Monday, January 30, 2006

Constitutiono Respectus

While reading this, please imagine the sound a cheesy American skit comedian would use while trying to sound like a rugged Australian...

Right! G'day mates, and welcome to another episode of 'Really Bizarre and Truly Frightening Animals From Around the World!' I'm your host Crackers McJumblies and you all know my really hot babe/assistant, Barbie Yabahos! (Nice rack, aye mates!)

Today we're going to do the impossible. Of course, nothing new there, heh? We're in search of one of the rarest of all breeds of animals. Some scientists doubt this critter still exists, others doubt it ever existed outside of mythology. But the impossible is our job, and if one is out there, we're gonna bag 'm!

Our quarry today, is a subset of the North American Politician, a rare bird indeed, it's the species that feels bound by the United States Constitution. I know what you're thinking, "who tossed my brains on the barbie (the barbeque, not the assistant)?" But I assure you, if this creature does in fact exist, we'll find it.

We begin our search in the swampy inlands of the Potomac River, known to the locals as Washington DC. This steamy urban landscape is home to numerous fascinating creatures, and we could easily spend all day just collecting and categorizing samples of the flora and fauna, but today we're after a specific animal, and we're not going home empty handed!

While the view here from Pennsylvania Avenue shows a multitude of species, very few are actually indigenous to the swamp, most are migratory, stopping long enough to mate, eat, drink and to bulk up for the flight back to their native lands.

Now, I've had a crew here on the ground for some number of months working with local guides to narrow down the areas we'll search today. Crimy, they've been here so long, some are starting to go native on me. Jimbo on the film crew, we caught him in a three piece suit last week, wingtips and all. And Rockers over there, even picked himself up an intern. We've got to get these boys out of here soon, or we may lose them completely!

Our first stop is a particularly nasty bit of the swamp, very slimy, very dangerous, and if Barbie wasn't such an avid hunter I'd never risk her in such a place, the Capitol Building! However, first we have to reach it. No easy feat. As you can see the entrance way is completely blocked by scores of Dodo and Coo-coo birds. Criky, I've never seen such a collection. They're all parading around, flashy colors, loudly screeching. Obviously trying to gather the attention of their mates for breeding purposes. Looky over to the left, over there, a gaggle of them have created what appears to be a giant paper-mache contraption, no doubt to display to potential mates, just how capable they are of supporting a brood.

We make our way through the throngs of wildlife and approach the entrance to this huge cave. From its looks I'd say this has been a gathering area for some time. Colorful decorations of all kinds are etched upon the walls. This is truly a magnificent example of what I call the "peacock" syndrome. That's where members of a species attempt to out-do each other in the magnificence of their nesting grounds.

We're now proceeding into one of two inner sanctums of this cave. We'll start with the one that holds the smaller group of politicians, its referred to by the locals as the "Senate."

Contrary to the loud and robust scene outside, the atmosphere is much more subdued in here, it seems almost like they're taking turns to strut up and down trying to mate. Rockers has been scoping this place out for some time, and though he hasn't been able to spot a Constitutionally-restrained Politician, he has noted some very interesting sub-species. For example, the one up there on the high ground spouting off now. Get a close-up of that one for the audience, the one with the white hair and bubulous nose. Look at the girth on that one, no danger of him starving anytime soon, heh? That one is a breed we believe is in danger of going extinct. It's the Liberal-Loon. Judging by the calls, I'd say from the Northeast of America, Massachusetts I'd bet. Now, we wanted to tag that particular one with a radio collar, just to keep tabs on him, but Rockers tells me no matter how many shots of scotch they filled him with, they just couldn't bring the beast down. He's got one hell of a resistance to it. I've never seen anything like it.

Now we're going to join Bonkers over in the other cave, the one with the greater population, known by the locals as the House of Representatives. What a loud and lively bunch they are. Because there's so much activity in this cave, we've set up microphones around the high ground where we can monitor their calls. It'll take a good ear to make much sense out of that racket, but Bonkers is the best there is!

Bonkers tells us he's taken note of one or two which may be our target. He's got a clip to play so you can hear what it might sound like.

"The nonsense that the Constitution is a living, flexible document taught as gospel in most of our public schools must be challenged. The Founders were astute enough to recognize the Constitution was not perfect and widely permitted amendments to the document but they correctly made the process tedious and difficult. Without a renewed love for liberty and confidence in its results it will be difficult if not impossible to restore once again the rule of law under the Constitution."

