Fall 2011

In early August, I had the privilege of representing Thomas Jefferson School of Law (TJSL), along with Student Bar Association (SBA) American Bar Association Representative (ABA) Christine Tornatore, at the American Bar Association Annual Meeting.  This year, the conference was held in Toronto, Canada. 

This trip provided us with the opportunity to meet SBA-ABA Representatives and SBA Presidents from just about all of the 200 ABA-accredited law schools in the United States.  Each day, the ABA Law Student Division leaders provided detailed schedules loaded with incredible opportunities that enabled us to exchange ideas with other students at the conference. 

On the last day of the conference, Christine and I participated in the Law Student Division Assembly where each law school’s SBA had two votes on each of the proposed resolutions on this year’s ballot.  One of the key issues this year was in regards to the procedures used by law schools to report the employment rates of their graduating classes.  This was of particular interest to us given the recent lawsuit by a TJSL graduate, and since graduates of other law schools have followed suit and brought claims against their former law schools.  We as law students should pay close attention to this issue over the next couple of months and years, as changes in how law schools report their graduates’ employment statistics are quite likely. 

Participating in the Assembly was unlike anything I had ever experienced in my life.  I felt as if I were a member of Congress, listening to vibrant debates between zealous law students representing different regions and cities across the country.  Hearing the different perspectives (and the different accents), and the rationale in support of each message, was quite interesting since I had rarely considered the perspective of other law students who were not colleagues of mine at TJSL.  It was not until this time that I truly understood how much of an impact we, as law students, can have on our legal educations.  We were voting on resolutions and referendums that were to be passed onto the ABA Board of Governors!

In regards to the Board of Governors, the body that oversees law student policies and procedures for legal education in the United States, a new and exciting process has been implemented.  Te Law Student Division has successfully obtained a voting position on the Board of Governors!  This means that, moving forward, there will be a student representative in the Board of Governors hearings that will ensure that the student perspective is heard and considered.  When one considers factors such as the troubled economy, the influx of law school graduates into the job market each year, the issues relating to law school employment statistics, and many others, students should be pleased that their current Law Student Division leaders were able to achieve such a momentous victory on our behalves. 

Whether it was the roundtable discussions with students from various schools across the country, small meetings with just the other students from the ABA Ninth Circuit (of which TJSL is a member ), or the social and dinner events each evening, this was truly an experience that I will never forget.  Not to mention that Toronto was a beautiful city—we even got to stop at the Hockey Hall of Fame before leaving (absolutely, 100% Christine’s idea!)  I strongly encourage TJSL students to run for the SBA positions that allow them to partake in this experience.  It was, without a doubt, one of the best experiences of my time in law school thus far. 

As the NBA lockout continues, the Chinese Basketball Association (CBA) has determined that it will not accept any NBA players still under contract. The International Basketball Association, or FIBA, mandated that NBA players still under contract who sign abroad during the lockout must have an opt-out clause that will allow those players to return to the NBA once the lockout is over. While European teams have signed players, such as Deron Williams, to one-year deals that contain an opt-out clause, the CBA does not want to follow suit. Professional basketball leagues in Europe often boast about having more competitive leagues, but are often not financially stable like the CBA is.

A major concern for some NBA superstars is whether they will be receiving comparable salaries to what a player would receive in the NBA. European leagues have been known to not fully compensate their players and are taking a big hit right now due to the recession. The CBA, however, can offer bigger contracts to the likes of Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony and Dwight Howard, all of which have mentioned some interest in playing in the CBA if the lockout continues into the regular NBA season. ESPN.com reported earlier this month that the CBA “want[s] no part of a ‘circus’ that sees a wave of NBA stars swooping in during an Olympic year to divert the focus of the league away from China’s own players, then leave at once if the lockout is lifted.”

Only free agents will be able to sign with a Chinese team. However, only free agents willing to take the risk—having to play in China if the lockout ends—will actually end up playing in China. So far, free agents Wilson Chandler and Earl Clark have both signed with the Zheijang Lions of the CBA. Contracted NBA players, however, will have to find other avenues. Numerous mid- to low-level players have already signed with professional teams abroad with an opt-out clause to return to the NBA. Even some free agents have signed one to two-year deals with no opt-out clause. While some contracted players have found a temporary home on European teams, other players have found ways to keep busy during the lockout. LeBron James participated in a Nike event in Taiwan during the lockout. Kevin Durant and a few other NBA players played against each other in a Goodman League-Drew League matchup.

