Natelson says stuff

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:32:46 AM MST

First off, a shot over the bows of Constitutional "originalists":

The problem with the U.S. Constitution in general is that it is not a "rigid" set of guidelines on government power, nor is it a "living, breathing organism" that liberals pretend it is.

"The answer, as often in life, is somewhere in the middle," said Natelson.

An opponent of abortion, Natelson said one day, people will see the termination of a pregnancy with the same repugnancy that they see slavery now.

"It took 100 years to end slavery," he said. "And we're not going to end abortion constitutionally. We're going to end it when people change their hearts."

The "living, breathing organism" that liberals worship is, of course, hyperbole, the kind of misrepresented and exaggerated view of liberal legal thought promulgated by conservatives, and a typical rhetorical salvo we've come to expect from the Perfesser. But...then he says the Constitution is a changing document, and that the judiciary - rightly - reacts to the values and demands of the populace. Which, you know, is pretty much...rational, not something you'd expect the Perfesser to say in front of Tea Baggers.

And it's also nice to see Natelson acknowledge that anti-abortion views are not widely reflected by most Americans, and that, to change our laws on abortion, anti-abortion activists need to change Americans' views. Which, you know, is probably something his audience didn't want to hear.

Another:

One question was steered toward the local anti-discrimation ordinance passed last week by the Missoula City Council.

Can't that law be challenged as violation of the due process provision of the 14th Amendment?

Again, said Natelson, not since the U.S. Constitution has been so radically reinterpreted.

"If the state government can point to any conceivable governmental interest in supporting its law, in this case promoting the acceptance of a certain group of people, generally the law will be upheld," he said.

(Here's the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way. I assume the questioner was assuming those who want to discriminate against gays have the right to do so under the idea that no state "shall...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."

But, funny enough, proponents of discrimination forget that gays are also protected under the same amendment.)

Essentially, Natelson is openly acknowledging that opposition to Missoula's anti-discrimination isn't based on safety issues in public bathrooms, but in not wanting to "accept" gays into civil society. And they mean by "acceptance," is gays' rights to live, work, and enjoy "...mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." In short, as Montana Justice James Nelson wrote, "...homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law."

Too bad the constitution doesn't protect people from singling out law-abiding citizens and denying their basic "civil and natural rights."

Obama, the unitary executive, and you

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Apr 07, 2010 at 09:05:21 AM MST

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Glenn Greenwald:

No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.

Instead, in Barack Obama's America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens -- and a death penalty imposed -- is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone's guilt as a Terrorist.  He then dispatches his aides to run to America's newspapers -- cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they're granted -- to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist.

Greenwald also points out that the SCOTUS in its 2004 Hamdi case that American citizens have a right to challenge their detention by the government as "illegal enemy combatants." It seems obvious the Obama administration's policy to assassinate Americans suspected of "illegal combat" oversteps its constitutional powers - something that, as Greenwald points out, Obama the candidate acknowledged.

Congress, be congressional!

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Nov 16, 2007 at 07:48:56 AM MST

Here's the money quote:

The Bush administration's days are numbered. But the damage it has done to the balance of powers could be long-lasting. If Congress wants to maintain its Constitutional role, it needs to stand up for itself. A good place to start is by making clear that its legitimate investigative authority cannot be defied, and any who choose to do so will pay a heavy price.

Amen.

On requiring a picture ID to vote in Indiana

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Nov 14, 2007 at 12:49:28 PM MST

Surprise! It does!

By a substantial margin, the Indiana residents most likely to possess photo ID turn out to be whites, the middle aged, and high-income voters. And while this is undoubtedly just a wild coincidence, these are also the three groups most like to vote for Republicans. (2006 exit poll data here for the suspicious.) Overall, 91% of registered Republicans had photo IDs compared to only 83% of registered Democrats.

Blacks are the group least likely to have valid photo IDs.

Kevin Drum:

But like I said, this is probably just a coincidence. I'm sure Karl Rove and the RNC had no idea that the demographics broke down like this. Right?

The courageous stand of Senator Rockefeller against the unwashed hordes

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 06:41:03 AM MST

Here's why. Within weeks of the 2001 attacks, communications companies received written requests and directives for assistance with intelligence activities authorized by the president. These companies were assured that their cooperation was not only legal but also necessary because of their unique technical capabilities. They were also told it was their patriotic duty to help protect the country after the devastating attacks on our homeland.

Glenn Greenwald (emphasis Greenwald's):

Both the Bush administration and the telecoms jointly broke the law for years. Even as we moved further and further away from the 9/11 attacks, neither the administration nor the telecoms bothered to comply with the law. The administration was too interested in affirming the theory that the President could exercise power without limits, and the telecoms were too busy reaping the great profits from their increasingly close relationship with the Government.