Oh Bonkers, I can feel the electricity in the air, I think you've found our game! Good work, I owe you a cooler of Foster's for this one. If that's not a Constitutionally-restrained North American Politician, then one doesn't exist. We've got to tag him with a radio collar for sure. We have to learn if there are more, and if so, where are they! Any chance to encourage their breeding and continued existence is a must! There's not a moment to lose!

Unlike the Liberal-Loon in the other chamber, this one doesn't seem to be tempted by scotch, so we're going to have to use a net on this one. We'll wait till it's done squawking and make our move. One thing I can't help noticing, while this one is squawking, no other politician of any species seems to be paying attention in the least. It's like it doesn't even exist. Crimey, no wonder they're so hard to find, no one notices them!

Okay, Bonkers, Jimbo and Barbie have the net ready, he's gathering up some papers and is starting to head this way. I've got the collar ready. While he's down we want to grab a blood sample so we can determine its health, and if possible, I'm going to pull a tooth to analyze later for age.

And ready, set, not too fast, we don't want to scare this one off, we may never have another opportunity like this. Just look at him, what a magnificent beast, so proud, so self-assured, such self-control, I've never seen anything like it before!

Okay mates, on the count of three, spring the net. One. Two. Three! Go mates, GO! And we've got the net on him, man is this one a fighter, he's not going willingly. What's that? What's that noise? I can't believe what I'm hearing! If I didn't know better, I'd swear the other animals in this chamber are applauding us! No time for that, we've got to work very carefully and very quickly. We don't want to injure what may be the last specimen of this rare breed. I've got him collared, and Barbie's tagging his ear. Bonkers is drawing blood from his buttocks, what a fighter, he's not going down easily!

I've decided not to go for the tooth, I'm not getting my fingers anywhere near those chompers, they're monstrous! And......done! Pull the net, and he's off. Not a happy bloke this one, doesn't take well to captivity, a very strong will to be free. I'd have thought with those attributes, the species would have thrived, but it doesn't seem to be the case. Just the dichotomy of this entire situation is making me dizzy. In this environment, the strong fail while the weak and the docile seem to thrive. Must be the heat and humidity of this swamp, it's making my head swim. Crimey, I need some fresh air.

Barbie, Rocker, Jimbo - pull the teams, get them out of here quick, we've accomplished our mission, we've proved the North American Constitutionally-restrained Politician does exist, we've recorded him, we've tagged him, now get my crew out before its too late.

Whew, back here out on the street, far away from that pit, that....place, it's hard to describe what that atmosphere does to a bloke. I've been bitten in the scrotum by a King Cobra, I've stared down the maw of giant croc, I've have baboons pelt my bleeding eyes with poo - but I have never experienced anything like that. But our mission has been accomplished, and doing the impossible is just another days work for us. It's been a great show and remember to join us next week when we do the impossible once again. Next time we're off in search of the fabled Libertarian Voter!

Friday, January 27, 2006

Searching For Civil Discourse

What ever happened to dignity
What ever happened to integrity
What ever happened to honesty
Well I'll tell you something baby - I feel the pain just like the sea

You Nearly Did Me In - Ian hunter.

Is it just me or do you think there's absolutely no civility left in political discussion?

For as long as I can remember, one of the main gripes of older generations has been how rude, crude, abusive and generally impolite succeeding generations are becoming. It's one of those age-old adages, that the world is going to hell in a bucket. I've been of the opinion that in general, one generation is probably not that much worse, nor much better, than any previous one - it's more of an altering of one's interpretation as one's wisdom (hopefully) grows with age. As children, we're enamored with the schoolyard mate who can most spectacularly imitate flatulence using nothing more than a sweaty armpit. As we become teenagers, we are in awe of the first member of our group who dares to use the "f" word in public. By the time we reach adulthood, usually our language is quite fluently salty, and hopefully we've taught ourselves when it is and when it is not appropriate to use such language. Then, as we age, we become convinced our unique experiences give us some special insight into the human experience, which allows us to judge others, usually as inferior to ourselves. Nothing new here, just people living their lives.