Labor talks started to pick up late this summer. The NBA and representatives for the player’s union met in New York City on August 31, to attempt to resolve their dispute. This meeting was only the second time the two sides have met since the lockout began on July 1. However, after a 6-hour meeting, both sides realized that time is short and both parties need to start making decisions. Training camps are scheduled to begin the first week of October, giving both sides some time to work out a deal. Another meeting is scheduled for September 7, with the possibility of follow-up meetings the same week.

Both sides are still deeply divided on how to redistribute revenue. The owners want the players to receive a lower share and want to create a hard salary cap, which will lower the amount of money a team can pay a player. Although willing to lower their share, the players do not agree with the owners’ proposal, believing that the owners are asking for too much. The activity between the owners and players is a sign that the two sides are trying to resolve their labor dispute. While training camps start the first week of October, the regular season starts November 1. The distance between the NBA and its players may prove too much to save training camp given the time constraints. However, according to NBA commissioner David Stern, there is “clearly enough time” to create a new collective bargaining agreement before the scheduled start of the regular season.

On behalf of The Jeffersonian I’d like to welcome everyone back for a new semester and a new year.  While we are still your student newspaper, we are not literally printed on paper anymore.  In an effort to go green we’ve moved completely online.  On the upside, you can now read the paper in class without the unwanted attention of unfolding it and turning pages.  On the downside, I will now have to bring my laptop with me into the men’s room when I want to read the TJSL news and some of you will have to find something else to line the bottom of your parakeet cage. 

Much work went into the creation of this webpage and the content you are now looking at.  The TJSL technology team hidden on the 6th floor did an incredible job of creating the website and working with us to make it look as fantastic as it does.  A special thanks is due to Patty Ramert for taking all of our suggestions, improving on many of them, and building this page. 

All of the writers worked very hard (or so they tell me) in order to produce smart-sounding sentences; they even went as far as to combine these sentences into what journalists and intellectuals call “paragraphs.”  The editors also earned their keep, toiling away to make the writers sound even smarter.

Thanks are also due to our SBA Vice President and Editor-In-Chief, Nancy Astifo.  Nancy worked tirelessly to, among many, many other things, ensure that no inappropriate content made it’s way to the pages of The Jeffersonian; despite my best efforts to the contrary it looks like she succeeded. 

Look for an ipad app on the horizon, as well as many other interesting and creative things from this paper.  Follow us on twitter @JeffersonianLaw.

As always we welcome contributions from students and staff.  Send us an email at TheJeffersonian@tjsl.edu.

We are proud to be the only law school with an exclusively online paper and will continue to make each issue at least 7% better than the previous.            

Cheers, Scott Greenwood Managing Editor

In case you haven't noticed, the newest edition of Thomas Jefferson Law Review (TJLR) is now available.  This issue is jam packed with exciting content, authored by both professors and students.  TJLR can be found on tables around campus, on stands, and in the library.  Be sure to pick one up.  They are free to students, so don't hesitate.

A Law Review is primarily composed of Articles and Notes.  Generally, Articles are written by professors from universities and law schools across the country and around the world.  Articles are generally longer in length, and provide an in depth look and analysis of some legal issue.  Notes, on the other hand, are generally written by law students.  Typically, TJLR publishes Notes from TJSL students.  Notes are usually shorter in length than articles and consist of analysis of an unsettled area of law.  Students who publish Notes in TJLR spend close to a year writing and editing.  TJLR and some of its student Note authors have even been honored with the Burton Award, which is one of the highest honors granted to published students.  In fact, with four Burton Awards, Thomas Jefferson School of Law is tied with Stanford Law School for earning the most

Burton Awards in California.     

The new issue of TJLR really grabs your attention with the Lead Article, written by Ronald J. Placone, Ph.D., of Carnegie Mellon University.  The Article, entitled “The United States Supreme Court: A Decline in Civility,” discusses whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinions involving abortion are becoming more or less civil.  The analysis compares the pre-1987 Burger court against the post-1987 Rehnquist court, and uses analysis of variance (MANOVA and ANOVA) and keyword analysis, a type of text analysis developed at Carnegie Mellon University.