I'll add to Greenwald's commentary that the spying program may have begun before 9/11, according to some reports.

From Wired:

Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).

In fact, prior to 2007, contributions to Rockefeller from company executives at AT&T and Verizon were mostly non-existent.

But that changed around the same time that the companies began lobbying Congress to grant them retroactive immunity from lawsuits seeking billions for their alleged participation in secret, warrantless surveillance programs that targeted Americans.

You don't say!

Torture is not an option

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 20:18:42 PM MST

An eyewitness had seen Chikatilo with the victim, shortly before her disappearance, but his wife provided him with a cast-iron alibi that enabled him to evade any further police attention. A 25-year old, Alexsandr Kravchenko, with a previous rape conviction, was arrested and confessed to the crime under duress, probably as a result of extensive and brutal interrogation. He was tried for the killing of Lena Zakotnova, and executed in 1984.

Without the tortured confession from Kravchenko, who knows? Maybe the Soviet police arrest and convict Chikatilo for his first murder, not his 53rd. Police work is an inexact science, so it's impossible to say. What we can say, beyond all doubt, is that once the police extracted a false confession from Kravchenko through torture, Chikatilo was able to continue his ghastly work unimpeded for the next 12 years.

And when the police caught up with Chikatilo again in 1990, he confessed - not through torture - but to psychiatrist Aleksandr Bukhanovski, who had used a psychological profile to ease the killer into admitting his crimes.

Torture doesn't work. Those being tortured will tell their interrogators what they want to hear. And in the case of Chikatilo, torture had disastrous consequences. I know, I know. That's not how it works on 24...

Executive powers to be given up on "constitutional principles" by Prez. Hillary Clinton?

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Oct 24, 2007 at 12:30:10 PM MST

"I think I'm going to have to review everything they've done, because I've been on the receiving end of that," she said. Ms Clinton stated it was "absolutely" conceivable that, as president, she would give up executive powers in the name of constitutional principle.

"That has to be part of the review I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that," she said.

It's "conceivable" she'd "give up" executive powers? In the name of "constitutional principle"? That's not very reassuring. And is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea that our rights will be protected at the pleasure of the executive? After all, if the President is breaking the laws and violating the Constitution, he should be impeached. That's Congress' job. And how has Senator Clinton stood on that issue?

*crickets*

The propaganda campaign to evade judicial oversight

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Oct 15, 2007 at 11:57:01 AM MST

Sometime before dawn, heavily armed al Qaeda gunmen quietly cut through the tangles of concertina wire surrounding the outpost of two Humvees and made a massive and coordinated surprise attack.

Four of the soldiers were killed on the spot and three others were taken hostage.

A search to rescue the men was quickly launched. But it soon ground to a halt as lawyers - obeying strict U.S. laws about surveillance - cobbled together the legal grounds for wiretapping the suspected kidnappers.

(Forget for a moment that, under FISA, you can get a retroactive warrant up to 72 hours after the surveillance is in place. That is, officials could have begun surveillance, and then gotten the warrant.)

According to a TPM source, it was DoJ incompetence that was responsible for the delay:

But the source, who is privvy to the timeline of the incident, says "internal bureaucratic wrangling," and not court-based restrictions, were responsible for the lag time. "To get an emergency warrant, you just have to believe the facts support the application that someone is an agent of a foreign power," the source says. "That takes approximately five seconds to establish if you're going after an Iraqi insurgent."

Why did so much time elapse before the surveillance? Top Justice Department officials needed to approve the emergency order. But according to the source, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was out of town; Deputy AG Paul McNulty had resigned already; Solicitor General Paul Clement "had left the building"; and the other responsible official, Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein was not yet authorized to approve the emergency order. Wainstein testified today, but demurred from answering questions about the incident in open session.

The Bushies are using their own incompetence to push for more powers.

Rehberg reminds us of the "work" he's done to the Constitution

by: Jay Stevens

Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:53:20 AM MST

The framers of our Constitution created a document that has withstood the test of time, and their shadow continues to be a constant presence in the work I'm doing in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Montana. This week, let us all pay homage and remember those who first sacrificed in order to give us what we have today.

Pogie reminded us what kind of work Rehberg has been doing to the Constitution in Washington DC. Domestic spying, suspension of habaeus corpus, torture, you name it, Dennis has been there.

For the very people who have stripped the Constitution of its core protections to wax poetic about it is pretty shameful.  History will show how craven this President and his lap dogs in Congress were, by simple comparison. The men who wrote the Constitution did so when we were incredibly vulnerable, a weak semi-nation threatened by any number of European powers. Yet threatened as they were, they upheld the principles of liberty in the face of incredible odds. For member of government in the most powerful country that has ever existed to lack that courage is shameful and weak.