No one can deny that language and actions have become more coarse in public. Just rent a movie, turn on the radio or flip on the TV. Heck, drive down to the local highschool during lunch time recess and we can hear language that would make Popeye blush. My own opinion on this phenomena is that our behavior as a civilization isn't necessarily worse, but rather just more inclusive. That is to say, there's always been people who care nothing for public decorum, we just didn't necessarily see them much. As the media in America has expanded (i.e. talk radio, the web, cable TV) it's grown to include those who otherwise might fart their way through life without ever drawing our attention.

But what about decorum in the public forum?

When did insults, vulgarity and vindictiveness become the norm? When did it replace the free exchange of ideas? I was exchanging emails with someone I don't even know (I had hit "reply to all" and he decided to reply to me). He was pointing out what a terrible, vile and disgusting excuse for a human being Judge Sam Alito is, and how he approved of strip-searching small children. I tried to point out the vast differences between a trial judge and an appeals judge, but it wasn't sinking in. In the case in question, police believed the search warrant they had received covered all occupants of the house, who the police believed they had reasonable cause to search. So they called in a female officer and had her escort the child to a private room where the strip search was conducted. And that search did in fact turn up drugs. The trial judge overruled the defense attorney's objection that the search was illegal, therefor the evidence was illegal and therefore not admissible in court. That's the trial judge in action.

On appeals, the case came before Judge Alito. His part in the case was not to determine if the convict was guilty or innocent, or if the incident was decent and appropriate. His job was to review how the trail judge acted in applying the law. There is a huge difference there. Did the trial judge err in allowing evidence to be introduced under what the defense called an illegally applied search warrant? Its the same case, but its two vastly different and separate aspects of it.

After sending out that explanation on the differences between trial judges and appellate judges, I found myself reading an email full of vulgarities and helpful suggestions such as: I should remove my head from Rush Limbaugh's crack-smoking ass. Not what I had expected from someone I assumed was at least civil. But I guess I should not have been surprised. Because that is where the political discussion in this country has gone. Instead of making reasoned, well thought-out debates on important issues, it's become a game of who can come up with the nastiest, pithiest, zingers.

My own personal opinion is that you can judge, fairly well, the depth of a person's argument by how quickly they resort to insults. If I make a point in a debate, and my opponent can't come up with a reasonable response, rather than admitting I have made a point I'm showered with hate-filled insults. Therefore, I can safely conclude my opponent has nothing reasonable to respond with, and the debate is over. (And it is over with the above stated person.)

But where does that leave us? When someone hurls an insult at you, I've found that it tells you a lot more about them, than about you. Namely, their lack of education, knowledge, and wisdom. I guess what I'm driving at here, does the lack of civil discourse on politics indicate the current crop of politicians, talking heads, media pundits and people have reached a point where they have no more ideas? Or is it a case of where we've all made our points over and over so many times, that we believe our debating opponents are so thick than nothing can possibly sink in, so we're left to amuse ourselves by how witty our insults and put-downs can be?

Whatever the reason, its getting harder and harder to communicate with anyone who doesn't already agree with us before the debate even begins. And that's not only scary, its dangerous. Everyone needs to entertain differing opinions. If we don't how could we ever be sure that our opinions and beliefs are as correct and as strong as they can be?

Here's a suggestion I have, for anyone who cares. Try listening to someone else's point of view. You may or may not agree, but at least try. If you think your opponent is wrong or mistaken, then you should try - in an appropriate and polite manner - to convince them to change their opinion. But keep it out of the slime and the mud. And when your opponent finally looses their cool (notice how quickly that occurs) simply walk away. Its not worth the aggravation or the stress. Keep your civility and realize you are the better person for doing so.

Monday, January 23, 2006

Accountability and Responsibility


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


PJ O'Rourke has been credited with pointing out the United States Constitution, the rules that govern the greatest nation this earth has ever seen, is shorter than the owner's manual for a Toyota Camry. Which is a pretty witty and thought-provoking observation, if you think about it. It's very simple, very elegant, and a very wise solution to one of humanity's greatest conundrums: how do we hairless monkeys get along with each other, without killing each other, beating each other senseless, or stealing from each other.

The idea is pretty simple, severely restrict the powers and authorities of those we choose to implement this owner's manual over us. The separation of powers, where no single branch of government has absolute power, and each individual branch is policed by another. If the President gets out of line, Congress can force him to stand trial before the Supreme Court. If Congress exceeds it's authority, the Supreme Court can declare specific legislation as beyond the authority of Congress to issue. If the Supreme Court gets uppity, Congress can impeach specific Justices.

