Constitution in Crisis, Candidates in Denial

Constitution Day has arrived without major statements from Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain on the need to restore this country's commitment to the rule of law.

In contrast, independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's campaign produced a video statement detailing his commitment to constitutional renewal.

Here's Nader's video, in which he says, "You and I cannot turn our backs on the Constitution, as the two parties have done."

Even more powerful is the statement made by Senator Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution subcommittee, at the opening of Tuesday's hearing -- which Obama and McCain should have attended -- on how to repair the damage done by the Bush-Cheney administration to the system of checks and balances and our fundamental liberties.

Decrying the administration's record as a "shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come," Feingold declared that America needs to "get started right away on this immense and extremely important job of restoring the rule of law."

The Wisconsinite pondered seeking the Democratic nomination for the presidency this year but instead backed Barack Obama.

Would that Obama was speaking up as Feingold is on the Constitution.

Here's the Constitution subcommittee chair said in his call to action:

Tomorrow, September 17, is the 221st anniversary of the day in 1787 when 39 members of the Constitutional Convention signed the Constitution in Philadelphia. It is a sad fact as we approach that anniversary that for the past seven and a half years, and especially since 9/11, the Bush Administration has treated the Constitution and the rule of law with a disrespect never before seen in the history of this country. By now, the public can be excused for being almost numb to new revelations of government wrongdoing and overreaching. The catalogue is breathtaking, even when immensely complicated and far reaching programs and events are reduced to simple catch phrases: torture, Guantanamo, ignoring the Geneva Conventions, warrantless wiretapping, data mining, destruction of emails, U.S. Attorney firings, stonewalling of congressional oversight, abuse of the state secrets doctrine and executive privilege, secret abrogation of executive orders, signing statements. This is a shameful legacy that will haunt our country for years to come.

There can be no dispute that the rule of law is central to our democracy and our system of government. But what does ‘the rule of law' really mean? Well, as Thomas Paine said in 1776: ‘In America, the law is king.' That, of course, was a truly revolutionary concept at a time when the King, quite literally, was the law.

Over 200 years later, we still must struggle to fulfill Paine's simply stated vision. It is not always easy, nor is it something that once done need not be carefully maintained. Justice Frankfurter wrote that law:

is an enveloping and permeating habituation of behavior, reflecting the counsels of reason on the part of those entrusted with power in reconciling the pressures of conflicting interests. Once we conceive ‘the rule of law' as embracing the whole range of presuppositions on which government is conducted . . ., the relevant question is not, has it been achieved, but, is it conscientiously and systematically pursued.

The post-September 11th period is not, of course, the first time that events have caused great stress for the checks and balances of our system of government. As Berkeley law professors Daniel Farber and Anne Joseph O'Connell write in testimony submitted for this hearing: ‘The greatest constitutional crisis in our history came with the Civil War, which tested the nature of the Union, the scope of presidential power, and the extent of liberty that can survive in war time.' But as legal scholar Louis Fisher of the Library of Congress describes in his testimony, President Lincoln pursued a much different approach than our current President when he believed he needed to act in an extra-constitutional manner to save the Union. He acted openly, and sought Congress's participation and ultimately approval of his actions. According to Dr. Fisher:

[Lincoln] took actions we are all familiar with, including withdrawing funds from the Treasury without an appropriation, calling up the troops, placing a blockade on the South, and suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In ordering those actions, Lincoln never claimed to be acting legally or constitutionally and never argued that Article II somehow allowed him to do what he did. Instead, Lincoln admitted to exceeding the constitutional boundaries of his office and therefore needed the sanction of Congress…. He recognized that the superior lawmaking body was Congress, not the President.

Each era brings its own challenges to the conscientious and systematic pursuit of the rule of law. How the leaders of our government respond to those challenges at the time they occur is, of course, critical. But recognizing that leaders do not always perform perfectly, that not every President is an Abraham Lincoln, the years that follow a crisis are perhaps even more important. And soon, this Administration will be over. So the obvious question is: ‘Where do we go from here?' I believe that one of the most important things that the next President must do, whoever he may be, is take immediate and concrete steps to restore the rule of law in this country. He must make sure that the excesses of this Administration don't become so ingrained in our system that they change the very notion of what the law is.

That, of course, is much easier said than done. It's not simply a matter of a new President saying, ‘Ok, I won't do that anymore.' This President's transgressions are so deep and the damage to our system of government so extensive that a concerted effort from the executive and legislative branches will be needed. And that means the new President will, in some respects, have to go against his institutional interests.

That is why I called this hearing – to hear from legal and historical experts on how the next President should go about tackling the wreckage that this President will leave. I've asked our two panels of experts who will testify to be forward-looking – to not only review what has gone wrong in the past seven or eight years, but to address very specifically what needs to be set right starting next year and how to go about doing it.

In addition to the testimony of the witnesses here today, I solicited written testimony from advocates, law professors, historians and other experts. So far we have received nearly two dozen submissions from a host of national groups and distinguished individuals. I want to thank each and every person who made the effort to prepare testimony for this hearing. You have done the country a real service.

All of this testimony will be included in the written record of the hearing, which I plan to present to the incoming Administration. The submissions we have received so far can be seen on my website at feingold.senate.gov. I hope that many of these recommendations, along with the testimony we will hear today, will serve as a blueprint for the new President so that he can get started right away on this immense and extremely important job of restoring the rule of law.

Comments (79)

1. Geez Louise....Mr Nichols is predictable!

   Take any 100 articles posted and its-

   10 "Nader"

   15 "Al Franken"

   35 "Russ Feingold"

   40 "Miscellaneous"

   And almost none of them really that relevant to this Election.

   Nader won't win (probably won't do better than his 0.35% from 2004). Russ Feingold is a nice guy, but not going to be Obama's "spiritual advisor" or whatever, if Obama wins. And even if he wins, Al will be one of 100 and good for some CSPAN rim-shot material, but as a junior Senator, that's it.

   How about sticking to something important...like those "Miscellaneous" posts on things like McCain Repubs suing Alaskan Repubs to stall a Palin investigation? And leaving the Nader/Feingold/Franken love-fest out of it?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 09:32am

2. Congress Secret Session March 13, 2008 Posted March 15th, 2008 by David40 ****************************** Thursday, March 13, 2008 LAST NIGHTS SESSION WAS ONLY THE FOURTH TIME IN 176 YEARS THAT CONGRESS CLOSED ITS DOORS TO THE PUBLIC Word has begun leaking from last nights special, closed-door session of the United States House of Representatives.

