(Published in The National Review Online, February 29, 2012)

By David B. Rivkin, Jr. and Andrew Grossman

Theresa Riffey provides help around the home for her brother, a quadriplegic, and receives a small stipend from Illinois’s Medicaid program for her efforts, saving the state the cost of providing full-time care. Illinois law requires her to pay a portion of her check every month to an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear her case that asks on what basis, besides raw political power, a state may compel independent home-care workers and other similarly situated self-employed persons to support and associate with a labor union against their will. For the sake of workers’ First Amendment rights, it should take the case.

“Organized labor” brings to mind railroads, factories, and government offices, but the labor movement’s biggest recent gains have been in the home. Led by SEIU, unions and their political allies have pushed through executive orders and legislation in a dozen states to “organize” home-care workers, such as personal assistants and sitters, by deeming them state employees for collective-bargaining purposes alone.

Read more »

A court case that could invite specious international damage claims to the U.S.

(published in The Wall Street Journal, Feburary 28, 2012)

By DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. And LEE A. CASEY

This Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that should interest every U.S. company doing business overseas, and especially those operating in the developing world. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. and Mohamed v. Palestinian Authority raise the issue of whether corporations can be sued for violations of international law under U.S. statutes, including the Alien Tort Statute.

The ATS was adopted in 1789 by the first U.S. Congress. The statute permits suits by aliens in federal courts for certain alleged international-law violations, but it was moribund for nearly 200 years and its purpose remains opaque. The best guess is that Congress wanted to provide a means by which the U.S. could fulfill its international obligations to vindicate a very discrete set of damage claims by diplomats and other foreign nationals injured or abused by Americans.

Read more »

David B. Rivkin Jr., an American appellate attorney, political writer and media commentator initiated the public debate on the constitutionality of the healthcare law known as ObamaCare.

Whether offering insight into the constitutionality of legislation or commentary on policy and critical issues facing America, David Rivkin offers an unparalleled view from his perspective as both a White House insider and outside counsel.

David Rivkin’s speeches draw on more than 20 years of experience in the forefront of constitutional law, and domestic and foreign policy. David is available for speaking engagements in 2012 on a limited basis. Please call (804) 353-5999 or email patsy@arnettandassociates.com.

It violates the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

(published in The Wall Street Journal, February 15, 2012)

By David B. Rivkin and Edward Whelan

Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.

The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.

Read more »

Constitutional Attorney David Rivkin to speak at American Enterprise Institute

Published on 14 January 2012

by Staff

(OfficialWire)

Washington, D.C. (USA)
OfficialWire PR News Bureau

The 2012 election year has just begun, and already controversies have swirled around a number of President Obama’s actions. Constitutional issues are at the forefront as the president seeks to improve his chances of reelection by delivering on his promises. But is the president violating the Constitution as he tries to implement his program of transformation? Constitutional attorney David Rivkin believes he is. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington D.C. will be facilitating a discussion on one of the recent controversies, President Obama’s “recess appointments.”

On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB; and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of “pro forma” sessions. The U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide based on his own analysis about when Congress is in session. David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.

Read more »

On January 4, 2012, President Obama made the following “recess” appointments: Richard Cordray as Director of the CFPB and Richard Griffin, Jr., Sharon Block, and Terence F. Flynn as members of the NLRB. At the time of the appointments, the Senate was holding a series of “pro forma” sessions. While the U.S. Department of Justice claims that the President has the authority to make these appointments, in essence, to decide for himself when Congress is in session, David Rivkin and other constitutional law experts disagree.

“The Constitution allows the President to make recess appointments only when the Senate is in recess; it does not guarantee him the right to make one or more of such appointments,” says Rivkin in his written testimony.

According to RIvkin, the Office of Legal Counsel “takes what was meant and written as a gap-filler or safety valve — what to do when the Senate is out-of-town and unable to confirm a nominee to a vital position — and converts it into an affirmative grant of power that guarantees the President the right to make some number of appointments without the Senate’s approval.” This will weaken Congress’ power.

Watch and discuss David Rivkin’s testimony before CA Rep. Darrell Issa, Chairman of the Committee of Oversight & Government Reform.