In this Scripps News interview, Attorney Andrew Lieb answers questions about the ongoing Speaker battle in the House of Representatives. He is asked about there being no limit on votes for Speaker, Patrick McHenry's duties and powers as Speaker Pro Tem, if McHenry could become president in the line of succession, if Hakeem Jeffries could become Speaker if he receives a majority of votes, if legislation could pass under a Speaker Pro Tem, and if Congress can change its own rules similar to proposals to amend the Second Amendment. The interview covers Lieb's responses on the rules governing Speaker votes, McHenry temporarily serving as Speaker, Jeffries or others becoming Speaker, Congress's ability to pass bills in the interim, and the different processes for changing Congressional rules versus amending the Constitution.
Showing posts with label attorney andrew lieb. Show all posts
Showing posts with label attorney andrew lieb. Show all posts
Thursday, October 19, 2023
Thursday, July 20, 2023
In Attorney Andrew Lieb's discussion about the legality of In-N-Out's mask policy with Scripps News, Lieb emphasizes its potential issues regarding discrimination. Although it's legal in the majority of states as a general matter, the way the policy is worded could inadvertently lead to discrimination by not providing exemptions for religious reasons. He suggests that employees might have a chance to oppose this policy through unionization, concerted activity, or lawsuits related to religious accommodations and disability accommodations.
Before pursuing a medical exemption, Lieb advises employees to consult a discrimination lawyer to better understand what counts as a statutorily recognized disability that would qualify for such an exemption. He also addresses the problematic nature of the restaurant chain's requirement for only company-provided masks, which could fail to accommodate those who might need different kinds of masks due to their religion or medical condition. He specifically points out that "Many Muslim women might need to cover their face. So the way they articulate it is really problematic and potentially discriminatory."
In this interview with FOX liveNOW, Attorney Andrew Lieb unpacks the emerging legal crisis facing 16 Michigan residents who have been indicted for allegedly forging documents tied to the 2020 election as fake electors. While the First Amendment guarantees their right to advocate for Donald Trump's election victory, it does not permit fraudulent actions, such as posing as electors when they clearly were not.
Lieb also delves into the curious case of Trump's unique approach to legal challenges. The former president's strategy of pre-empting legal indictments via social media puzzles many from a legal standpoint, yet it effectively rallies his supporters in the political context.
Analysing Trump's current predicament, Lieb suggests that an indictment over his involvement in the January 6 events appears increasingly probable, given the current trajectory of the investigations.
Key Points:
- Serious charges loom over 16 Michigan residents for allegedly falsifying and filing elector documents.
- Trump's preemptive social media tactics might score political points but are legally confounding.
- A looming indictment for Trump appears likely considering the "target" letter and the progression of investigations so far.
In Lieb's words, "It's a legally bewildering scenario. You can just picture his attorneys at their wit's end, wondering why he's openly taunting prosecutors. From a legal perspective, this is an unorthodox, almost reckless approach."
Friday, June 09, 2023
Andrew Lieb, a renowned constitutional attorney, was recently invited to provide expert commentary on Scripps News regarding the groundbreaking indictments of former President Donald Trump in Florida and Washington DC. The charges range from mishandling classified documents to violating the Espionage Act.
Lieb described the indictments as shocking due to their sheer magnitude. He highlighted that the incident marked a significant moment in U.S. history, where a former president was facing legal scrutiny on this scale.
He also addressed House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's public backlash against the indictment, which he deemed as a severe injustice and an unprecedented politicization of the judiciary.
According to Lieb, it is essential to appreciate that no one, including a former president, is above the law. At the same time, he noted that the case could set a precedent where potential public office candidates must maintain impeccable records to avoid similar legal scrutiny.
Lieb underlined the potential political implications of the indictment, suggesting that while it could benefit Trump in terms of visibility and fundraising amidst a crowded nomination field, the former president should prioritize his legal defense over political aspirations due to the severity of the charges.
The attorney eloquently captured the dilemma many Americans are currently grappling with: the desire for the rule of law to prevail versus the fear of potential political witch-hunts. In Lieb's view, the resolution of this case could significantly impact public trust in our judicial system and the very foundations of our democracy.
Friday, December 16, 2022
The SCREEN Act is a good step in the direction of having the FCC regulate websites. As a parent, we need age verification technology to ensure that children cannot access inappropriate content. That said, restricting pornography from the underaged is not enough. Hopefully, amendments to the Act will go further and restrict other topics like alcohol, drugs, guns, and as every parent will tell you, in-game purchases. If that seems like an overreach based on restricting ambiguous terms, which will give the government way too much unchecked power and not respect individual liberty, then you agree with the Supreme Court, which has historically found that all prior similar acts by Congress were not undertaken in the least restrictive means possible to protect a compelling government interest. Think about it this way, is a minor who is 7 years old the same as one who is 17 and should they have the same restrictions? Also, what does pornography mean anyway? Does it include anatomy pictures or health lessons? In short, this law is tone deaf to reality.
Speaking about what pornography means, Senator Mike Lee also wants to define it in his Interstate Obscenity Definition Act. While this is a great concept because pornography is now nationally available, rather than locally available, it includes terrible execution by the Senator. As any Avenue Q fan can tell you, the internet is for porn. Well, not for Mike Lee if he has his way. The Senator wants almost all pornography to be swept under the rubric of obscenity and therefore, not subject to First Amendment Protections. Whatever happened to fighting for our Constitution? Under our Constitution, as opined by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, one can only define obscenity by first applying the contemporary community standards of a work, as a whole. Senator Lee appears to believe himself smarter than the learned Justice and his Bill to create a national pornography definition law changes the line between obscenity and protected speech by ignoring the time period that the work is evaluated, a review of it in its entirety, and, most importantly, the use of community standards. Hopefully, the Democratic Senate blocks this Bill from going anywhere fast as restricting speech is always a slippery slope.
Speaking about what pornography means, Senator Mike Lee also wants to define it in his Interstate Obscenity Definition Act. While this is a great concept because pornography is now nationally available, rather than locally available, it includes terrible execution by the Senator. As any Avenue Q fan can tell you, the internet is for porn. Well, not for Mike Lee if he has his way. The Senator wants almost all pornography to be swept under the rubric of obscenity and therefore, not subject to First Amendment Protections. Whatever happened to fighting for our Constitution? Under our Constitution, as opined by former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger, one can only define obscenity by first applying the contemporary community standards of a work, as a whole. Senator Lee appears to believe himself smarter than the learned Justice and his Bill to create a national pornography definition law changes the line between obscenity and protected speech by ignoring the time period that the work is evaluated, a review of it in its entirety, and, most importantly, the use of community standards. Hopefully, the Democratic Senate blocks this Bill from going anywhere fast as restricting speech is always a slippery slope.
