Presidential Power: The War Powers Act and Obama's Military Action in Libya

Republicans are making a big deal about Obama's "violation" of the War Powers Act (WPA, a.k.a. War Powers Resolution, because it's not actually a law it's a joint "opinion" of Congress).  I figured it was worth a post in order to clear things up and also point out that the President's position isn't a very productive one.


Here are the questions we have to answer:
(1) Does President Obama need Congressional approval?
(2) If he does, has he satisfied his duty to Congress with what he has provided already?


BACKGROUND

The WPA is the result of nearly 200 years of confusion surrounding which branch of government really has the power to take the country to war.  Following the Vietnam War and all the madness that came with it, Congress sought to clarify who had the power to declare war.  In 1973, they passed the WPA.


The WPA States:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. (hmm... where does Libya fall within this framework?  emergency?)

The president shall submit within 48 hours [of the commencement of military action] to the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives and to the President pro tempore of the Senate a report, in writing... [addressing] circumstances... authority... and scope...

Now here's the important part for whether the President has violated the Act:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces, unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity...

LIBYA TIMELINE

February 15, 2011.  Massive protests break out in Benghazi, Libya.  This was the beginning of the Civil War now engulfing the entire country.


March 17, 2011.  The U.N. authorizes military action against Libya.


March 19, 2011.  The U.S. begins bombing Libya.  The President authorized the action without approval from Congress.


March 24, 2011.  Critics immediately surface to challenge the President.  Most notably, and perhaps most ironically, the Republican Speaker of the House, Rep. Boehner challenged the President complaining about a "lack of clarity."


March 28, 2011.  The President addresses the nation, informing the world of his reasons for launching missile strikes against libya.  In essence, he argues that sometimes we should intervene to protect people when their leaders attempt to massacre them.  He kept it vague, so there isn't much in there to get angry about.  The President also claims that he informed Congress within the 48 hour window and specifically addresses the issue of the WPA.

June 14, 2011. Speaker Boehner reignites the controversy by warning Obama that he must act by Sunday or risk being in violation of the WPA.  The Speaker demands that Obama come to Congress, explain his reasoning for the military actions, and seek their approval of the military efforts.


June 15, 2011.  The White House responds to Boehner's challenge by digging in their heels and claiming that they don't need Congressional approval for this mission.


June 16, 2011. A group of Congressmen from both parties sued the President claiming that his actions in Libya are illegal (including Denis Kucinich, who has been complaining about this from the start, and Ron Paul, everyone's favorite libertarian perma-candidate for President).


(1) DOES THE PRESIDENT NEED CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL?
This is THE big question in almost every military action.  The Constitution is virtually silent on the matter other than giving to Congress the power to "declare war" and the President the powers as "commander-in-chief."  When the Constitution was first ratified these two phrases may have meant something completely different.  For example, consider the fact that we did not have a standing Military, and it would have been impossible for the President to declare war without Congress first raising an army.  On the other hand, at the Constitutional Convention, the words were actually changed from "making" to "declaring" specifically because the delegates thought it important to recognize the President's role in War making.


We also have to take into account the fact that the President has effectively declared war (or at least entered the country into military hostilities) more than 125 times in the past 200 years.  In the famous concurring opinions of Youngstown Steel, Justices Frankfurter and Jackson both talked about the concept of prolonged Congressional inaction be essentially the same as acquiescence.  However, it was the dissent by Justice Vinson which proved particularly prophetic.  Vinson argued that Congress has no power to check Presidential actions in an area where he had Constitutional authority.  Vinson believed that War making was one of these areas.  Vinson's dissent would become political reality during the Nixon Presidency.  The concept of an all power President eventually became known as Unitary Executive Theory in conservative circles, or the Imperial Presidency in liberal circles.


What is particularly ironic about this situation the Republicans who are now crowing about unchecked executive power were all too eager to hand over that authority to President Bush just 10 short years ago. What changed?  The political party of the President?  Is the Libya action different from Iraq?  Probably a little bit of both.  Republicans are, perhaps, too eager to score a hit on Obama even when it reveals a latent hypocrisy in their own position.  At the same time, the mission in Libya strikes different cords than the mission in Iraq.  The Libya mission seems more like a "humanitarian" mission, which has never been enough reason for the right -wing war-hawks to dust off the nuclear launch codes.  So, really there may be a little hypocrisy here, but it's also an issue of different beliefs regarding when we should use our military (humanitarian interests vs. economic/military interests).


Getting back to the issue of the WPA, it appears that the President does, indeed, need Congressional approval.  This is assuming that the WPA is even constitutional, which is another contentious legal issue.  Unfortunately, it's unlikely that the issue will ever get to the SC and even if it did, the Court has been perfectly happy letting the President and Congress fight it out when it comes to issues of war making.


(2) HAS THE PRESIDENT SATISFIED HIS DUTY?
Honestly, I think that he has.  Again assuming the WPA is constitutional, then he has to submit a report (which he said he did), and outline the circumstances, authority, and scope of the mission (which he certainly did in his address to the nation).  At that point, the issue goes to Congress to decide whether to act or not.


So, in essence, it appears that Boehner is just being a petualnt child trying to get Obama to return so the Speaker can lord over him while he grovels, begging for Congressional approval.  That's not required by the WPA.  As far as I'm concerned the President has met his duty, and certainly satisfied the spirit of the WPA.  The fact that Congress has not acted yet to respond is their own fault and perhaps if the Republicans were not so busy pushing their pet agenda, they would have time to act on things that actually matter.


In short, YES the President needs to seek Congressional Approval, but it appears that he has already done so and should NOT be required to come crawling to Congress every time the Speaker wants to score a cheap political point.