Ray L. Ngo, a solo practitioner, authored an Article entitled “The Elephant in the Room: A Critique of California’s Constitutional Amendment Process that Gave Birth to the Baby Elephant (Proposition 8) and A Call for Its Reform.” The Article discusses the voter initiative power in California, its relationship with the very controversial Proposition 8, and the California Supreme Court decision that ruled Proposition 8 was a lawful exercise of the voter initiative process.

Several students from TJSL also authored Notes appearing in the current issue of the TJLR.  Bunkosal Chhun ’11, authored a Note entitled “Catcalls: Protected Speech or Fighting Words.”  The Note looks at what constitutes a “catcall” and whether they should be considered unprotected speech under the fighting words exception to the First Amendment.  Jaime Moss ’12, wrote a Note entitled “Patients at Risk: The Need to Amend The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to Ensure the Safety of Imported Prescription Drugs.”  In her Note, she looks at problems associated with the perceived lack of safety regulations for prescription drugs imported into the United States.  Noah Wald ’12, wrote a Note entitled “Don’t Circumvent My Dongle! Misinterpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Threatens Digital Security Technology.”   Noah’s Note criticizes a recent decision by the Fifth Circuit, which Noah contends misinterpreted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and does not offer enough protection to software developers who use “dongle” technology.  His analysis focuses on the negative impacts the court’s decision has had on the music industry.  James Wolken ‘12 also added to the scholarship of TJLR with his Note entitled “Valencia’s Reasonable Belief Test: Expanding the Scope of Burglary in California One Window Screen at a Time.” In his Note he criticizes the interpretation of California’s burglary statute by California courts. 

The current issue of TJLR will certainly have something of interest to you.  Be sure to pick one up today!

The term “back to school” typically comes with a host of different emotions: anxiety about sleepless nights filled with endless reading; stress about mounting debt and finding employment; sadness due to the end of another summer.  For the Student Bar Association, back to school means one thing: excitement; excitement for the start of the new year and the Back to School Bash.

On August 20, 2011, the San Diego Rowing Club in Mission Bay was once again the site for this annual shindig.  This event has always been a student favorite, and this year was no exception.  For 1Ls, it gave them a chance to meet new people and to connect with classmates outside of school.  2Ls had the chance to catch up on what everyone did over their first summer away from law school and to toast to the survival of their dreaded first year.  For 3Ls, it was a final chance to reminisce before embarking on their final year of law school. 

This year, the SBA outdid itself, as it does every year.  Keeping with this administration’s theme of “bigger and better,” changes were made while preserving tradition.  First the SBA provided an amazing double-decker bus to and from the East Village.  Also, instead of having some poor 3L stand at the barbecue and cook enough burgers and bratwursts to feed 300 people, Bekker’s West Coast Catering was there to lend a hand and prepare their delicious BBQ fare.  Also, replacing the karaoke DJ was Rock Out Karaoke, San Diego’s preeminent live-band karaoke experience.  With ROK, students were able to fulfill their rock-star fantasies and play “lead singer” while rocking out to their favorite songs.  At one point, Joshua Tallman, 3L and SBA Treasurer, strapped on a bass guitar and joined the band for “Praise Chorus” by Jimmy Eat World.  Even the band was impressed that Josh was able to not only sing the song amazingly, but also keep up with the guitar. 

All in all, it was another successful event.  Be on the look out for details on the Halloween Party.  Friday October 28, 2011.  Location TBA. 

I was working out fairly hard in Fit Athletic’s Crossfit room when a guy plugged his iPod into the room’s sound system.  Tupac’s unforgettable “California Love” came blasting on, and like every other native Californian worth his salt, I started singing along. “It’s all good, from Diego to the Bay…” Don’t judge me- you know you sing along with it too. In any event, along with an impending Labor Day trip to the Texas capital of Austin, it gave me an idea for my first column in The Jeffersonian. What are some of the key differences between the economic and political cultures of California and Texas? 

