Mediaboss Marketing

This article first appeared on the Verdict site.

Donald Trump may have had a rocky first three weeksin office, but they now look like a blissful honeymoon compared to the fourth one.

Amida flurry of leaks and reports of staff disarray, Trump suffered his first defeat on a Cabinet nomination, withdrawing his choice for labor secretary. He gave up on his appeals in State of Washington v. Trump, leaving the order suspending his travel ban intact.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

Anonymous aides portrayed the nations CEO roaming the White House alone at night in his bathrobe, watching cable news obsessively, and calling his national security adviserMichael Flynnat 3 a.m. to ask whether a strong or weak dollar was better for America. That same retiredLt. Gen. Flynn soon found himself defenestrated from the young administration, ostensibly for misrepresenting his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

Flynns departure revived long-standing charges that Trumps election was propelled by a Russian intelligence operation. A thorough investigation of these chargeswere the Republican-controlled Congress to permit onecould well implicate key campaign aides as coconspirators, and perhaps reach the president himself. Impeachment began to loom as a distinct (though distant) possibility.

It would normally take a Category 5 hurricane or an alien invasion to move such a story off the front pages, but President Trump may have momentarily succeeded in doing so with his 80-minute press conference. In a performance that seemed to rattle even sympathetic observers, Trump lashed out against the media and his critics with a vehemence that often bordered on incoherence.

MSNBCs Joe Scarborough tweeted that Republicans on the Hill were panicked behind the scenes by Trumps performance. Fox News chief anchor Shepard Smith called Trumps allegations against the media absolutely crazy. CNNanchor Jake Tapper judged his performance unhinged and wild. One unnamed Republican senator texted CNNs John King: He should do this with a therapist, not on live television.

Donald Trump speaks as Vice President Mike Pence looks at the Congress of Tomorrow Republican Member Retreat on January 26 in Philadelphia. Dean Falvy writes that Trumps marathon press conference refocused attention on his mental competence and stability. Critics have never been shy about diagnosing Trump with various psychological conditions, the most popular being narcissistic-personality disorder. But many self-obsessed people are capable of functioning at a high level professionally, as Trump has for much of his life. But the astonishing achievement of reaching the presidency seems to have aggravated Trumps insecurities and grievances, to the point where mental illness has become the elephant in the White House Situation Room. Alex Wong/Getty

While the Russia story isnt going away, Trumps press conference refocused attention on his own mental competence and stability. Critics have never been shy about diagnosing Trump with various psychological conditions, the most popular choice being narcissistic-personality disorder.

But many self-obsessed people are still capable of functioning at a high level professionally, as Donald Trump apparently has for much of his life. But the astonishing achievement of reaching the presidency seems to have aggravated Trumps insecurities and grievances, to the point where mental illness has become the elephant in the Situation Room.

Some mental health professionals have begun to overcome their reticence (and perhaps professional standards) to argue that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trumps speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.

Is the president able to distinguish between fact and fantasy? Can he absorb and process complex information? Does he have the capacity to make rational decisions? To many observers of his press conference, the answers were not reassuring.

Can anything be done about it? The answer to that question is not simple either.

The Twenty-fifthAmendment provides a process for the president to declare himself unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. In that case, the vice president becomes the acting president until the president recovers from his disability.

This is simple enough when the president is aware of an upcoming medical procedure and voluntarily invokes the Twenty-fifth Amendment for a limited period of time, as President Reagan and President George W. Bush did on three separate occasions. But what if the president is so physically or mentally disabledas to be unable to recognize or acknowledge his own disability?

As I discussed in a previous article on Trumps chances of completing his term, Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment provides an involuntary procedure allowing the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to notify the leaders of Congress that the president is disabled. In that case, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This assures continuity of government if the president falls victim to a sudden illness. But if the president recoversor disputes the existence of a disability at allhe can attempt to reclaim his office by informing Congress. This will happen automatically, unless the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet provide a further declaration to Congress within four days that the president remains disabled.

If that happens, Congress must convene and make a high-stakes decision: Who is entitled to exercise the powers of the presidency, the president or the vice president?

But the president has a clear advantage in this contest: He will regain his powers unless the House and the Senate each confirm his disability by two-thirds majorities. To put it in the simplest terms, the support of either 34 senators or 145 members of the House would be sufficient to restore power to an allegedly disabled president.