   Not only did members discuss new surveillance provisions as was the publicly stated reason for the closed door session, they also discussed:

   the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008,

   the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009,

   the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse,

   advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government,

   The detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA,

   the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses,

   the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest

   the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada (for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool),

   the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon...............

   Source: dailypaul.com - blog - query: secret session of congress

   Where does this fit into the Constitution? In these times, maybe we should be paying more attention to the CONSTITUTION and less to the false and sure to be broken promises of campaign rhetoric. Nichols article is relevant at all times....any time.

   Posted by OneVote at 09/17/2008 @ 10:05am

3. I don't know. Perhaps Obama doesn't want to give the right the ammunition to make the charge that he wouldn't do whatever is necessary to "defeat the terrorists". You know, it's alright to have surrogates say things on your behalf while focusing on what matters at the moment - i.e., getting in the office.

   Posted by srjenkins at 09/17/2008 @ 10:41am

4. Would that Obama were speaking up? He spoke up: Voted for the police state FISA bill after having said he wouldn't! Like the AIG deal, Barak Obama is a disaster waiting to happen. Progressive voters need to pass up this lying shmendrik and vote for Nader who can be relied upon to protect individual freedoms. I mean what does it say that Obama talks of regulation in the midst of the nation's most serious financial crisis since the 1930s and is getting his advice from Robert Rubin, the guy that evicerated Glass-Steagall? The man has no clue.

   Posted by john lowell at 09/17/2008 @ 10:57am

5. When you, Kucinich, Feingold and the others in your little cabal get together, do you wear funny hats and speak in whispers?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 12:05pm

   I think you have these people confused with Palins church.

   Gee, Larry, I thought you actually cared about the constitution. I guess your concerns stop at the income tax necessary to field the military you so love to send on errands of near futility. (Your) God forbid you actually paid for your wars, not your grandchildren, great grandchildren and great great grandchildren. But I digress...

   As we can see from the last few days news, the "free marketeers" don't want one, and it sure looks like the so-called constitution defenders have pulled up stakes after 19 lunatics pulled off their plan to get the US bogged down in a war without end.

   Ralph is right, again. Maybe that's why his ego is so large, it is deserved.

   Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 12:20pm

6. Posted by john lowell at 09/17/2008 @ 10:57am

   I agree John. Like many a concerned Democrat, I have become disillusioned with Obama since he no longer seems to represent change we can believe in. I think he also intends to vote for drilling for more oil, when everyone knows we can't drill our way out of this problem. There's plenty of wind and sun to go around. Thus, I will be voting for Nader too, and I encourage all like minded progressives to do the same.

   Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 1:14pm

7. God I'm good. The Gallup poll has is at 47-45. I said last week that by wednesday of this week Obama would be back up in the Gallup by two points.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2008 @ 1:33pm

8. John Nichols says "Constitution Day has arrived without major statements from Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain on the need to restore this country's commitment to the rule of law."

   This is not true. Republicans and Conservatives and even John McCain have been on the record for quite some time now as advocating that constructionist Judges be appointed to the bench when openings develop.

   This will insure the rule of law in this country by returning the judiciary to what the Constitution says it is, the third branch of government which, under the system of checks and balances rules whether the actions of the other two branches (Exceutive and Legislative) are legal or constitutional according to the law or constitution as written.

   In other words, returing to the rule of law by minimizing/eliminating the practice of activist judges of making law from the bench with exansive rulings based on loose interpretations of the law or paying attention to current societal norms or even what foreign countries do as a basis for the rulings.

   In other words, going back to where the Constitution or laws are amended, changed or initiated by the people of this country through the constitutional or legislative process, and not by the practice of declaring the Constitution is "living and breathing" with the result being that the Constitution means whatever one wants it to mean unless they want it disregarded altogether.

   I saw McCain discuss this on on "The View" where lib Whoppi Golberg was acting relieved after making John McCain admit he will not return her to slavery by going back to these concepts.

   It was depressing to hear McCain humbly admit he would not do that rather than tell Whoppi she was being a jerk, but at least he believes in what I said above.

   Posted by sjchermak at 09/17/2008 @ 1:37pm

9. Posted by sjchermak at 09/17/2008 @ 1:37pm

   SJ, two questions...

   1. Is Bob Barr a "liberal"?

   2. What is your interpretation of the 9th Amendment?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 2:02pm

10. Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 1:14pm

    Good to hear from you, pontificus. I note that Nader has just brought a new 10 point plan for the economy. Thought you might be interested:

    http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com

    Posted by john lowell at 09/17/2008 @ 3:17pm

11. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 2:22pm

    LVLIB, ALL I asked SJ was...

    "What is your interpretation of the 9th Amendment?"

    But feel free to elaborate on YOUR view of it....or go to "no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" and explain why that doesn't mean what the Constitution says it means.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 3:25pm

12. The Constitution?

    It was buried under a blizzard of executive signing statements.

    Does anyone think that Obama, as president, will be undoing any of those statements?

    Constitution: R.I.P.

    Posted by sloper at 09/17/2008 @ 3:26pm

13. Posted by john lowell at 09/17/2008 @ 3:17pm

    BTW, here is the funniest thing I've seen on this blog in months....

    john lowell trying to convince PONTIFICUS ....to vote for Ralph Nader!

    LOL

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 3:27pm

14. Posted by RedRiver_. at 09/17/2008 @ 4:03pm

    "Grrrrr....arrrghhh.... "UN-democrats"....mnnnhhharr...rrrarllrgarl...."Alibama" .....mrrrghhhhrr.....dddrrraaggglll.... "secular regressives".....mmarrrrrh.... grrrrrrrrrr...... slather...drool.... "Hillary Rotten (Satan's favorite daughter).....grrrrrrrrr..... arrrggghhhh.... "I'm an independent!"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 4:10pm

15. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 3:27pm

    It's obvious that Obama is selling us all down the river. I suspect that he has no intention of making this country rich by raising taxes, and lowering the price of oil by shutting down any more oil wells. The facts are clear, we must all fight each other for our slice of the pie!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 4:18pm

16. 'Specially the rich people, cuz they kin afford it, and taxing them doesn't cost nobody nuthin!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 4:24pm

17. Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 4:18pm

    PONTI, why are you still debating "what Obama will do to us"?

