Month: May 2009

A Real American Hero

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Lost in all the political bickering about the torture memos is are two significant questions. Does torture work? And is it compatible with American values? As an experienced interrogator who worked in Iraq Matthew Alexander has been speaking out on those two questions since at least November of 2008. I consider him a real hero because of his answers to those two questions and also because he is working so hard to advance this crucial debate so that our citizens may understand what is really at stake.

I really liked one quote from a Washington Post interview he did in November 2008:

My experiences have landed me in the middle of another war — one even more important than the Iraq conflict. The war after the war is a fight about who we are as Americans. Murderers like Zarqawi can kill us, but they can’t force us to change who we are. We can only do that to ourselves. One day, when my grandkids sit on my knee and ask me about the war, I’ll say to them, “Which one?”

By the way, his short answers to those two questions are “Not really” and “Absolutely not!” (My answers have always been “I have no experience with it but I suspect not” and “Absolutely not!”)

Tags Iraq, liberty, media, torture, values

culture

Constitutional Amendment III

Post author By David
Post date May 14, 2009
3 Comments on Constitutional Amendment III

Amendment III is very straightforward and needs no explanation:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

It does remind me however that we are very fortunate as a nation to have never had a war upon our own soil in living memory. As I think about that I am reminded that we should not allow our cold wars and our wars on terror to be used as excuses to infringe upon this right or any other right that has been guaranteed under our Constitution. It also reminds me that we need to be much more selective in the foreign wars we choose to engage in.

Tags Bill of Rights, documents, history, liberty, war

culture National

Our Broken Debate

The big question in the debate over torture right now is “who knew what and when did they know it?” That question is being used by Republicans right now to implicate Speaker Nancy Pelosi as having done nothing with what she knew and thus being complicit in any torture committed under the previous administration. The question and implications are very important questions that are worthy of debate in this country. The reason that I consider the debate to be broken is that the debate is avoiding the real substantive issue and just taking political potshots at the opposing party.

The fact is that speaker Pelosi is not in any way the only hypocrite in this debate – she is not the only one who knew and did nothing until it was politically advantageous. Democratic officeholders have been muttering under their breath (or less) about what the Bush administration was doing until Obama was elected and released the torture memos. In response the CIA is trying to defend themselves from these vocal attacks by revealing that Pelosi knew about this activity years ago.

If the Democrats were more interested in standing against torture in principle than they were in scoring political points and retaining personal power they would have been much more vocal about this issue. Speaker Pelosi would have been saying things like, “based on briefings I have had I am completely uncomfortable with what the administration is doing and willing to do to detainees through the CIA.” (Note that while that statement would open the door for discussion nothing in there would raise any national security concerns.) She would not have been alone either – other Democrats who had been briefed would also have stood up and echoed that sentiment if they had any backbone and cared about the issue. Senator Diane Feinstein would have been one of those who had also been briefed. I don’t know who else had been briefed, but all of them are guilty of doing nothing if they were uncomfortable with what they heard.

On the other hand, if the Republicans were interested in anything other than scoring points against their political opponents they would be naming the Republicans who had been briefed who were equally complicit with Speaker Pelosi. Republican officeholders have proven that they are perfectly content to have spineless and complicit representatives in office so long as they support the party line. They show that as a body they have no problem with institutionalized secrecy rather than open representation for their constituents and the other voters of the United States.

The voters need to demand that their representatives, whether of their own party or another party, quit playing politics in Washington and stick to the very serious business of leading our nation on to increased greatness – we should again be a shining city on a hill that the world can look to as an example of goodness. That can only happen if we quite trying to score political points and start having real debates about what is right and what constitutes greatness.

Tags Bush, change congress, discourse, Elevated, house, ideals, media, Obama, parties, senate

State technology

Pre-Announcement

Looks like Mark Shurtleff just made an accidental pre-announcement about running against Senator Bennett:

Of course what his choice is should be a surprise to nobody. I thought it interesting that he’s talking up how much he will be raising. My first thought was that he must be trying to scare off any competitors. Of course that was before I saw the later tweets:

. . . I’m announcing I’m running at 12 …

No, I just realized that I was responding to a text from u. I’m going to pull it off immediately

Tags 2010, Bob Bennett, Mark Shurtleff, senate, twitter

National

Constitutional Amendment II

Post author By David
Post date May 12, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment II

Amendment 2 is worded as an absolute:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The prohibition on infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not limited to the Congress. Although I think that some regulations are acceptable (such as requiring registration of ownership for firearms) this simple wording does not seem to allow any room for the banning of handguns or automatic weapons. (Personally I don’t see any reason that people would have cause to own automatic weapons but that’s beside the point.) The only possible wiggle room I can see in the wording is the purpose of having a well regulated militia as the reason for the right. If the goal is for a well regulated militia it could be argued that the government (state or federal) could prohibit gun ownership for convicted felons or those diagnosed with some significant type of mental disability because gun ownership among such people would detract rather than advance the cause of a well regulated militia.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

National

Constitutional Amendment I

Post author By David
Post date May 11, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment I

The beauty of the amendments in the Bill of Rights is that they are all short enough that I will be comfortable quoting each amendment in its entirety as I write about it. That may not hold as I get to the later amendments. Here is 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.

