Constitution and Sarah Palin email hack: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''Sarah Palin email hack''' was an illegal access to electronically stored information of [[Sarah Palin]], vice presidential candidate and governor of [[Alaska]]. This access was a [[felony]], which if proven in court is punishable by a a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.<ref name="sgun">[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html Palin Hacker Indicted] </ref> <ref>[http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/08/arrest-made-palin-hacking-case/ UT student David Kernell pleads not guilty in Palin e-mail hacking] </ref> |
|||
{{Other|Constitution (disambiguation)}} |
|||
A '''constitution''' is a system for government, often [[codified]] as a written document, that establishes the rules and principles of an autonomous political entity. In the case of countries, this term refers specifically to a national constitution defining the fundamental [[politics|political]] principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, [[power (sociology)|power]]s and [[duty|duties]], of a [[government]]. Most national constitutions also guarantee certain [[right]]s to the people. Historically, before the evolution of modern-style, codified national constitutions, the term ''constitution'' could be applied to any important [[law]] that governed the functioning of a government. |
|||
== Incident == |
|||
Constitutions concern different kinds of [[political]] organizations. They are found extensively in regional government, at [[supranational]] (e.g., [[European Union]]), [[Federation| federal]] (e.g., [[United States Constitution]]), [[state]] or [[provincial]] (e.g., [[Maryland Constitution|Constitution of Maryland]]), and [[administrative division|sub-national]] levels. They are also found in many political groups, such as [[political party|political parties]], [[pressure group]]s, and [[trade union]]s. |
|||
On September 17, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo! Mail email account, which critics allege that she used for official business in order to get around public record laws,<ref name="Zetter">{{cite web| url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/group-posts-e-m.html| title=Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account -- Update|last=Zetter|first=Kim | date=2008-0917 |publisher=WIRED.COM|accessdate=2008-09-18}}</ref> was compromised, and screenshots of photos and messages were posted over the internet.<ref name="Zetter"/> News of a Yahoo! mail account owned by Palin appeared on [[4chan]]'s board, and several readers of the board tried unsuccessfully to access into the account.<ref name="malkin">{{cite web | title = The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking | author = [[Michelle Malkin]] | url = http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/17/the-story-behind-the-palin-e-mail-hacking/ |work = MichelleMalkin.com |date=2008-09-17}}</ref> The account was finally compromised by an individual who successfully answered the the security questions that allow one to reset the password, according to a message later posted on 4chan by an individual posting under the same user name.<ref name="malkin"/> According to this message, the individual then realized that he had only one [[Proxy server|proxy]] for protection and thought of what would happen if the [[FBI]] became involved.<ref name="malkin"/> The message stated that the individual panicked,<ref name="ars_jury"/> <ref name="malkin"/> published the password on 4chan's "/b/" board, thus allowing all posters to login into the account, and then wiped all the information and logs from his own system and terminated his connection to the internet.<ref name="malkin"/> |
|||
== Development == |
|||
Non-political entities such as [[corporation]]s and [[voluntary association]]s, whether incorporated or not, may also have a [[Constitution (corporate)|constitution]]. The constitution of a legally incorporated entity is more usually styled as its [[Memorandum of association|memorandum]] and [[articles of association]] (U.S. [[Articles of Incorporation|incorporation]]). |
|||
At the time the hacker logged off, one of the readers of the board decided to change the password to stop people from logging into the account, and then warn Palin of the hacking through a mail to one of her friends.<ref name="malkin"/> However, this person then accidentally posted the new password on the board, and several readers of the board tried at the same time to use it to set a new password.<ref name="malkin" /> The Yahoo! software had security measures in place that triggered an automatic "freeze" which prevented anyone from logging in even with the correct password, and the account was later deleted by Yahoo!.<ref name="malkin" /> The freeze happened before all emails accessible on the account could be downloaded.<ref name="malkin" /> Members of Anonymous later passed all the information that could be retrieved before the freeze to [[Wikileaks]], which published it.<ref name="malkin"/> <ref name="Metz">{{cite web|url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/anonymous_hacks_sarah_palin/|title=Anonymous hacks Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account|last=Metz|first=Cade |date=2008-09-17|publisher=The Register|accessdate=2008-09-18}}</ref><ref name="Zetter"/> The individual who originally hacked the account later complained that he had "passed the torch" to Anonymous members after doing all he could do well, and that "the white knight fucker came along, and did it in for everyone".<ref name="malkin"/> |
|||
== |
== Federal investigation == |
||
The [[FBI]] and [[Secret Service]] began investigating the incident and on September 20, it was revealed that they were questioning David Kernell, a twenty year-old economics student at the [[University of Tennessee]] and the son of [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic]] [[Tennessee House of Representatives|Tennessee State Representative]] [[Mike Kernell]] from Memphis.<ref name="bosak">{{cite web|url=http://www.newsfactor.com/news/Suspect-Nabbed-in-Palin-E-mail-Hack/story.xhtml?story_id=110003SJWA8K |title=Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack|publisher=NewsFactor|author=Steve Bosak |date=2008-09-20|accessdate=2008-09-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/08/palin_email_hijack_indictment/ |title=Son of state lawmaker charged with Palin email hack |accessdate=2008-10-10 |last=Goodin |first=Dan |date=2008-10-08 |work=[[The Register]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/oct/09/jury-indicts-ut-student-accused-hacking-palins-e-m/ |title=Jury indicts UT student accused of hacking Palin's e-mail |accessdate=2008-10-10 |last=Lakin |first=Matt |date=2008-10-09 |work=Knoxville News Sentinel}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Grand Jury Fails To Indict Palin’s Hacker |url=http://www.northcountrygazette.org/2008/09/24/no_bill/ |work=North Country Gazette |date=2008-09-24 |accessdate=2008-10-12}}</ref><ref name="sgun">{{cite web |url=http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008081palin1.html |title=Palin Hacker Indicted |accessdate=2008-10-12 |work=The Smoking Gun}}</ref> The handle used by the hacker when making his post at 4chan pointed to him, this evidence was inconclusive because of the frequent pranks pulled at that board,<ref name="ars_jury" /> but later, the proxy service provided its logs, which pointed to the residence where he was living.<ref name="ars_jury">{{cite web | title = Grand jury investigates Palin e-mail hack; no charges yet | publisher = [[Ars Technica]] | date = 2008-09-24 | url = http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080924-grand-jury-investigates-palin-e-mail-hacker-no-charges-yet.html }}</ref> <ref name="bosak" /> David Kernell is a self described "Obamacrat"; a supporter of Democratic Presidential candidate [[Barack Obama]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://terryfrank.net/?p=3591 |title=Investigating David Kernell |accessdate=2008-10-10 |last=Frank |first=Terry |date=2008-09-18 |work=Frankly Speaking}}</ref> |