    Haven't you declared the election over?

    "Hey lefties, I don't know about you, but this convention is shaping up to me to be hugely entertaining, and not only that, I'm pleased to say it's following what I have predicted will be the scenario for major landslide material for McCain."----Posted by pontificus at 08/26/2008 @ 3:11pm

    Or are you hedging your bets now????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 4:45pm

18. Ponti, show us how our taxes are going to go up under an Obama admin and which oil wells is he going to mothball?

    Larry, do you not think that the latest incarnation of the Supreme Court has acted in an "activist" manner? Are you aware that over 70% of appointed judges were appointed by republicans? If your story is true, then it appears that it is those judges that are engaged in "activism". Also, isn't that word just a word for "the judge didn't rule the way I wanted"?

    ["No one's liberties in this country have been abused constitutionally. "}- Maybe you need to talk to a Mr. Harar. I gotta run, but many of your other comments have about as much attachment to reality as your colored horseys.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

19. Hi Maskdelta,

    About your questions

    =================

    SJ, two questions...

    1. Is Bob Barr a "liberal"?

    2. What is your interpretation of the 9th Amendment?

    ==================

    Answers-

    1. I have to admit I have paid practically no attention to Bob Barr. I have seen his name referenced during this political campaign, but I concluded I guess that he would be of no relevance to the outcome (which will be Pres. McCain and Vice-Pres. Palin inaugurated in January 2009) so I have not spent any time looking into who he is and what he represents.

    2. I can see from later postings between you and lvliberty1 where you are headed. Here is some information that you feel will support your position, which I will post for you. Hint: The person is wrong.

    ======================

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_02.htm

    HOMOSEXUAL (SAME-SEX) MARRIAGES: An interpretation of the American Constitution by John S. Dixon

    The Constitution says in Amendment Fourteen: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    What this basically means is that the States do not have a right to pick and choose the people to whom it will grant rights and privileges. If one group of people is allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry.

    ======================

    I will continue my comment in the next post.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/17/2008 @ 5:34pm

20. [Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler provided two groups of volunteers with the Bush administration's prewar claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. One group was given a refutation -- the comprehensive 2004 Duelfer report that concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the United States invaded in 2003. Thirty-four percent of conservatives told only about the Bush administration's claims thought Iraq had hidden or destroyed its weapons before the U.S. invasion, but 64 percent of conservatives who heard both claim and refutation thought that Iraq really did have the weapons. The refutation, in other words, made the misinformation worse. A similar "backfire effect" also influenced conservatives told about Bush administration assertions that tax cuts increase federal revenue. One group was offered a refutation by prominent economists that included current and former Bush administration officials. About 35 percent of conservatives told about the Bush claim believed it; 67 percent of those provided with both assertion and refutation believed that tax cuts increase revenue.

    In a paper approaching publication, Nyhan, a PhD student at Duke University, and Reifler, at Georgia State University, suggest that Republicans might be especially prone to the backfire effect because conservatives may have more rigid views than liberals: Upon hearing a refutation, conservatives might "argue back" against the refutation in their minds, thereby strengthening their belief in the misinformation. Nyhan and Reifler did not see the same "backfire effect" when liberals were given misinformation and a refutation about the Bush administration's stance on stem cell research.]-http://tinyurl.com/47cf74

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 5:35pm

21. Hello Maskdelta,

    I have included Mr. Dixons analysis, saying gay marriage is constitutionally OK, in order to point out he is wrong.

    Nowhere in the Constitution does it discuss ground rules for marriage.

    He (Dixon) proclaims that if a law allows someone to do something then everybody can do it. He just declares this.

    If this were true, then the 21 year old drinking age is unconstitutional. If it is OK for a 35 year old to go into a bar and have a beer or two or three, then it certainly should be OK for an eight year old kid to do that, also!

    Some of our laws do have some specificity to them, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution and it is not unreasonable for some laws to have limitations on them. Libs can not make a constitutional argument that gay marriage should be allowed.

    There is no problem for libs on this issue, they just declare something so and then it is so, especially if a lib judge will bend the "living breathing" constitution and declare something so.

    And then, poof, it is so!

    Just like how a woman can "choose" (i.e, nuke her unborn baby). Nowhere in the constitution does it say a word about "choosing" but now libs proclaim this is some kind of constitutionally guaranteed right, and what's more it is "settled law" by declaration of Democrats when they grill Republican Supreme Court nominees. In other word, now that libs proclaim it to be law, it can never, ever, ever be changed or removed, ever, because it is "settled" (i.e, the way libs want it)

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/17/2008 @ 5:41pm

22. SJ, maybe you can help me out...

    I have been trying to find out what Palins positions are on international and domestic issue. Can you tell me where I can find such information, or even better, could you explain her positions on:

    Russia/Georgia

    securing nookyular material in the old soviet

    Federal Reserve policy

    Pakistan and the Taliban

    controlling terrorism in the Philipines and how it relates to the GWOT

    Trade policy with Communist countries

    just for starters.

    Good luck, none of your other conservative compatriots has had an iota of information for me. But, they are sure she is the next coming of Reagan, or something like that.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 5:43pm

23. Stupid humans

    [In experiments conducted by political scientist John Bullock at Yale University, volunteers were given various items of political misinformation from real life. One group of volunteers was shown a transcript of an ad created by NARAL Pro-Choice America that accused John G. Roberts Jr., President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court at the time, of "supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber."

    A variety of psychological experiments have shown that political misinformation primarily works by feeding into people's preexisting views. People who did not like Roberts to begin with, then, ought to have been most receptive to the damaging allegation, and this is exactly what Bullock found. Democrats were far more likely than Republicans to disapprove of Roberts after hearing the allegation.

    Bullock then showed volunteers a refutation of the ad by abortion-rights supporters. He also told the volunteers that the advocacy group had withdrawn the ad. Although 56 percent of Democrats had originally disapproved of Roberts before hearing the misinformation, 80 percent of Democrats disapproved of the Supreme Court nominee afterward. Upon hearing the refutation, Democratic disapproval of Roberts dropped only to 72 percent.

