The Latest: Reporters need a federal shield law
News must often be gathered by confidential sources, or not at all. That confidentiality must be uniformly protected.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
A Colorado judge's threatened contempt sanctions against Fox News investigative reporter Jana Winter—who refuses to reveal a confidential news source—has refocused public attention on how journalists operate.
News must often be gathered from confidential sources, or not at all. Given how vital is the freedom of the press in a democracy, that confidentiality must be maintained. It is time that Congress recognize this and enact legislation that enables journalists to protect their confidential sources and newsgathering materials.
Ms. Winter covered the July 20, 2012 mass shooting that killed 12 people and injured 58 others in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater. Based on confidential law-enforcement sources, she reported that James E. Holmes, who is charged with the murders, had previously sent a notebook to his psychiatrist describing his intent to kill.
Now that Mr. Holmes is facing trial, his defense attorneys want to know the identities of Ms. Winter's sources to aid in their client's defense. The judge has yet to decide whether the notebook, which is potentially covered by a patient-psychiatrist privilege, is admissible. He has postponed until August a decision on whether he will force Ms. Winter to reveal her sources. But if he ultimately sides with the defendant, Ms. Winter will have to choose between violating her sources' trust and going to jail.
Latest Media Appearance: Fox and Friends
Mission of David Rivkin
"The majority of Americans describe themselves as conservative politically. They believe in the principles of political and economic freedom, and want to enjoy the fruits of their own labor. They believe in accountability from leadership and government, and from themselves. People who believe in the value of work and innovation, and who are accountable to their family and employer, are the core of this great country's strength." David Rivkin holds the beliefs and values of country, and his mission is to protect them.
Today, the extreme political and social elements have seized media attention and consumers are being fed a continuous stream of news with only marginal significance. Controversies and sensationalism attract viewers: by the time we have grown weary of one controversy, another one is served up to garner attention. These controversies serve to distract us from the real issues facing our country: the continued erosion of economic and political freedoms. If you are more concerned about the latest celebrity's personal relationships than whether your congressional representative has even read the legislation upon which s/he has voted, you are at risk for being unaware of important changes in government.
The unmet need that David Rivkin strives to fulfill is to base viewpoints and recommendations on the constitution and the law, for that is what protects us from tyranny. Instead of a values-only discussion, David Rivkin will provide objectivity and reason. But don't expect David Rivkin to be free of emotion: David Rivkin is passionate about his country, his freedom, and his purpose."
As a dedicated appellate attorney, political commentator, and frequent contributor to The Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin has been on the forefront on key constitutional law cases and has helped shaped legal thought and American policy for more than 20 years. Mr. Rivkin is an enthusiastic speaker and debater that will provide your organization a memorable event. Mr. Rivkin is currently booking 2012 engagements now. Engage with David Rivkin today.
David Rivkin on the Issues
What Americans Must Know About President Obama and the U.S. Constitution
The president cannot write—or rewrite—the laws. The Constitution makes Congress the legislature, and the president cannot simply ignore its decisions.
The entire system of separation of powers—which is the heart of the Constitution’s “checks and balances” designed to limit governmental power and thereby protect individual liberty—depends upon each branch of the federal government fulfilling its assigned role and respecting that of the others. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has now made clear that he won’t respect these basic constitutional limits on his power.
On Iran v. Israel
“Any first use of nuclear weapons is an extremely momentous decision and can be justified only in the most dire of circumstances” Source: http://www.haaretz.com/news/david-rivkin-1.248333 – background: He recently (2008) visited Israel with The Israel Program on Constitutional Government funded by Keren Keshet (The Rainbow Foundation). We will discuss Israel-related issues, and will start with Rivkin?s recent article in The Washington Post The Myth of Occupied Gaza.
On Palestinian Statehood
In order for a given entity to be granted statehood in the UN, it must meet specific criteria: it needs to have a territory, population, government that exercises effective sovereignty, and is able to go into agreements with other nations. According to these standards, Palestine does not meet the basic objective criteria to become a state. Palestine does not control Gaza or even the West Bank. Since Israel controls most of the land that Palestine claims, Israel is the only one that can “midwife” Palestine into a state. Furthermore, the United Nations is not in the business of recognizing the state, but is only able to take an existing state and make it a member of the UN. While some argue that the Vatican is an exception to this rule, Rivkin fires back that the Vatican, as the oldest existing state in history was able to merely ushered into the UN with non-member status.
On “The Palestinian Problem”
Has anything changed since I wrote this in 2008? “Today, no state claims sovereign authority [over Gaza}, though it is expected that Gaza will become part of a future Palestinian state. For its part, Hamas acknowledges no higher authority and functions as a de facto government in Gaza. It is a classic example of a terrorist-controlled badland.”
President Obama’s Agenda vs. the Law
Mr. Obama granted effective amnesty to undocumented aliens under age 30 who had come to the U.S. before age 16. This entire group will no longer be subject to deportation proceedings and may also qualify for renewable work permits. Thus the president implemented portions of legislation he could not get through Congress on his own signature and acted in ways blatantly at odds with the existing immigration laws, which provide for no such exemptions from deportation.
Like what you see? Want to receive David Rivkin's latest articles without searching? Sign up for David's email newsletter.
By A Web Design