Friday, December 30, 2005
The top two presidents of all-time
There is just simply no way to distinguish between the top two. No matter how much I did not want to finish the presidential list in a tie, choosing between George Washington and Abraham Lincoln is a bit like choosing between ribeye and porterhouse. They're both good, and you really can't lose either way. So I'll just write up the two in chronological order.
George Washington - It is difficult to relate how tenuous an experiment (of sorts) the American polity was. There had been relative calm for the decade plus between independence and the writing of the Constitution, but events like Shays Rebellion signalled that anarchy and turmoil were just around the corner. It is questionable whether or not the Constitutional Convention would have designed the office of President the way they did were it not for the liklihood that General Washington would assume the office.
It could have really gone in so many different directions. George Washington had to carefully weigh each and every decision he ever made because he knew it set the precedent for everyone who followed him. His first great accomplishment was to bring a dignified nobility to the presidency without it becoming too monarchial. He steered an even course when if he went even a little further in either direction, it would have made the Presidency either too democratic or too aristocratic.
He also managed a cabinet full of the most brilliant individuals in American history, but individuals who had very different ideas about politics. That he managed them so well, and did not allow either faction to dominate his administration is more evidence to his greatness.
He did not let the Presidency become too much like a kingship, nor did he let Congress overawe him. He cast a couple of important votoes just to make sure that they were aware that there was a check on their powers, and they could not merely do as they wished. He set the tone early on that the President would be the first in matters of foreign policy, walking out of a meeting with the Senate when they were discussing a treaty. The Senate could approve the treaty, but the President would negotiate it. That's been our policy for over two centuries now.
He allowed John Jay to negotiate with the Brits, and while his francophile opponents in the other party might not have liked it, it was as good as could be expected considering how weak America was at this point.
Those first eight years were a test. America passed because George Washington was in charge.
Abraham Lincoln - Like Washington, his most important characteristic was his ability to ably manage wildy different personalities, and to control a cabinet that could easily have controlled him had he let it.
He was a political craftsman. He was constantly attacked from both ends of his political party, but he caved in to neither side. He did not allow the firebreathers to take control, but he also sternly answered the wimps within his party who wanted America cave into the confederacy.
He never gave up. He did not allow his critics to divert attention from his goals. He also listened. He gave up on silly notions of exporting freed sloaves to Africa after meeting with black leaders like Frederick Douglass. Had he survived, the fate of black people in this country might have been different.
He was a brilliant orator, but there was meaning behind the words he spoke. He understood and appreciated American exceptionalism, and wanted to make the country's founding ideals to mean something to all people. He was compassionate, but not too soft-hearted. He had an amazing sense of humor, but was not crass.
In short, were it not for Abraham Lincoln's stewardship, this country would not have survived. And were it not for George Washington, this nation would barely have outlasted its birth.
Read more!
George Washington - It is difficult to relate how tenuous an experiment (of sorts) the American polity was. There had been relative calm for the decade plus between independence and the writing of the Constitution, but events like Shays Rebellion signalled that anarchy and turmoil were just around the corner. It is questionable whether or not the Constitutional Convention would have designed the office of President the way they did were it not for the liklihood that General Washington would assume the office.
It could have really gone in so many different directions. George Washington had to carefully weigh each and every decision he ever made because he knew it set the precedent for everyone who followed him. His first great accomplishment was to bring a dignified nobility to the presidency without it becoming too monarchial. He steered an even course when if he went even a little further in either direction, it would have made the Presidency either too democratic or too aristocratic.
He also managed a cabinet full of the most brilliant individuals in American history, but individuals who had very different ideas about politics. That he managed them so well, and did not allow either faction to dominate his administration is more evidence to his greatness.
He did not let the Presidency become too much like a kingship, nor did he let Congress overawe him. He cast a couple of important votoes just to make sure that they were aware that there was a check on their powers, and they could not merely do as they wished. He set the tone early on that the President would be the first in matters of foreign policy, walking out of a meeting with the Senate when they were discussing a treaty. The Senate could approve the treaty, but the President would negotiate it. That's been our policy for over two centuries now.
He allowed John Jay to negotiate with the Brits, and while his francophile opponents in the other party might not have liked it, it was as good as could be expected considering how weak America was at this point.
Those first eight years were a test. America passed because George Washington was in charge.
Abraham Lincoln - Like Washington, his most important characteristic was his ability to ably manage wildy different personalities, and to control a cabinet that could easily have controlled him had he let it.
He was a political craftsman. He was constantly attacked from both ends of his political party, but he caved in to neither side. He did not allow the firebreathers to take control, but he also sternly answered the wimps within his party who wanted America cave into the confederacy.