I have heard people who are keen to remind their fellow citizens that the phrase “separation of church and state” does not exist anywhere in our legal foundation. That’s very true, but I would take that a step further and point out the implications of what is said.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

State governments are perfectly free to make laws respecting an establishment of religion – whether that be favoring one specific sect, or prohibiting a sect or a specific religious practice. The key is that the federal legislative branch cannot enshrine a position related to religion. Please keep this in mind (the distinction between the state and federal governments) as it will be a theme of many of my posts on the amendments.

For those who might fear that Utah might use that as an excuse to establish Mormonism as the religion of the state (officially) if they thought they could get away with it I would simply point out that doing so would run counter to the expressed tenets of the LDS church. (I should also point out that this prevents the use of the first amendment as an argument against the legality of the extermination order against Mormons given by Governor Boggs of Missouri in 1838.) The point here is that each state was meant to be free to determine the course that they felt would be the most conducive to the welfare of their residents.

Like the protection of religion, it is Congress, and not the states, which is prohibited from abridging the freedom of the press or of speech and Congress which cannot interfere with the right of the people to peaceably assemble or petition the government. The assumption was that although the states retain the rights to regulate any of those things they would be wise enough not to abuse that ability and that if they did begin to abuse those powers they would feel the negative consequences as other states would reap the benefits of the dissatisfaction generated by abusive states.

Sadly, it is now the states and municipalities which feel the burden of the restrictions in the first amendment (and others) much more than Congress. Congress does not abridge our freedom of religion, but it does abridge the freedom of our once-sovereign states (and communities).

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, documents, history, liberty, religion

General National

Constitution of the United States

Post author By David
Post date May 8, 2009
2 Comments on Constitution of the United States

Having completed a review of each of the 85 Federalist Papers I am excited to finally write about the Constitution of the United States that they were written to promote. My goal is to reduce the Constitution to a very simple outline showing the form of government that we were meant to have. I will ignore any parts of the Constitution which have been subsequently changed through the amendment process. I hope that by doing so it will be easy to see where we have strayed from the formula. Also, I just want to say in advance that I will not address any of the amendments here – each will be treated separately in future posts.

Article I
- All legislative authority resides in Congress (in other words the president cannot make any laws).
- Members of the House of Representatives must be at least 25 years old and live in the state they represent. The number of representatives for each state is based on their population but there may not be more than 1 representative for every thirty-thousand people. Note that there is no stipulation limiting the size of the House of representatives while our population has more than tripled in the last century (from 92 Million in 1910 to over 300 Million now). Representatives are elected to two year terms. The House of Representatives holds the power of impeachment.
- Members of the Senate must be at least 30 years old and live in the state he is elected to represent. The Vice President is to serve as the president of the Senate, but cannot cast a vote unless the voting is tied. Senators are elected to six year terms. The Senate is to hold a trial when someone is impeached to determine if they should be removed from office. Interestingly, Senators must take an oath when sitting for an impeachment trial.
- Each state has the power to choose when they will hold elections.
- Each house of Congress determines the qualifications for their members (think back to the issue of replacing Obama after he was elected President) and each sets their own rules and keeps their own record. During the congressional session, neither house can adjourn for more than three days or to a new location without the consent of the other house.
- Members of both houses are to be paid for their service, but they cannot hold any office that was created or received a pay increase while they were in Congress. Also, they are immune from arrest during the session of Congress except for treason, felonies, or breach of the peace.
- All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The House and the Senate must pass a bill before it is presented to the President. If the President vetoes the bill it may becomes law if each house of Congress reconsiders it and passes it by a 2/3 majority. When voting on a veto override the name and vote of each member of Congress must be recorded. If the president does not return a bill within 10 days (signed or vetoed) while Congress is in session the bill becomes law. If Congress ends their session before the ten days and the president chooses not to sign then the bill does not become law.
- Section 8 lists the powers that Congress expressly holds in lawmaking (like establishing weights and measures, regulating commerce, coining money, and establishing post offices).
- Section 9 lists laws that Congress is forbidden to pass (like ex post facto laws and granting titles of nobility).
- Section 10 lists powers that are forbidden to the states. The list includes items granted to Congress (coining money, entering treaties with foreign nations) and also items that had also been forbidden to Congress (ex post facto laws and titles of nobility).
Article II
- The president is the chief executive of the nation. He must be at least 35 years old and is elected to four year terms. He is to be paid for his service, but his pay cannot be raised or lowered during a term. The exact words of the presidents oathof office are supplied in the Constitution – he is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
- The president is the leader of the army and navy and has to power to pardon any offense except in cases of impeachment. He can make treaties if two thirds of the senate approves the treaty and the senate must confirm those whom he nominates for government positions (such as Supreme Court justices). If the Senate is nto in session he can make temporary appointments that alst until the end of the next session of Congress.
- If impeached and conviceted of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" the president and any other officers of government are to be removed from office.
Article III
- The Supreme Court and any lower courts formed by Congress are the judicial authority of the nation.
- Section 2 lists the jurisdiction of federal courts (such as when a foreign nation is involved, or in disputes between states).
- Section 3 defines what constitutes treason.
Article IV
- States are to honor the actions of other states.
- States are to treat citizens of other states as they treat their own citizens.
- Section 3 lists how new states may be created or admitted to the nation.
- Each state is required to have a republican form of government.
Article V
- If two thirds of each house of Congress vote in favor, Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution which must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures. If two thirds of the state legilatures request it, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments – which must be ratified by three fourths of the state legislatures in order to become law. In either case, no amendment may deny a state of equal representation in the senate unless that state shall consent to the amendment.
Artivle VI
- The new government assumes all debts incurred under the Articles of Confederation
Article VII
- If nine of the states choose to ratify the Constitution in convention it shall be considered binding upon each of the states that ratifies it.