    Republican disapproval of Roberts rose after hearing the misinformation but vanished upon hearing the correct information. The damaging charge, in other words, continued to have an effect even after it was debunked among precisely those people predisposed to buy the bad information in the first place.}

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 5:45pm

24. I beg to differ, "Maskdelta," with your claim that what Ralph Nader and Senator Feingold have said about the need to restore the rule of law is unimportant because it is not "relevant to this Election."

    Frankly, if this Presidential election does not address the lawlessness of the Bush administration, then it is the election that is irrelevant, not Nader and not Feingold.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 6:07pm

25. Ooh, we're getting into a constitutional theory debate. I suppose I can't help myself...

    So, two clauses have been brought up, so let's play.

    First, the 9th Amendment. Here's what it says:

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. "

    There are two possibilities of what this could mean. One, it could mean that there are other rights within the Constitution, enforceable by the Supreme Court that aren't mentioned here. Two, alternatively, it could mean that the mention of certain rights protected by the Constitution does not mean that the state and federal legislatures cannot/should not recognize others.

    So which interpretation is right? I think it's clear that we have to go with the second. If the history of the Constitution's founding is clear about anything, it's clear about the expectation that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous branch" of government to people's liberties (including POLITICAL liberty, i.e. the right to legislate their will into law). Interpreting the 9th Amendment the first way essentially gives the Court unlimited license to determine what people's rights are, and by extension, what the powers of government are. It was understood at the framing, both by founders and the population at large, that this was fundamentally antithetical to democracy because it would give power to the courts without any limiting principle whatsoever. Moreover, that's why the Bill of Rights was designed the way it was; specific bedrock guarantees of consistent and enduring principles that had to be protected (and thus wouldn't "evolve" up or down absent constitutional amendment).

    Part II (14th Amendment) coming shortly...

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 6:19pm

26. Onto the 14th Amendment...

    I think sjchermak has dealt with a lot of this pretty nicely. Virtually all laws make distinctions between individuals, so "equal protection" can't mean "all legislation that makes distinctions (i.e. most legislation) is presumptively invalid." Now of course, the response to this will be that the Court won't rule this way; they'll just say that certain restrictions are justified and others aren't, and the one's that aren't are struck down. That's not good enough either, because that still places the Court as an effective super-legislature to decide what aims of law are justified and what ones aren't.

    So what did this actually mean? What principles did people understand themselves to be enacting, and did the public understand them to be enacting? The explicit aim of this Amendment was to undermine laws perpetuating racial inequality (i.e. Jim Crow). It could arguably be applied to sex discrimination because both reject classification from immutable characteristics (though one might wonder then why people thought an Equal Rights Amendment was necessary...).

    The other Amendment one COULD argue for judicial activism from is the Due Process Clause...but only if you're willing to make pretty bad arguments. If you can explain how the phrase "substantive due process" is even logically coherent, much less good law, I would love to see it.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 6:25pm

27. I have only one problem with Senator Feingold's speech. In underscoring the difference between Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush, Feingold failed to remark about the difference between today's Congress and Congresses past.

    The reason "LVLiberty" and other trolls can now claim that the Bush administration has done nothing unlawful is that today's Congress has failed in its Constitutional responsibility to prosecute the manifest crimes of this administration.

    This is the real work to which Feingold was referring when he asked, "Where do we go from here?" Feingold knows that the journey back to the rule of law will not be easy - because he knows his colleagues. Perhaps it is only his need to work with them every day, despite their cowardice and incompetence, that explains why the progressive Senator from Wisconsin did not speak his mind rather more plainly.

    But before the trolls chime in with their favorite saw - which is that Bush's popularity, though lower than that of any other President in history, occasionally exceeds that of the Congress - let me propose that to solve this problem, the Congress needs to be Constitutionally strengthened, not weakened.

    Presently, the Congress is the only branch of the Federal Government that is checked and balanced against itself. We should amend the Constitution to make the Congress more accurately representative, by means of proportional representation and the elimination of the Senate. We should also diminish the President's veto power, make impeachment easier, or both. Our problems today generally arise from the relative strength of the Executive Branch and the relative weakness of the Legislative Branch, which permits the former to commit horrendous, monumental errors long before the latter can do anything to stop it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 6:44pm

28. Someday, it will be universally recognized that the all-time pinnacle of judicial activism in the history of our country was achieved with the Bush v. Gore decision, which effectively nullified Florida law as interpreted by Florida's own Supreme Court.

    But until that day comes, we'll continue to hear Conservatives complain about "judicial activism," with nothing but the Roe v. Wade decision as their point of reference - a decision that an absolute majority of US-Americans has always supported and continues to support.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 6:52pm

29. Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 6:25pm

    Your posts are always well thought out and well reasoned. Whether I agree with what you are saying or not it is always worth reading.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2008 @ 6:53pm

30. I'll admit it: "SJChermak" and "Thrawn" are right. It's probably not un-Constitutional to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgender people.

    It is, however, bigoted and wrong.

    Can any homophobe give us non-prejudiced folks a reason why it SHOULD be legal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgender people?

    I'm sorry, but "I don't feel comfortable around those people" does not qualify as a reason.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 7:13pm

31. <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 6:44pm </i>

    I mean, it seems like Congress could just assert what power it already has. Declaration of war, for example, is something that Congress shouldn't (and, arguably, can't) just pass right on to the President (on that, I completely agree with Paul, and maybe Feingold?). Also, what reason do we have to think that the internal check on Congress has directly diminished its ability to check other branches?

    <i>Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 6:52pm </i>

    I'd comment on Bush v. Gore, and I wouldn't be surprised if you were right about it, but unfortunately I don't think THAT highly of my constitutional knowledge...I DO, though, think highly enough of it to believe that Roe was judicial activism. Regardless of how popular it is (and popularity is NOT the standard for good constitutional law), it was a bad decision. In fact, perhaps the popularity actually means people just favor enacting laws that allow abortion, which they completely have the power to do.

    <i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2008 @ 6:53pm </i>

    Thank you; likewise with yours.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 7:23pm

32. <i>I'll admit it: "SJChermak" and "Thrawn" are right. It's probably not un-Constitutional to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgender people.