To tell you the truth, it was Rick Perry’s recent surge in the GOP nomination polls that gave me the idea for this column. Tupac simply gave me the idea for the opener. Rick Perry is, of course, the Republican governor of Texas. He has said that Social Security is a “monstrous lie,” and wrote in his recently released book Fed Up! that it was a massive Ponzi scheme, and like all Ponzi schemes, was doomed to eventually collapse. He also recently hosted a large “prayer rally” in Houston’s Reliant Stadium, calling upon God to deliver rain to Texas, among other things. He has mused on the possibility of Texas secession from the United States, while criticizing the federal government for its alleged non- response to the recent wildfires in the state. This kind of rhetoric and hypocrisy, while certainly red meat for the conservative base, fuels the national image of Texans as bombastic, brash, and perhaps a bit too proud.

As a native Californian and avid consumer of national political drama, it has been rather painful to watch California play the role of national punching bag, especially when smug Rick Perry is the one delivering the blows. Admittedly, this state continually gives the country plenty of material to work with, such as San Francisco’s recently nixed anti-circumcision ballot measure, or West Hollywood’s ban on declawing of pets (which actually passed), or the proposed law which would mandate fitted sheets for hotel beds. Still, there are some good things about this state. Nikki Bettis, a 2L who is from Austin, says that “California is a place to let loose. You’re not constantly being judged. You can be who you want to be.” I can agree with that statement. California’s European/American history certainly backs up this notion.

California and Texas, though both controlled by the same governments for many years, have different histories. Texas gained its independence from Mexico (who had earlier gained its independence from Spain) in 1836, after a brief but somewhat bloody revolution. California gained its independence in 1846, and after a brief period of independence (on the order of a few months, when it was known as the Bear Flag Republic), was claimed and annexed by the United States. Then gold was discovered in the mountains and streams outside Sacramento around 1848. The famed California Gold Rush had begun, and it brought explosive growth to San Francisco and to California in general.

With this gold rush came all sorts of people from all around the world, in search of fortune. This crush of diverse peoples brought some racist legislation from the new state legislature, but also cemented California in the minds of the national imagination as a place where someone could get rich quick, and a place where sin abounded (so much so that San Francisco quickly became known as Sodom By the Sea). The tensions between traditionalism and progressivism have manifested themselves in many ways through the subsequent history of California.

California was one of the states that passed women’s suffrage before the ratification of the 19th Amendment, and was one of the early adopters of the initiative, referendum, and recall system. California was also a pioneer in the anti tax movement, passing Prop 13 in 1978, while simultaneously rejecting the anti-gay teacher Briggs initiative at the same time. More recently, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s gay marriage ban was unconstitutional, a decision which the electorate promptly overturned (and which will be eventually overturned itself) with the passage of Prop 8. While I can’t speak to Texas’ political zeitgeist, other than what I have heard in the national media, I am still proud of my home state. Texas and California, for all of the sniping back and forth, and despite the cultural spectrum from which they sit on opposite ends of each other, need each other. They are like a husband and wife (or husband and husband or wife and wife to be diverse and politically correct) who have been married for a long time. They are tired of each other—but they cannot imagine life without the other.

So what was the point of this article? The point was that to point out that California, despite being in the doldrums for the past several years, has a proud history of being on the forefront of many national issues. The phrase “As California goes, so goes the nation,” rings true in many ways. Every state has its ups and downs, and Texas and California are no different. California will not be in the dumps forever, and Texas will not be on top forever. So perhaps this article/op-ed/random pep rally column was a cathartic moment for me—a chance to defend my home state. Yep, that’s it. California love.  

The suburban City of Fullerton, CA is under intense scrutiny from both its residents and the nation after details surrounding a fatal police beating of an unarmed homeless man named Kelly Thomas became public. Thomas suffered from Schizophrenia. The man who once called the streets of Fullerton his home died on July 10, 2011– several days after his interaction with the Fullerton Police Department left him comatose.

On the evening of July 5, 2011, Fullerton PD says they received a call that a man had been trying to burglarize cars at the downtown bus depot. Thomas, who was waiting at the bus stop, fit the description. Police officers discovered Thomas and attempted to search him, but he tried to run away. Six policemen were eventually on scene and became involved in a scuffle with Thomas. Officers report that he became physical with them, which is why so many were required to subdue him. Witnesses, however, tell a much different story.

Witnesses say that the police officers hog-tied and continued to beat Thomas after he stopped resisting arrest. They also contend that Thomas was not only tazed by police officers six times but also beaten by the butt of the tazer. Witnesses also report that Thomas was finally taken away in an ambulance after he became practically lifeless. The scene was described as extremely bloody, and two witnesses who recorded the incident on camera say that police confiscated their footage at the scene.