He never gave up. He did not allow his critics to divert attention from his goals. He also listened. He gave up on silly notions of exporting freed sloaves to Africa after meeting with black leaders like Frederick Douglass. Had he survived, the fate of black people in this country might have been different.
He was a brilliant orator, but there was meaning behind the words he spoke. He understood and appreciated American exceptionalism, and wanted to make the country's founding ideals to mean something to all people. He was compassionate, but not too soft-hearted. He had an amazing sense of humor, but was not crass.
In short, were it not for Abraham Lincoln's stewardship, this country would not have survived. And were it not for George Washington, this nation would barely have outlasted its birth.
Read more!
Presidents (4)
Okay, now we're in the home stretch. Buckle up, because these are the best of the best.
10. Franklin Roosevelt - This is such a tough one, and really I need a whole blogpost for this one. When we're talking about presidential "greatness," it's really hard to exclude mere importance as a factor. Like him or hate him, FDR had a tremendous impact on the country and the Presidency - much of it bad, some of it good. It's difficult to fully castigate the man who guided the Nation through World War II, and who also used his office as a source of inspiration to a people mired in economic turmoil. It sounds trite perhaps, but the emotional impact of his presidency should not be scoffed at too lightly.
But there is just too much baggage to ignore. His emotional guidance might have helped, but his actual polcies did not end the Depression, and some economists argue that they prolonged it (and others, obviously, disagree. I'll leave that up to the economic historians). He set in motion the complete centralization of the American government, and he also began the march of the imperial presidency. He didn't create, but he certainly expanded the American nation's role as a nanny state. He threatened to subvert the independence of the Supreme Court through his attempt to pack the Court. He eschewed 150 years of American tradition by arrogantly assuming himself to be indispensable, thus running for a third term. And then he ran for a fourth when it was obvious he would not survive this final term. And though he was at death's door, he failed to properly train his would-be successor, keeping him in the dark on matters of the utmost importance, essentially meaning that Truman would have to learn on the fly (a testament to Truman's own greatness, but more on that later). I could go on and on about King Delano I, America's would-be dictator, but you get the point.
So how do I include him in the top ten? After writing all that I realize that I've been as suckered in by the man's legend as anyone else. But it's just impossible to ognore the man's importance. Perhaps he just deserves a special category.
9. Teddy Roosevelt - I used to have him much higher in my estimation, but he remains the greatest Roosevelt who was ever President. He was a mild demagoggue, but he'd be passed in his rhetorical flourishes by later Presidents. As an example, Roosevet did a lot of barking, but he did not promise the sun, the moon, and the stars to the American people. When a major piece of legislation passed - I forget which, I believe it was the rail monopoly bill - he said that it was indeed a good bill, but it was not the millennium. This is the sort of modesty lacking today. He also helped push America more grandly onto the world stage though his intervention in the Russo-Japanese conflict. But it's hard to ignore his pushiness, and even more so his pettiness. He was an idealist who threatened to push his ideals too far, but who was restrained by his own party. Thankfully.
8. James Monroe - It's hard not to appreciate a President who presides over unending peace and prosperity. But like a later 20th century President, the surface-level harmony was just that, and masked a deeper division within the Nation, and helped blind Americans to impending troubles.
7. Andrew Jackson - A somewhat over-eneregtic, demagogic indidual, Jackson nonetheless had a veneration for the American Constitution. He masterfully squelched Calhoun's disastrous nullification doctrine, and though he properly overstepped his bounds with Chief Justice Marshall, his quip that "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it," is a sentiment I can appreciate. He was not the would-be tyrant the Whigs made him out to be, but he did help spur the democratic revolution in America- and I do not say that as a positive thing in his favor.
6. Harry Truman - As mentioned, he was thrown into an unenvious situation, but he dealt with it admirably. He made perhaps the toughest decision any President has ever had to make, and he decided wisely. His forceful advocacy of the Marshall Plan helped save at least half of Europe from Communism. He stood firm against a hostile Congress - even when said Congress was controlled by his own party. He was stubborn as hell, a trait which served him well at times, and was disastrous on other occasions. He was too late in controlling MacArthur, but he also managed to fend off what could have been a much more tenuous situation. There were various hits and misses throughout his two terms of office, but our Nation was well-served bu Truman.