SIDE NOTES

There are a couple of issues nagging at the corners of this who debate.  First, is the issue of whether we should be in Libya from a policy standpoint.  I fully agree with the President when it comes to protecting the rebels from being massacred (although there has been some suggestion that they are, in fact, being supported by Al Queda groups, which would be troubling).  However, I think that the mission has gone awry in the past couple months.  For example, no where in either the President's speech nor the U.N. resolution was authority given to assassinate Gaddafi.  It is for the Libyan people, NOT the international community to decide how to overthrow their leader.  It would be absolutely illegal and immoral for Gaddafi to be assassinated, no matter how bad of a man he may be.


The second issue worth discussing is the idea that the type of mission effects whether Congressional Approval is required.  I'm not sure I agree with that.  The Constitution certainly doesn't differentiate, and if we took the President's argument here in conjunction with the Constitutional language literally, then the President could get away with anything just by not calling it a "war."  That hardly seems to be in the spirit of what was intended.  The WPA appears to be even more broad, including all military actions (or at least most that we could imagine).  If the WPA doesn't cover military strikes against another country, then it would be pretty worthless.  I don't know much about this issue in particular, but my guess is that the President's actions should fall under the WPA if we are being honest about the intent of the document.  Therefore, the President's claims that he is free and clear make me wonder what happened to the guy who railed against Bush II for doing the exact same thing...


Common Sense

Nearing The End of Proposition 8 (CA)

In an eagerly anticipated order (hovering just on the outskirts of the Prop 8 case) the new Chief Judge of the District Court of Northern California shot down claims by Prop 8 supporters that the gay judge in a committed relationship, who struck down Prop 8 last year, should have recused himself from ruling on a gay marriage case.


A few weeks ago I was attending a memorial day party where there were a number of older gay men.  While they discussed the issue of Prop 8, they truly knew nothing about the case.  I did not correct them, but it made it abundantly clear that even supporters are tragically misinformed on the issue and what legal battles have been raging.  Hopefully this blog post will clear up the issue for everyone who reads it.


BACKGROUND
The battle for same -sex marriage rights began in the mid 1990s with DOMA.  For the most part the Republicans used the issue to their political advantage, accusing liberals (who probably hadn't even thought of the idea) of conspiring to legalize gay marriages.  It was a classic Gingrich era straw man and it worked perfectly.  Bush II used it in both his 2000 and 2004 campaigns.  Everything was going splendidly until February 2004, where our story begins.

In February 2004, Mayor Gavin Newsom, after long planning to take a stand for gays and lesbians, shocked the country by issuing marriage licenses to gay/lesbian couples in San Francisco.  The stunt may not have lasted long (The CA Supreme Court halted the mayors little coup on March 12, 2004), but it hurled CA into the national conversation.  Both sides committed themselves to settling the issue once and for all in CA, long a liberal stronghold.  Either CA was going to continue to be the liberal model for the country, or it was going to prove that same-sex marriage couldn't even win in the most liberal of states.

Four years later, in May 2008, the liberal block scored what we all thought was a knock out punch to same-sex marriage opponents.  In In re Marriage Cases, the CA Supreme Court declared that the CA version of DOMA was incompatible with the State Constitution and struck down the law.  LGBT Advocates cheered the decision as a landmark case, and indeed it was.  New editions of major casebooks were updated to include the decision and it was immediately compared to Lawrence v. Texas (striking down anti-sodomy laws) and Loving v. Virginia (striking down anti-misogyny laws).  Unfortunately, as always seems to be the case, supporters underestimated their opponents.  The decision galvanized an effort to get the issue on the ballot.


PROPOSITION 8

Polls before the election showed Prop 8 losing in decisive fashion, but on November 4, 2008 Proposition 8 passed in California and changed the words of the State Constitution to define marriage as between "one man and one woman."  Following the shock and sting of such a humiliating defeat, marriage advocates challenged the proposition in State Court.  The CA Supreme Court rejected the challenge, but refused to invalidate the marriage licenses granted prior to November.


Marriage proponents then took their case to the Federal Courts, arguing that the State Constitution was in violation of the 14th Amendment of the Federal Constitution (the only law higher than a State Constitution).  The case made national headlines when the (heavyweight?) lawyers from Bush v. Gore joined forces to take the case through the federal system.  The Perry v. Schwarzenegger case was heard by then Chief Judge Vaughn Walker.  In his decision he found that the law violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.  What was particularly interesting is that he based in analysis on rational basis review (not the more stringent "strict scrutiny" review).  In the District Court's view, there wasn't even a rational basis to support the law.


TWO TRACKS
This is where the issue gets a little more complicated than the average observer might want to figure out, so I'll do my best to make it simple.


1. Motion to Vacate

Soon after the decision it came to light that Judge Walker is, himself, a gay man with a long-term partner.  Opponents immediately jumped on this revelation and demanded that the decision be vacated because of the judges failure to disclose.  Since that isn't a very strong legal argument they switch course and started pushing the argument that Judge Walker had a vested interest in the outcome of the case, since overturning Prop 8 would allow him to marry his partner.  This, they argue, means that he should not have been able to hear the case at all, and the decision should, therefore, be void.


Yesterday (June 14, 2011), the new Chief Judge James Ware DENIED the motion to vacate.  The judge had choice words for Prop 8 supporters:

The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief. On the contrary: it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits. The Motion fails to cite any evidence that Judge Walker would be incapable of being impartial, but to presume that Judge Walker was incapable of being impartial, without concrete evidence to support that presumption, is inconsistent with what is required under a reasonableness standard.
(Quote is Compliments of the Rachel Maddow Show Blog)


And so this track has come to an end, and the Walker decision remains binding and good law.  Prop 8 is no longer valid in the Northern District of California.