Other beautiful parts are the President's authority to veto legislation, which is counter balanced by the Congress' authority to over ride a veto. One of the most spectacular parts is the makeup of the Congress. Bicameral, two houses, one based on population, the other by state. I don't remember which Continental Congressman formally submitted that one, but credit for it's introduction into the conversation was given to Ben Franklin. At least by one of my history teachers in highschool. He used the metaphor of laying floorboards. If two won't fit, one can severely shorten one board or the other, or perhaps one can shave a little off both ends. What a guy! And he made 'coon skin caps a fashion trend in Paris. Take that Chirac!

But for all it's beauty and elegance, the US Constitution has its flaws. It must. It was created by men, and men are imperfect beings, so ergo, it is imperfect. For it to work properly requires the vigilance of not only the separate branches policing each other, but also American citizens policing their government. And for as long as I can remember, neither the government nor the people have been doing their job. Which brings us to today's topic: lobbying.

There is nothing inherently wrong with lobbying the government. Its a constitutionally guaranteed right "...to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That is, we can't make them vote the way we want, but they can't shut us up either. I don't have much sympathy for the current crop of anti-war protestors, they seem more interested in headlines and soundbytes than accomplishing anything, but I would never trade my right to petition my government for the image of Michael Moore drowning in a sea of Slim-Fast. It just ain't worth it.

So how did the right to petition my government turn into the current round of payoffs, bribes, and general sleaziness? That's simple. Follow the money. It's always about power, and in this country, money is power. Don't believe me? Ask OJ.

Amazingly, this entire sordid affair could be cleaned up completely and for all time, by a simple return to that priceless of all documents, the US Constitution. The founding father's knew all too well that power corrupts, which is why the primary goal of the US Constitution is to limit the powers of the Federal government. The less power they have over us, the less temptation to use and abuse it. The Constitution specifically spells out what the Federal government can do, then goes one more magnificent step and clearly states that is all they can do. Nothing more. Zero. Nada. Zilch. Null.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So if the Federal government is strictly prohibited by the Constitution, why do they dabble in farm subsidies, welfare, social security, and just about every other aspect of our lives? Once again, money. We the people all believe our representatives aren't too bad, it's all the others that are the problem. We like our representatives, because they bring home the bacon. Having granted themselves the right to take, at will, anything they want from us, we insist they bring as much of it as possible back home.

We can scream, cry, holler, yell and throw all the tantrums we want about how the three branches are shirking their Constitutional duty to police each other, but that part of the deal is out of our hands. The other part of the deal, however, is. We the people holding our government accountable to us at the ballot box is our job. And we haven't been doing a very good job of it. We willingly court the Federal government like a cheap whore, as long as, at the end of the day, they bring home the bacon. But in the end, the crumbs we get from them in one hand, is all that's left of the loaves of bread they've taken with the other. We have no one to blame but ourselves for allowing this to occur. It's not only our right, it's our duty. Remember that next time you go to the ballot box.

It's our duty.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Wire tapping the Constitution

Did the President of the United States of America violate the Constitution by authorizing eavesdropping on international phone calls and emails, of US citizens, without a judicial warrant? Interesting question. I've been pondering it myself for the last week or so. Since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of getting any kind straight answer from the media, I've decided to investigate the matter myself, using the US Constitution.

You are not reading a post that has been thought out beforehand, I have not yet arrived at a position, so think of this post as a play by play of my research on this subject.

The authority conferred to the President is outlined in Article II.

Section 1 outlines the election, installation and removal. That last part is what rabid democrats are salivating over at the moment, with the same perverted glee Republicans had while Bill Clinton held the post.

There is one small part of Section 1 that might apply to our discussion here, so I will include it now, in case we need it. It's the President's oath of office.

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States.'

The reason I think this might pertain to the circumstances is the part about his promise to faithfully execute the office in order to protect and defend the Constitution. That sentence alone would be enough for any left-leaning liberal Bush-hater to begin impeachment proceedings. Since what Bush is doing, in their opinion, is destroying the Constitution, not protecting it. But there is another way to interpret it. Should America become a nuclear wasteland following suitcase nukes going off in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Miami, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, etc. one could argue, by not doing everything possible to prevent the destruction of America, he is not protecting the country, and thereby not protecting the Constitution.