5. Thomas Jefferson - Shocking I know, but we're talking about his presidency, not political philosophy. There is no mistaking that his first term was one of the greatest presidential terms in American history. He paid down the debt while slashing taxes, and he made the single greatest acquisition in American history, while sponsoring the expedition of Lewis and Clark. But his second term was just as much a disaster as his first was a success. He endorsed a ridiculous embargo that discredited the Nation and would have rammifications later on that would cause America to enter a needless war. Mr. civil libertarian also had no problem encouraging the silencing of dissent in the press when the focus now was on his presidency and not the Federalists. At the very least his adminsitration showed that it really was sometimes the office, not the man, that mattered.
4. Dwight Eisenhower - Ike's greatest skill was his managerial ability. He had no problems dealing with a cabinet that was often divided against itself, and he often used such debate to help formulate a more thoroughly informed policy. Conservatives will probably decry his inability to roll back the New Deal, but it is rather doubtful that Ike would really have had the ability to smash the New Deal into the ground during that era, not when over 50% of the people were registered Democrats. He was a careful man, cautious almost to a fault. But his caution helped keep America stable and secure.
3. Ronald Reagan - A transformative conservative. He helped restore American confidence, energize da stagnant economy, and was the main impetus behind the fall of European communism. He brought an optimistic streak to an ideology that needed a dose of it. He is the main reason our economy continues to thrive today. He transformed a world and a nation. So, yeah, he gets to be near the top of the list.
There are two more, and I want to devote a separate post to them, because they stand apart from everyone else.
Read more!
10. Franklin Roosevelt - This is such a tough one, and really I need a whole blogpost for this one. When we're talking about presidential "greatness," it's really hard to exclude mere importance as a factor. Like him or hate him, FDR had a tremendous impact on the country and the Presidency - much of it bad, some of it good. It's difficult to fully castigate the man who guided the Nation through World War II, and who also used his office as a source of inspiration to a people mired in economic turmoil. It sounds trite perhaps, but the emotional impact of his presidency should not be scoffed at too lightly.
But there is just too much baggage to ignore. His emotional guidance might have helped, but his actual polcies did not end the Depression, and some economists argue that they prolonged it (and others, obviously, disagree. I'll leave that up to the economic historians). He set in motion the complete centralization of the American government, and he also began the march of the imperial presidency. He didn't create, but he certainly expanded the American nation's role as a nanny state. He threatened to subvert the independence of the Supreme Court through his attempt to pack the Court. He eschewed 150 years of American tradition by arrogantly assuming himself to be indispensable, thus running for a third term. And then he ran for a fourth when it was obvious he would not survive this final term. And though he was at death's door, he failed to properly train his would-be successor, keeping him in the dark on matters of the utmost importance, essentially meaning that Truman would have to learn on the fly (a testament to Truman's own greatness, but more on that later). I could go on and on about King Delano I, America's would-be dictator, but you get the point.
So how do I include him in the top ten? After writing all that I realize that I've been as suckered in by the man's legend as anyone else. But it's just impossible to ognore the man's importance. Perhaps he just deserves a special category.
9. Teddy Roosevelt - I used to have him much higher in my estimation, but he remains the greatest Roosevelt who was ever President. He was a mild demagoggue, but he'd be passed in his rhetorical flourishes by later Presidents. As an example, Roosevet did a lot of barking, but he did not promise the sun, the moon, and the stars to the American people. When a major piece of legislation passed - I forget which, I believe it was the rail monopoly bill - he said that it was indeed a good bill, but it was not the millennium. This is the sort of modesty lacking today. He also helped push America more grandly onto the world stage though his intervention in the Russo-Japanese conflict. But it's hard to ignore his pushiness, and even more so his pettiness. He was an idealist who threatened to push his ideals too far, but who was restrained by his own party. Thankfully.
8. James Monroe - It's hard not to appreciate a President who presides over unending peace and prosperity. But like a later 20th century President, the surface-level harmony was just that, and masked a deeper division within the Nation, and helped blind Americans to impending troubles.
7. Andrew Jackson - A somewhat over-eneregtic, demagogic indidual, Jackson nonetheless had a veneration for the American Constitution. He masterfully squelched Calhoun's disastrous nullification doctrine, and though he properly overstepped his bounds with Chief Justice Marshall, his quip that "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, let him enforce it," is a sentiment I can appreciate. He was not the would-be tyrant the Whigs made him out to be, but he did help spur the democratic revolution in America- and I do not say that as a positive thing in his favor.
6. Harry Truman - As mentioned, he was thrown into an unenvious situation, but he dealt with it admirably. He made perhaps the toughest decision any President has ever had to make, and he decided wisely. His forceful advocacy of the Marshall Plan helped save at least half of Europe from Communism. He stood firm against a hostile Congress - even when said Congress was controlled by his own party. He was stubborn as hell, a trait which served him well at times, and was disastrous on other occasions. He was too late in controlling MacArthur, but he also managed to fend off what could have been a much more tenuous situation. There were various hits and misses throughout his two terms of office, but our Nation was well-served bu Truman.
