Publications & Resources
Search TCP documents by typing a keyword (e.g., author, document title, etc.) into the search box and hitting the search button. Refine your results by selecting from the issues, material types, date range, and committee options listed. You can also browse recent publications and resources below.
Browse All Publications & Resources
The case concerns a state judge, Thomas A. Spargo, who was alleged to have committed several ethical violations involving political partisanship. A district court judge held that the ethical rules Spargo was alleged to have violated were unconstitutional. The amicus brief urges the appellate court to reverse the lower court' s decision and hold that the ethical rules barring political partisanship were constitutional, since it is reasonably for society to expect judges to remain above the political fray.
The case concerns a state judge, Thomas A. Spargo, who was alleged to have committed several ethical violations involving political partisanship. A district court judge held that the ethical rules Spargo was alleged to have violated were unconstitutional. The amicus brief urges the appellate court to reverse the lower court' s decision and hold that the ethical rules barring political partisanship were constitutional, since it is reasonably for society to expect judges to remain above the political fray.
Liberty and Security Committee report examines constitutional issues of executive power with establishing domestic military command, and military conducting intelligence operations.
Former Judges, Prosecutors, and other Public Officials arguing that unfairness in capital prosecutions undermines public confidence in the capital punishment system, discloure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence is essential to ensure fundamental fairness in capital cases, and the integrity of the capital sentencing process depends on adequate representation at each stage of the proceedings.
Former Judges, Prosecutors, and other Public Officials arguing that unfairness in capital prosecutions undermines public confidence in the capital punishment system, discloure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence is essential to ensure fundamental fairness in capital cases, and the integrity of the capital sentencing process depends on adequate representation at each stage of the proceedings.
The report of the Constitution Project’s Liberty and Security Initiative delineates the concerns raised by the proposed use of military tribunals to try terrorism suspects. The central recommendation of the Initiative’s blue-ribbon panel is that the jurisdiction of the military tribunals be limited to trials of combatants captured overseas on the battlefield.
Recommending the creation of safeguards to ensure effective counsel, prohibit execution in cases involving questionable categries of defendants and homicides, expand and explain life without parole, safeguard racial fairness, review proportionally, provide protection against wrongful sentencing and conviction, and interpret role of judges, juries, and prosecutors.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc narrowly overturned a three-judge panel that held that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal permanent resident in the U.S. accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, should either be freed or charged as a civilian. Amici The Constitution Project and the Rutherford Institute urge the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the Bush administration' s indefinite military detention without charge of a legal U.S. resident.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc narrowly overturned a three-judge panel that held that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a legal permanent resident in the U.S. accused of being an al-Qaeda sleeper agent, should either be freed or charged as a civilian. Amici The Constitution Project and the Rutherford Institute urge the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the Bush administration' s indefinite military detention without charge of a legal U.S. resident.
Constitutional Amendments Committee report proposes guidelines for the limited circumstances under which the Constitution should be amended, but does not take positions on the merits of any particular proposed amendment.