[Editor's note: It could be argued that protecting the country is not synonymous with protecting the Constitution; if the Founders had intended that meaning, they would have said "defend the Constitution and the United States". The Constitution is the law of the land that dictates what powers the federal government has (leaving the rest to the people and/or the states), and that is what the President should be upholding and defending. That they gave Congress the responsibility to go to war, which back in the day meant war to defend the country (not engage in foreign military actions against those who did not present a direct threat to the US), seems to me they did not intend for the decision to go to one person, the head of the executive branch. Part of the reason for the 2nd amendment is to allow the people the ability to overthrow the US government if/when it reneged on its Constitutional duty - to believe that the president has a duty to protect and defend the country from direct or imagined/potential/improbable threats would mean he could suspend the 2nd amendment (or any other part of the Constitution) if he felt it was warranted. This would seem to be a clear contradiction to the intent of the Founders. But ignoring all that, the modern liberals have no leg (or any other appendage) to stand on when it comes to complaining that the government violates the Constitution, since 99.9% of their political beliefs entail violations when enacted. And many are in existence today.]

Let's continue, shall we?

[Editor's note: Yes, sorry, you can continue. I will try not to interrupt again.]

Article II Section 2 outlines the President's power.

The first paragraph appears to be the only pertinent part for this discussion.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

Money line: commander in chief.

Now let's check on what Congress has to do with this mess.

Article 1 Section 8 comes into play.

It's where the constitution EXTREMELY LIMITS CONGRESS' AUTHORITY TO AN ENUMERATED LIST OF POWERS, among them:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of
the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

I must admit, I'm a tad surprised. I thought Congress was strictly limited to declaring war and funding the armed services, but it does appear they have a little more game after all.

I have had the debate once or twice with my editor as to what exactly constitutes a declaration of war. Does this require that Congress actually use the phrase "declaration of war", or is a joint resolution authorizing the President to use force sufficient? Personally I don't see a difference, since, if any institution has the legal authority to settle this issue, it would be Congress itself. Seeing as Congress holds the purse strings, if they feel the President is acting beyond the scope of his authority, they can just pull the plug on the credit card. Since they haven't, I take that as proof they are comfortable (at least on record) as feeling a resolution sufficient.

[Editor's note: Just a quick interruption, but I feel there is a difference. Although perhaps not technically violating the letter of the law, Congress not explicitly declaring war but leaving the option to the President would seem to violate the intent of the law. An abrogation of their responsibility, and when it comes to declaring war, the buck should stop with them.]

But this still does not bring us an answer. So lets turn to what the Constitution says about the judiciary and warrants. Article III.

Which sheds no light what so ever on the subject at hand. So I now take my search to the Amendments.

My money is on Amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Now I must admit, this does appear to be pretty cut and dry. The wording is, perhaps, a bit out of whack. First it says privacy shall not be violated, then it throws in the term warrant afterwards. Which I take to mean, warrants are constitutional.

Amendment V has some interesting text too.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a
witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.

On first reading, it appears to say that no one can be held with out an indictment, except in cases concerning armed services, while the armed services are in combat, which they are, see the reference above about Congress. But it appears to refer to those in service to America, rather than foes against it. So, we can hold American soldiers in prison with out an indictment, provided they are fighting a war? I guess this is why lawyers get paid so much. They're trained to make sense of this stuff.

So next my search has taken me to the additional amendments. And what a hit I get with number XI.

Amendment XI

The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

So, judicial authority does not extend to foreigners. Now that is interesting, because not only does it apply to the subject at hand, it says a truckload about Guantanomo Bay detainees. It also cuts exactly one half of the argument against this particular case in spying, that is, the federal government is not bound by the law when dealing with foreigners. To me that means the foreign persons, on the other end of the international calls, have no legal recourse.

Well, that seems to be about the extent of what the Constitution says on the matter. Let's sum up what we have.

The President must swear an oath that states he will execute his office, to the best of his ability, to protect and defend the Constitution. To me that implies he is limited to the authority of said office, and can not take action beyond the scope of his stated powers. He is also the commander and chief, of the armed services, which means he is the top general. The buck, truly stops with him during war. Congress has the authority to declare war, and apparently has done so to its own satisfaction. The judiciary doesn't seem to have much at all to do with this, from a constitutional standpoint, other than interpret what we've already covered. Americans can not be searched without a warrant, but no such immunity is extended to foreigners.