2. Appeal

This is not to say the issue is dead and buried.  Appeal is almost always an option.  However, there is a wrinkle here also, that is working in favor of LGBT advocate.  The decision of whether to appeal falls to the government through the Governor and his Attorney General, Jerry Brown (now Governor).  In a shocking turn around, the government of CA decided NOT to appeal the District Court's ruling.  This had the effect of officially ending the litigation, and allowing the District Court decision to stand.


The wrinkle is that Prop 8 supporters, then filed an appeal in the 9th Circuit (the Federal Court above the Northern District of CA) without the government.  The 9th Circuit heard arguments on the case, but then bumped the case BACK to the California Supreme Court seeking guidance on whether the Prop 8 supporters can actually appeal instead of their government (this issue of whether a person can sue is called "standing").  The 9th Circuit was curious whether CA state law allowed citizens to sue to enforce state laws.  Surprisingly, not every state allows this practice, instead saying only the government itself has standing to enforce laws.  The Supreme Court agreed to take the case from the 9th Circuit, but a hearing isn't expected until September 2011, and a decision probably won't come until December 2011.


Even if the case goes forward, the Appeals Panel is expected to uphold Walker's decision.  The panel consists of one die-hard liberal, one liberal, and one conservative.  We can assume the decision will certainly be 2-1, and almost certainly upholding the Walker decision.


A SUPREME DECISION?
Unlikely.  There are a number of reasons why the Supreme Court probably will NOT take an appeal from the 9th Circuit's decision.  First of all, the 9th will be the only Circuit to deal with this issue.  Other Circuits have addressed the issue of Marriage, but this is the only instance in which a Constitutional Amendment is being challenged.  In other instances it was state or federal law that was being challenged.   Without a "circuit split" on the issue, it is not likely that the Supreme Court will take up the issue.


The Supreme Court justices are also unlikely to tackle the issue because of Justice Kennedy's notorious unpredictability on issues like this (his was a surprise defection from the conservative block in the Lawrence decision).  Neither the 4 conservatives nor the 4 liberals are likely to rely on him when it comes to this issue so there probably isn't much of a push to grant cert on this issue.


There is also the issue that Justices are VERY hesitent these days to take up highly contentious social issues because of what happened following Roe v. Wade.  Even justice Ginsburg, notorious feminist as she is, has said that cases like Roe should not be taken by the court.  It just causes to many issues when the court tries to settle matters like this, and the court's legitimacy suffers in the process.

So there you have it.  We are nearing the end of the Prop 8 battle and things are looking pretty good.  We have to suffer through another 6 months of stalling because of the standing issue, but after that we should see a final decision from the 9th pretty quickly.  The result is likely to be in our favor, which would set Federal policy for the entire West Coast and leaving many other Anti-Gay Amendments open to being struck down in Federal Court.


In the immortal words of Peter Griffin: "And now we play the waiting game."


Common Sense

Election 2012: The Second Republican Debate

Brought to us by CNN this time (in their never ending effort to be the Igor to Fox News' Dr. Frankenstein)

Here's what you missed in 4 Minutes:

The 4 Minute version highlights just how stupid this debate became (especially with those "this or that" questions.  Come on CNN, this isn't a Miss America Pageant, it's the race for leader of the free world.  you might take it a little more seriously?).  Anyway, here is the full debate:

As expected the media tried to boil down the entire debate into the question of "who won?"  Obviously this is a gross (and I mean patently offensive to all well reasoned individuals) oversimplification, but let's see how it plays out:

CNN response was, with one exception, basically "Bachmann won because she showed up, spoke in clean sentences, and people saw her."  Wow CNN, thanks for that incredibly deep analysis of the issues.  I'm sorry but the fact that Bachmann didn't make a complete fool of herself is not a "win" in my book.  Leave it to CNN to completely ignore the issues, in favor of the politically safe "image win."  JFK would be so proud.

FOX NEWS responded with an article quoting Pawlenty's refusal to take a pot shot at Romney.  John King's attempts to bait him into reiterating his "Obam-ney-care" comment apparently failed to produce the political theatre for which both CNN and FOX were hoping.  Tragedy...

MSNBC does the best job of responding to the debate in a substantive manner (though obviously they have the audience to appreciate it).  Unfortunately, it was still couched in the terms of winners and losers.  Thankfully, they explained their reasoning a little bit, so it wasn't a complete waste.  They thought Romney and Bachmann were the winners (bachmann, again, because she showed up, and Romney because he didn't step on any landmines), while they down played Pawlenty's performance because (like FOX and CNN) they were disappointed that he didn't turn the debate into a fist fight by taking shots at Romney.  Nothing especially surprising there.  Though they did add that they thought the TEA Party won because all the candidates were talking from their play book.  A good point, that illustrates just how far the GOP has gone down the wrong road.  They also pointed out that the Economy was a loser last night because of how little time was spent on a substantive discussion.  Well said MSNBC.

UPDATE: Jon Stewart responded the next day in classic, hilarious John Stewart fashion.  Well played, as always, sir!