    It is, however, bigoted and wrong.

    Can any homophobe give us non-prejudiced folks a reason why it SHOULD be legal to discriminate against gays, lesbians, and transgender people?

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2008 @ 7:13pm </i>

    No.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 8:22pm

33. Posted by sjchermak at 09/17/2008 @ 5:41pm

    SJ, the basic problem is...

    you just SAY that "It's okay to discriminate against gays"...but you offer no proof. While Mr Dixon has ...well....what is written in the 14th Ameendment and the 9th.

    The problem you guys have is figuring out why a homosexual citizen is not a "citizen" or a "person".

    You're right, the Constitution DOESN'T say anything about marriage. Ergo by the 9th Amendment, it cannot be AGAINST it in some form you don't like.

    And since the "full faith and credit" clause IS in there...AND used to make states recognize marriage licenses of other states....if one state makes a homosexual marriage a "marriage"...by that clause...the other states must as well.

    It's a point I've often made...there is NO Constitutional argument that can be made against "gay marriage"....none.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 8:42pm

34. <i>Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 8:42pm </i>

    *sigh*, here we go. Has anyone actually argued that the status-quo Constitution forbids gay marriage? You seem to be making this claim when you say "by the 9th Amendment, it cannot be AGAINST it in some form you don't like." The fact that a "marriage amendment" was proposed to begin with seems to cast doubt on this strawman.

    The 9th Amendment analysis has already been beaten, because it's distinctly unimpressive and deeply problematic. The 9th Amendment does not leave to the Supreme Court the power to generate whatever rights they feel a legislature ought to have granted.

    The 14th Amendment argument, at least from the framework you utilize, MAY support your conclusion based on immutable characteristics, but that isn't certain, and unless you're going on the "immutable characteristics" framework, you have to defend a completely open-ended clause which allows the Court to strike down at its discretion any disapproved-of laws that make distinctions between people (that is to say, virtually any law it wants).

    The "full-faith-and-credit" argument, on the other hand, seems to me correct. There might be a statute right now that makes marriage an exception to this clause, but unfortunately for the Congress that passed it, the meaning of the Constitution cannot be altered by statute (or by judicial decree), but instead by the amendment process which that same Constitution lays out.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 9:11pm

35. Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 9:11pm

    Okay Thrawn so...on "gay marriage"---

    9th Amendment---"problematic" and "unimpressive".

    14th Amendment---"MAY support your conclusion based on immutable characteristics."

    and "full faith and credit"---"seems to me correct".

    I'll take 2 out of 3.

    And NO, few have tried to make the argument that the "status quo Constitution forbids gay marriage". All they CAN argue is "tradition" , "Judeo-Christian heritage" and "it'll lead to bestiality and incest".

    NONE of which has anything to do with the US Constitution....which is my point.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 10:15pm

36. I mean...only 1 of those two actually bestows a direct constitutional obligation; the full faith and credit argument is indirect (i.e. contingent on a state's action, and relatively limited compared to a full-scale prohibition of gay marriage bans). That one direct one, by the way, is also uncertain so that's not a guaranteed one you can count.

    Also, yes, the bad argument that an extremely small minority makes (who, exactly, says this?) is bad.

    So here's what you have at the end of the day: the Constitution does require each state to recognize the gay marriages of each other state. It MAY (mind you, this is extremely ambiguous), under the Equal Protection Clause, empower the Court to strike down gay marriage bans, at least in terms of some specific benefits if not the marriage classification itself. Whether the Amendment applies to begin with (and whether every aspect of a gay marriage ban is problematic) is still up in the air.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 10:35pm

37. Posted by Thrawn at 09/17/2008 @ 10:35pm

    Simply put....can a STRONG case be made that a state can ban gay marriages AND refuse to recognize other state's gay marriage licenses as legal documents?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 11:01pm

38. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 10:15pm

    Hey MASK - remember my prediction that Iraq would become a non-issue in the Presidential campaign? Welllll...........

    "September 17, 2008 Iraq Becomes a Non-Issue in '08 Campaign By Reid Wilson

    As the U.S. retains more than 140,000 troops in Iraq, spends billions of dollars every week and racks up both successes and losses, poll after poll indicates the war that could very well define George W. Bush's presidency has become almost a non-issue in congressional elections.

    It's an understandable phenomenon. As Lehman Brothers files for bankruptcy, Wall Street wobbles and the Dow Jones sheds hundreds of points, voters overwhelmingly say the economy is their top priority. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 41% of respondents picked the economy, jobs or gas prices as their top issue, while just 10% said the war in Iraq was tops in their minds. "There's no bad news coming out of Iraq," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "The war is gone as an issue."

    Congress has gotten the message; this week, the House is debating Democratic legislation to open limited areas of the Outer-Continental Shelf to oil exploration in a move designed to bring down gas prices. Republicans have used Democratic opposition to drilling effectively in recent weeks, and House Republican Leader John Boehner continues to hammer home his "all of the above" energy plan."

    Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 11:13pm

39. Yes, MASK, I know that since you are eager to prove your intellectual integrity, you will admit that I was right, and that you, in your ignorant and ill-informed scoffing, was wrong. But I will magnanimously accept your most humble apologies, provided you abase yourself to the proper degree.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 11:21pm

40. Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

    "Ponti, show us how our taxes are going to go up under an Obama admin and which oil wells is he going to mothball?"

    Well, now CRABBIE, I"m here at the Nation to learn from the intellectual elite, and I've already been informed by a number of the resident energy and economic experts that a) drilling for more oil won't lower oil prices and that b) raising taxes won't hurt the economy. Since elementary logic tells me that if both of these propositions are true, then conversely, shutting down oil wells won't raise the price of oil either , so why not help the environment and start shutting them down? Moreover, since the economic geniuses here have proven that raising taxes doesn't hurt the economy, there's no reason not to double, triple, or even raise taxes to 100 percent. That way the government will have enough money to make us all rich! What a revelation these leftist economic theories are! You folks are like Gods, I tell ya!

    Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 11:35pm

41. Ponti, why are you such a pansy on tax cuts?

    Let's supercharge the economy and ABOLISH taxes!

