The Republican message - "Never mind what we've been saying for months about foreign policy experience. Sarah Palin is a great choice!" - is a bad omen for the future of America if McCain wins the election. It will mean four more years of those in charge willfully putting the interests of a party leader over the interests of the country.
On September 11, a dangerously incompetent president sat and stared at a children's book for seven long minutes while our nation was under attack. He then spent the rest of the day in hiding, while Dick Cheney made the decisions that needed to be made and the rest of us sat in disbelief and horror, waiting for our president to rally us.
And Republicans went on TV and wrote their columns saying "Thank God George Bush is in the White House and not Al Gore." Even though their political leader had proven himself manifestly unprepared for the job, they put his interests over the interests of the country. They attacked anyone who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes.
What we saw in those days and weeks after 9/11 became standard operating procedure throughout the Bush presidency. For the past eight years, the Republican Party has one time after another placed loyalty to their political leader over loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. When their leader claimed the right to ignore laws even as he signed them, they saluted and obeyed. When their leader claimed the right to torture prisoners using the same tactics we learned from our enemies, they saluted and obeyed. When their leader claimed he could toss you in a dungeon for the rest of your life with no trial and no lawyer, they saluted and obeyed. They received the party talking points, then obediently spouted the party line.
In Sarah Palin, we now have the real possibility of an even more dangerously unqualified person than George Bush leading our nation. And the Republicans who spent months calling Barack Obama dangerously unqualified are now crowing about John McCain's new running mate.
Salute and obey. It may be McCain instead of Bush putting our nation at risk, but it's the same dangerous Republican Party.
The events of the past two days have made it all the more clear why our nation desperately needs to remove the Republican Party from power.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Can a President Pardon Himself?
Can a president pardon himself?
Since George W. Bush took power through an assault on the Constitution and the rule of law in 2000, it was no surprise that his time in office would be marked by a constant war against the Constitution and the rule of law.
Some time after the 2008 election and before his last minutes in office, President Bush will no doubt issue pardons to make sure that he and his collaborators do not have to serve jail time for their numerous violations of the law.
And, either explicitly or by reference, those pardons will cover the president himself. Perhaps he will issue a pardon in which he specifically names himself. More likely, he will pardon anyone who issued or followed executive branch orders to do [fill in the blank with the criminal act]. Either way, he’ll cover himself.
That begs the question: Can the president pardon himself? I believe that will be the major constitutional question facing the country after Constitution Restoration Day next January 20.
The Constitution seems to give the president pretty much limitless authority to pardon anybody of any federal crime: The entirety of the constitutional text on pardons is that the president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
Certainly, nothing in the text specifically limits his authority to pardon himself.
But that can’t be the end of the analysis. Our entire democratic system of government is based on the rule of law. If the president can regularly pardon himself of any crime, even before criminal charges are made, then he has been placed above the law. If nothing else, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the concept of the rule of law. It surely cannot allow for a president wholly unbound by law.
And to the extent that a pardon is done to cover up the crimes that he and his collaborators committed, is the pardon itself a crime?
As the next president is still settling into this new office, these will be the constitutional questions he and the nation that elected him will face.
The Bush presidency will come full circle: born attacking the rule of law, it will end the same way.
Since George W. Bush took power through an assault on the Constitution and the rule of law in 2000, it was no surprise that his time in office would be marked by a constant war against the Constitution and the rule of law.
Some time after the 2008 election and before his last minutes in office, President Bush will no doubt issue pardons to make sure that he and his collaborators do not have to serve jail time for their numerous violations of the law.
And, either explicitly or by reference, those pardons will cover the president himself. Perhaps he will issue a pardon in which he specifically names himself. More likely, he will pardon anyone who issued or followed executive branch orders to do [fill in the blank with the criminal act]. Either way, he’ll cover himself.
That begs the question: Can the president pardon himself? I believe that will be the major constitutional question facing the country after Constitution Restoration Day next January 20.
The Constitution seems to give the president pretty much limitless authority to pardon anybody of any federal crime: The entirety of the constitutional text on pardons is that the president “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
Certainly, nothing in the text specifically limits his authority to pardon himself.
But that can’t be the end of the analysis. Our entire democratic system of government is based on the rule of law. If the president can regularly pardon himself of any crime, even before criminal charges are made, then he has been placed above the law. If nothing else, the U.S. Constitution enshrines the concept of the rule of law. It surely cannot allow for a president wholly unbound by law.