One witness walked away with cell phone footage of the incident and released it to the public. During the disturbing two-minute video, viewers can hear the clicking sounds of a tazer and Thomas crying out “Dad! Dad! Dad!” One witness can be heard reacting by saying, “Holy shit! They’ve tazed him like 5 times already! That’s enough!” Another witness exclaimed, “I don’t know why they don’t just put cuffs on him and call it a night instead of hitting him. They’re freaking ruthless.”

Shortly after the event, surveillance footage from a bus stop near the incident emerged. “The cops are kicking this poor guy over there,” a woman breathlessly stated as she entered the bus. “They were pulling his hair, kicking the shit out of him, and he’s all full of blood.”

“The cops came and pounded his face against the curb and beat him up,” another witness on the footage said. “They killed him.”

A horrific photo of Thomas at the hospital with his face beaten and unrecognizable was published after he died. This sparked the attention of the community and caused the story to become international news.

Hundreds of enraged protestors began filling the streets of Fullerton. Armed with posters that read, “Shame on Fullerton Police” and “No One is Above The Law,” protesters shouted “Justice for Kelly Thomas!”  A memorial complete with flowers, photos and an abundance of messages condemning the Fullerton police department can be found at the bus depot where Thomas was beaten to death,

Thomas’ family and their lawyer came forward with medical reports from UCI Medical Center, the hospital he was treated at. Other than the many injuries to his body, the records revealed that he had been beaten repeatedly in face and tazed twice in the chest. Tazing in the chest is a discouraged tactic due to the possibility of cardiac arrest. During the course of the beating, Thomas ultimately choked on his own blood. The cause of death on his medical records is listed as “blunt trauma” due to assault.

Thomas’s father Ron, is a retired Orange County Police officer. After looking at the X-rays and the condition his son was in after the beating, he says there is no doubt his son was murdered. He believes the police officers killed his son to send a message to the homeless community in Fullerton. The city offered him $900,000 to settle the case, but he turned it down.

Adding a bigger twist to the tragic tale, The City of Fullerton has footage of the incident, outside of the footage obtained from the surveillance camera outside of the bus depot. Despite hundreds of residents and two city council members demanding that this footage be shown to the public, City of Fullerton is not releasing it. The District Attorney claims that he does not want the footage released because it might sway possible witnesses in a trial. The police officers that participated in the beating were allowed to view the video before and in conjunction with writing their reports.

“The city of Fullerton seems to have major problems,” said Christopher Chavez, California State University Fullerton alum. “The citizens should have every right to see the video of what happened that night. It’s probably too graphic to be broadcast on TV, but it should at least be played at a city council meeting. They seem to be hiding the evidence, the truth, and the severity of it all.”

The residents of Fullerton insist that the police officers that beat Thomas to death should be fired. They also demand that the Chief of Police Mike Sellars resign, as well as the mayor.

The six police officers involved in the incident have been placed on administrative leave, but several were reported to have been patrolling the streets after Thomas died. Chief Sellars was placed on medical leave for reasons that have not been disclosed.

The District Attorney, who has not prosecuted any cop for improper force in 15 years, says he has yet to determine if charges will be brought against the police officers that beat Thomas. Chief Sellars stated that the Fullerton Police Department has launched their own internal investigation and is cooperating with investigators.

Because of Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson the FBI is now conducting an independent investigation into the incident.

Adam Appolonio, TJSL 3L and California State University Fullerton alum, was dropping his friend off at the Fullerton bus depot and saw the police cars the night that Thomas was beaten to death. “Knowing that 6 cops killed an unarmed man in the area I grew up is surreal,” he said. “They need to be charged. I've heard multiple stories about police brutality lately and it's disturbing to say the least. What sort of society are we living in if the people who are supposed to protect us can get away with murder?”

For more developments of this story as they come, visit http://www.fullertonsfuture.org.  

“Jerusalem, Israel?”