My Thoughts (Issue by Issue):

The Economy

Assuming for a moment that the economy will actually matter in 2012 (people almost never cast a vote based on their economic interests or based on an economic plan, which is how Pawlenty can get away with basing his entire plan on cutting taxes by more than 10% - 15% across the board... yeah right.), economics was basically a let's-bash-Obama-fest.  Not a single candidate talked about their economic plan, they just pilled up criticism on Obama.  Apparently he didn't do a single thing right (at least Ron Paul couldn't think of anything).  Pawlenty alluded to his plan, but we've already talked about what that was above, and it's not very detailed.  Bachmann whined about Obama's failings, while Cain tried to leverage his "I ran a company" cred.  Cain appeared to be the most thoughtful on the topic, but Pawlenty and Romney were in close pursuit.  The remaining candidates, as movement conservatives with little or no experience, just talked a lot of sweet conservative talking points, and wasted their time on the issue.

Bailouts were a mini-issue in the economy discussion (limited as it was).  All of the candidates expressed their rage against the Bush-Obama bailouts.  Romney patted himself on the back for an op-ed he wrote in 2008 criticizing the bailouts and recommending they go through normal bankruptsy instead.  Romney then got miffed when John King brought up another op-ed in which he predicted the auto-industry would implode under government control.  Ron Paul also jumped on bailouts, but added a criticism of the housing market.  He claimed, that we should let housing prices fall rather than artificially propping them up, so that we can "clear out" the market.  I agree, but I think we should have done that 3 years ago before people spent their life savings to survive this long.  At this point doing something like that might do more harm than good.  Either way, Ron Paul came out as the only sensible one on this discussion.  Everyone else just played the bailouts-bad card.

Another interesting side issue was NASA.  Gingrich spent a few minutes talking about how he wanted to privatize NASA, then when Pawlenty chimed in to say he supported keeping NASA as a federal program, Gingrich interrupted for an about-face that gave John King whiplash.

Finally, Romney got a question about FEMA, which he answered by saying "If we can drop a program down to the states, that's the right way to go, and if we can send it to the private sector even better."  Then he rambled on despite John King's mumbling attempts to first get him to actually talk about FEMA, and then finally to get him to shut up.  I agree with his position in so far as he recommends having the states do more disaster relief, however, there should still be a way for other states to help out.  It is also worth noting that states like CA (Earthquakes), Florida (Hurricanes), and Tornado Alley (Tornados) will end up having to spend more than states like Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, etc. who don't have natural disasters like that (or at least of the same magnitude).  The question is then, "is that fair or should other states have to help out?"  I think each state should have to pay for themselves, but that's just me.  As for dropping it to private industry, surely he isn't suggesting that insurance companies foot the bill is he?  they are not always reliable, don't always cover natural disasters, and no one likes them.  Thus, I'm not sure I agree with that part.

Health Care

Half of the candidates supported and defended the Ryan plan to cut medicare, while the other half, just kinda rolled on the issue.  No one liked the Obama plan, not even Romney who was for the plan before he was against it.  Gingrich back tracked on his criticism of the Ryan plan, in a long rant of gobbledegook.  Santorum and Bachmann (being the most conservative candidates) jumped on the Paul Ryan bandwagon without much fanfare.

The only candidates to do much talking about Health Care were Cain and Paul who both talked about needing to "restructure" the system.  Cain was at least honest about it.  He told someone in the audience "you're not gonna get everything we promised."  He doesn't want to JUST raise the retirement age, he also wants to restructure the system.  Paul did his usual Ron Paul dance criticizing big brother.

Perhaps the most shocking revelation came from Santorum, who criticized critics of the Ryan plan by stating "we want to replace medicare with something that is essentially the same."  How exactly you are going to fix a plan by replacing it with something "essentially" the same is not explained (I guess John King thought it was best to "leave it there").  This seems to be the usual Republican refrain.  "We hate Obamacare, but we either can't come up with anything better or we want to replace it with something basically the same but with our name on it."  Neither of those options seems to make much sense, but all the Conservative base seems to want to hear is anti-obama rhetoric, so the substantive plans don't seem to matter much.

Abortion

I love the new Republican talking point "I support the sanctity and dignity of life from conception to natural death."  I mean once you get past the fact that it's basically a pledge to kill mothers to save their fetuses and let people die horribly painful deaths rather than giving them the dignity of a painless death, it sounds just positively wonderful!  Bachmann, waffled the most on this point.  She was asked "do you support an exception for the health and safety of the mother or in the case of rape/incest?"  her response was to repeat the phrase "I am pro-life" in as many different combinations as possible (I support the sanctity of life, I support the dignity of life, I have lots of babies, I believe in adoption, etc.)  Of course, John King, in classic "we'll have to leave it there" CNN fashion, didn't press her to actually answer the question.  Pawlenty again pointed to his record "I have the most pro-life record in this field of candidates."  I didn't like the stuff he talked about, but at least he had something to say other than "I believe in the sanctity of human life."  Therefore, I think Pawlenty wins this topic, and Michele loses.

DADT

John King, in a rather shocking question, asked whether the candidates would seek to repeal the DADT repeal (starting to get dizzy on this issue?).  Most of the candidates dodged with the "I'd do what the generals tell me."  Gingrich made a complete fool of himself by saying, "I'd support repeal, because the generals were against the repeal in the first place."  Sorry Mr. Former Speaker.  They were, in fact, in favor of the repeal, because they thought the law was stupid.  In fact, more than 80% of the country thought the law was stupid.  Who exactly are you pandering to?  20% isn't a winning majority... Bachmann also jumped on that landmine by saying she supported a repeal of the repeal, though she at least had the decency of not lying. just just said she supported repeal. 

