Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is apparently fed up with the outspoken and plucky Democratic Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Tuesday evening, McConnell invoked an obscure, and rarely-used rule which effectively silenced Warren. Here’s what happened:

In a Senate debate about Wednesday’s confirmation vote for Attorney General Nominee Jeff Sessions, Warren began to read a letter written by Coretta Scott King in 1986. Warren quoted King, whose letter addressed Sessions’ record on civil rights as a U.S. attorney, saying that Sessions used “the awesome power of his office to chill the pre-exercise of the vote by black citizens.” King was writing to oppose Sessions’ nomination to a federal judgeship in Alabama, a position he was ultimately denied.

A US Senator isn’t allowed to read a letter by a civil rights icon but our President is allowed to attack one. #LetLizSpeak. #StopSessions pic.twitter.com/Up4H4NWDII

— Tracy Wehringer (@twehringer) February 8, 2017

McConnell, the Senate majority leader, responded to Warren’s letter reading by citing Rule 19, saying: “The senator has impugned the motives and conduct of our colleague from Alabama, as warned by the chair.” Voting along party lines, the Senate agreed with McConnell 49 to 43. So, what exactly is Rule 19, and where does it come from?

It’s an old one: in February 1902, a quarrel broke out between two Democratic Senators from Alabama, Benjamin Tillman and John McLaurin. Tillman was angry that McLaurin seemed to be swayed by the Republicans on certain issues, namely on the question of annexing the Philippines. Tillman accused McLaurin of treachery and corruption, and what happened next is what led directly to the creation of Rule 19.

“The 54-year-old Tillman jumped from his place and physically attacked McLaurin, who was 41, with a series of stinging blows,” according to Senate history. “Efforts to separate the two combatants resulted in misdirected punches landing on other members.” A few months later, the Senate enacted Rule 19, with the goal of tidying up decorum on the Senate floor.

Now, had Warren continued, it’s unlikely she and McConnell would have had a physical altercation. But Rule 19’s language is not just about deterring physical conflict. The rule states: “No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” Basically, don’t undermine a fellow senator by questioning his or her ability to govern.

The last time the Senate even came close to using Rule 19 to silence a senator was in 1979, when a heated debate between Sen. Lowell Weicker (R-CT) and Sen. John Heinz (R-PA) became heated. Heinz reportedly showed Weicker Rule 19, the two shook hands, and the situation was resolved. Last year, McConnell might have had cause to invoke Rule 19 against a fellow Republican, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Cruz accused McConnell of lying “over and over and over again.”

According to McConnell, Warren has repeatedly brushed with breaking Rule 19. Reading a letter written by King, it seems, was the final straw. “Sen. Warren was giving a lengthy speech,” McConnell told reporters after the incident. “She had appeared to violate the rule. She was warned. She was given an explanation,” He added: “Nevertheless, she persisted.” Later Tuesday evening, Warren read the letter in full on Facebook. Two million people watched–and listened.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mitch McConnell vs. Elizabeth Warren: What is Rule 19? appeared first on Law Street.

Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Jr. Day–a day to remember the legacy of an amazing man and the values for which he advocated. Unfortunately, however, his family may be spending this MLK Day working on a protracted legal battle over some of his possessions.

The current legal battle has to do with King’s personal Bible and his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize. King has three surviving children–Martin Luther King III, Dexter Scott King, and Beatrice Albertine King. Martin and Dexter want to sell the Bible and the Nobel Prize, Beatrice does not. All three siblings are shareholders in the Estate of Martin Luther King Jr. Inc., which was created to manage all of Dr. King’s intellectual property and images. However, Bernice physically has the items in her possession. Her brothers are suing her to gain access to them, so they can sell the items. They’ve accused her of “secreting and sequestering” the items, violating a 1995 agreement that gave the Estate control over their father’s property. They are now in a court-ordered safety deposit box until this is sorted out.

Bernice and her attorneys claim that the ownership of these items wasn’t made clear in that 1995 agreement and that it’s in dispute. Bernice also argues that their father gave their mother, Coretta Scott King, the medal as a gift, meaning that it wouldn’t be considered under the Estate’s ownership. Bernice stated last year:

I will always love my brothers, but we are of different minds and most importantly, different relationships with God…These items should never be sold to any person, as I say it, or any institution, because they’re sacred. I take this strong position for my father because Daddy is not here to say himself, ‘My Bible and medals are never to be sold.’

