Clark, William Ramsey
| Author | Jeffrey Lehman, Shirelle Phelps |
Page 417
"IT IS THE HIGHEST DUTY OF EVERY INDIVIDUAL ON THIS PLANET TO SEE THAT HIS OR HER GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTS."
?WILLIAM CLARK
Ramsey Clark is a unique attorney whose list of clients reads like a who's who of political underdogs. After serving as assistant attorney general, deputy attorney general, and finally attorney general of the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, he returned to private practice with a strong interest in INTERNATIONAL LAW and HUMAN RIGHTS. His liberal views on crime, particularly crime against the U.S. government, have led him to represent a number of individuals and groups that are notably disliked or feared by the U.S. public.
Page 418
Ramsey Clark.
William Ramsey Clark was born December 18, 1927, in Dallas, Texas, to TOM C. CLARK and Mary Ramsey Clark. He received his bachelor of arts degree from the University of Texas in 1949 and his master of arts and doctor of JURISPRUDENCE degrees from the University of Chicago in 1950. After being admitted to the Texas bar in 1951, he practiced law in Dallas for ten years. In 1961 he was appointed assistant attorney general in the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. He served in that capacity until 1965 when he was made deputy attorney general. In 1967, President LYNDON B. JOHNSON appointed him attorney general, a position he held until 1969.
Clark was politically well connected. His father had served as U.S. attorney general from 1945 to 1949 under President HARRY S. TRUMAN and as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1949 to 1967. President Johnson was not happy with Clark's performance as attorney general. Clark was criticized for being too soft on crime in the United States as well as too soft on defense. Clark was one of many 1960s-era proponents of a new approach to solving the crime problem?focusing on education and rehabilitation rather than punishment?and his influence extended into the 1990s.
In 1968, after Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 [June 19, 1968]) to overturn MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966), Clark disagreed with the act and refused to apply it, a precedent that all U.S. attorneys general have followed since. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, which replaced Miranda's flat prohibition on the use of confessions obtained illegally, employed a five-part test for judges to decide whether a confession was voluntary (18 U.S.C.A. § 3501[b]). However, in Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428, 120 S.Ct 2326, 147 L.Ed.2d 405 (U.S. 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Miranda is a constitutional decision, and thus it may not be in effect overruled by an Act of Congress, specifically including 18 USCA 3501. Congress may not legislatively supercede Supreme Court decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution, the Court concluded, and any attempt to do so would thus be invalid.
Under Clark the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT was considerably more liberal than it was under later leaders. The department opposed...
To continue reading
Request your trial