5. Thomas Jefferson - Shocking I know, but we're talking about his presidency, not political philosophy. There is no mistaking that his first term was one of the greatest presidential terms in American history. He paid down the debt while slashing taxes, and he made the single greatest acquisition in American history, while sponsoring the expedition of Lewis and Clark. But his second term was just as much a disaster as his first was a success. He endorsed a ridiculous embargo that discredited the Nation and would have rammifications later on that would cause America to enter a needless war. Mr. civil libertarian also had no problem encouraging the silencing of dissent in the press when the focus now was on his presidency and not the Federalists. At the very least his adminsitration showed that it really was sometimes the office, not the man, that mattered.
4. Dwight Eisenhower - Ike's greatest skill was his managerial ability. He had no problems dealing with a cabinet that was often divided against itself, and he often used such debate to help formulate a more thoroughly informed policy. Conservatives will probably decry his inability to roll back the New Deal, but it is rather doubtful that Ike would really have had the ability to smash the New Deal into the ground during that era, not when over 50% of the people were registered Democrats. He was a careful man, cautious almost to a fault. But his caution helped keep America stable and secure.
3. Ronald Reagan - A transformative conservative. He helped restore American confidence, energize da stagnant economy, and was the main impetus behind the fall of European communism. He brought an optimistic streak to an ideology that needed a dose of it. He is the main reason our economy continues to thrive today. He transformed a world and a nation. So, yeah, he gets to be near the top of the list.
There are two more, and I want to devote a separate post to them, because they stand apart from everyone else.
Read more!
Presidents (3)
These are the decent, but not quite great Presidents.
20. Grover Cleveland - I might have a slight bias against him because he is the namesake of a public high school in my neighborhood that I avoided having to go to because I actually studied during grammar school. Arguably one of the first "modern" presidents, he did make extensive use of the veto pen - issuing three times as many vetoes as all of the Presidents that came before him combined.
19. Zachary Taylor - An interesting case of what might have been. A southern Whig, he was actually more more tough on the South than the Yankee Presidents that immediately followed him. His fairmindedness might have averted the Civil War - though probably not likely - had he not died midway through his first term.
18. William Howard Taft - Definitely a better ex-President and the last great Chief Justice before Rehnquist, his presidency was hurt by the pettiness of his predecessor and mentor, Theodore Roosevelt. It wasn't so much that Taft was inadequate to the job, he just didn't have that charming demogogic zeal so cherished both by TR and the man who would follow in his footsteps, Woodrow Wilson. He lost control of his party, but certainly not the country. Had TR just let him be, he might have been a much more effective president.
17. Gerald Ford - Actually a fairly underrated President, he restored some dignity to the office. He refused to be cowed by an incredibly hostile Congress, stood his ground, and amazingly almost pulled off one of the great political comebacks of all-time. His short term was mainly blighted by his questionable decision to pardon Nixon, a move that probably cost him his second term.
16. John F. Kennedy - Terribly overrated due to his martyr-like status, but then often underrated because of said overrated-ness. He made a disastrous decision to invade the Bay of Pigs, but largely learned his lesson. He helped create the Cuban Missle Crisis fiasco by ignoring critical intelligence, but masterfully steered his way through it. Helped flame the fans of war in Vietnam, though who knows what would have happened there had he stayed alive. The last great Democrat, he cut taxes and appreciated the limits of government.
15. William McKinnley - Helped bring the country into the modern age and also started the process whereby America became a major player on the world stage. Another could have been story, like most of the people in this section of the list.
14. James Madison - It is a pity that America's greatest political philosopher was such a mediocre president. It is almost as though he backed us into a needless war without really meaning to. Most of the blame probably lies with his predecessor and good friend TJ. Yet another common theme of the presidents in this section.
13. Calvin Coolidge - Yeah, I know you're probably wondering, what the hell? Silent Cal was one of the last men to occupy the office - perhaps the very last one - who understood the limits of said office. Perhaps he appreciated those limits too much.
12. John Adams - Another case of a great political theorist being not an altogether great President, though he did manage to keep us out of a shooting war. with France. He let his party get out of control, and his timidity was what cost him the election and his own party its own existence. He made the greatest appointment in the history of the Supreme Court, so I guess sheer luck and good personal judgement puts Adams close to the top ten.