Ari Zivotofsky was born in Jerusalem. He is a United States citizen by virtue of his parents’ citizenship. Ari’s parents applied for a United States passport and a Consular Report of Birth for Ari at the United States embassy in Tel Aviv. They unsuccessfully requested that both documents record their son’s place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel.” State Department policy permits the recording of “Jerusalem.” But it prohibits the addition of “Israel,” because that entry would result in “Jerusalem, Israel” appearing on these government-issued documents. The United States has never articulated an official view on the unsettling issue of whether Jerusalem is a part of Israel. Its unwavering neutrality on Jerusalem’s status has been a central feature of American policy since Israel achieved statehood.      Congress enacted the United States Policy with Respect to Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel Act in 2002, the year of Ari’s birth. Its members directly challenged presidential neutrality on the status of Jerusalem. For requests like the Zivitofsky’s, Congress demanded that the State Department record the place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel.” Congress also urged President George W. Bush to relocate the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem—an act which House Speaker Newt Gingrich then characterized as an overdue recognition of Israel’s de facto sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.      Adding to the confusion, President Bush signed this veto-proof bill into law, although his signing statement characterized the legislation as being merely advisory. Bush therein cautioned that this congressional demand on the executive branch impermissibly interfered with the president’s power to remain neutral on the issue of Jerusalem’s status. Bush emphasized that the Jerusalem as Capital of Israel legislation did not change the six-decade, hands off policy of the United States. He claimed that this recognition issue is governed by the Constitution—and that the express presidential power to recognize foreign governments impliedly resolves whether he must recognize Jerusalem as being within Israel, and whether it is Israel’s capital. Ari’s parents dragged the judicial branch into the fray. They sued Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, seeking a court order requiring Clinton to comply with the Jerusalem as Capital of Israel legislation. The lower federal courts dismissed the Zivitofsky’s complaint on various grounds, such as the judicial branch not possessing the power to involve itself in recognition matters committed to the executive branch by the United States Constitution. Another justification for dismissal was that such disputes are committed to the political branches of the government, rather than the judicial branch. The Supreme Court recently decided to review the opposing legislative-executive positions, given that Clinton was not complying with the congressional directive to list Ari’s place of birth as “Jerusalem, Israel.” The Court will consider this incredibly sensitive issue during its new term commencing in October.      The Jerusalem as Capital of Israel legislation spawned intense criticism abroad. That no nation maintains an embassy in Jerusalem (as opposed to consulates) suggests the scale of international opposition to this legislation. Palestinians especially resented the anything but neutral congressional embrace of Israel’s sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. When Israel annexed all of Jerusalem in 1980, the United Nations General Assembly resolved that this was an illegal assumption of sovereignty over the entire city. About 100 nations have recognized Palestine, often in varying degrees short of de jure statehood. Further support for the Palestinian position will likely surface in the United Nations General Assembly to New York City in September. The Palestinian Authority has announced its intent to then declare de facto statehood. Israel threatens to respond by also annexing the West Bank as sovereign Israeli territory. Palestinians could one-up Israel by claiming to secede from their new mother state.      The above tit-for-tat geopolitics will feature robust political theater in the just off-Broadway United Nations stage. Congress will deserve a curtain call for its supporting role. While its legislative joker will not steal the show, the Jerusalem as Capital of Israel legislation has placed the president in a more vulnerable position. Congress tainted the United States’ position as an honest broker in this ever-sensitive Middle East conflict. It provided legislative cannon fodder for the emergent perception that the United States—Israel’s number one ally—intends to debunk the “Jerusalem, Israel” neutrality policy adopted by every president since Harry Truman. Each of them has unfortunately been sidetracked by major domestic or international distractions, thus marginalizing the sustained focus necessary to end this key Arab-Israeli conflict. The Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital legislation added to the distractions that Presidents Bush and Obama have encountered, while pursuing an integrated United States approach to the Middle East conundrum.      One hopes that the highest court in the land will neutralize the above “Jerusalem, Israel” legislation by rejecting the Zivotofsky case against the State Department. This case will be uniquely politicized, assuming Palestine decides to go forward with its September statehood declaration. That turn of events will occur not long before the Supreme Court rules on the Zivotofsky governmental balance of power issue. In any event, Ari’s claim is premised upon an unwarranted congressional intrusion into the presidential executive power to recognize foreign entities. That governmental power will hopefully be characterized as falling within the sole province of the executive branch of our government. We cannot afford to speak with multiple voices in such critical affairs of state.

William R. Slomanson