Constitution

Policy Soup

This entry was posted in Anarchism Constitution Democracy Government Law Libertarianism on by

Steve at Begging to Differ rolls out a pretty important idea:

He’s right, but then, sometimes regulatory chaos is a good thing. State-level law is a primordial policy soup, subject to the Darwinian pressures of elections and lawsuits. Good ideas adapt and propagate. Bad ones wither and die. It’s messy. It’s chaotic. It’s perplexing and unwieldy, but it’s a glorious disaster. It’s democracy. And it works.

I’m not going to bite on the It’s democracy bit but it can work and is a good reason to subject most, if not all federal law, to some slash and burn activity.

For that matter the largest geopolitical level this chaos should operate at is probably a city or county level.

How Soon In The States?

This entry was posted in bush Constitution Domestic Terrorism Federal Government Journalism Law Enforcement Libertarianism on by

Are these guys practicing for their return home?

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.

Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.

Jeanne says:

If that isn’t an attempt to intimidate a journalist asking dangerous questions, I can’t imagine what it is. But American journalists ought to demand some answers.

Yes, definitely intimidation.  And,yes, American journalists ought to demand some answers but will they be intimidated? Will they, especially if based in Iraq, be willing to ask dangerous questions?

Lessons on the Constitution

This entry was posted in Constitution on by

Tony Blankley provides this lesson in today’s Washington Times:

I have appeared on several radio and television shows with prominent journalists who manifest a perfect ignorance of even the most basic principles of constitutional law — even as they pronounce with self-consciously weighty judgment the unconstitutionality of the president’s actions.
However, the most basic constitutional principle is that in war time, the constitutionality of government intrusion into peace time civil liberties must be proportional to the magnitude, likelihood and exigency of the threat or danger to be prevented.
Until one has measured the threat, one cannot rationally judge the constitutionality of the intrusion into civil liberties of the executive action. The president’s critics simply ignore — or are oblivious to — the threat.

I just reread the constitution, it does not take long, and find no such principle stated. There is no reference to the constitution applying differently in wartime than in peacetime so when Kevin Drum asks:

But does that make sense? Is anyone really comfortable with the idea that three decades from now the president of the United States will have had wartime executive powers for nearly a continuous century?
Somehow we need to come to grips with this. There’s “wartime” and then there’s “wartime,” and not all armed conflicts vest the president with emergency powers.

I answer that not only does it not make sense that the president should have 30 nears of wartime executive powers there is no reason, certainly none called out in the constitution, that the president should ever have any power to abrogate any part of the constitution.
Can congress enact a law that allows the president to abrogate the constitution? Well, they can do it but, again, there does not appear to be anything in the constitution that gives congress this authority so when they do so they are violating their oath to uphold the constitution and should, rightly, be tossed out of office.
Via To the People.
Update: James Joyner notes that:

…bold wartime leaders have been flouting the Constitution since at least Lincoln, with the full support of the public.

Well, this certainly does not make them worthy of respect no matter how arrogant bold they are and there is nothing about “the full support of the public” that legitimizes abrogation of the constitution without going through the steps to amend the constitution.

Will abramoff rollover?

This entry was posted in Campaign Finance Constitution Democracy Democrats Domestic Terrorism Economics Federal Government Government on by

There appears to be a good chance that abramoff will rollover on his former associates:

Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.
Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a “unique resource.”
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
What began as a limited inquiry into $82 million of Indian casino lobbying by Mr. Abramoff and his closest partner, Michael Scanlon, has broadened into a far-reaching corruption investigation of mainly Republican lawmakers and aides suspected of accepting favors in exchange for legislative work.

It would be a good thing if this snares some dems as well. Perhaps people will begin understanding the kind of culture that evolves when you create a mob wealth transfer machine the size of the us federal government and that the smaller wealth transfer operations at the city, county and state level are simply breeding grounds for the scumsects at the federal level.
Via Raw Story.

More Competence in government

This entry was posted in Anarchism bush Constitution Democracy Federal Government Government Libertarianism Religion on by

Here is what USAID does:

USAID works in agriculture, democracy & governance, economic growth, the environment, education, health, global partnerships, and humanitarian assistance in more than 100 countries to provide a better future for all.

Here’s the qualifications of the new USAID director deputy assistant administrator:

More significant to the administration, perhaps, is the fact that Bonicelli is dean of academic affairs at tiny Patrick Henry College in rural Virginia. The fundamentalist institution’s motto is “For Christ and Liberty.” It requires that all of its 300 students sign a 10-part “statement of faith” declaring, among other things, that they believe “Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh;” that “Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead”; and that hell is a place where “all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.”
Faculty members, too, must sign a pledge stating they share a generally literalist belief in the Bible. Revealingly, only biology and theology teachers are required to hold a literal view specifically of the Bible’s six-day creation story. Bonicelli has stated, “I think the most important thing is our academic excellence, [and the fact that we] combine it with a serious statement about our faith and values … I believe in six literal days, but I remain open to someone persuading me otherwise.”

This is certainly consistent with this view of bush and is a perfectly good reason to toss out both bushies and government as we know it. It is simply too risky to have so powerful an institution susceptible to occupancy by bushies or, for that matter, the other 535 534(click through).
Via Columbia Libertarians.
Update: Kip noted in a comment that bonicelli was not appointed director. I fixed that. Kip also points out that bonicelli has a more extensive resume than implied above. You can read more here but I’m still not impressed.