The Constitution is more than rhetoric and letters to the editor, Congressman.

Open thread: Senate gives Bush FISA changes

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 14:15:22 PM MST

Needless to say, there goes Congress' strongest argument for impeachment, that's he's violated the law by wiretapping without a warrant. So much for accountability and the rule of law.

I just don't get it.

Update: Kossak Meteor Blades has a list of the 16 Democrats who rolled:

Evan Bayh (IN)
Tom Carper (DE)
Bob Casey (PA)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Daniel Inouye (HI)
Amy Klobuchar (MN)
Mary Landrieu (LA)
Blanche Lincoln (AK)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Bill Nelson (FL)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Mark Pryor (AK)
Ken Salazar (CO)
Jim Webb (VA)

I'm relieved to see Max' and Jon's names absent from that list. Thank you, Montana Senators. You did the right thing.

Impeaching Gonzo: the good and the bad

by: Jay Stevens

Tue Jul 31, 2007 at 11:38:46 AM MST

The good:

[Washington] Rep. Jay Inslee will introduce a resolution today directing the House Judiciary Committee to investigate whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should be impeached.

Five co-sponsors have joined Inslee, D-Bainbridge Island, in backing the resolution....

Inslee and his co-sponsors are all former prosecutors. Inslee prosecuted cases for the city of Selah, Yakima County, while working as a private attorney in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

"Our resolution follows the careful procedure of conducting a thorough investigation before the House would decide on articles of impeachment - a fairness the attorney general did not afford to his fired U.S. attorneys," Inslee said Monday.

Great news. Let's get to work on restoring the public's confidence in government, starting with Alberto Gonzalez, perhaps the worst Attorney General the country's seen, who actively worked to give the White House unprecented powers to imprison and torture anyone it wants without any oversight, and who oversaw the politizitation of the rule of law in the country.

The bad:

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the committee, denounced the resolution Monday night.

"The call by Democrats to impeach Attorney General Gonzales is a misuse of congressional power for purely political reasons and a waste of the American public's money and time," Smith said in a statement.

He said Democrats have chosen "to engage in a politically motivated campaign to slander the Justice Department and undermine the credibility of federal law enforcement."

I don't how these people sleep at night saying sh*t like this. There's no reasonable defense of Gonzalez' performance. Period. At best you could argue he was a moron who had no idea of what was going on in his department. And there's plenty of evidence to suggest that he's much, much worse than that. Smith is putting party over country.

I'm shocked.

Bush holds himself above the law; impeachment looks better every day

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jul 20, 2007 at 11:23:42 AM MST

Bush administration officials unveiled a bold new assertion of executive authority yesterday in the dispute over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys, saying that the  Justice Department will never be allowed to pursue contempt charges initiated by Congress against White House officials once the president has invoked executive privilege.

Legal experts are taken aback. Congress' only action -- which is also its best option -- is to use its inherent contempt powers, which allows it to hire its own special counsel. Mark Keiman details other possible steps, including seizure of documents, and arrest of administration officials by Congress' Seargeants-at-Arms, or cutting off funding for the DoJ and other administration bureaucracies.

Baucus supports the restoration of habeas corpus

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 17:53:30 PM MST

Hopefully, Bob Geiger will be updating his post to let folks know that this bill is supported by Montana's Senators...

A loud shout-out goes to Sens. Baucus and Tester. You're doing the right thing.

Tester supports the restoration of habeas corpus

by: Jay Stevens

Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 16:45:40 PM MST

Jon Tester and Max Baucus are not sponsors of the bill.

According to Geiger, it's not enough to simply support the bill, or to vote for it, sponsorship is vital:

Does it matter if they sign on as cosponsors to the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007? Yes, it does. For one, it tells us what our running vote count is and gives us some sense of who's going to ultimately vote for it. While the Senators listed above may very well intend on voting for the bill's passage, we don't know that at the moment -- and for something this fundamental to American values, they need to stand up and be counted. Cosponsoring the bill also demonstrates leadership on this vital issue and that's what we want to see.

I don't happen to agree. As long as it passes, I don't care who sponsors it.

That said, Jon Tester supports S.185 and intends to vote for it, according to his office.

No word from Max yet. (Which is my fault, not Max'. I just got off my inquiry now.)

Open thread: Impeach? You decide!

by: Jay Stevens

Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 14:15:25 PM MST

To me it's a clash between the practical -- that is, getting 66 Senators to convict Bush of high crimes and misdemeanors -- and the necessary, the preservation of constitutional checks and balances and the rule of law, and to establish the precedent that the executive branch shall not take powers not granted it by the Constitution or the by the people through their elected representatives in Congress.

What should we do?