Will the Supreme Court rule that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional? Bill Bennett’s Morning in America: Constitutional attorney David Rivkin provides an in-depth analysis of the Supreme Court second case on gay marriage. 1,100 federal statutes use the term “marriage” without defining it. At the time the laws were passed, marriage was assumed to mean “between a man and a woman.” Nine states permit unions between members of the same sex. The federal government has an interest in uniformity. Simultaneously, under the principle of federalism, the federal government should not overstep the police powers of the states. The Bennett-Rivkin discussion explains the issues in this case about the Defense of Marriage Act.

Did Supreme Court liberal justices disappoint gay marriage advocates? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin and Morning in America host Bill Bennett provide a cogent discussion about Day 1 of the Supreme Court arguments on gay marriage– specifically about California’s Proposition 8 which was struck down by the California Supreme Court. David Rivkin provides an in-depth analysis of key arguments. Justice Sotomayor’s question about limits on the definition of marriage goes to the heart of the problem.

By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Andrew M. Grossman

Those who support stricter gun control fear that the passage of time since the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School will result in further watering-down of measures. They should not, however, discount the risk that attempts to shave a few weeks or months off the usual legislative process will result in bad laws, with unintended and lasting consequences.

While pro-gun forces may overstate the case against expanded background checks — they are not, for example, a prelude to disarming the citizenry — President Obama and his allies have understated the difficult legal questions posed by extending the background-check system to cover more sales and transfers.

Read more »

David Rivkin and Clara Jeffries discuss implications of Newtown shooting on gun control.

Fines levied by the SEC against a corporation for long-ago wrongdoing do not protect current investors.

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR.  And JOHN J. CARNEY

Two weeks ago, a unanimous Supreme Court rebuffed the Securities and Exchange Commission Gabelli v. SEC. The SEC maintained that its enforcement actions for fines under the Investment Advisers Act weren’t subject to the five-year statute of limitations. This wasn’t the first time the courts have pushed back a federal agency for overreaching. It won’t be the last.

But the SEC’s audacity prompts a broader policy question: What good is accomplished by imposing monetary penalties on corporations, as the agency attempted to do in Gabelli? The answer is that when such penalties are sought by the government, they probably do more harm than good.

Read more »

Noel Canning v. NLRB: DC Circuit Court of Appeals Rules President Obama’s Recess Appointments were Invalid

On Friday, January 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ruled that  President Obama’s “recess appointments” of three National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) members was unconstitutional.  At issue was whether the President illegally invoked the Recess Appointments clause of Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution when he filled three existing vacancies on the NLRB during pro forma sessions of Congress (President Obama had maintained that Congress was actually not in session).  Attorneys for Noel Canning argued that, since the recess appointments were illegal, the NLRB lacked a quorum when it ruled that the company violated various provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, and, therefore, the NLRB ruling was invalid and unenforceable. A three-member panel consisting of Chief Judge David Santelle, and Circuit Judges Thomas Griffith and Karen Henderson concurred.

For additional analysis, read this alert.

Read more »