent book entitled Ordered Liberty, Fleming challenged the notion that some rights as fundamental or absolute, suggesting instead that they be balanced with individual responsibilities and virtues under the law.

Professor Fleming argued that the deep case history concerning rights not enumerated in amendments to the Constitution shows that laws do not fall neatly into demanding the passage of “strict scrutiny” or needing to only express a legitimate state interest to have a “rational basis” to be upheld. This contradicts what many scholars, including those at Dartmouth, have taught regarding the use of the Constitution’s due process clause to establish three levels of rights guaranteed to Americans.

Fleming mainly used the Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court decision of 2003, which struck down a ban of various forms of sexual intimacy, as an example of where the court found that the law did not prohibit a fundamental right. Thus, it did not trigger the “strict scrutiny” assessment, nor did it hold that only a legitimate state interest was necessary to preserve the law. Justice Scalia’s subsequent dissent, attacking the majority opinion for failing to adhere to its supposed prior framework of fundamental rights, superficially supported this liberal view. Fleming claimed this was a deceptive, however, as liberals never suggested this limiting framework themselves. Indeed, the strict, intermediate, and rational scrutiny framework favored in academia is only ever discussed in dissents from major historical cases. The one exception that Fleming did note, however, was the Roe v. Wade decision. This momentous case suspiciously did implicate the failure of abortion restrictions to pass the strict scrutiny of the law required for their constitutionality.

While James Fleming does not endorse a rigid interpretation of rights under the due process clause, he still recognizes them as continuum in line with other aspects of American liberties. “Rights are not absolute trumps,” he stated, arguing that cases like Lawrence v. Texas fit his proposed model rather than the rigid framework Scalia would suggest.

Posted on

After the Arab Spring

By Spencer Blair

Professor Marc Lynch, a professor in the departments of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, regrets coining the term “Arab Spring.” Professor Lynch, who gave a talk in Haldeman on Monday, October 28 called “After the Arab Spring,” was the first to use the term to describe a trend toward democracy in the Arab world in an article on his blog for Foreign Policy.

Lynch renounces the term simply because, while he has an optimistic vision for the Middle East’s long-term future, the 2011 uprisings have not contributed to democratization in the Middle East, and the short-term political future looks bleak in several of these countries, especially Egypt and Syria.

Despite the title “After the Arab Spring,” Lynch acknowledged that much of his talk was devoted to the cause of the Arab Spring, something Lynch attributed largely to the rise of social media. Lynch described the world before the rise of the Internet, in which acceptance of oppressive government was the only feasible political stance, because citizens of Middle Eastern countries under oppressive regimes had no way to educate or organize. Any sort of dissent was quashed immediately and never publicized, and television and radio contained nothing more than positive political coverage of a state’s oppressive leaders.

Expanded technology and the rise of social media, however, revolutionized the relationship between government and citizen, and instances of dissent went viral thanks to a brief Youtube clip or Facebook post. While the 2011 uprisings resulted from a series of complex political, historical, and social factors, the uprisings occurred when they did due to the concurrence of the regime oppression with the peak of social media’s prevalence and relevance in the region.

After the uprisings, Lynch argued, is where everything went wrong, resulting in the highly unfavorable political and social climate that plagues the region today. The changes that occurred following the uprisings were so substantial that returning to the former regime would have been impossible in nearly every country affected, but the upheaval resulted in a rise of Islamist governments rather than the intended democratization. In fact, Lynch and many others now use the term “Islamist winter” to describe the rise of Islamist governments following the initial upheaval, a far cry from the intended democratization of the movement.

The long-term political future that faces these nations is not overwhelmingly bleak, Lynch argues, because eventually these Islamist governments will face similar backlash to that faced by the authoritarian regimes that preceded them, and eventually the environment will be favorable enough for the unfinished business of democratization to occur. For now, however, political strife and anti-democratic behavior is destined to plague the nations that faced political uprisings in 2011 due to the failure of post-upheaval democratization – the lack of a true “Arab Spring.”

Posted on

Marc Lynch on the Arab Uprising

By Max Lu

The lecture delivered by Mark Lynch on the Arab uprising was absolutely fascinating because he provided an entirely different perspective from the mainstream media.

He talked at length about the historical context surrounding the Arab uprising, specifically how the underlying conditions for protest have existed for several decade. Based on this, he argued that the term “Arab Spring” that has been in common usage is actually inaccurate. Furthermore, he says that more protests will erupt in the future because none of the underlying problems have actually been addressed.

He also talked at length about the role of technology in protests. He analyzed the role that Al Jazeera originally had on the Arab public, and the role it continues to play today. He explained how the proliferation of mobile phones, the Internet, and social media expanded on that trend and substantially government control over the flow of information and the public discourse in the Arab world.

After defining the foundation of the protest, he analyzed individual countries and compared the paths that they took. He first pointed out the extreme similarity between the path taken by Tunisia and Egypt, then explained how no other country took a similar path. He talked about the ongoing situation in Syria and how that is affecting its neighbors, the region, and the operational capability of terrorists.

The final part of his lecture focused on the limited influence of US foreign policy on the situation in the Middle East. He argued that American military intervention in Syria would really have limited influence because the US cannot change many of the fundamental forces interacting on the ground.

He also showed that he was very knowledgeable during the question and answer session, drawing from his firsthand knowledge in the region to analyze questions ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to US relations with Saudi Arabia. Overall, it was an excellent lecture that provided a fresh perspective to an important issue.