From the evidence presented so far, it appears the President does not have the authority to do so. Yet, not only has he done so, no FBI agents are raiding the White House to haul him off, so there must be more. My guess is in Supreme Court precedents.

Historically, both Congress and the Courts have given commanders in chief a wide berth during war time. In 1776, the Continental Congress pretty much made George Washington King of America. They granted him unlimited powers to do whatever he deemed necessary to keep the cause alive. George Washington is the American I admire most. He responded in a letter that Congress need not worry, he would more than happy to return the authority to Congress as soon as possible, because he didn't want it any longer than necessary. What a guy. Willingly giving up the crown, and at the soonest possible moment, which he did. They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. Not if you have enough class. Washington had that much class, and then some.

During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln played fast and loose with Presidential power. Among other things, he suspended the right of Habeas Corpus, which Wikipedia tells us is the right to not be arrested and held without a judicial decree. For example, the police can pick you up, but they can only hold you if a judge says so, a preliminary hearing. At that point, they must either prove something, or else let you go. Quite an important civil right to have upsurped by an elected President. He also deported an Ohio candidate for Governor whom he considered seditious, to the Confederacy (who didn't want him either, and deported him to Canada) because of statements that Lincoln was forcing the Civil War on America in order to create a dictatorship.

Probably the most famous use of extraordinary Presidential power during war has to be Franklin Delano Roosevelt's internment of Japanese (and Italian and German) Americans in concentration camps. In Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, the Supreme Court upheld the argument that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's individual rights, and the rights of Americans of Japanese descent. Justice Hugo Black argued that race-based compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, was justified by the government's assertion of wartime necessity. In other words, precedent that during war, the President is allowed extraordinary powers

In 1978 Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), signed by then President Jimmy Carter, which authorizes just these type of actions, albeit with restrictions. So, regardless of the Constitution, both Congress and the Supreme Court have sided with expanding Presidential powers when it comes to matters of national security.

So in conclusion, our little trip through the Constitution sheds almost no light on the subject matter at hand. It appears to be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it appears both Congress and the Supreme Court really don't give a rat's ass. So, unless I uncover additional information, I'd have to say, Bush has the authority. We shall see, as the issue unfolds.

[Editor's note: As an interesting (and probably depressing) exercise, pick a random law/regulation from the Codes, and see if the following sentence from the author applies: It appears to be unconstitutional, but at the same time, it appears both Congress and the Supreme Court really don't give a rat's ass.
I suppose one could have the view: What's one more grain of sand on the pile? One could even have the view: Of all the bad things that are currently being done, this doesn't make the top 1000 list. But I don't know if that really justifies it. Sorry, I think I interrupted too much.]

Author's note: I agree the entire subject is depressing. My little jaunt through the Constitution was to compare and contrast the facts of the Constitution with the realities of today's political world. I was not expecting some grand epiphany which would explain everything. As a matter of fact, I would have been surprised to find one. And I do agree with the Editor's opinion on modern politician's respect for rules. If anyone believes any politician* and/or judge has the slightest respect for the limits of the Constitution, I suggest they discuss the matter with Kelo.

Allow me one last statement: whether Bush broke the law or not, whether the Constitution allows the executive branch any of the authority it has used, or not, it really burns my ass to hear the politicians on the other side of the aisle rise up with such self righteous indignation when I know damn well, if the shoe were on the other foot, they'd be racing to do the exact same thing. God I hate hypocrites.

* - except Ron Paul (editor's addendum)

Monday, January 02, 2006

The Guilt of the Governed

Would people rather feel guilty than powerless?

I finished reading a fascinating book earlier this month. It was called "Adam, Eve, the Serpent and the Garden of Eden" and was written by Elaine Pagels, a professor of early Christian history at Princeton University. It explores the effects of the evolution of the early Christian faith and Church on the sexual attitudes of Christians in particular, and thereby western society in general.

She does a lot of finger-pointing for the repressed sexual attitudes at the feet of one St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo during the late fourth and early fifth centuries, based upon his campaigning for the origins and transfer of original sin. The reason I mention this is because Pagels goes one step further and explores the question: why would a civilization allow itself to be pushed into a theology that believes sexual urges and intercourse are evil, and therefore should be repressed and avoided whenever possible? That is an interesting question.