    Posted by winyahn at 09/18/2008 @ 12:15am

42. "No one's liberties in this country have been abused constitutionally"

    the quote of the century!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:16am

43. "In other words, returing to the rule of law by minimizing/eliminating the practice of activist judges of making law from the bench"

    clearly, this person has no idea how Law works.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:18am

44. "It's a point I've often made...there is NO Constitutional argument that can be made against "gay marriage"....none"

    no reasonable person can disagree with this.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:24am

45. <i>Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:18am </i>

    How? I mean, you could say that judges have OFTEN done this, but his philosophical framework (judges are interpreters and not legislators) seems to me just about unimpeachable.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2008 @ 12:24am

46. and anyone who *does* disagree with this is (obviously) homophobic, or has some personal disagreements with the *biological fact* that men fuck men and women fuck women.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:25am

47. "How? I mean, you could say that judges have OFTEN done this, but his philosophical framework (judges are interpreters and not legislators) seems to me just about unimpeachable"

    with every single decision a judge makes, there are those who agree, and those who disagree. for those who disagree, the judge is "legislating from the bench" (which is, in and of itself, evidence of a misunderstanding of how The Law works); for those who agree, the judge is merely "interepreting the law."

    "there are no such things as facts, only interpretations"

    -nietzsche

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:27am

48. all judges are "activists." period.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:31am

49. SANDRA DAY, the big O, the O-riginal, the pre-Oprah O

    = the extreme, ultimate activist judge

    Posted by winyahn at 09/18/2008 @ 12:41am

50. "= the extreme, ultimate activist judge"

    of course, she's only "extreme" and "activist" if you're an extreme right winger.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:55am

51. This Country and It's Constitution were hi-jacked by the Bush Junta when they siezed power in 2000. What do you expect when a political party would rather stage a pogrom than let the votes be counted?

    Posted by koroviev at 09/18/2008 @ 02:08am

52. http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/ Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 9:14pm

    uh, Larry, that is the GOP platform, not Palins thoughts on issue.

    What makes homosexuality a "perversion"? It has been around as long as man, it can be found in nature. Can you point to Jesus words that condemn lesbian love? Or is this a case where one sentence in the OT DOES carry weight with you?

    --------------

    Ponti, you did not show how Obama is going to raise taxes or how he would "shut down drilling". You went into your rant that 2+2= variegated leaves again.

    HEy! Maybe the bi-partison panel in AK that voted to send Palin to the investigative board is the dem witchunt you have been looking for!

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2008 @ 07:14am

53. Should divorce not be recognized by more conservative states, as it is a "perversion" of Jesus words and law? If we are to take this phrase to mean that God meant only men and women to be married...

    "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate" (Mark 10:6-9).

    then certainly we have to use the last sentence as well.

    Or, is this one of those cases when scripture is given "different weight"?

    "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (McCain is an adulterer?)

    If we really wanted to reach, we could also read into this statement that Jesus had perverted Gods will, as he never married

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2008 @ 07:31am

54. Just think of it!!!

    The Party of morals and Family Values is going to vote for the adulterer and the L'il Bastard.

    And they are going to do it while claiming a culture war!

    Too rich for words.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2008 @ 07:35am

55. Can any of the cons tell me about Palins stance on issues other than God, guns and abortion? It's been two weeks now, surely she has issued some policy papers or you can point to some early work of hers that would enlighten me as to her stances on worldly issues of the day.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/18/2008 @ 07:59am

56. Posted by pontificus at 09/17/2008 @ 11:21pm

    Sure, PONTI. You were right. Iraq not the top issue.

    The economy is. Which, kind of unfortunately for YOUR side, polling shows favors Obama over McCain.

    BTW, I have another PONTI prediction-

    "Obama's lead is melting....melting....melting.....

    and the media can't help him. The more people learn about Obama, the more it becomes obvious that the guy is not only an empty suit, but a huge fraud. He's the latest in a long line of left-wing losers. He's going to lose in a landslide."---Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2008 @ 10:38pm

    oddly...

    Poll___________Date_____McCain__Obama

    CBS N/NY T__09/12 - 09/16 ___ 44____49

    Quinnipiac___ 09/11 - 09/16____45____49

    Gallup______09/14 - 09/16____45____47

    Rasmussen___09/14 - 09/16____48 ___ 47

    Hotline/FD___09/14 - 09/16____42___ 45

    Reuters/Zogby_09/11 - 09/13____45___ 47

    Newsweek____09/10 - 09/11____46___ 46

    (thanks to HSUB)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 09:31am

57. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/18/2008 @ 01:09am

    THE POINT, Larry, was that YOUR side can't make any CONSTITUTIONAL argument against it.

    which you can't.

    Even Thrawn admits on 2 of 3 Constitutional elements (9th Amend, 14th Amend, "full faith and credit")..."gay marriage" is Constitutional.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 09:33am

58. "we will finally have descended into a depraved condition not unlike Rome in it's final decadent days"

    right, it was the homos who took down rome!

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 11:28am

59. Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 09/18/2008 @ 11:56am

    "IF YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA, AMERICA WILL TURN INTO CUBA!!!!!!!!"

    Bad week for McCain, huh?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 12:14pm

60. <i>with every single decision a judge makes, there are those who agree, and those who disagree. for those who disagree, the judge is "legislating from the bench" (which is, in and of itself, evidence of a misunderstanding of how The Law works); for those who agree, the judge is merely "interepreting the law."

    "there are no such things as facts, only interpretations"

    -nietzsche

    Posted by darladoon at 09/18/2008 @ 12:27am</i>

    Patent nonsense. In fact, let me start out by illustrating that the Nietzsche quote is incoherent. His statement "there are no such things as facts" is stated as a factual claim, and is therefore self-contradictory.

    On to the meat of the issue. Can judicial activism be used to mean "decisions I don't like"? Yes. Your assumption is that this is the ONLY way it can be used. That assumption is wrong; I (and many others) use it to specifically mean decisions inconsistent with the Constitution and its clauses as understood when enacted. That's an objective standard based on a democratic understanding of what judges ought be. Both Lochner v. New York (conservative) and Roe v Wade (liberal) are examples of cases that were incorrectly decided because the majority adhered to activism rather than faithfulness to the original understanding.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2008 @ 12:49pm

61. Where did the Cuba thing come from, anyway?

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2008 @ 1:05pm

62. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 09:31am

    Even the kool-aid drinkers win a round, occasionally, MASK. Obama's doing pretty good, amazingly good, in fact, for an empty suit. Well, this country elected one Jimmy Carter, they can certainly elect another. If Obama wins, it'll be time to batten down the financial hatches, we are in for a hell of a ride.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:15pm

63. And McCain? One of my biggest worries about him right now is that no in either his administration OR an Obama administration has any background in economics.

    Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2008 @ 1:17pm

64. Posted by Thrawn at 09/18/2008 @ 1:17pm

    I've said it before, THRAWN. Yep, they're both pretty ignorant, but Obama is completely clueless. At least McCain will have to listen to people who make sense.

    On Obama's side, we have the following nonsense going on:

    Democrats in the U.S. House want you to think that they support expanded drilling for oil and natural gas. They don't. Their vote on Tuesday proved it.

    New Hampshire Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Paul Hodes voted along with the rest of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's poodle army for what they claim is a comprehensive energy bill that responsibly expands domestic drilling off our coasts. In the Atlantic and Pacific, the bill allows drilling from 100 to 200 miles offshore. It allows drilling from 50 to 100 miles offshore with state approval. The eastern Gulf of Mexico would remain off limits.

    Under the bill, all land within 50 miles of shore would remain off limits. Oh, by the way, the Interior Department says that 88 percent of all offshore oil currently blocked by the federal drilling ban is located within 50 miles of shore.

    This bill is a total fraud. It gives us access to only 12 percent of the estimated oil reserves we are currently not allowed to access. If Congress takes no action in the next two weeks, guess how much of that oil we could tap? One hundred percent.

    The congressional ban on offshore drilling is not a permanent ban. It expires in two weeks! If Congress does nothing, all oil reserves currently closed to exploration will become accessible on Oct. 1. So this bill actually takes from 100 to 12 the percentage of blocked oil reserves we could begin reaching for two weeks from now."

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:25pm

65. If Obama wins, it'll be time to batten down the financial hatches, we are in for a hell of a ride.----Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:15pm

    Again...."If Obama wins"?!??!?!?!?

    PONTI, this guy named PONTIFICUS predicted a Obama LANDSLIDE DEFEAT this fall?!?!?!?! You disputing him?

    "He's the latest in a long line of left-wing losers. He's going to lose in a landslide."---Posted by pontificus at 08/18/2008 @ 10:38pm

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 1:27pm

66. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 1:27pm

    Hey, MASK, I'll be the first to admit that it's POSSIBLE I might, on certain rare occasions, be wrong. But, as you well know, my track record argues against it. Shall I list again all the issue on which I've been right, and you, on the other side, wrong? Or should I spare you the humiliation?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:36pm

67. Obama, today in pro-gun Nevada:

    "And if they tell you that, 'Well, we're not sure where he stands on guns.' I want you to say, 'He believes in the Second Amendment.' If they tell you, 'Well, he's going to raise your taxes,' you say, 'No, he's not, he's going lower them.' You are my ambassadors. You guys are the ones who can make the case.""

    Obama's campaign is reaching new highs (lows?) in cynicism, if not outright deception. Obama is an outright gun-banner. So what does he say in places where people believe in the personal right to keep and bear arms? "I believe in the Second Amendment". What he doesn't say, of course, is that he doesn't believe the Second Amendment guarantees the personal right to keep and bear arms, and that as a politician he favors the banning of personal gun ownership, and has done so at every opportunity.

    Simply breathtaking cynicism and deception.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:47pm

68. Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 1:36pm

    No, I just think it's 'interesting' that in two different posts within two-three days...

    you keep talking about what Obama will do if elected, yet are adamant earlier that he's going to "lose in a landslide".

    Seems you wouldn't be FIGHTING so hard, if you were so sure. If you were sure, you might post an occasional "Obama would be bad if elected"...but not day-after-day-after-day telling us what a disaster of a President he's going to be...

    if you didn't think there was a DECENT chance he would win...

    which you supposedly don't?!!!??!?!???!?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 2:05pm

69. Wow! Reading some of these comments has made my head hurt. The Constitution is under assault...an assault being waged by the very people who have taken an oath to protect and defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The Bush administration simply flaunts the rule of law, and the Democrats (with VERY few exceptions) let them get away with it...or actively collude with the administration. Obama, by casting his vote to retro-actively immunize telecom law-breaking is but one flagrant example of how bi-partisan this assault is.

    It is shameful that -- on Constitution Day -- neither major party candidate took a minute to address the need to restore the Constitutional checks that have been eviscerated by the current administration. SHAMEFUL. Even more shameful is the fact that the only people even discussing these issues are the 3rd party candidates (Nader, Barr, Paul and McCkinney). A few months ago, while giving Congressional testimony, Bob Barr reminded legislators that the ceiling being reached by the Bush Administration is the floor the next adminstration.

    I would love to hear how the major party candidates plan to roll back the over-reach of the Bush / Cheney regime. The Constitution is the documant that puts the power of the government in our hands -- the single most important issue of this election, and nary a word from either McCain or (shamefully) Obama. And if Obama's advisor and former colleague at the Univ. of Chicago, Cass Sunstein, is to be believed, there won't be much action taken to hold the current administration accountable for its lawlessness, let alone restoring the proper balance between the branches of government.

    I'm not endorsing any candidate, but I'm certainly not please with any of them.

    Posted by 4kedtongue at 09/18/2008 @ 2:08pm

70. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 2:05pm

    Well, let me put it to you this way MASK. When I was watching the OJ trial, I confidently predicted that the jury would convict him, because the evidence was irrefutable. When they did not, it was at that point that I learned of the 'kool aid factor' - the fact that people can do incredibly stupid things provided they are plied with enough propaganda to ignore common sense. So yes, it is reasonable at the same time to think 'Good Lord if Americans have any sense they'll send this phony back to the Funny Farm where he belongs, and since most Americans are reasonable, they'll do just that' but at the same time recognize that even rational people do irrational things at times.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 2:11pm

71. That's right we should go out and vote for Nader, who is guaranteed to lose. Thus we elect John McBush who most certainly will protect and defend the constitution.

    Several weeks ago Obama stated that his administration would review every executive order of the Bush administration. All orders, which will be most, that run counter the constitution will be rescinded.

