Erik Wemple of The Washington Post has an interesting item about the reaction to the Texas Muhammad cartoons. Here’s an excerpt (but you should read the whole thing):

Cable news personalities are hired to ask tough questions, and so these folks were doing their jobs in pressing Geller. Yet the unspoken message they send with this line of inquiry is one of suppression — that what Geller and her invitees were doing was wrong, provocative, naughty, stupid and downright unnecessary. … This strain of thought speaks to the power of precedent.

The Local [Norway] reports:

Norway has scrapped its longstanding blasphemy law, meaning it is now legal to mock the beliefs of others, in a direct response to January’s brutal attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

Finn Jarle Sæle, editor of a Christian magazine, condemned the change as “cultural suicide,” and the initial 2009 move to repeal the law was opposed by the Christian Democrat party. The last prosecution under the law was apparently in 1933, and the last conviction in 1912.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

The remarkable case of I Sylvia Ann Driskell Ambassador for Plaintiff’s God, and His, Son, Jesus Christ v. Their Given Name Homosexuals Their, Alis Gay , filed May 1, has been promptly dismissed:

Under Art. III, § 2 of the United States Constitution, the United States Federal Courts were created to resolve actual cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. A federal court is not a forum for debate or discourse on theological matters. Other forums, freely accessible to citizens of the United States, exist for the purpose of addressing questions of religious doctrine. This is a court of law, and “‘[t]he law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect.'” United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944) (quoting Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. 679, 728 (1871)).

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

In 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives censured Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), former Chair of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, for a series of ethical violations, including the improper solicitation of funds, improper acceptance of gifts, failure to abide by relevant disclosure requirements and a failure to pay taxes. After a 2011 Politico story suggested that some committee staffers might have improperly shared information related to the complaints against him, Rep. Rangel sought to challenge his censure in federal court. According to Rep. Rangel, his censure violated relevant House rules and was unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Whatever the merits of Rep. Rangel’s substantive claim, he cannot bring his case in federal court. Today, in Rangel v. Boehner , a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded unanimously that federal courts lack jurisdiction over Rep. Rangel’s claims, as they are foreclosed by the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.

The opinion for the court, authored by Judge Karen Henderson, begins:

Public service has its benefits and its burdens. Congressmen, for example, enjoy absolute immunity from suit for their conduct in the legislative arena. That same immunity, however, prevents them from airing their legislative disagreements in a judicial forum. Representative Charles Rangel asks this Court to review his 2010 censure by the United States House of Representatives. But the Constitution—specifically, the Speech or Debate Clause—prevents us from doing so. Rangel must vindicate his reputation in the one court that can hear his claim: the court of public opinion. We affirm the district court‘s dismissal of his complaint.

The district court below had reached a similar conclusion. Yet even if both courts were wrong on this point, Rep. Rangel would have a tough row to hoe, as the district court had also concluded that he lacks standing and that this sort of challenge to House proceedings presents a non-justiciable political question.

A cert petition may follow, but I think it’s safe to say that it is not going anywhere.

We don’t yet have all of the results of the just-completed British election. But it is already clear that the right of center Conservative Party has done much better than expected, and will almost certainly lead the next government. On the other hand, almost every parliamentary seat in Scotland was won by the left-wing and pro-independence Scottish National Party. As a result, the political divergence between Scotland and most of the rest of the UK is likely to be greater than ever.

In order to secure a “no” vote in the Scottish independence referendum last September, the major British political parties promised the Scots extensive devolution of political power. The SNP’s massive success in the current election, combined with their alienation from a Tory-led UK government, will heighten the pressure to deliver on those promises. Otherwise, the Scottish independence movement might pick up steam again. Conservative leaders like Boris Johnson are already talking about adopting a federal system for the United Kingdom in order to stave off possible Scottish secession.

Some form of constitutional change in Britain seems likely, as I previously predicted in the wake of the referendum. But the interesting question is what form would a new federal system would take. The SNP and other left-wing Scots might welcome greater devolution of power to the Scottish parliament at Holyrood. But they also want the UK government to keep subsidizing the welfare state in Scotland, and perhaps even increase those subsidies. Scotland is relatively poorer than England, and already gets a disproportionate share of UK government spending.

Public opinion in England — particularly Conservative opinion — is unlikely to support greater devolution of power to Scotland, while simultaneously giving Scotland large amounts of central government money. Many in England believe that the current “Barnett Formula” for distributing central government funds is unfairly biased in favor of the Scots Even Lord Barnett, the former Labor Party minister after whom the formula is named, holds that view. He has said that the formula is “is unfair and should be stopped… it is a national embarrassment and personally embarrassing to me as well.”

Any federalist devolution likely to get Conservative English support would probably put strict limits on the amount of central government funding that goes to the Scots, quite likely stricter than what exists today. Some Conservatives would prefer that the Scots be required to themselves raise the tax revenue they spend. In addition, many English Conservatives are advocating greater devolution to regional governments in England itself, including perhaps even a system of “English votes for English laws” under which only English members of parliament would get to vote on issues exclusive to England. What counts as an “English” issue, as opposed to a national one, is far from self-evident.

In sum, there is broad support in Britain for moving towards some form of federal devolution. But it will be difficult to figure out an approach that is acceptable to both English Conservatives and much more left-wing Scots. If negotiations over these issues fail, Scottish opinion might turn in favor of independence, and there could be another referendum on secession with a different result from last year’s. Watching BBC election coverage tonight, I heard a couple of commentators speculate that David Cameron could turn out to be the last prime minister of a United Kingdom that includes Scotland.

Ironically, an SNP-led independent Scotland might find that it lacks the fiscal resources to pursue the big-spending welfare state policies independence advocates want to leave the UK to pursue. Instead of being a showcase for social democracy, an independent Scotland might be forced to accept the kinds of more free market policies adopted by Slovakia after it broke with the Czech Republic in 1993 . Slovak nationalists — like their Scottish counterparts — wanted independence in order to create a bigger welfare state than the could have in a united Czechoslovakia.

Federalism can be a valuable tool for mitigating ethnic conflict, and for enabling people with divergent ideologies to coexist in the same polity. It is certainly possible that adopting a more federal constitutional system could help the UK achieve those goals. As compared with some continental Europeans — and perhaps also Americans — the British are famed for their ability to settle political conflicts through compromise. But the devil of federalism is often in the details. Whether Britain can get the details right remains to be seen.

At this point, the only safe prediction is that Britain’s political evolution over the next few years will provide a lot of interesting material for scholars of constitutional federalism.