I'd like to take a moment and wonder what the F*** CNN was thinking when they asked this question.  This issue is more or less dead.  Polls show that more than 80% of respondents didn't think DADT was a good thing, and most politicians have jumped on board that bandwagon.  VERY few people at this point actually even think this is an issue.  So, why would you insert it into a campaign where it hasn't been an issue?  Are you trying to create controversy?  Are you trying to point out bad apples in the Republican field?  What exactly was your purpose?  It just came off as stupid to bring up such a politically dead issue.  That's all I'm saying.

DOMA/Gay Marriage

You can't have a Republican debate without throwing in a little fearmongering about the terrifying "gay agenda."  CNN jump right on board that joke of an issue by bringing up the Marriage Protection Amendment (which hasn't actually been an issue since I think 2005).  They even went so far as to ask Michele Bachmann if she would go into Massechussetts and try to overturn their law.  WTF?  Half the first appeared to want to leave the issue alone (to the states), while the other half wanted a federal amendment.  Obviously this is kinda ironic coming from the people who believe in small government.  obviously their small government rhetoric doesn't apply to social issues where they think we need a big government to act as the morality police.  Obviously this is a stupid issue, and thank your favorite heavenly deity that this issues is slowly becoming a non-issue.  CNN, please take the hint and stop bringing it up.  There are more important issues out there than fearmongering about the gays.

I was thoroughly impressed with Ron Paul's answer.  Ron Paul said "we shouldn't have group rights, gay rights, we should be talking about individual rights."  I couldn't agree more Mr. Paul.  The reverse is also true though, we should not be denied rights based on group affiliation either.  Individual rights should be just that, individual.  We should get them no matter what you don't like about us.  Now try explaining that to your party.  

Religion
This was pretty much a freebee.  John King asked about repigion and every candidate just spouted the same old crap.  Republicans want to be able to practice their religion in public and impose it on others while their doing so.  Ron Paul had an interesting take on it, but I don't think he went as far as I would have liked to see from a Libertarian.  He stated that the constitution doesn't allow a theocracy (duh) and something about freedom of religion and then something about christians being free to practice their religion in public, but I wanted him to talk about everyone being free to practice, not just christians.  Almost there Mr. Paul.

WHO WON?

Even though I hate this, and realistically I think all these candidates would make terrible presidents, I was most impressed with Pawlenty and Ron Paul.

Pawlenty: He proved that he is the only candidate (other than Romney) who has any experience whatsoever.  He answered every question with "I did that in Minnesota." I may not have liked what he did (like appointing conservatives to the SC of MN, or passing anti-choice legislation), but the guy does have experience and he proved it in this debate.  The guy also sounded like someone who could compete on the national level.  He wasn't talking in stories (like Gingrich), in abstractions (like most everyone else), or even in I-ran-a-business-isms (like Romney and Cain).  He was the one candidate who could honestly talk about the issues and point to a record.

Ron Paul: I find that the more I hear from this guy the more I like him.  He doesn't play games and he doesn't dance around issues for political gain.  He says what he thinks.  I like his "leave it to the states" mentality throughout the debate, and I was especially pleased with his comments about "I'm the commander-in-chief, I tell the generals what to do."  It may not placate the war-hawks of the far left, but thank god someone had the balls to say it.  If Ron Paul makes it to the Minnesota Primary I might register as a Republican just to vote for him.  He'd be the first Republican I ever voted for.

WHO LOST?

Bachmann: She didn't really answer a single question, and just showing up isn't enough to win anything.  Without something substantive, I would never vote for this candidate (even if I was foolish enough to vote Republican).

Cain: He got called out on a number of instances were he put his foot in his mouth (particularly with the whole Muslim issue) and he garbled out an answer that just didn't satisfy.  Then when John King moved on, he tried to correct himself, but that failed just as miserably and it made him look like a fool.

Gingrich: You lose automatically when you blatantly LIE in a debate! (The "generals" thought DADT was stupid and supported an repeal if Obama/Congress ordered it).  That was well covered in the media before the repeal.  You can't rewrite history in a debate, and attempting to do so makes you a LOSER!

Santorum: Santorum is a religious extremist and he reiterated that with his support of an "Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment."  While all the other candidates wanted to leave it primarily to the states, he sided unequivocally with federal intervention in marriage.  At least the rest of the field had the dignity of equivocating on the issue.

I give Romney a "neutral" for this debate.  He didn't do anything good, but he also didn't do anything stupid.  He was just kinda there... and unlike the media outlets I don't give points just for showing up.

So there you have it.  Everything you missed from the Republican debate, and unlike the media, you now have at least a basic understanding of what issues were discussed and how the candidates responded.  Congratulations!  you are now more informed than the 4 million people who watch the 3 major media outlets.

Common Sense

The "Weiner-Gate" Scandal

For those not up-to-date on this "scandal" let's review (much of this is courtesy of HuffPo):

Everything started on May 20, 2011, when Andrew Breitbart (notorious conservative scandalmonger, mud-slinger, lier, and all around bad man) got a call from Meagan Broussard claiming she had an online relationship with Rep. Anthony Weiner.

May 27, 2011, a picture of a bulging penis is tweeted (accidentally?) from Rep. Weiner's account and then quickly removed.

May 28, 2011, Unfortunately, ever vigilant for a new scandal, BigGovernment.com (Andrew Breitbart's sleaze and vitriol filled blog) caught the tweet and reported it with the help of ABC.

May 29, 2011, Rep. Weiner tries to downplay the whole situation by claiming his account was hacked.  Over the next few days he continues to refuse to get law enforcement involved, and claims it was little more than an over blown prank.

June 01, 2011, The "scandal" continuing to bounce around the media echo chamber, Rep. Weiner goes into damage control mode.  He shows up on media shows for the next few days and reiterates his claims that his account was hacked.  Interestingly (and almost admirably), he refuses to say that the picture is not his.  When I first saw his appearances (see Rachel Maddow Show) I figured that the picture probably was his and I was happy that he didn't lie about that.  I wish he had come clean about the whole thing, but you take what you get when it comes to politicians.