|||
The term ''constitution'' comes from a [[Latin language|Latin]] term denoting an important law, usually one proclaimed by the Roman emperor (''"constitutiones principis"''). Later, the term was widely used in [[canon law]] for an important determination, especially by the [[Pope]]. |
|||
FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville Tennessee residence of David Kernell in the early morning hours of September 14, 2008. Kernell, according to witnesses, fled the scene when the FBI agents arrived.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.wbir.com/news/breaking/story.aspx?storyid=64033&catid=29 |title=Update: FBI serves search warrant against UT student in Palin case |accessdate=2008-10-10 |last=Simmons |first=Becky |date=2008-09-22 |work=WBIR.com}}</ref> Agents spent 1.5 to 2 hours taking pictures of everything inside his apartment. Kernell's three roommates were also subpoenaed and expected to testify the next week in [[Chattanooga]]. <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_FBI_Search_The_Apartment_Of_Palin_Hack_Primary_Suspect_24837.html |title=FBI Search The Apartment Of Palin Hack Primary Suspect |accessdate=2008-10-10 |last=Chisamera |first=Dee |date=2008-09-22 |work=eFluxMedia}}</ref> Kernell Sr. told ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' that he was aware that his son was a suspect, but he did not ask him anything about it over concerns that he may have to testify in court.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/007785.html |title=Palin Update: Tenn. Student Implicated in Hack |accessdate=2008-10-11 |last=Paul |first=Ian |date=2008-09-22 |work=Today @ PC World}}</ref> |
|||
== General features == |
|||
Generally, every constitution confers specific powers to an organization or institutional entity, established upon the primary condition that it abides by the said constitution's limitations. |
|||
== Prosecution of Kernell == |
|||
The Latin term ''[[ultra vires]]'' describes activities of officials within an organization or polity that fall outside the constitutional or statutory authority of those officials. For example, a [[students' union]] may be prohibited as an organization from engaging in activities not concerning students; if the union becomes involved in non-student activities these activities are considered ''ultra vires'' of the union's charter, and nobody would be compelled by the charter to follow them. An example from the constitutional law of nation-states would be a provincial government in a federal state trying to legislate in an area exclusively enumerated to the federal government in the constitution, such as ratifying a treaty. ''Ultra vires'' gives a legal justification for the forced cessation of such action, which might be enforced by the people with the support of a decision of the [[judiciary]], in a case of [[judicial review]]. A violation of rights by an official would be ''ultra vires'' because a (constitutional) right is a restriction on the powers of government, and therefore that official would be exercising powers he doesn't have. |
|||
Kernell hired Tennessee attorney Wade V. Davies who defended him during a September session of the grand jury which did not indict Kernell. Davies stated, "We are confident that the truth will emerge as we go through the process. David is a decent and intelligent young man, and I look forward to assisting him during this difficult period."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.crn.com/security/210603458 |title=Kernell Retains Lawyer, Is Not Indicted |accessdate=2008-10-11 |last=Moriarity |first=Caitlin |date=2008-09-23 |work=The Channel Wire}}</ref> Kernell was indicted by a [[Tennessee]] [[grand jury]] on October 8, 2008, for his connection to the intrusion.<ref>{{cite news |first=Duncan |last=Mansfield |title=Son of Tenn. Democrat indicted in Palin hacking |url=http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/P/PALIN_HACKED?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-10-08-09-28-37 |agency=[[Associated Press]] |work=Wired.com |date=2008-10-09 |accessdate=2008-10-12}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release |title=David C. Kernell Indicted for Alleged Hack of Governor Sarah Palin's E-mail Account |publisher=[[United States Department of Justice]] |date=2008-10-08 |url=http://knoxville.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/2008/kxhacking100808.htm}}</ref> According to Davies, "As soon as we found out about the charges this morning, David voluntarily turned himself in."<ref>{{cite news |first=Duncan |last=Mansfield |title=Son of Tenn. Democrat indicted in Palin hacking |url=http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iem-vu_mlRjRYfqkscEkw2ciRm7wD93MJ6N80 |agency=[[Associated Press]] |accessdate=2008-10-12}}</ref> Kernell denied the charges and pled not-guilty.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7660811.stm |title=Man denies hacking Palin e-mail |accessdate=2008-10-12 |date=2008-10-09 |work=BBC News}}</ref> The court released Kernell without bail.<ref>{{cite news |first=Tim |last=Reid |coauthors=Tom Baldwin |title=John McCain campaign renews attack on 'terrorist's friend' Barack Obama |url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4909813.ece|agency=[[Associated Press]] |work=The Times |location=London |date=2008-10-09 |accessdate=2008-10-12}}</ref> |
|||
When an official act is unconstitutional, i.e. it is not a power granted to the government by the Constitution, that act is ''null and void'', and the nullification is [[ab initio]], that is, from inception, not from the date of the finding. It was never "law", even though, if it had been a statute or statutory provision, it might have been adopted according to the procedures for adopting legislation. Sometimes the problem is not that a statute is unconstitutional, but the application of it is, on a particular occasion, and a court may decide that while there are ways it could be applied that are constitutional, that instance was not allowed or legitimate. In such a case, only the application may be ruled unconstitutional. Historically, the remedy for such violations have been petitions for common law [[writ]]s, such as ''[[quo warranto]]''. |
|||
==History and development== |
|||
===Emergence of written laws=== |
|||
Excavations in modern-day [[Iraq]] by [[Ernest de Sarzec]] in 1877 found evidence of the earliest known code of justice, issued by the [[Sumer]]ian king [[Urukagina]] of [[Lagash]] ''ca'' 2300 BC. Perhaps the earliest prototype for a law of government, this document itself has not yet been discovered; however it is known that it allowed some rights to his citizens. For example, it is known that it relieved tax for widows and orphans, and protected the poor from the [[usury]] of the rich. |
|||
[[Image:Hammurabi.jpg|thumb|200px|Detail from [[Hammurabi]]'s [[stele]] shows him receiving the laws of Babylon from the seated sun deity.]] |
|||
After that, many governments ruled by special codes of written laws. The oldest such document still known to exist seems to be the [[Code of Ur-Nammu]] of [[Ur]] (''ca'' 2050 BC). Some of the better-known ancient law codes include the code of [[Lipit-Ishtar]] of [[Isin]], the [[code of Hammurabi]] of [[Babylonia]], the [[Hittite laws|Hittite code]], the [[Assyrian law|Assyrian code]], [[Mosaic law]], and the [[Cyrus cylinder]] by [[Cyrus the Great]] of [[Persian Empire|Persia]]. |
|||
===Early constitutions=== |
|||
In 621 BC, a scribe named [[Draco (lawgiver)|Draco]] wrote the laws of the [[city-state]] of [[Athens]]; and being quite cruel, this code prescribed the [[death penalty]] for any offence. In 594 BC, [[Solon]], the ruler of Athens, created the new [[Solonian Constitution]]. It eased the burden of the workers, however it made the ruling class to be determined by wealth ([[plutocracy]]), rather than by birth ([[aristocracy]]). [[Cleisthenes of Athens|Cleisthenes]] again reformed the Athenian constitution and set it on a democratic footing in 508 BC. |