In the case of physical disability, invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment is likely to be straightforward. In most cases, an inability to communicate will signal the presidents disability, and the restoration of communication will mark the end of it.

Mental disability is an entirely different kettle of fish. It is not necessary to argue that the president is insane in a legal or clinical sensethe constitutional standard is simply whether he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office.

What if a president performs his duties, but does so erratically and irrationally? And if the president loudly insists that he is capable, will the vice president and Cabinet dare invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, even if they are privately convinced that he is not?

As long as he retains the loyalty of a substantial minority in either the House or Senate, the president can turn the tables on his scheming lieutenants and reclaim his office. Once restored to his powers, the president can (and certainly would) dismiss the Cabinet members who doubted his capacity.

While the vice president cannot be removed from office, he can be sidelined and humiliated in countless ways until his term is over. And that assumesthe president would not seek even more extreme forms of vengeance.

Under these circumstances, the vice president and Cabinet may fear usingthe Twenty-fifth Amendment to constrain an unbalanced president until his madness has put the nation in serious peril. Is there any way out of this dilemma?

Collecting the required signatures on a declaration of disability from a majority of the Cabinet would be no simple task for Vice President Pence. He would have to do so under the nose of President Trump and his watchful staff.

Pence and his allies would have to act before any sympathetic Cabinet members are dismissed for suspected disloyalty. Any attempt by Pence or the Cabinet to consult with Congress in advance to ensure support would likely blow the secrecy of the operation and leave it dead in the water.

But Congress can act on its own to give Pence and the Cabinet the assurance they need to proceed. For example, Congress could pass a resolution, by a two-thirds vote in each House, urging the invocation of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. This would largely remove the threat that a declaration of disability would be reversed. Pence and the Cabinet could then relieve the president of his duties without much fear that Trump could recapture power within days or weeks.

There are several downsides to this approach, however. The need for prolonged debate in Congress over such a resolution would give President Trump and his supporters an opportunity to take countermeasures. He could threaten members of his party in Congress and extract declarations of fealty from the Cabinet. Individuals suspected of disloyalty could be isolated from the herd and subjected to intense pressure.

Vice President Pence would almost surely have to go on the record as opposing the resolution. This would make it awkward, to say the least, for Pence and the Cabinet to turn around and invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment after its passage. Even more dangerously, if the resolution failed to gain a two-thirds majority in the Senate orHouse, the Twenty-fifth Amendment would essentially be deactivated as an option. Invoking it wouldnt just be risky for Pence and his cohortsit would border on political suicide.

However, there is a more subtle waythat Congress can choose to smooth the path for a declaration of disability. Individual members of Congress could send private letters to Vice President Pence, giving him confidence of support in the event of a Twenty-fifth Amendment showdown. Such a letter might look something like this:

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Vice President Pence:

Based on President Trumps public statements and conduct in office, I have grave and increasing concerns about his capacity to perform the duties of the presidency.

If you and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments determine that President Trump is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, I will give substantial weight to that determination in the event that Congress is required to decide the issue in accordance with Section 4 of the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

This letter will remain valid unless and until I revoke it in writing to you. You may disclose the existence of this letter on a confidential basis to members of the Cabinet. You may release it publicly as you see fit in the event that Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment is invoked.

Such a letter would respect the separation of powers on two points. First, it would recognize that the vice president and the Cabinet (rather than Congress) must initiate the involuntary disability procedure. Second, by only promising to give substantial weight to their determination, it would preserve the power given to Congress by the Twenty-fifth Amendment to act as a check against usurpation of power by the vice president and the Cabinet.

Most importantly, such an approach would allow members of Congress to remain out of Trumps line of fire until a critical mass has been achieved. At the same time, it would shield Pence and the Cabinet from the impossibly delicate task of lining up support before invoking the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The vice president, as the presiding officer of the Senate, maintains an office on Capitol Hill. Members of Congress could deliver their confidential letters there, where Pence would store them in a safe until needed, away from the prying eyes of the White House staff. The letters could even be handwritten, in order to avoid leaving digital tracks on congressional computer systems.

Once assured of sufficient support in Congress, especially from its GOP contingent, Vice President Pence would still need to persuade a majority of the Cabinet to support a declaration of presidential disability. This could be a formidable task. But doing so would be much easier with the knowledgeand, if necessary, the proofthat the declaration is very unlikely to be overturned by Congress.