June 06, 2011, Breitbart's scandal-blog publishes a self-aggrandizing story claiming that a new woman has come forward.  New photos surface, which breath new life into the dying story.  This time the photos are a little more revealing and leave little doubt that the rumors were true.  At 2:30PM, Meagan Broussard "speaks out" (that is media-speak for people taking advantage of their 15 minutes of fame).  Almost laughably she claims she is making a spectacle of herself in hopes that the media will then leave her alone (the old joke "that's like f***ing for virginity" comes to mind).  At 4:00PM, Breitbart hijacks Rep. Weiner's Press Conference (before Weiner gets there), and bloviates about being vindicated (one can but wonder where security was during all this).  At 4:30PM, Rep. Weiner, admits to sending the racy photos and apologizes (even to Breitbart for some reason I can't quite fathom).  Rep. Pelosi, then calls for an ethics investigation later that evening

Since then the scandal has taken off with Democrats trying to do damage control.  From the left we've heard reactions from Senator Harry Reid, Anchor Ed Schulz (who begged him to resign), and House Democratic Committee Chairwoman Rep. Wasserman Schulz (who officially called for his resignation). Even the White House (In a pathetic attempts to "jump on the political bandwagon"), spoke up this week, calling the whole thing "inappropriate" and a "distraction."  Thank you Mr. President for stating the obvious.

His wife has since said that she's gonna stick by him (for the time being).

Most Republicans recognized the potential for disastrous charges of hypocrisy (think David Vitter) and stayed out of the fray.  Indeed, Rachel Maddow called it right on Letterman when she pointed this fact out.  Here is another good post on the topic of Republican hypocrisy in this scandal.  As the scandal has grown a few Republicans have entered the fray.  Rep. Cantor has recently suggested that Democrats should be pushing harder for a Weiner resignation.

Perhaps the only sane voice in this whole thing has, shockingly, been Alec Baldwin, who stated what most American's were thinking: "He is a modern human being."

The Scandal continues even as Rep. Weiner enters treatment (for "sex addiction").  There are even new allegations there one of the women might have been a 17-year old.  Though Rep. Weiner maintains that the correspondences with the teen were not explicit.

UPDATE (06.16.11): Rep. Weiner has resigned

MY THOUGHTS:

(1) WHO THE FUCK CARES!?

I think what bothers me most about this scandal is that the ONLY problem I can find is that the guy is married.  That makes is sleazy, but it's not illegal, it's not even unethical (at least as far as his job in Congress is concerned).  Why should American's care about the women to whom he shows his dingy?  I honestly, could care less.

(2) I don't want him to resign, because I like his policy positions!

Something we lose track of in these whole fiascos is the policy positions of the people we tar and feather.  I'd be fine if he resigned, but I don't mind having him in Congress because I like what he stands for on policy issues.  Really, that should be all that matters to people.  The obvious retort is that this position would then excuse all members of congress who do dirty things.  That's not true.  Rep. Weiner has never once claimed to be an example of family values or perfect personal virtue.  Republicans (who are trashing him left and right) do claim these things.  That makes what they do ten times worse.  It's hard to hold a person to a standard they have never claimed for themselves, but I have no problem demanding the resignation of bible-thumping, family values conservatives who claim they live by the same values they try to force on others.  There is a pretty clear difference.

(3) Treatment is a MASSIVE copout and the Media needs to call him on it

The concept of going to treatment has been the biggest hollywood/politician copout and we all know it.  Lindsey goes to rehab, gets out, and starts doing drugs all over again.  Politicians go to rehab just to placate their moron constituencies who don't recognize that it's a massive ploy to get people to forget what they did.  Furthermore, how is he claiming that sending dirty pictures (something all men do in the digital age) translates into a sex addiction?  Can someone please explain that to me?  Why isn't the media asking that question?  they were not willing to take his claims of hacking at face value, but suddenly they are willing to take his claims of sex addiction?  That's not right!  If you are going to investigate, then investigate, don't just repeat the stupid shit people tell you.

(4) IT'S NOT A SEX SCANDAL!!!

Sex scandals require sex... that should just be obvious.

(5) Republicans HAVE done worse

In politics, the politically correct thing to say is always "both sides do it."  That's fine, and certainly true.  Both parties have their legitimate sex scandals, but let's not pretend that Dems are even in the same league as the GOP.  GOP politicians are regularly getting themselves, not only into sex scandals, but REALLY SKETCHY scandals.  In CA, an anti-gay assemblyman picks up a young man at a gay bar for sex and gets caught.  Vitter was a regular of the DC maddam (and got re-elected).  Sen. Craig solicited sex in a f***ing airport bathroom.  They even had an anti-gay politician sexting an underage male page.  I mean this is some REAL scandalous stuff.  And you're going to compare it to a guy who used to be one of NY's most eligible bachelors sexting woman on twitter?  Not even comparable.  Not even close.  Anyone who pulls the "both parties do it" card is a moron, and should be called out.  This scandal doesn't even fall on the same spectrum as GOP scandals.

(6) Did the media suddenly discover a cache of angry Rep. Weiner Pictures?

Why is it that the media suddenly latched on to all these REALLY ugly pictures of Rep. Weiner?  If you are supposedly reporting the facts, do you really need to paint the guy in the worst light possible?  That doesn't seem very fair.  Not that I pay that much attention, but it is a little annoying when they have THIS picture on the front of every article.  I'm just saying. (Notice how I picked a relatively normal picture for my post!)