|||
[[Aristotle]] (''ca'' 350 BC) was one of the first in recorded history to make a formal distinction between ordinary law and constitutional law, establishing ideas of constitution and [[constitutionalism]], and attempting to classify different forms of constitutional government. The most basic definition he used to describe a constitution in general terms was "the arrangement of the offices in a state". In his works ''[[Constitution of Athens]]'', ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', and ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' he explores different constitutions of his day, including those of Athens, [[Lycurgus|Sparta]], and [[Carthage]]. He classified both what he regarded as good and bad constitutions, and came to the conclusion that the best constitution was a mixed system, including monarchic, aristocratic, and democratic elements. He also distinguished between citizens, who had the exclusive opportunity to participate in the state, and non-citizens and slaves who did not. |
|||
The Romans first codified their constitution in 449 BC as the ''[[Twelve Tables]]''. They operated under a series of laws that were added from time to time, but [[Roman law]] was never reorganised into a single code until the ''[[Codex Theodosianus]]'' (AD 438); later, in the Eastern Empire the ''[[Corpus Juris Civilis|''Codex repetitæ prælectionis'']]'' (A.D. 534) was highly influential throughout Europe. This was followed in the east by the ''Ecloga'' of [[Leo III the Isaurian]] (740) and the ''Basilica'' of [[Basil I]] (878). |
|||
The [[Edicts of Ashoka]] established constitutional principles for that [[3rd century BC|3<sup>rd</sup> century BCE]] [[Maurya Empire|Maurya]] king's rule in [[Ancient India]]. |
|||
Many of the Germanic peoples that filled the power vacuum left by the Western Roman Empire in the [[Early Middle Ages]] codified their laws. One of the first of these [[Germanic tribal laws|Germanic law codes]] to be written was the Visigothic ''Code of [[Euric]]'' (471). This was followed by the ''[[Lex Burgundionum]]'', applying separate codes for Germans and for Romans; the ''[[Lex Alamannorum|Pactus Alamannorum]]''; and the [[Salic Law]] of the [[Franks]], all written soon after 500. In 506, the ''[[Breviary of Alaric|Breviarum]]'' or ''"Lex Romana"'' of [[Alaric II]], king of the Visigoths, adopted and consolidated the ''Codex Theodosianus'' together with assorted earlier Roman laws. Systems that appeared somewhat later include the ''[[Edictum Rothari]]'' of the [[Lombards]] (643), the ''[[Lex Visigothorum]]'' (654), the ''Lex Alamannorum'' (730) and the ''[[Lex Frisionum]]'' (''ca'' 785). |
|||
[[Japan]]'s ''[[Seventeen-article constitution]]'' written in 604, reportedly by [[Prince Shotoku|Prince Shōtoku]], is an early example of a constitution in Asian political history. Influenced by [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] teachings, the document focuses more on social morality than institutions of government ''per se'' and remains a notable early attempt at a government constitution. Another is the ''[[Constitution of Medina]]'', drafted by the prophet of [[Islam]], [[Muhammad]], in 622. It is said to be one of the earliest constitutions which guarantees basic rights to religions and adherents as well as reinforcing a judiciary process regarding the rules of warfare, tax and civil disputes. |
|||
The ''[[Gayanashagowa]]'', or 'oral' constitution of the [[Iroquois]] nation, has been estimated to date from between 1090 and 1150, and is also thought by some to have provided a partial inspiration for the US Constitution. |
|||
In [[England]], [[Henry I of England|Henry I's]] proclamation of the [[Charter of Liberties]] in 1100 bound the king for the first time in his treatment of the clergy and the nobility. This idea was extended and refined by the English barony when they forced [[John of England|King John]] to sign ''[[Magna Carta]]'' in 1215. The most important single article of the ''Magna Carta'', related to "''[[habeas corpus]]''", provided that the king was not permitted to imprison, outlaw, exile or kill anyone at a whim — there must be [[due process]] of law first. This article, Article 39, of the ''Magna Carta'' read: |
|||
''No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.'' |
|||
[[Image:Konstytucja 3 Maja.jpg|left|thumb|350px|''[[Constitution of May 3, 1791]]'' (painting by [[Jan Matejko]], 1891). [[Poles|Polish]] [[Stanisław August Poniatowski|King Stanisław August]] (left, in regal [[ermine]]-trimmed cloak), enters [[St. John's Cathedral]], where [[Sejm]] [[Chamber of Deputies|deputies]] will swear to uphold the new Constitution; in background, [[Warsaw's Royal Castle]], where the Constitution has just been adopted.]] |
|||
This provision became the cornerstone of English liberty after that point. The [[social contract]] in the original case was between the king and the nobility, but was gradually extended to all of the people. It led to the system of [[Constitutional Monarchy]], with further reforms shifting the balance of power from the monarchy and nobility to the [[British House of Commons|House of Commons]]. |
|||
Between 1220 and 1230, a [[Saxony|Saxon]] administrator, [[Eike von Repgow]], composed the ''[[Sachsenspiegel]]'', which became the supreme law used in parts of Germany as late as 1900. |
|||
In 1236, [[Sundiata Keita]] presented an oral constitution federating the [[Mali Empire]], called the ''[[Kouroukan Fouga]]''. |
|||
Meanwhile, around 1240, the [[Copt]]ic Egyptian Christian writer, [['Abul Fada'il Ibn al-'Assal]], wrote the ''[[Fetha Negest]]'' in [[Arabic language|Arabic]]. 'Ibn al-Assal took his laws partly from apostolic writings and Mosaic law, and partly from the former Byzantine codes. There are a few historical records claiming that this law code was translated into [[Ge'ez language|Ge'ez]] and entered Ethiopia around 1450 in the reign of [[Zara Yaqob]]. Even so, its first recorded use in the function of a constitution (supreme law of the land) is with [[Sarsa Dengel]] beginning in 1563. The ''Fetha Negest'' remained the supreme law in Ethiopia until 1931, when a modern-style Constitution was first granted by Emperor [[Haile Selassie]] I. |
|||
[[Stefan Dušan]], Emperor of Serbs and Greeks, made and enforced [[Dušan's Code]] in [[Serbia]], in two state congresses: in 1349 in [[Skopje]] and in 1354 in [[Serres]]. |
|||
In [[China]], the [[Hongwu Emperor]] created and refined a document he called ''[[Ancestral Injunctions]]'' (first published in 1375, revised twice more before his death in 1398). These rules served in a very real sense as a constitution for the [[Ming Dynasty]] for the next 250 years. |
|||
===Modern constitutions=== |
|||
[[Image:Orlyk Constitution.jpg|thumb|250px|The Bendery Constitution by Hetman [[Pylyp Orlyk]]]] |
|||
The earliest written constitution still governing a sovereign nation today may be that of [[San Marino]]. The ''[[Constitution of San Marino|Leges Statutae Republicae Sancti Marini]]'' was written in Latin and consists of six books. The first book, with 62 articles, establishes councils, courts, various executive officers and the powers assigned to them. The remaining books cover criminal and civil law, judicial procedures and remedies. Written in 1600, the document was based upon the ''Statuti Comunali'' (Town Statute) of 1300, itself influenced by the ''Codex Justinianus'', and it remains in force today. |
|||
In 1639, the [[Colony of Connecticut]] adopted the [[Fundamental Orders of Connecticut|Fundamental Orders]], which is considered the first [[North America]]n constitution, and is the basis for every new Connecticut constitution since, and is also the reason for [[Connecticut]]'s nickname, the [[Constitution State]]. |