With the outcome of any contested vote in Congress more or less assured, Acting President Pence would also have less to fear from extralegal resistance by President Trump. With little prospect of his powers being restored by legal means, Trump would find it hard to convince loyalists and waverers within the government to risk dismissal or prosecution by obeying his orders instead of Pences.

All this can be done by members of Congress at little risk to themselves. They can avoid taking a public stance on Trumps mental capacity until a critical mass has gathered and Pence has made his move. If, on the other hand, the movementto invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment fails to gather sufficient steam in Congress, any letters received can quietly remainin Mike Pences care and disposed of at the end of his term.

If Trump resigns, or is impeached and removed from office for some other reason, the effort would become a historical footnote. And if Trump steadies himself in office and somehow dispels doubts about his mental fitness? Well, that would be the biggest surprise yet from a relentlessly astonishing man.

Unless that happens, the Twenty-fifth Amendment will be on the mind of every member of Congresswhether they admit it or notuntil the day Donald Trump relinquishes the presidency. Perhaps they will sleep better at night having placed their trust safely in the vice presidents hands. Whether Mike Pence will sleep well with that knowledge is a question for another day.

Dean Falvy is an attorney with an international business practice. He teaches constitutional law, international business transactions and other subjects at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle.

More here:
Pence's Best Chance of Mounting a Coup Against Trump - Newsweek

The Supreme Court hears arguments on Tuesday in a dispute over a Mexican familys ability to sue a U.S. Border Patrol officer who killed their son in a cross-border incident. Both governments filed briefs in the case, on opposite sides of the dispute.

Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, 15, died in 2010 as he stood on Mexican soil by a border officer who fired his gun while on United States soil in Texas. The agent claimed Hernandez and others were throwing rocks at him as he was attempting to detain an illegal immigration suspect; the family says Hernandez was playing a game with his friends at the border location between El Paso and Juarez.

Hernandezs family sued the agent for damages, but in 2015 the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court said the family had no standing to sue because the teen was a Mexican citizen and not protected by the Fifth Amendment under its Due Process clause or by the Fourth Amendment. The full appeals court had unanimously ruled in favor of the agent.

The Supreme Court took the appeal in October 2016 and it also added a question about determining if the parents had a constitutional right to sue a Border Patrol officer.

The controversy will likely get its share of new attention because of the political situation involving the new Trump administration in Washington and its stance on immigration and Mexico.

However, the federal government brief in this case was filed by the Obama administration and it supports Jesus Mesa, Jr., the border agent. Among the arguments made by the Justice Department was that courts werent the proper location to settle a dispute that could involve foreign policy considerations, and that allowing such lawsuits would allow U.S. military and intelligence agencies to be sued for injuries incurred abroad.

The government of Mexicos brief argues that Mexico has a responsibility to maintain control over its territory and to look after the well-being of its nationals. It is a priority for Mexico to see that the United States has provided adequate means to hold the agents accountable and to compensate the victims.

In 2015, Constitution Daily Supreme Court correspondent Lyle Denniston explained to our readers the core constitutional issue in this case.

Overseas, or offshore, application of the rights spelled out in the Constitution was dealt a major setback in 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled that a Mexican national who was being held prisoner inside the United States had no Fourth Amendment right to challenge a search of his home in Mexico by a joint investigative team from the two countries, Denniston said, referring to a case called United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez.

Even a quarter-century later, however, just what that decision actually means about extraterritorial reach for the Constitution remains a matter of considerable debate. The main opinion said that constitutional rights do not apply outside the country to an individual who had no voluntary links to the United States. But Justice Anthony M. Kennedy supplied a necessary fifth vote to make a majority in that case, and his separate opinion suggested that he thought that the specific context of each case might actually make the difference in the analysis.