Should he resign?  maybe.  But let's not pretend that he'll be resigning because he did something "wrong."  He'll be resigning because of a manufactured sh*t storm and a media that just can't seem to control themselves.  He'll be resigning because OUR (and the media's) ridiculous obsession with people's personal lives is preventing him from doing his job.  He should be embarrassed that his lack of self-control came to light, but if he resigns, it'll be because of OUR lack of self-control, not his.

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Death of the Liberal Class"

By Chris Hedges

Score: 4 / 5
Category: History, Politics

Recommended

My Thoughts: This book is basically a long drawn out way of saying "intellectuals have lost their balls and become the lapdogs of powerful special interests."  The information is interesting but sometimes repetitive, and it doesn't need to be nearly as long as it is.

The point he is trying to make is valid.  For the better part of our history (something also talked about in "Idiot America") America was renowned for our "cranks" (crazy people with crazy ideas), but we never submitted to being ruled by cranks.  It was the unwritten duty of the "liberal class" (the intellectuals) to pick through the crazy and keep any nuggets of worthwhile information they presented.  Over the past 40 years, during the conservative take over, intellectuals have largely abandoned that duty, instead becoming the talking heads for and giving credibility to some of the most outrageous ideas one can imagine.

Perhaps his best example is of Noam Chomsky.  Chomsky is perhaps one of the few great intellectuals left in America, yet he is often villified even by those who agree with him because he speaks out against the kinda of crank BS that has become mainstreamed.  The media only makes it worse.  In a field that used to be an intellectual stronghold, media outlets have become propaganda machines for one party or the other, or worse (CNN) they report without any investigation at all.  The intellectual class has largely been corrupted and pressed into the service of large corporate, political, and special interests, and as a result we are becoming a country controlled by the cranks.

A good book.  A little dense and at times repetitive, but worth reading for the point the author is trying to make.  All intellectuals should take the advice and start speaking out against the cranks and the special interests.  The Liberal class can live again!

By it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin"

By Frank Bailey w/ Ken Morris and Jeanne Devon

Score: 3 / 5
Category: Political Insider, Tell-All Memoir

Recommended

My Thoughts: I bought this on a whim at Target.  I figured it would be a fun read.  To be fair, I was kinda bored with my "legal" books and I wanted something a little trashier.  I figured a book about Sarah Palin could certainly fill that need.

I was not disappointed.  This book is a traditional "Tell-All" memoir.  It reveals the terrifying, emotionally unbalanced Sarah Palin that we all knew was there (well at least those of us curious enough to look past her charming demeanor or smart enough to despise the concept of "folksy").  Through chapter after chapter, the authors absolutely destroy Sarah Palin, but they do so without uttering much of their own words.  The story is bolstered almost entirely by email conversations (often heavily edited, so, to be fair, its possible they are not as crazy as they sounds in the book).  In the emails Sarah is portrayed as an emotional disaster, prone to outbursts, often ungrateful, and always unstable.  More than once she threatens to quit in a vain effort to get her staff to coddle her, and her "Palin-bots" (as the authors refer to themselves) eagerly comply.  On more than one occasion we are introduced to incredibly unethical behavior that was swept under the rug while she maintained an image of anti-corruption.

And all of this is coming from someone who remains a staunch Conservative.  Mr. Bailey talks god and conservative principles none stop in this book.  He is clearly as staunch a conservative as he has ever been.  This is not someone who converted and is now attacking his old boss.  This is someone who spent years as a Palin-Punching-Bag, and finally saw her for who she really is; a crazy, mentally unstable, crazy person.  The God references get old for those who don't believe in that kind of thing, but it further reinforces the fact that this is an extreme conservative calling Palin out (Not a liberal, not a moderate, not even a moderate conservative).  In short, once you get over the "glittering generalities" and see Ms. Palin for who she is, even the most hardcore conservatives will realize how bad she is for this country.

This book is almost scary.  How a person like this almost became the Vice-President of the United States, is unfathomable.  It is a slap in the face to anyone who wants our public figures to have any clue about what they are doing.  We almost elected a personality not only without substance, but possibly mentally unstable.  This book doesn't reveal anything we shouldn't have already known, but it exposes a side of our almost VP that should be terrifying to every American.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "The Conservative Assault on the Constitution"

By Erwin Chemerinsky

Score: 4.5 / 5
Category: Law, Constitutional Law, History

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: Prof. Chemerinsky proves once again why he is one of the (if not THE) most influential constitutional scholars of our generation.  This books outlines a number of 5 - 4 decisions from the Burger, Reinquist, and Roberts courts that have taken the country away from the promise created by the Warren Court, and in a very conservative direction.  Indeed, with the exit of O'Connor and the addition of Alito, the 5-4 votes have become even more predictable, and even more dangerous for basic civil rights.

The book itself is what you would expect.  Impeccably well researched and thoughtful, but represents the opinion of a constitutional scholar who believes in a broad interpretation of the constitution and a power federal government.  This fact does not make his insights any less valuable, however, I found that I did not always agree with him on everything.  Prof. C argued, exceptionally well in almost every instance, for the defense of basic rights we have come to rely on, such as Miranda, Access to the Courthouse, Privacy, etc.  However, the point at which I found myself diverging with his view was when he would suggest there were numerous constitutional rights we have not yet discovered in the Constitution.