|||
One of the first modern constitutions was written by [[Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk|Pylyp Orlyk]] - hetman of [[Zaporozhian Host]], it was written to establish a free Zaporozhian-Ukrainian Republic with the support of [[Charles XII of Sweden]]. This constitution is interesting because it established a democratic standard for the separation of powers in government between the legislative, executive, and judiciary branches. The Constitution also limited the executive authority of the hetman, and established a democratically elected Cossack parliament called the General Council. Following the [[Battle of Poltava]] [[Pylyp Orlyk]] spend most of the rest of his life in exile. His project for independent [[Ukrainian]] State never materialized, and his constitution never went into effect. |
|||
The [[Corsican Constitution]] of 1755 and the [[Swedish Constitution of 1772]] were the first post-Enlightenment constitutions in Europe. All of the British colonies in North America that were to become the 13 original United States, adopted their own constitutions in 1776 and 1777, during the American Revolution (and before the later [[Articles of Confederation]] and [[United States Constitution]]), with the exceptions of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. The [[Massachusetts|Commonwealth of Massachusetts]] adopted its Constitution in 1780, the oldest still-functioning constitution of any U.S. state; while Connecticut and Rhode Island officially continued to operate under their old colonial charters, until they adopted their first state constitutions in 1818 and 1843, respectively. |
|||
The United States Constitution, ratified in 1789, was influenced by the British constitutional system and the political system of the [[United Provinces]], plus the writings of [[Polybius]], [[John Locke|Locke]], [[Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu|Montesquieu]], and others. The document became a benchmark for [[republicanism|republican]] and codified constitutions written thereafter. Next were the [[Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth]] [[Constitution of May 3, 1791]], and the [[French Constitution of 1791|French Constitution of September 3, 1791]]. |
|||
== Principles of constitutional design == |
|||
Government in some form goes back to when people were hunter-gatherers and lived in villages, and a common design consisting of a "council of elders," a "chief" who led hunting or war-making activities, and one or more "priests" who provided a religious guidance or sanction to various activities.<ref>Fried, Morton H. ''The Notion of Tribe''. Cummings Publishing Company, 1975. ISBN 0-8465-1548-2</ref> As people began to establish nations or empires and lived in cities, this design evolved into monarchical or feudal patterns, with conquerors or strongmen claiming to rule by "[[Divine Right of Kings|divine right]]." Such rule led some thinkers to take the position that what mattered was not the design of governmental institutions and operations, but the character of the rulers. This view can be seen in [[Plato]], who called for rule by "philosopher-kings."<ref>'' Aristotle, by Francesco Hayez</ref> |
|||
Later writers, such as [[Aristotle]], [[Cicero]] and [[Plutarch]], would examine designs for government from a legal and historical standpoint. |
|||
The [[Renaissance]] brought a series of political philosophers who wrote implied criticisms of the practices of monarchs and sought to identify principles of constitutional design that would be likely to yield more effective and just governance from their viewpoints. This began with revival of the Roman [[law of nations]] concept<ref>''[http://www.constitution.org/victoria/victoria_.htm Relectiones]'', Franciscus de Victoria (lect. 1532, first pub. 1557).</ref> and its application to the relations among nations, and they sought to establish customary "laws of war and peace"<ref>''[http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp.htm The Law of War and Peace]'', Hugo Grotius (1625)</ref> to ameliorate wars and make them less likely. This led to considerations of what authority monarchs or other officials have and don't have, from where that authority derives, and the remedies for abusing such authority.<ref>''[http://www.constitution.org/vct/vct.htm Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos (Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants)]'', "Junius Brutus" (Orig. Fr. 1581, Eng. tr. 1622, 1689)</ref> |
|||
A seminal juncture in this line of discourse arose in England from the [[English Civil War|Civil War]], the [[Oliver Cromwell|Cromwellian]] [[Commonwealth of England|Protectorate]], the writings of [[Thomas Hobbes]], [[Samuel Rutherford]], the [[Levellers]], [[John Milton]], and [[James Harrington]], leading to the debate between [[Robert Filmer]], arguing for the divine right of monarchs, on the one side, and on the other, [[Henry Neville (writer)|Henry Neville]], [[James Tyrrell (writer)|James Tyrrell]], [[Algernon Sidney]], and [[John Locke]]. What arose from the latter was a concept of government being erected on the foundations of first, a state of nature governed by natural laws, then a state of society, established by a social contract or compact, which bring underlying natural or social laws, before governments are formally established on them as foundations. |
|||
Along the way several writers examined how the design of government was important, even if the government were headed by a monarch. They also classified various historical examples of governmental designs, typically into democracies, aristocracies, or monarchies, and considered how just and effective each tended to be and why, and how the advantages of each might be obtained by combining elements of each into a more complex design that balanced competing tendencies. Some, such as [[Montesquieu]], also examined how the functions of government, such as legislative, executive, and judicial, might appropriately be separated into branches. The prevailing theme among these writers was that the design of constitutions is not completely arbitrary or a matter of taste. They generally held that there are underlying principles of design that constrain all constitutions for every polity or organization. Each built on the ideas of those before concerning what those principles might be. |
|||
The later writings of [[Orestes Brownson]]<ref>[http://www.constitution.org/oab/am_rep.htm ''The American Republic: its Constitution, Tendencies, and Destiny''], O. A. Brownson (1866)</ref> would try to explain what constitutional designers were trying to do. According to Brownson there are, in a sense, three "constitutions" involved: The first the ''constitution of nature'' that includes all of what was called "natural law." The second is the ''constitution of society'', an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government, by which it establishes the third, a ''constitution of government''. The second would include such elements as the making of decisions by public [[Convention (meeting)|convention]]s called by [[public notice]] and conducted by established [[Parliamentary procedure|rules of procedure]]. Each constitution must be consistent with, and derive its authority from, the ones before it, as well as from a historical act of society formation or constitutional ratification. Brownson argued that a [[state]] is a society with effective dominion over a well-defined territory, that consent to a well-designed constitution of government arises from presence on that territory, and that it is possible for provisions of a written constitution of government to be "unconstitutional" if they are inconsistent with the constitutions of nature or society. Brownson argued that it is not ratification alone that makes a written constitution of government legitimate, but that it must also be competently designed and applied. |
|||