I find it interesting that half of the Constitution is centered on Congress and yet we focus the bulk of our interest in the executive branch. Perhaps that is why we have become so ineffective at electing people who will adhere to the supreme law of the land – we are misinterpreting it in our political focus.

Tags change congress, Constitution, documents, history, laws

National

Federalist No. 85

In the last of the Federalist papers, Federalist No. 85, Hamilton concludes by arguing that the preceding papers should demonstrate that the proposed constitution is fundamentally sound, and that it should be ratified regardless of any few faults or reservations that people might have because revision prior to ratification would be more difficult than amendment after ratification.

In making his argument Hamilton made reference to Article V. In light of a recent discussion where Connor argued the potential dangers of a modern constitutional convention I read through Article V again. While there is always the possibility of people organizing their efforts to remake the government the dangers that Conner discusses are in excess of the provisions of Article V. If such a convention were called it under Article V it could do no more than propose amendments to the existing Constitution. Once such a proposal (or proposals) is made the ratification process is the same as for amendments proposed in Congress – they would need to be ratified by ¾ of the state legislatures. Such amendments are also limited in that they cannot propose to deprive any state of equal suffrage or representation in the senate without the consent of that state.

Based on the words of Article V as well as my resolute faith in the principle of agency I no longer have any shred of discomfort with the idea of a modern constitutional convention. The outcome of such a gathering would either be illegal or have limited impact. The risks posed by a legal Article V convention are no greater than the risks we face from Congress every day. As for the risks posed by an unrestrained (illegal) convention – we face those risks from Congress every day as well.

Tags change congress, connections, Constitution, documents, federalist, history, unconstitutional

General

Federalist No. 84

In his penultimate federalist paper, Federalist No. 84, Hamilton ties up a few loose ends and once again shows his prescience. As I was reading this thought on the need (or lack thereof) for a Bill of Rights:

a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

I thought about how our present government had become the kind to "regulation of every species of personal and private concerns"and began to wonder if the Bill of Rights opened the door to a larger, more intrusive government than was intended. Then I got to this:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. (emphasis added)

The argument that I had in my head before reading that was probably substantially the same but I would have said that without the explicit Bill of Rights which was later added the voters might feel more urgency to check their representatives and replace them when they began to make incursions upon the rights that the voters felt were important.

Later in the paper I found yet another argument against the now static size of our House of Representatives:

It is evident that . . . a continuance of the present number {in Congress} would, in a more advanced stage of population, be a very inadequate representation of the people.

Tags Bill of Rights, change congress, civic participation, documents, federalist, history

General

Federalist Nos. 80 – 83

Some of the items of discussion in the federalist papers are so obvious that I must conclude that the purpose of these papers was not onyl to answer critics of the proposed constitution, but also to endeavor to generally educate those who had not considered the necessities of government in order that they might make an informed choice on the issue of ratification. In my opinion, this effort to disseminate information is one of the hallmarks that separates a statesman from a politician. Politicians seem to love pontificating and posturing, but do not seem to care much whether they actually inform or enlighten.

Federalist No. 80 lays out the types of cases and situations that would properly fall under federal jurisdiction and argues that only those cases have been covered in the powers granted to the federal courts. Federalist No. 81 explains the purpose of allowing for lesser federal courts to be instituted rather than relying on a single supreme court, or dependence on state courts in any case of federal jurisdiction. Federalist No. 82 contends that the judicial systems of the states are not adversly affected in any material way by the federal judicial system as proposed. Federalist No. 83 discusses the value and limitations of trial by jury and contradicts the assertion that trial by jury might be prohibited in civil cases on the grounds that it is mandated in criminal cases. I found it interesting to note some similarities in the reasons to recommend a trial by jury when compared to the reasons that recommend the use of an electoral college. It was also interesting to read how different the judicial systems of the various states were from each other.

Tags courts, documents, federalist, history, Supreme Court