For instance, he begins the book with a discussion of how Conservatives have undone the promise of Brown v. Board, and re-segregated most inner city school.  I completely agreed with his belief that the 14th Amendment prohibits the negative use of Race, but not the positive use of race (think "using race to oppress one race (negative) vs. using race to equalize the rights/privileges/opportunities of the races (positive)).  This is not the first time that I have heard this argument with regard to the intent of the 14th Amendment's drafters, yet it is a reality ignored by the conservative block, despite their claims of fidelity to intent.

Where I diverge from Prof. C is when he calls for a Constitutional right to Education.  I do not believe such a right exists in the FEDERAL constitution.  Education was left to the states, and I believe that is a correct practice.  Even though we might wish to impose a liberal view on many of the backwards states through federal control, there is always the danger that the reverse might happen.  Conservatives might take control of government and impose a terrible education system on progressive states (in fact, this has happened over the past 40 years, e.g. NCLB).  Each state should be free to create their own systems, and free to interpret a right to Education out of their own State Constitutions.  But the Federal Government should stay out of education as much as possible, lest we inadvertently allow the Texas Textbook Massacre to spread to progressive states and corrupt their education systems.

There were a few other instances where I found I did not agree, but it was almost always limited to situations where Prof. C wanted to CREATE new constitutional rights.  I agreed in every instance where I wanted to preserve or expand rights that already existed.  Like Prof. C I believe that more freedom is almost always a good thing (though the expansion of Gun rights may be an exception).

Overall, GREAT book, very informative and educational.  The only reason it doesn't get a 5 is because he goes just slightly further than I would be comfortable with, but If we had someone like this on the Court, we would certainly be in a better position than we are at present.  An excellent, and very fast read.  Worth the few hours it will take you to finish.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. The Supreme Court"

By Jeff Shesol

Score: 5 / 5
Category: Law, Presidents, Supreme Court, History, Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts:  This was a really interesting about about the New Deal period.  Too often we learn about the "court packing plan" without actually learning the facts about the plan or the surrounding circumstances.  This book fills the gap perfectly.

The book opens with a long explanation of FDR's first term in office, his political rivalries, and the conservative intransigence that would later characterize the conservative block on the Court.  Of particular interest is the American Liberty League, which bears a striking resemblance to today's TEA Party.  The League spouted a return to "constitutional principles" and "small government."  This call worked well in a time when FDR was expanding the size of the federal government and the power of the president.  Unfortunately for them, they quickly became a caricature of themselves and lost all credibility (much like the TEA Party of today).  In his second election he decimated the Conservative opposition.

With his victory in both the executive and legislative branches, the Conservative block on the court dug their heels in and the two moderates (C.J. Hughes and J. Roberts) migrated to the conservative block on a number of occasions giving them the commanding 5 or 6 vote majorities they needed to overturn the president's agenda.  The actual court packing plan itself went through many stages and court packing wasn't even a realistic option until later in the process.  Many congressmen preferred constitutional amendments limiting the power of the court or giving congress a veto over court decisions.  When court packing did become the plan, FDR didn't want 15 justices, he wanted one justice for each justice over 70 years of age.  The number of new justices just happened to be 15.  Realistically, FDR was only one justice away from a stable majority, so he didn't need to add 6 to make his agenda work.  He just wanted a strong majority that could completely dominate the Conservative justices.

What is particularly interesting is how forcefully FDR continued to push his court packing plan even after Hughes and Roberts switched to the liberal block giving FDR the majority he so desired.  Fortunately, the congress saw the change on the court as a good solution that didn't involve passing an unpopular and potentially damaging bill that would certainly turn the court into a political football (or at least more so than it already is).

The perspectives of the justices through their personal corespondences with friends, family, and clreks are also a very interesting part of the book.  It's quite interesting to hear the vitriol of Justice McReynolds, and the reverence of Justice Brandais for the institution of the court (who opposed the plan even though it would have given him a majority).

This is an excellent book for those interested in history and the law, presidential power, and/or the Supreme Court.

Buy it on Amazon

Common Sense

Summer Reading 2011: "Idiot America"

By Charles P. Pierce

Score: 4 / 5

Category: Quasi-Politics, Entertaining, Funny, Informative but Not Educational

Strongly Recommended

My Thoughts: This was a fun book.  There was nothing really new in the book.  No information that I didn't already know (though if you haven't heard of the "creation museum" then you should probably read this book for his description of it).  What really makes this book awesome is the author's wit and sarcasm, and the way that he points out all of the ridiculousness that should be obvious.

In particular I enjoyed his three principles of idiot America.  It's so true, and once you read the book you start to see the principles at work with every news story in the media today.  It's very much a "truth isn't what it used to be" book, that points out the many ways that conservatives in particular have glorified idiots and idiot ideas, even to the extent of demonizing knowledge/education itself.

I especially appreciated his "behind the scenes" thoughts and discussions on hot topic political issues.  It's the kind of thing you'd expect normal reporters to do, but (shockingly?) never happens.  He goes to the Hospice where Terry Schiavo died and talks to the workers about the incident.  His discussion of this section is especially powerful, since he exposes some of the terrifying things that were done in the name of saving someone who everyone in the hospice knew had already been dead for years.  In fact, she an autopsy confirmed that she had been dead long before the whole uproar even began.  So divorced from reality were the "pro-life" devotees that they were willing to fight (and in some cases even kill) to save someone who was already dead.

I also loved his discussion of "talk radio" though I will let you read/listen to that yourselves.  I could not possibly do justice to his take on the evolution of talk radio.

Overall, this is a very interesting book, though I would not recommend people use it to educate themselves about any of the issues within.  It is better as an excellent (and hilariously entertaining) supplement pointing out the glaring problems with the conservative/idiot beliefs on a number of issues.

Buy It on Amazon

Common Sense