Other writers<ref>''Principles of Constitutional Design'', Donald S. Lutz (2006) ISBN 0521861683</ref> have argued that such considerations apply not only to all national constitutions of government, but also to the constitutions of private organizations, that it is not an accident that the constitutions that tend to satisfy their members contain certain elements, as a minimum, or that their provisions tend to become very similar as they are amended after experience with their use. Provisions that give rise to certain kinds of questions are seen to need additional provisions for how to resolve those questions, and provisions that offer no course of action may best be omitted and left to policy decisions. Provisions that conflict with what Brownson and others can discern are the underlying "constitutions" of nature and society tend to be difficult or impossible to execute, or to lead to unresolvable disputes. |
|||
Constitutional design has been treated as a kind of [[metagame]] in which play consists of finding the best design and provisions for a written constitution that will be the rules for the game of government, and that will be most likely to optimize a balance of the utilities of justice, liberty, and security. An example is the metagame [[Nomic]].<ref>[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/ The Paradox of Self-Amendment], byPeter Suber (1990) ISBN 0820412120</ref> |
|||
== Governmental constitutions == |
|||
Most commonly, the term ''constitution'' refers to a set of rules and principles that define the nature and extent of government. As Written in the constitution it is unconstitutional to change one of the first 10 amendments, in any way including adding a new amendment, it can not be done. Most constitutions seek to regulate the relationship between institutions of the state, in a basic sense the relationship between the executive, legislature and the judiciary, but also the relationship of institutions within those branches. For example, executive branches can be divided into a head of government, government departments/ministries, executive agencies and a [[civil service]]/bureaucracy. Most constitutions also attempt to define the relationship between individuals and the state, and to establish the broad rights of individual citizens. It is thus the most basic law of a territory from which all the other laws and rules are hierarchically derived; in some territories it is in fact called "[[Basic Law]]." |
|||
===Key features=== |
|||
The following are features of democratic constitutions that have been identified by political scientists to exist, in one form or another, in virtually all national constitutions. |
|||
====Codification==== |
|||
A fundamental classification is codification or lack of codification. A codified constitution is one that is contained in a single document, which is the single source of constitutional law in a state. An uncodified constitution is one that is not contained in a single document, consisting of several different sources, which may be written or unwritten. |
|||
===== Codified constitution ===== |
|||
Most states in the world have a codified constitution. Only three — [[Israel]], [[New Zealand]] and the [[United Kingdom]] — have uncodified constitutions. The most obvious advantages of codified constitutions are that they tend to be more coherent and more easily understood, as well as simpler to read (being single documents). However, although codified constitutions are relatively rigid, they still yield a potentially wide range of interpretations by [[constitutional court]]s (see [[Constitution#Constitutional courts|below]]). |
|||
Codified constitutions are usually the product of dramatic political change, such as a [[revolution]] {{Fact|date=April 2007}}. For example, the United States Constitution was written and subsequently ratified less than 25 years after the [[American Revolution]]. The process by which a country adopts a constitution is closely tied to the historical and political context driving this fundamental change. This becomes evident when one compares the elaborate convention method adopted in the United States with the [[Douglas MacArthur|MacArthur]] inspired post war constitution foisted on Japan (see [[Constitution of Japan]]). Arguably the legitimacy (and often the longevity) of codified constitutions are tied to the process by which they are initially adopted. |
|||
States that have codified constitutions normally give the constitution supremacy over ordinary [[statute]] law. That is, if there is a conflict between a legal statute and the codified constitution, all or part of the statute can be declared ''ultra vires'' by a court and struck down as [[Constitutionality|unconstitutional]]. In addition, an extraordinary procedure is often required to make a [[constitutional amendment]]. These procedures may involve: obtaining ⅔ majorities in the national legislature, the consent of regional legislatures, a [[referendum]] process or some other procedure that makes obtaining a constitutional amendment more difficult than passing a simple law. |
|||
Constitutions may also provide that very basic principles of the constitution may never be abolished, even by amendmend (for example, the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|German Federal Constitution]] provides that the provisions according to which the country has to be a democratic, federal, and social republic in which all state powers have to leave dignity of man inviolable, where rule of law prevails, and where souvereignty lies with the people, may not be altered <ref>Article 79 section 3 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]].</ref>). In case that a formally valid amendment of a constitution infringes principles which are protected against any amendment, it forms so-called ''unconstitutional constitutional law''. |
|||
The [[Constitution of Australia]] is an example of a constitution in which constitutional law mainly derives from a single written document, but other written documents are also considered part of the constitution. The [[Constitution of India]] is the longest codified constitution in the world.<ref>President Kermit L. Hall - The Power of Comparison in Teaching Civic Literacy. Accessed March 3, 2007. http://www.albany.edu/president/speeches/power_of_comparison0706.shtml</ref> It is unique in that it incorporates codes from many other constitutions like those of Japan, Malaysia, and [[Anglosphere]] countries.<!-- <ref>Constitution Of India, 2007. Accessed March 3, 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India</ref>-->{{Failed verification|date=August 2008}} |
|||
===== Uncodified constitution ===== |
|||
[[Image:Magna Carta.jpg|thumb|[[Magna Carta]]]] |
|||
Uncodified constitutions are the product of an "evolution" of laws and conventions over centuries. By contrast to codified constitutions, in the [[Westminster System|Westminster]] tradition that originated in England, uncodified constitutions include written sources: e.g. constitutional statutes enacted by the Parliament ([[House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975]], [[Northern Ireland Act 1998]], [[Scotland Act 1998]], [[Government of Wales Act 1998]], [[European Communities Act 1972]] and [[Human Rights Act 1998]]); and also unwritten sources: [[Constitutional convention (political custom)|constitutional conventions]], observation of [[precedent]]s, [[royal prerogative]]s, [[convention (norm)|custom]] and tradition, such as always holding the General Election on Thursdays; together these constitute the [[British constitutional law]]. In the days of the [[British Empire]], the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] acted as the constitutional court for many of the British colonies such as [[Canada]] and [[Australia]] which had federal constitutions. |
|||
