Articles Posted in Authors of Articles


This posting provides information to help explore the key arguments surrounding this question from both positive and negative perspectives and to provide a useful framework to inform the debate.  Commentary is organized into the following categories: Survey Information, Historical Context, Current Challenges, Arguments for a New Constitutional Convention, Arguments Against Convening a New Constitutional Convention, Some Thoughts About the Future, and a concluding statement.

The United States Constitution, adopted in 1787, has endured for over two centuries as the foundational document governing the nation. However, in recent years there has been growing debate over whether it is time to convene a new Constitutional Convention to address contemporary challenges and issues.

In a previous posting on this blog, Reflections of a Retired Law Librarian: From Mimeograph to Generative AI, I urged professional organizations, including the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL), to appoint committees or commissions at the highest level to  facilitate the development and implementation of standards sufficient to address the real ethical and safety concerns related  to the increasingly rapid adaption of AI, including  Generative AI, as a technology of choice in the workplace.

It is gratifying to learn from recent announcements from the American Bar Association that it has already been taking steps to address the legal challenges of Ai faced by the legal community. As Mary L. Smith, President of the American Bar Association, has said: “As a national voice for the legal profession, the ABA must play a  leadership role in helping to identify for the legal community the benefits and risks of continually changing AI and machine learning systems and capabilities.”

Measures already taken by ABA include Resolution 112 adopted in August, 2019, Resolution 604 adopted in February, 2023, various articles and podcasts published by its various Sections, including the ABA Business Law Section and the Sci Tech Lawyer published by the ABA Science and Technology Section.

Generative AI is a type of artificial intelligence technology that can produce various types of content, including text, imagery, audio and information that is artificially manufactured. The recent interest in generative AI has been driven by the simplicity of new user interfaces for creating high-quality content, including text, graphics and videos in a matter of seconds.                        

Generative AI has the potential to be used in various ways to help regulate criminal behavior, although it’s important to note that these applications can be controversial and raise ethical concerns. Here are some ways in which generative AI could potentially contribute to regulating criminal behavior:

  1. Predictive Policing: Generative AI algorithms could analyze large sets of historical crime data to identify patterns and predict potential criminal hotspots. This could help law enforcement agencies allocate resources more effectively and proactively deter criminal behavior.

New from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Cost Estimate, August 23. 2023

As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 30, 2023

Introduction: The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the practice of executing individuals who have been convicted of certain serious crimes, typically murder. The United States has a complex and controversial history with the death penalty, involving legal, ethical, and societal considerations. This posting provides an overview of the death penalty in the United States, including its history, current status, arguments for and against its use,  recent trends. and a selection of death penalty, criminal sentencing  Supreme Court cases compiled by Justia, and a list of references for the benefit of those who would like to pursue this subject in greater depth and detail.

Historical Context: The death penalty has been a part of the U.S. legal system since colonial times.  The first recorded execution in the new colonies was believed to be that of Captain George Kendall in the Jamestown colony of Virginia in 1608. Over the years, the application of the death penalty has evolved  with changes in methods of execution and legal standards. Use of the death penalty in the United States rose gradually during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth  centuries with a sharp rise in the twentieth century until 1972 when a moratorium was established by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Furman v. Georgia.

Modern Era and Legal Framework: In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty, as it was being applied at the time, was unconstitutional due to its arbitrary nature. Subsequently, many states revised their laws to address concerns of arbitrariness and excessive severity. In 1976 the Court reinstated the death penalty with the Gregg v. Georgia decision, in which it as held that death penalty for murder was not, in and of itself, a cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

As ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on May 17, 2023

This bill would:

• Authorize the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide danger pay allowances to employees who

Cyber risk is one of the great concerns sitting at the top of any government, as hacker attacks and other security breaches have the potential to jeopardize the global economy and other aspects of everyday life.  Wide reporting indicates the proliferation of cyber attacks worldwide at a substantial and increasing rate, thereby unleashing severe damage to companies, governments and individuals worldwide. This proliferation of widespread attacks is creating an increasingly urgent need for greater cybersecurity for those in all sectors utilizing online networks.  Users include governments, corporations, various other organizations  and individuals who stand to benefit from the greater convenience, efficiencies, and sometimes cost benefits made available through online use.

Cyber criminals and others in the business of victimizing online users also benefit.  While some may be primarily interested in creating mischief, which can itself prove harmful, professional cybercriminals are usually looking for much more. Usually, the basis of their primary motives comes down to either money or power. For purposes of classification, their motives are typically  grouped into one or more of the following three categories:

  1. Denial of Service. The motive for this type of attack is usually revenge. Some attackers may launch DDoS attacks as retaliation against a person, organization, or business that they perceive has wronged them. Some attackers may similarly target a competing business or organization to disrupt their services and gain an advantage in the market.

CBO’s Director, Phillip Swagel, testifies about the agency’s projections of Social Security’s finances before the Senate Budget Committee.

Established in 1974, The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is a federal agency within the legislative branch of the United States government.  It is charged with providing  members of Congress  objective  analysis of budgeting and economic issues to support the congressional budget process. Each year, CBO economists and budget analysts produce dozens of reports and hundreds of cost estimates for proposed legislation. This posting includes a summary of Director Swagel’s testimony, a link to the full text of the testimony, and a list of publications that relate to the testimony.


On June 29,2023, the Supreme Court delivered its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. The Court held that Harvard College’s admissions system does not comply with the principles of the equal protection clause embodied in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.  The decision, by a vote of 6–2, reversed the lower court ruling. In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts held that affirmative action in college admissions is unconstitutional. The Court did not decide whether race-based affirmative action can continue in U.S. military academies,[9] which the solicitor general urged the Court to continue to allow in the government’s amicus brief. The the court also did not rule out race entirely in admission programs, adding, “nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university.”


It was only a short time after the Supreme Court announced that it had delivered its decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College that emails and other media containing messages reacting to the decision started appearing. Thinking that readers of this blog might be interested in becoming aware of, and reading,  some of these messages, we started our own searching on the web. Some of our searches were general, some more specific.  As the search results mounted up into the hundreds, it became clear that time and space made it impossible to tabulate all, or even most, of our search results on this blog. We have therefore resorted to presenting you a relatively short, manageable list that hopefully you will find helpful and enlightening.

In an earlier posting, CBO Projections: The 2023 Budget, we provided Congressional Budget Office (CBO) documents which discuss, from a budgetary perspective, their analysis and projections of what the federal budget and economy would look like over the next 20 years, if current laws generally remain unchanged. In this posting we focus primarily on material provided by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to provide more general dimension to this discussion. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 formed the then named General Accounting Office to investigate all matters related to the  use of public funds. The Act also required GAO to report its findings to Congress and recommend ways to increase economy and efficiency in government spending. It is an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress.

Both the GAO and the CBO are partners in supporting Congress in its effort to ensure accountability to the American people.  While both can be involved in the development and analysis of federal and defense budgets, sometimes collaborating in these initiatives, the GAO is also responsible for monitoring expenditures, including excessive spending, and issuing legal decisions on matters such as those related to disputes involving the awarding of government contracts, and has the power to investigate activities of the executive branch, although its enforcement powers are considered negligible.

Regarding The State of the Economy of the United States: As Viewed by GAO and CBO, there are indications from the various federal agencies reporting on these matters that  over the long term the nation’s fiscal health may be in peril if current fiscal policies remain unchanged..

Contact Information