    I'm going to roll the dice and hope that Obama is a man of his word. Or I could buys some shares of AIG and vote for Nader.

    hnojjohn

    Posted by Nhoj_John at 09/18/2008 @ 2:14pm

72. Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 2:11pm

    Then why did you predict a McCain landslide victory?

    Seems a bit "dangerous" to your reputation as a prognosticator, if the above is true.

    Or could it be like many on the Right, you got caught up in the headiness of "The Assumption of Saint Sarah" and Conventionitis and got a little ahead of yourself?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 2:14pm

73. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 2:14pm

    Actually, if you use that magic quote finder of yours, you'll see that I made the prediction BEFORE Palin was selected.

    And MASK, if it makes you feel better, you can attach the following prefatory caveat to my prediction: "If the American people have any sense whatsoever, and I believe they do..."

    McCain will win in a landslide.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 2:20pm

74. Posted by 4kedtongue at 09/18/2008 @ 2:08pm

    Hey, if you believe the Constitution is under assault, can you tell us which Americans have had their rights infringed upon by the Bush Administration?

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 2:23pm

75. Really, MASK, I could point out the fact that even you, who seem reasonably unretarded for a Democrat, can ignore the breathtaking cynicsm of Obama's campaigning and still vote for him. Clearly, you are rational, and yet you would still vote for someone who would basically lie to your face.

    It's kind of like Andrew Sullivan. Perfect example of a guy whose entire worldview revolves around his gayness. Up until Bush voted against gay marriage, he was a fervent Bush supporter, writing long passages and essays on the essential rightness of Bush's policies. But once the sacred cow of gay marriage was threatened, it all turned around 180 degrees. Suddenly, to Andrew Sullivan, all of Bush's policies became wrong overnight. See, some people's philosophies are defined by factors completely extraneous to the intrinsic righness and wrongness of specific policies themselves. Similarly, people on OJ's jury made their decision completely independent of the rightness of the evidence. Such is the bulk of the Democratic Party itself.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 2:36pm

76. Rights, my friend, are inalienable. They are not granted by the government, they are either recognized or denied by the government. I do not limit the denial of rights by this government to only Americans as a rationale for rolling back the executive branch's extra-constitutional power grab. But, since you ask, how about John Walker Lindh, for starters? Amy Goodman and the producers of 'Democracy Now'. The little old lady who was arrested for holding a sign equating McCain and Bush at a McCain rally. Anyone who has ever had to exercise their right to assemble and protest within the confines of a 'Free Speech Zone'. But you're right, these 'infringements' pale in comparrison to the abused, innocent victims of the war on terror who aren't US citizens...those who have been extaordinarily rendered to countries where torture is practiced. Those who have been detained (indefinitely) without so much as being charged with a crime and never allowed to consult with an attorney. And since most of the abuse occurrs in secret, the true extent of these ongoing perversions of justice can never be known.

    As a nation, we have faced much graver threats to our way of life than the one currently posed by Islamic terrorists. We managed to weather those threats without short-cutting the Constitution. I think it's incumbent upon those who would curtail our rights to justify their circumvention of the Constitution to acheive their goals rather than asking me to name those who have been harmed as a result of their dubious methods. So let me ask you, pontificus, who has been helped by this executive over-reach, and has it been worth the damage done to our reputation and our principles?

    Posted by 4kedtongue at 09/18/2008 @ 4:14pm

77. "Rights, my friend, are inalienable. They are not granted by the government, they are either recognized or denied by the government."

    I agree with this completely. In fact, I'm impressed that you understand this, most people don't.

    "I do not limit the denial of rights by this government to only Americans as a rationale for rolling back the executive branch's extra-constitutional power grab."

    I have no idea what this means. I tried, but it makes no sense to me.

    "But, since you ask, how about John Walker Lindh, for starters?"

    What about him? He is an American citizen caught under arms on a foreign battlefield attempting to kill American troops. Under all previous readings of Constitutional law, he could have, would have, and should have been shot summarily as a traitor. But we deal with him with kid gloves and all of the sudden we're breaking the Constitution? Gimme a fuckng break dude.

    "Amy Goodman and the producers of 'Democracy Now'."

    What about them?

    "The little old lady who was arrested for holding a sign equating McCain and Bush at a McCain rally."

    What? I didn't hear about anything like that. Give me a reference.

    Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 4:40pm

78. Posted by pontificus at 09/18/2008 @ 4:40pm You asked me which 'Americans' have had their rights infringed upon by the Bush Administration.

    "I do not limit the denial of rights by this government to only Americans as a rationale for rolling back the executive branch's extra-constitutional power grab."

    Said another way: The damage to our country, our Constitution, is not only measrured by the infringement of the rights of Americans to the exclusion of non-US citizens.

    John Walker Lindh had no idea the US was at war with the Taliban when he was captured -- NONE -- he actually thought that the US was allied with the Taliban. But that didn't matter to the men in Washington who were more concerned with consolidating their power and a big PR coup than they were with the truth and with Justice (not to mention the Constitution OR the Geneva Conventions). Since he was designated detainee 001 in the War on Terror, he was (legally, thanks to David Addington and John Yoo) tortured, denied medical treatment, denied access to a lawyer. The fix was definitely in for him, and as a result had to settle for an unconscionable plea deal. His incarceration is a GROSS miscaariage of justice (and a sickening by-product of the Bush Administration's disregard for the Constitution).

    The illegal arrest of Amy Goodman and 'Democracy Now!' producers while performing their constituionally mandated jobs is but one example of how the state (led by Bush and Cheney) rides roughshod over the Constitution.

    And here's a link to little old lady arrested in Denver for exercising her right of free speech:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS2zxOYmDO8

    Posted by 4kedtongue at 09/18/2008 @ 5:26pm

79. After reading most (don't have time to read all of it) of the above I think the US should enlarge the franchise to include all those of voting age from all the rest of the democracies in the world. Seeing as we shall all be affected too (and the mind boggles) I think the responsible thing to do would be to get cracking on extending the campaign to places where people vote for their leaders not only based on whether they would like them over for tea or at their next barbecue...and jeepers that stuff about not letting veterans register to vote, that is just plain creepy.

    Posted by marilynm at 09/18/2008 @ 6:25pm