In states using uncodified constitutions, the difference between constitutional law and [[Statute|statutory]] law (i.e. law applying to any area of governance) in legal terms is nil. Both can be altered or repealed by a simple majority in Parliament. In practice, democratic governments do not use this opportunity to abolish all civil rights, which in theory they could do, but the distinction between regular and constitutional law is still somewhat arbitrary, usually depending on the traditional devotion of popular opinion to historical principles embodied in important past legislation. For example, several [[Acts of Parliament]] such as the [[English Bill of Rights|Bill of Rights]], Human Rights Act and, prior to the creation of Parliament, Magna Carta are regarded as granting fundamental rights and principles which are treated as almost constitutional. |
|||
''See also'': [[Fundamental Laws of England]] |
|||
===== Written versus codified ===== |
|||
The term ''written constitution'' is used to describe a constitution that is entirely written, which by definition includes every codified constitution. However, some constitutions are entirely written but, strictly speaking, not entirely codified. For example, in the Constitution of Australia, most of its fundamental political principles and regulations concerning the relationship between branches of government, and concerning the government and the individual are codified in a single document, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. However, the presence of statutes with constitutional significance, namely the [[Statute of Westminster]], as adopted by the Commonwealth in the [[Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942]], and the [[Australia Act 1986]] means that Australia's constitution is not contained in a single constitutional document. The [[Constitution of Canada]], which evolved from the [[British North America Acts]] until severed from nominal British control by the [[Canada Act 1982]] (analogous to the Australia Act 1986), is a similar example. |
|||
The term ''written constitution'' is often used interchangeably with ''codified constitution'', and similarly ''unwritten constitution'' is used interchangeably with ''uncodified constitution''. As shown above, this usage with respect to written and codified constitutions can be inaccurate. Strictly speaking, ''unwritten constitution'' is never an accurate synonym for ''uncodified constitution'', because all modern democratic constitutions consist of some written sources, even if they have no different technical status than ordinary statutes. Another term used is ''formal (written) constitution'', for example in the following context: "The United Kingdom has no formal constitution." This usage is correct, but it should be construed to mean that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution, not that the UK has no constitution of any kind, which would not be correct. |
|||
A constitution can be written but not codified. Codified would suggest written in one document. This means that a constitution that has a number of written sources is still written, but not codified. |
|||
Constitutions may provide that, for the purpose of clarity, they may be amended only by a law expressly amending or supplementing the Constitutional text itself (otherwise the relevant law would not enjoy the status of constitutinal law). The German Federal Constitution does expressly, and the constitutional tradition of the German federal states do at least in an implied manner, provide for this.<ref>Article 79 section 1 of the [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany]].</ref> |
|||
====Entrenchment==== |
|||
[[Image:Constitution Pg1of4 AC.jpg|thumb|[[The U.S. Constitution]]]] |
|||
The presence or lack of entrenchment is a fundamental feature of constitutions. Entrenchment refers to whether the constitution is legally protected from modification without a procedure of constitutional amendment. Entrenchment is an inherent feature in most written constitutions. The US constitution is an example of an entrenched constitution, and the UK constitution is an example of a constitution that is not entrenched. |
|||
The procedure for modifying a constitution is often called ''amending''. Amending an entrenched constitution requires more than the approval of the national legislature, it requires wider acceptance. Sometimes, the reason for this is that the constitution is considered supreme law, such as according to the [[supremacy clause]] in the US constitution. Regardless of whether a constitution has this technical status, all states with an entrenched constitution recognise the difference between constitutional law and ordinary statutory law {{Fact|date=February 2007}}. Procedures for ratification of constitutional amendments vary between states. In a federal system of government, the approval of a majority of state/provincial legislatures may be required. Alternatively, a national referendum may be required in some states, such as in Australia. |
|||
In constitutions that are not entrenched, no special procedure is required for modification. In the small number of countries with un-entrenched constitutions, the lack of entrenchment is because the constitution is not recognised with any higher legal status than ordinary [[statutes]]. In the UK, for example, passing laws which modify sources of the constitution, whether they are written or unwritten, are passed on a simple majority in [[Parliament of the United Kingdom|Parliament]]. The concept of "amendment" does not apply, as the constitution can be altered as easily in terms of procedure as any national law. |
|||
====Distribution of sovereignty==== |
|||
Constitutions also establish where sovereignty is located in the state. There are three basic types of distribution of sovereignty: federal, unitary and confederal. A [[federalism|federal system of government]] will inevitably have a constitution that recognizes the division of sovereignty between the centre and peripheral/provincial regions of the state. The [[Canadian Constitution]] is an example of this, dividing power between the federal government and the provinces. A unitary constitution recognises that sovereignty resides only in the centre of the state. In the UK, the constitutional doctrine of [[Parliamentary sovereignty]] dictates than sovereignty is ultimately contained at the centre. Confederal constitutions are rare, and there is often dispute to whether so-called "confederal" states are actually federal. In a confederacy, sovereignty is located in peripheral regions/provinces and only limited power is granted to the centre. A historical example of a confederal constitution is the [[Swiss Federal Constitution]]. |
|||
====Separation of powers==== |
|||
Constitutions usually explicitly divide power between various branches of government. The standard model, described by [[Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu|Baron de Montesquieu]], involves three branches of government: [[executive branch|executive]], [[legislature|legislative]] and [[judiciary|judicial]]. Some constitutions include additional branches, such as an [[audit|auditory branch]]. Constitutions vary extensively as to the degree of [[separation of powers]] between these branches. |
|||
====Lines of accountability==== |
|||
In [[presidential]] and [[semi-presidential]] systems of government, department secretaries/ministers are accountable to the [[president]], who has patronage powers to appoint and dismiss ministers. The president is accountable to the people in an election. |
|||
In [[parliamentary]] systems, ministers are accountable to [[Parliament]], but it is the [[prime minister]] who appoints and dismisses them. In Westminster systems, this power derives from the monarch (or head of state in Westminster-style republics, such as [[India]] and the [[Republic of Ireland]]), a component of Parliament. There is the concept of a [[vote of no confidence]] in many countries with parliamentary systems, which means that if a majority of the legislature vote for a no confidence motion, then the government must resign, and a new one will be formed, or parliament will be dissolved and a general election called. |