True, by St. Augustine's time, the Roman Catholic Church was on a roll, having recently been adopted by Emperor Constantine as the Rome's official state religion. But still, you can use what ever means you want to try to control people, but it doesn't mean it will work. The very existence of the Church is more than evidence enough, having survived centuries of persecution at the hands of their benefactors in Rome and Constantinople. Why would the people allow themselves to be herded in this direction? Dr. Pagels' theory is this: because, in general, people would rather feel guilty than powerless.

Interesting concept, which is I'm typing this and why you are reading it.

Just a little more religion to finish up the theory, then we'll get down to business. According to Dr. Pagels, St. Augustine's reasoning was, original sin; Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden, and the accompanying sin created by it, is passed from human to human via semen. Hence, the Virginal birth by Mary allowed God to enter humanity in the form of Jesus, free from original sin. The rest of us, however, are screwed. Because humanity is burdened with this sin, we've polluted nature itself, and we can never achieve total communion with God, but instead are doomed to roam the earth, controlled by the state, which is guided by the Church. Yada yada yada. On this last part, she looses me a little bit, because if we are doomed, then we are powerless. But I probably misread some of her reasoning.

So while I may not buy Dr.Pagels' theory itself, I nevertheless believe the statement itself is sound thinking. Lets apply a few examples, shall we?

Global warming. Created by mankind's love affair with oil. We did it, and if we don't fix it - and soon - we will all die because of it. I've studied some evidence on global warming, and while I'm not convinced that it even exists, I know the data used by environmentalist is deeply flawed. I don't believe you can extrapolate 60 years worth of data, and apply it to a world, hundreds of millions of years old. So why do activist insist its happening? Because if we didn't create global warming, then we are powerless to do anything about it. Therefore, its easier to accept that it's our fault, feel guilty about it, and endure whatever costs necessary to stop it. People would rather believe they are guilty than powerless. Works on this one.

Global war on terror. The only reason there are terrorists is because we in the west, and the United States in particular, have done them some wrong in the past, and they only want to get even. If we hadn't messed with them, then there would never have been a terrorist problem. Forget the fact that the vast amount of death and destruction caused by terrorists are acts by Muslims against their fellow Muslims, its our fault. Because if it is our fault, then all we need do is to make them feel whole again, and they will stop it. But if we can't make their cheeks all rosy and glowing with happiness, the alternative is a large region of the world that will continue to produce people who believe it's their destiny to kill non-Muslims.

How about poverty? Part of the human condition and so will always be with us? Not a chance jack. We did it by allowing evil corporations to pillage the world's resources for their own gain, at the expense of the poor, exploited, unwashed masses. Since we created poverty, we can fix it by sucking all the profits out of the free market and redistributing it to the poor, from whom it was stolen.

Now if I were a complete cynic, I might say that liberal politicians, lobbyists and activists have already figured out this theory. And they use it to try to sway uneducated (on the specifics of issues) voters to grant them power, so they can fix all these evils created by us hairless monkeys.

There is another aspect I'd like to ponder as well. I have no evidence to back up the assumptions I'm about to make, other than my lifetime of experiences, but I'd be willing to wager the vast majority of liberals are either atheists, agnostics, or not truly seriously religious people. I'd also be willing to wager the opposite of conservatives. They tend to be Church-goers. Liberals tend to believe we humans are in the process of destroying the world and all its inhabitants, so they must achieve power at any cost in order to put things in order before its too late. Conservatives tend to be of the position that things aren't nearly as bad as liberals believe, and they don't need anyone to fix things for them - or telling, them what to do.

So here's my theory. People who have tendencies to be more religious - not just show off religious (i.e. the REV. Jesse Jackson), but really depend on their faith - put their faith in God, and therefore aren't as afraid of the unknown future. We're in God's hands. Those who put less faith in their faith, tend to be of the flavor who insist that only a big, all encompassing government, seeing to all our wants and needs, can save us.

Just some food for thought.

Editor's note: Not being religious, or a believer in government (much less so than the majority of those who would label themselves as religious), I perhaps serve as a counter-example to the author's claim. However, it does seem fairly uncontroversial that those who consider themselves conservative appear to regard religion as having a more important place in their life than those on the left. Based on the current administration, the religion angle is more outward than in recent memory, although they also seem to be fans of very big government. Perhaps people, regardless of what religion they hold, should have more faith in themselves, to live their life free from the dictates of others. I have a dream!