Then, Justice Kennedy wrote a major opinion for the Court in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 extending the constitutional right of habeas corpus to the foreign nationals that the U.S. was then holding (and scores of whom it still holds) at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

That opinion, if understood to apply beyond the specific factual situation of the detainees at Guantanamo, would appear to stand for the proposition that the extraterritorial application of the Constitutions guarantee of rights depends upon objective factors and practical concerns (as Kennedy put it in the opinion), rather than the nearly categorical approach of the Verdugo-Urquidez decision in 1990, Denniston explained.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

The Interactive Constitution: The Presidents constitutional powers

Waiting for Gorsuch? Supreme Court finally schedules last major case

New version of Trump immigration order coming

Original post:
US-Mexico border shooting case at Supreme Court today - Yahoo News

Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, was shot 10 times in the back and head the night of Oct. 10, 2012, by one or more agents firing through the border fence into Nogales, Sonora. Agents said they were assaulted by rock throwers. The Republic

A Texas case going before the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 21, 2017, could determine whether the family of a teenager killed in Nogales, Mexico, will be able to sue the Border Patrol agent who fired the fatal shot through the border fence. Here, two of many bullet holes are circled on the emergency medical office building in Nogales, Sonora, where Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, died after being shot by a. Border Patrol agent on the other side of the fence.(Photo: Charlie Leight/The Republic)

A Texas case going beforethe U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesdaycould determinewhether the family of a teenager killed in Nogales, Mexico, will be able to sue the Border Patrol agent who fired the fatal shot through the border fence.

The high court will hear oral arguments in Hernandez vs.Mesa, a case involving the 2010 killing of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, 15, in Juarez, Mexico. A Border Patrol agent firing from the U.S. side of the border killedthe teen as he peered out from behind a train trestle on the Mexican side.

A definitive rulingby the Supreme Court would determine whether people standing inMexico and killed by U.S. Border Patrol agents have a constitutional right to sue for damagesin the U.S.

The circumstances of the Texas case are similar to a 2012 shooting in Nogales, Mexico, where Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, was shot 10 times in the back and head by Border Patrol Agent Lonnie Swartz. Swartzfired through the slats in the border fence from Nogales, Arizona. Swartz saidrocks were being thrown, prompting him to fire numerous times,reload his gun and fire again.

After the shooting, Swartz began to vomit and said, "I shot and there's someone dead in Mexico," according to court filings. Witnesses said no rocks were thrown.Theformerassistant commissionerof Customs and Border Protection'sOffice of Internal Affairs said the same in a deposition, also noting that it wasimplausible for rocks thrown from Mexico to hit someone on the U.S. side of the fence becausethe Mexican side is about 25 feet lower in the area where the shooting took place.

Swartz has been charged with second degree murder in federal court.

Elena Rodriguez's family also filed a civil suit against Swartz in U.S. District Court in Tucson. In July2015, U.S. District Court Judge Raner Collins ruledElena Rodriguezwas entitled to protections of the Fourth Amendment "even as a non-citizen standing on foreign soil."The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

An appeal of that decisionwas heard in October by a three-judge panel of the 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Appellate Judge Milan Smithsaid that because of the similar legal issuesin the Nogales and Juarez cases, the 9th Circuit ordinarily would have waited for the Supreme Court to rule in the Juarez case. However, Smith saidit was necessary for the 9th Circuit to move ahead with oral arguments in the Nogales case in casethe Supreme Court'sdecision in the Texas caseresults ina 4-4 tie.

The Supreme Court has had just eight justicessince the death last yearof Justice Antonin Scalia.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The cases "involve almost identical legal issues," said attorney Sean Chapman, who represents Swartz in both the criminal and civil cases." That's what is interesting about it. ... It's incredibility similar to the Rodriguez case in Arizona. I'm waiting to see what theydo."

If the Supreme Court deadlocks,the 5th U.S.Circuit Court of Appealsruling that Guereca's family cannotsue the Border Patrol agent in the U.S. would stand in the 5th Circuit.Then the 9th Circuit could rule on the Elena Rodriguez case, Chapmansaid.

"I think the 9th Circuit is waiting to see what happens on Hernandez," he added.

If the Supreme Court were to deadlockand the 9th Circuit rulesthat Elena Rodriguez's family does have the right to sue, then the issue likely would head back to the Supreme Court because two appellatecourts would have divergent rulings, Chapman said.

However, if the Supreme Court does not deadlock and rules definitively for or against, it "presumably is going to set the law for these cross-border shootings for at least several generations," said Steve Shadowen, an attorney for the Guereca family, whosecase is before the Supreme Court.

The parents of Sergio Adrian Guereca, a Mexican teenager killed in Juarez in 2010 by a Border Patrol agent shooting across the U.S.-Mexico border, speak out about their son's death in a 2014 interview. Nick Oza/azcentral.com

There have been at least six such cross-border shooting cases since 2010, including the cases in Juarez and Nogales.