|||
===Façade constitutions=== |
|||
Italian political theorist [[Giovanni Sartori]] noted the existence of national constitutions which are a façade for authoritarian sources of power. While such documents may express respect for [[human rights]] or establish an independent judiciary, they may be ignored when the government feels threatened or entirely dishonoured in practice. An extreme example was the [[Constitution of the Soviet Union]] that on paper supported [[freedom of assembly]] or [[freedom of speech]]; however, citizens who acted accordingly were summarily [[Political prisoner|imprisoned]]. The example demonstrates that the protections and benefits of a constitution are provided less through its written terms than through deference by government and society to its principles. |
|||
==Constitutional courts== |
|||
The constitution is often protected by a certain legal body in each country with various names, such as ''supreme'', ''constitutional'' or ''high'' court. This court judges the compatibility of legislation with the provisions and principles of the constitution, which is termed "constitutionality." Especially important is the court's responsibility to protect constitutionally established rights and freedoms. In constitutions without the concept of supreme law, such as the United Kingdom constitution, the concept of "constitutionality" has little meaning, and constitutional courts do not exist. |
|||
A "constitutional violation" is an action or legislative act that is judged by a constitutional court to be contrary to the constitution, that is, "unconstitutional." An example of constitutional violation by the executive could be a [[politician]] who abuses the powers of his constitutionally-established office. An example of constitutional violation by the legislature is an attempt to pass a law that would contradict the constitution, without first going through the proper constitutional amendment process. |
|||
A constitutional court is normally the [[court of last resort]], the highest judicial body in the government. The process of judicial review is then integrated into the system of [[court of appeals|courts of appeal]]. This is the case, for example, with the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] or [[Supreme Court of India]]. Cases must normally be heard in lower courts before being brought before the Supreme Court, except cases for which the Supreme Court has [[original jurisdiction]]. Some other countries dedicate a special court solely to the protection of the constitution, as with the [[Federal Constitutional Court of Germany|German Constitutional Court]]. Most constitutional courts are powerful instruments of judicial review, with the power to declare laws "unconstitutional," that is, incompatible with the constitution. The effect of this ruling varies between governments, but it is common for the courts' action to rule a law unenforceable, as is the case in the United States. However, many courts have the problem of relying on the legislative and executive branches' co-operation to properly enforce their decisions. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court's ruling overturning the "[[separate but equal]]" doctrine in the 1950s depended on individual states co-operation to enforce. Some failed to do so, prompting the federal government to intervene. Other countries, such as France, have a [[Constitutional Council of France|Constitutional Council]] which may only judge the constitutionality of laws before the ratification process. |
|||
Some countries, mainly those with uncodified constitutions, have no such courts at all – for example, as the United Kingdom traditionally functions under the principle of [[parliamentary sovereignty]]: the legislature has the power to enact any law it wishes. However, through its membership in the European Union, the UK is now subject to the jurisdiction of [[European Union law]] and the [[European Court of Justice]]; similarly, by acceding to the [[Council of Europe]]'s [[European Convention on Human Rights]], it is subject to the [[European Court of Human Rights]]. In effect, these bodies are constitutional courts that can invalidate or interpret UK legislation for compliance with international treaty obligations, first established as a principle by the [[Factortame case]]. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Constitution of the Roman Republic]] |
|||
* [[Apostolic constitution]] (a class of [[Roman Catholic Church]] documents) |
|||
* [[Company (law)#Corporate constitution|Corporate constitution]] |
|||
* [[Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe|Proposed European Union constitution]] |
|||
**[[Treaty of Lisbon]] (adopts same changes, but without constitutional name) |
|||
* [[List of national constitutions]] |
|||
* [[United Nations]] [[United Nations Charter|Charter]] |
|||
* [[Constitutional court]] |
|||
'''Judicial philosophies of constitutional interpretation''' |
|||
''(note: generally specific to [[United States constitutional law]])'' |
|||
*[[Judicial activism]] |
|||
*[[Judicial restraint]] |
|||
*[[Originalism]] |
|||
*[[Strict constructionism]] |
|||
*[[Textualism]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{reflist}} |
{{reflist|2}} |
||
*[http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200203/ldselect/ldconst/168/16809.htm#note92 Report on the British constitution and proposed European constitution by Professor John McEldowney, University of Warwick] Submitted as written evidence to House of Lords Select Committee on Constitution, published to the public on [[15 October]] [[2003]]. |
|||
==External links== |
|||
<!-- NO MORE LINKS! Constitutions should be on Wikisource and we already link to them --> |
|||
{{wiktionarypar|constitution}} |
|||
{{wikisourcepar|Wikisource:Constitutional documents}} |
|||
*[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-61 Dictionary of the History of Ideas] Constitutionalism |
|||
*[http://www.staff.amu.edu.pl/~wroblew/html/en_pr_konst.html ''Constitutional Law''], "Constitutions, bibliography, links" |
|||
*[http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl ''International Constitutional Law'':] English translations of various national constitutions |
|||
*[http://www.constitution.eu ''constitutions of countries of the European Union''] |
|||
*[http://www.infinityfoundation.com/ECITdemocracyindiaframeset.htm ''Democracy in Ancient India''] by [[Steve Muhlberger]] of [[Nipissing University]] |
|||
<!--Categories--> |
|||
[[Category:Constitutions| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Constitutional law]] |
|||
[[Category:Official documents]] |
|||
[[Category:Political charters| ]] |
|||
[[Category:Sarah Palin|E-mail controversy]] |
|||
{{Link FA|ko}} |
|||
[[Category:Hacking (computer security)|Palin, Sarah, e-mail controversy]] |
|||
<!--Other languages--> |
|||
[[als:Verfassung]] |
|||
[[am:ሕገ መንግሥት]] |
|||
[[ar:دستور]] |
|||
[[ast:Constitución]] |
|||
[[az:Konstitusiya]] |
|||
[[bn:সংবিধান]] |
|||
[[zh-min-nan:Hiàn-hoat]] |
|||
[[be-x-old:Канстытуцыя]] |
|||
[[bs:Ustav]] |
|||
[[br:Bonreizh]] |
|||
[[bg:Конституция]] |
|||
[[ca:Constitució]] |
|||
[[cs:Ústava]] |
|||
[[da:Forfatning]] |
|||
[[de:Verfassung]] |
|||
[[et:Põhiseadus]] |
|||
[[el:Σύνταγμα]] |
|||
[[es:Constitución]] |
|||
[[eo:Konstitucio]] |
|||
[[eu:Konstituzio]] |
|||
[[fa:قانون اساسی]] |
|||
[[fr:Constitution]] |
|||
[[gl:Constitución]] |
|||
[[ko:헌법]] |
|||
[[hi:संविधान]] |
|||
[[hr:Ustav]] |
|||
[[io:Konstituco]] |
|||
[[id:Konstitusi]] |
|||
[[is:Stjórnarskrá]] |
|||
[[it:Costituzione]] |
|||
[[he:חוקה]] |
|||
[[jv:Konstitusi]] |
|||
[[kn:ಸಂವಿಧಾನ]] |
|||
[[ka:კონსტიტუცია]] |
|||
[[sw:Katiba]] |
|||
[[ht:Konstitisyon]] |
|||
[[ku:Hîmqanûn]] |
|||
[[lv:Konstitūcija]] |
|||
[[lt:Konstitucija]] |
|||
[[li:Grondwet]] |
|||
[[hu:Alkotmány]] |
|||
[[mk:Устав]] |
|||
[[ms:Perlembagaan]] |
|||