And to the extent that a pardon is done to cover up the crimes that he and his collaborators committed, is the pardon itself a crime?
As the next president is still settling into this new office, these will be the constitutional questions he and the nation that elected him will face.
The Bush presidency will come full circle: born attacking the rule of law, it will end the same way.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
McCain Declares War on Gay Parents
Echoing the hackneyed “states’ rights” mantra that has so often been trotted out to defend the indefensible, Sen. McCain today declared war on tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of families across the nation. After he expressed an unequivocal blanket opposition to adoption by same-sex couples, his campaign today issued a “correction.” He assured lesbian and gay Americans that he does not currently plan to strip them of their rights to become adoptive parents, nor does he currently plan to keep children from being adopted by loving parents.
No, he will leave that to the states.
In communities in every part of the nation, more and more Americans are realizing that their lesbian and gay family members, friends, and neighbors are not some frightening “other” that must be kept out of mainstream society.
Unfortunately, rather than appealing to the majority of Americans who are increasingly turning their back on discrimination, John McCain has decided to appeal to the extreme right-wing dead-enders who are fighting to keep society closed to those they dislike.
McCain’s supporters call him brave. Would he dare walk into a room filled with children and teenagers with their same-sex parents and tell them to their face that their families are second-rate?
I’m not holding my breath.
No, he will leave that to the states.
In communities in every part of the nation, more and more Americans are realizing that their lesbian and gay family members, friends, and neighbors are not some frightening “other” that must be kept out of mainstream society.
Unfortunately, rather than appealing to the majority of Americans who are increasingly turning their back on discrimination, John McCain has decided to appeal to the extreme right-wing dead-enders who are fighting to keep society closed to those they dislike.
McCain’s supporters call him brave. Would he dare walk into a room filled with children and teenagers with their same-sex parents and tell them to their face that their families are second-rate?
I’m not holding my breath.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Hypocrisy on the Courts: The Exxon Decision
Today's Exxon decision at the Supreme Court - with Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy joining Souter's majority opinion - gives liberals a chance to show that the Right doesn’t believe their own propaganda about the Courts. All that matters for them is who wins and who loses: Gays lose. Women wanting abortions lose. Religious minorities lose. But Big Oil wins.
When the people, through the legislature, take away women’s reproductive rights or the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the Right wants courts to stay out of it. “Let the people decide!" they demand. "We don’t want activist judges legislating from the bench! These are questions left to the legislature!”
But when the people, through a jury, punish large corporations for their outrageous and dangerous conduct, wise judges must step in and impose limits on these out-of-control juries. Let the judges decide! If the legislature declines to rein in punitive damages awards, then it is up to the courts to do it.
And, although there are many ways the Court could do this -- by fixed dollar amount, by percentage of the defendant’s net worth, by any number of ratios to the compensatory damages -- it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide what approach to take: a ratio. And it’s apparently also up to the Court to determine the exact limit to impose: a 1 : 1 ratio.
Assuming John McCain does not express disagreement with today’s opinion, I’d love to ask him to define “legislating from the bench” and why this case isn’t the perfect example of what he routinely and vociferously condemns. Why does he want courts to step in to protect the mightiest of corporate behemoths, but to stay out when individual rights are at stake?
When the people, through the legislature, take away women’s reproductive rights or the rights of gay and lesbian Americans, the Right wants courts to stay out of it. “Let the people decide!" they demand. "We don’t want activist judges legislating from the bench! These are questions left to the legislature!”
But when the people, through a jury, punish large corporations for their outrageous and dangerous conduct, wise judges must step in and impose limits on these out-of-control juries. Let the judges decide! If the legislature declines to rein in punitive damages awards, then it is up to the courts to do it.
And, although there are many ways the Court could do this -- by fixed dollar amount, by percentage of the defendant’s net worth, by any number of ratios to the compensatory damages -- it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide what approach to take: a ratio. And it’s apparently also up to the Court to determine the exact limit to impose: a 1 : 1 ratio.
Assuming John McCain does not express disagreement with today’s opinion, I’d love to ask him to define “legislating from the bench” and why this case isn’t the perfect example of what he routinely and vociferously condemns. Why does he want courts to step in to protect the mightiest of corporate behemoths, but to stay out when individual rights are at stake?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)