Once the Supreme Court rules, "it takes a long time, if ever, for the law to change," Shadowen said.

Both the 5th and 9th Circuit courtshave argued over whether the case should be brought under the Fourth or Fifth amendments to the Constitution.

In the Texas case,a 5th Circuit panel ruled the family had a right to sue the agent under the Fifth Amendment but not under the Fourth Amendment. That ruling was later reversed.

The 9th Circuit judges asked questions alongsimilar lines as the5th Circuit panel. They said theFourth Amendment refers to the right of the people, which is interpretedas rights of U.S. citizens. Butthe Fifth Amendment refers more broadly to any person,making it easier toapply to a non-citizen standing in Mexico.

Shadowen said he feels confident in the Juarez case that will be argued Tuesday before the Supreme Court.

"From the beginning we knew we were in the right legally and morally and we still feel that way," Shadowen said.

Border fence in Nogales, Arizona.(Photo: Nick Oza/azcentral)

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2ljBcDp

Read this article:
Supreme Court: Can Mexican citizens sue Border Patrol agents in cross-border killings? - AZCentral.com

A few months ago I wrote about how you can encrypt your entire life in less than an hour. Well, all the security in the world cant save you if someone has physical possession of your phone or laptop, and can intimidate you into giving up your password.

And a few weeks ago, thats precisely what happened to a US citizen returning home from abroad.

On January 30th, Sidd Bikkannavar, a US-born scientist at NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory flew back to Houston, Texas from Santiago, Chile.

On his way through through the airport, Customs and Border Patrol agents pulled him aside. They searched him, then detained him in a room with a bunch of other people sleeping in cots. They eventually returned and said theyd release him if he told them the password to unlock his phone.

Bikkannavar explained that the phone belonged to NASA and had sensitive information on it, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. He eventually yielded and unlocked his phone. The agents left with his phone. Half an hour later, they returned, handed him his phone, and released him.

Were going to discuss the legality of all of this, and what likely happened during that 30 minutes where Bikkannavars phone was unlocked and outside of his possession.

But before we do, take a moment to think about all the apps you have on your phone. Email? Facebook? Dropbox? Your browser? Signal? The history of everything youve ever doneeverything youve ever searched, and everything youve ever said to anyoneis right there in those apps.

We should treat personal electronic data with the same care and respect as weapons-grade plutoniumit is dangerous, long-lasting and once it has leaked theres no getting it back.Cory Doctorow

How many potentially incriminating things do you have lying around your home? If youre like most people, the answer is probably zero. And yet police would need to go before a judge and establish probable cause before they could get a warrant to search your home.

What were seeing now is that anyone can be grabbed on their way through customs and forced to hand over the full contents of their digital life.

Companies like Elcomsoft make forensic software that can suck down all your photos, contactseven passwords for your email and social media accountsin a matter of minutes. Their customers include the police forces of various countries, militaries, and private security forces. They can use these tools to permanently archive everything there is to know about you. All they need is your unlocked phone.

If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.Cardinal Richelieu in 1641

Whats the worst thing that could happen if the Customs and Border Patrol succeed in getting ahold of your unlocked phone? Well

The fourth amendment protects you against unreasonable search and seizure. The fifth amendment protects you against self-incrimination.

If a police officer were to stop you on the street of America and ask you to unlock your phone and give it to them, these amendments would give you strong legal ground for refusing to do so.

But unfortunately, the US border isnt technically the US, and you dont have either of these rights at the border.

Its totally legal for a US Customs and Border Patrol officer to ask you to unlock your phone and hand it over to them. And they can detain you indefinitely if you dont. Even if youre a American citizen.

The border is technically outside of US jurisdiction, in a sort of legal no-mans-land. You have very few rights there. Barring the use of excessive force, agents can do whatever they want to you.

So my advice is to just do whatever they tell you, to and get through customs and on into the US as quickly as you can.

Its only a matter of time before downloading the contents of peoples phones becomes a standard procedure for entering every country. This already happens in Canada. And you can bet that countries like China and Russia arent far behind.

Never say anything in an electronic message that you wouldnt want appearing, and attributed to you, in tomorrow mornings front-page headline in the New York Times.Colonel David Russell, former head of DARPAs Information Processing Techniques Office

Since its illegal in most countries to profile individual travelers, customs officers will soon require everyone to do this.