[[nl:Grondwet]] |
|||
[[nds-nl:Groendwet]] |
|||
[[ja:憲法]] |
|||
[[no:Konstitusjon]] |
|||
[[nn:Grunnlov]] |
|||
[[nrm:Constitution]] |
|||
[[oc:Constitucion]] |
|||
[[ps:اساسي قانون]] |
|||
[[nds:Verfaten]] |
|||
[[pl:Konstytucja]] |
|||
[[pt:Constituição]] |
|||
[[ro:Constituţie]] |
|||
[[qu:Hatun kamachi]] |
|||
[[ru:Конституция]] |
|||
[[scn:Custituzzioni]] |
|||
[[simple:Constitution]] |
|||
[[sk:Ústava]] |
|||
[[sl:Ustava]] |
|||
[[sr:Устав]] |
|||
[[sh:Ustav]] |
|||
[[fi:Perustuslaki]] |
|||
[[sv:Grundlag]] |
|||
[[ta:அரசமைப்புச் சட்டம்]] |
|||
[[tl:Saligang-batas]] |
|||
[[th:รัฐธรรมนูญ]] |
|||
[[vi:Hiến pháp]] |
|||
[[tg:Сарқонун]] |
|||
[[tr:Anayasa]] |
|||
[[uk:Конституція]] |
|||
[[vec:Costitusion]] |
|||
[[wa:Mwaisse lwè]] |
|||
[[yi:קאנסטיטוציע]] |
|||
[[bat-smg:Kuonstėtocėjė]] |
|||
[[zh:宪法]] |
|||
Revision as of 23:25, 12 October 2008
The Sarah Palin email hack was an illegal access to electronically stored information of Sarah Palin, vice presidential candidate and governor of Alaska. This access was a felony, which if proven in court is punishable by a a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.[1] [2]
Incident
On September 17, 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's personal Yahoo! Mail email account, which critics allege that she used for official business in order to get around public record laws,[3] was compromised, and screenshots of photos and messages were posted over the internet.[3] News of a Yahoo! mail account owned by Palin appeared on 4chan's board, and several readers of the board tried unsuccessfully to access into the account.[4] The account was finally compromised by an individual who successfully answered the the security questions that allow one to reset the password, according to a message later posted on 4chan by an individual posting under the same user name.[4] According to this message, the individual then realized that he had only one proxy for protection and thought of what would happen if the FBI became involved.[4] The message stated that the individual panicked,[5] [4] published the password on 4chan's "/b/" board, thus allowing all posters to login into the account, and then wiped all the information and logs from his own system and terminated his connection to the internet.[4]
Development
At the time the hacker logged off, one of the readers of the board decided to change the password to stop people from logging into the account, and then warn Palin of the hacking through a mail to one of her friends.[4] However, this person then accidentally posted the new password on the board, and several readers of the board tried at the same time to use it to set a new password.[4] The Yahoo! software had security measures in place that triggered an automatic "freeze" which prevented anyone from logging in even with the correct password, and the account was later deleted by Yahoo!.[4] The freeze happened before all emails accessible on the account could be downloaded.[4] Members of Anonymous later passed all the information that could be retrieved before the freeze to Wikileaks, which published it.[4] [6][3] The individual who originally hacked the account later complained that he had "passed the torch" to Anonymous members after doing all he could do well, and that "the white knight fucker came along, and did it in for everyone".[4]
Federal investigation
The FBI and Secret Service began investigating the incident and on September 20, it was revealed that they were questioning David Kernell, a twenty year-old economics student at the University of Tennessee and the son of Democratic Tennessee State Representative Mike Kernell from Memphis.[7][8][9][10][1] The handle used by the hacker when making his post at 4chan pointed to him, this evidence was inconclusive because of the frequent pranks pulled at that board,[5] but later, the proxy service provided its logs, which pointed to the residence where he was living.[5] [7] David Kernell is a self described "Obamacrat"; a supporter of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.[11]
FBI agents served a federal search warrant at the Knoxville Tennessee residence of David Kernell in the early morning hours of September 14, 2008. Kernell, according to witnesses, fled the scene when the FBI agents arrived.[12] Agents spent 1.5 to 2 hours taking pictures of everything inside his apartment. Kernell's three roommates were also subpoenaed and expected to testify the next week in Chattanooga. [13] Kernell Sr. told Wired that he was aware that his son was a suspect, but he did not ask him anything about it over concerns that he may have to testify in court.[14]
Prosecution of Kernell
Kernell hired Tennessee attorney Wade V. Davies who defended him during a September session of the grand jury which did not indict Kernell. Davies stated, "We are confident that the truth will emerge as we go through the process. David is a decent and intelligent young man, and I look forward to assisting him during this difficult period."[15] Kernell was indicted by a Tennessee grand jury on October 8, 2008, for his connection to the intrusion.[16][17] According to Davies, "As soon as we found out about the charges this morning, David voluntarily turned himself in."[18] Kernell denied the charges and pled not-guilty.[19] The court released Kernell without bail.[20]
References
- ^ a b Palin Hacker Indicted Cite error: The named reference "sgun" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- ^ UT student David Kernell pleads not guilty in Palin e-mail hacking
- ^ a b c Zetter, Kim (2008-0917). "Group Posts E-Mail Hacked From Palin Account -- Update". WIRED.COM. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Michelle Malkin (2008-09-17). "The story behind the Palin e-mail hacking". MichelleMalkin.com.
- ^ a b c "Grand jury investigates Palin e-mail hack; no charges yet". Ars Technica. 2008-09-24.
- ^ Metz, Cade (2008-09-17). "Anonymous hacks Sarah Palin's Yahoo! account". The Register. Retrieved 2008-09-18.
- ^ a b Steve Bosak (2008-09-20). "Suspect Nabbed in Palin E-mail Hack". NewsFactor. Retrieved 2008-09-21.
- ^ Goodin, Dan (2008-10-08). "Son of state lawmaker charged with Palin email hack". The Register. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Lakin, Matt (2008-10-09). "Jury indicts UT student accused of hacking Palin's e-mail". Knoxville News Sentinel. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ "Grand Jury Fails To Indict Palin's Hacker". North Country Gazette. 2008-09-24. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ Frank, Terry (2008-09-18). "Investigating David Kernell". Frankly Speaking. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Simmons, Becky (2008-09-22). "Update: FBI serves search warrant against UT student in Palin case". WBIR.com. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Chisamera, Dee (2008-09-22). "FBI Search The Apartment Of Palin Hack Primary Suspect". eFluxMedia. Retrieved 2008-10-10.
- ^ Paul, Ian (2008-09-22). "Palin Update: Tenn. Student Implicated in Hack". Today @ PC World. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
- ^ Moriarity, Caitlin (2008-09-23). "Kernell Retains Lawyer, Is Not Indicted". The Channel Wire. Retrieved 2008-10-11.
- ^ Mansfield, Duncan (2008-10-09). "Son of Tenn. Democrat indicted in Palin hacking". Wired.com. Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "David C. Kernell Indicted for Alleged Hack of Governor Sarah Palin's E-mail Account" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. 2008-10-08.
- ^ Mansfield, Duncan. "Son of Tenn. Democrat indicted in Palin hacking". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ "Man denies hacking Palin e-mail". BBC News. 2008-10-09. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
- ^ Reid, Tim (2008-10-09). "John McCain campaign renews attack on 'terrorist's friend' Barack Obama". The Times. London. Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-10-12.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)