The case appeared in an Atlanta court earlier this week, and Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney didn’t issue a decision at the time. A decision might be issued in the future, or the fight might actually go to a trial.

This infighting is by no means new–this is at least the fifth lawsuit between the siblings since 2006. For example, in 2013, the brothers sued Bernice and the nonprofit King Center (not to be confused with the Estate) that she runs. They alleged that she was negligent in handling some of MLK’s possessions. That case is also pending. It’s not always split by gender lines, either. In 2008, Bernice and Martin III sued Dexter for acting improperly in his position as the head of the estate. That case was settled privately.

In addition, the King siblings haven’t just limited their legal actions to each other. They’ve been involved in other lawsuits, such as one brought by singer and long-time family friend Harry Belafonte against the siblings. Like the current lawsuit, this one involved MLK’s property–Belafonte claimed that he owned personal papers of King’s given to him by Dr. King himself, Coretta Scott King, MLK aide Stanley Levison. Eventually a deal was reached that allowed Belafonte to retain the documents.

While it’s understandable that the siblings want to protect their father’s legacy, it’s tough to imagine that the constant legal back-and-forth is the best way to do so. While the outcome of the current case is still up in the air, hopefully it will end up the last.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post MLK’s Children in Legal Battle Over Bible, Nobel Peace Prize appeared first on Law Street.

Harry Belafonte, now a well-known singer and song-writer, was a huge supporter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during his early career.  Belafonte provided for the King family both before and after Dr. King’s assassination.  He was able to partly finance many steps in the Civil Rights Movement, including the March on Washington and the Freedom Rides. He also bailed Dr. King out of jail a few times. After Dr. King’s assassination, he continued work as a political and humanitarian activist, and remained close to the family. However his connection to the King family seriously worsened after Coretta Scott King’s 2006 death. The last straw seemed to be when he was disinvited from Mrs. King’s funeral after he publicly spoke out against George W. Bush.

This week, Belafonte made headlines for a different reason. He has filed a lawsuit in the New York District Court against the children of the King family. The lawsuit stems from three papers that Belafonte claims were given to him by Dr. King, Coretta Scott King, and Stanley Levison—an aide to Dr. King. These papers include an outline of one of Dr. King’s speeches on Vietnam from 1967, a letter of condolence from President Johnson after Dr. King’s assassination, and an envelope from Dr. King’s pocket on the day of his assassination. Belafonte claims that the first of these documents, the speech outline, was given to him by Dr. King himself–in fact, the speech was supposedly written in Belafonte’s apartment. The letter was supposedly given to Belafonte by Coretta Scott King. And, finally, the envelope with Dr. King’s last written words was bequeathed to him by Stanley Levison’s will.

In 2008, Belafonte tried to sell these documents at an auction to raise money for charity. However the King family challenged Belafonte’s ability to sell these documents, claiming that he acquired them wrongfully and they belonged to the King estate. Belafonte has officially filed a suit to attempt to get himself declared the rightful owner so that they can officially be sold at a charity auction.

This is not the first time that an argument over Dr. King’s documents has made it to trial. In 1986, Coretta Scott King sued Boston University to return a large collection of Dr. King’s documents that he had given to the university 20-odd years before. In 2011, the King estate sued Dr. King’s former secretary, Maude Ballou to stop her from selling documents given to her by Dr. King before his death.

Belafonte’s lawyer is claiming that there is no evidence to suggest that Belafonte could have stolen or in any way wrongfully acquired these documents. Sources close both to Belafonte and the King family are somewhat dismayed with the actions that the King family have taken. In a recent New York Times piece, Clarence B. Jones, a former lawyer for Dr. King called the King family’s attempt to retake these documents as, “inconsistent with, and, really, a denigration of, the love and integrity that their dad had for the people who worked with him.”

The lawsuit offers an interesting question: what rights does an estate have to documents that have ended up in others’ possession? While it seems somewhat irrefutable that these documents belong to Belafonte and were given to him through legitimate means, will King’s estate have a leg to stand on?

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lloyd Lee via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Old Friends Turned Foes: Harry Belafonte against the King Family appeared first on Law Street.