The companies who make the software that downloads data from your phones are about to get a huge infusion of money from governments. Their software will get much fastermaybe requiring only a few seconds to download all of your most pertinent data from your phone.

If we do nothing to resist, pretty soon everyone will have to unlock their phone and hand it over to a customs agent while theyre getting their passport swiped.

Over time, this unparalleled intrusion into your personal privacy may come to feel as routine as taking off your shoes and putting them on a conveyer belt.

And with this single new procedure, all the hard work that Apple and Google have invested in encrypting the data on your phoneand fighting for your privacy in courtwill be a completely moot point.

Governments will have succeeded in utterly circumventing decades of innovation in security and privacy protection. All by demanding you hand them the skeleton key to your lifeyour unlocked phone.

When you travel internationally, you should leave your mobile phone and laptop at home. You can rent phones at most international airports that include data plans.

If you have family overseas, you can buy a second phone and laptop and leave them there at their home.

If youre an employer, you can create a policy that your employees are not to bring devices with them during international travel. You can then issue them loaner laptops and phones once they enter the country.

Since most of our private data is stored in the cloudand not on individual devicesyou could also reset your phone to its factory settings before boarding an international flight. This process will also delete the keys necessary to unencrypt any residual data on your phone (iOS and Android fully encrypt your data).

This way, you could bring your physical phone with you, then reinstall apps and re-authenticate with them once youve arrived. If youre asked to hand over your unlocked phone at the border, there wont be any personal data on it. All your data will be safe behind the world-class security that Facebook, Google, Apple, Signal, and all these other companies use.

Is all this inconvenient? Absolutely. But its the only sane course of action when you consider the gravity of your data falling into the wrong hands.

If you bother locking your doors at night, you should bother securing your phones data during international travel.

This may upset Customs and Border Patrol agents, who are probably smart enough to realize that 85% of Americans now have smart phones, and probably 100% of the Americans who travel internationally have smart phones. They may choose to detain you anyway, and force you to give them passwords to various accounts manually. But theres no easy way for them to know which services you use and which services you dont use, or whether you have multiple accounts.

We live in an era of mass surveillance, where governments around the world are passing terrifying new anti-privacy laws every year.

Those who are willing to surrender their freedom for security have always demanded that if they give up their full freedom it should also be taken from those not prepared to do so.Friedrich Hayek

With a lot of hard work on our part, enlightenment will triumph. Privacy will be restored. And we will beat back the current climate of fear thats confusing people into unnecessarily giving up their rights.

In the meantime, follow the Boy Scouts of America Motto: always be prepared. The next time you plan to cross a border, leave your phone at home.

This post originally appeared on Medium. Follow Quincy on Twitter @ossia. Learn how to write for Quartz Ideas. We welcome your comments at ideas@qz.com.

Read the original post:
I'll never bring my phone on an international flight againneither should you - Quartz

Black History encapsulates more than a month. This new daily series will take a look at some lesser known events and people in the world.

The story of Shirley Chisholm.

As the Civil Rights movement dispersed around the nation, Georgia had its fair share of history. Take the Heart of Atlanta Motel Incorporateds case against the United States. The Supreme Court had recently passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which says racial discrimination in public places was unconstitutional.

But the motel refused to rent rooms to black customers.

Moreton Rolleston, the owner, took the case to court citing the Fifth Amendment (he said it went against his right to choose patrons for his business), the Thirteenth Amendment (involuntary servitude), and he added that Congress was going over their control over the interstate commerce (now known as the Commerce Clause).

Congress immediately came back with their own case. They referenced his Fifth Amendment right saying that it does not hinder regulation of interstate commerce. It countered the Thirteenth Amendment with the explanation that it was specifically for slavery and the negative effects of it. And, finally, Congress said its power under the Commerce Clause related to proper sleeping circumstances for blacks traveling on the interstate.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia took Congresss side in December 1964. The court won; Congress could use power granted to it by the Constitutions Commerce Clause to force privately owned businesses to follow the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nation successfully fought against discrimination.

WXIA

Bessie Coleman takes to the skies | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Ace pilots fly for freedom and become top shooters | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Dancing through the Harlem Renaissance | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Betty Boop: Historical Black Icon? | Black History Moment of the Day

WXIA

Cicely Tyson breaks down the television barrier | Black History Moment of the Day

The rest is here:
The Supreme Court fights for the weary black interstate traveler ... - 11alive.com