11. James Polk - He came, he did some things, and he left after one term. Really. He's basically a near-great President because he accomplished what he wanted to accomplish - including winning a war that helped the country acquire a ton of land - and he didn't stay on for a second lame duck term. Of course those same acquisitions would help ignite a Civil War, but his heart was in the right place.
Read more!
20. Grover Cleveland - I might have a slight bias against him because he is the namesake of a public high school in my neighborhood that I avoided having to go to because I actually studied during grammar school. Arguably one of the first "modern" presidents, he did make extensive use of the veto pen - issuing three times as many vetoes as all of the Presidents that came before him combined.
19. Zachary Taylor - An interesting case of what might have been. A southern Whig, he was actually more more tough on the South than the Yankee Presidents that immediately followed him. His fairmindedness might have averted the Civil War - though probably not likely - had he not died midway through his first term.
18. William Howard Taft - Definitely a better ex-President and the last great Chief Justice before Rehnquist, his presidency was hurt by the pettiness of his predecessor and mentor, Theodore Roosevelt. It wasn't so much that Taft was inadequate to the job, he just didn't have that charming demogogic zeal so cherished both by TR and the man who would follow in his footsteps, Woodrow Wilson. He lost control of his party, but certainly not the country. Had TR just let him be, he might have been a much more effective president.
17. Gerald Ford - Actually a fairly underrated President, he restored some dignity to the office. He refused to be cowed by an incredibly hostile Congress, stood his ground, and amazingly almost pulled off one of the great political comebacks of all-time. His short term was mainly blighted by his questionable decision to pardon Nixon, a move that probably cost him his second term.
16. John F. Kennedy - Terribly overrated due to his martyr-like status, but then often underrated because of said overrated-ness. He made a disastrous decision to invade the Bay of Pigs, but largely learned his lesson. He helped create the Cuban Missle Crisis fiasco by ignoring critical intelligence, but masterfully steered his way through it. Helped flame the fans of war in Vietnam, though who knows what would have happened there had he stayed alive. The last great Democrat, he cut taxes and appreciated the limits of government.
15. William McKinnley - Helped bring the country into the modern age and also started the process whereby America became a major player on the world stage. Another could have been story, like most of the people in this section of the list.
14. James Madison - It is a pity that America's greatest political philosopher was such a mediocre president. It is almost as though he backed us into a needless war without really meaning to. Most of the blame probably lies with his predecessor and good friend TJ. Yet another common theme of the presidents in this section.
13. Calvin Coolidge - Yeah, I know you're probably wondering, what the hell? Silent Cal was one of the last men to occupy the office - perhaps the very last one - who understood the limits of said office. Perhaps he appreciated those limits too much.
12. John Adams - Another case of a great political theorist being not an altogether great President, though he did manage to keep us out of a shooting war. with France. He let his party get out of control, and his timidity was what cost him the election and his own party its own existence. He made the greatest appointment in the history of the Supreme Court, so I guess sheer luck and good personal judgement puts Adams close to the top ten.
11. James Polk - He came, he did some things, and he left after one term. Really. He's basically a near-great President because he accomplished what he wanted to accomplish - including winning a war that helped the country acquire a ton of land - and he didn't stay on for a second lame duck term. Of course those same acquisitions would help ignite a Civil War, but his heart was in the right place.
Read more!
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Presidents (2)
All right, this segment will be short and sweet since most won't even need explanations, so I will also put this one out now. Now the ordering goes down from 29 to 1.
29. Woodrow Wilson - Scary, scary man. May have believed he was the second coming - really, I only barely exaggerate. Could have easily passed the League of Nations had he even the slightest ability to negotiate and bargain at all with Congress. He was a populist demoagogue who started us firmly down the road to an imperial presidency. Sadly, the only political scientist to ever become President, and not the best example of one at that.
The rest of the list includes thoroughly unremarkable Presidents. None of them were particularly bad so much as just worthless. Or, as the Simpsons sang:
We... are... the...
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
And in order they go:
28. Rutheford B. Hayes
27. Chester Arthur
26. James Garfield
25. John Tyler
24. John Quincy Adams
23. Benjamin Harrison
22. Martin Van Buren
21. George H.W. Bush
Read more!
29. Woodrow Wilson - Scary, scary man. May have believed he was the second coming - really, I only barely exaggerate. Could have easily passed the League of Nations had he even the slightest ability to negotiate and bargain at all with Congress. He was a populist demoagogue who started us firmly down the road to an imperial presidency. Sadly, the only political scientist to ever become President, and not the best example of one at that.
The rest of the list includes thoroughly unremarkable Presidents. None of them were particularly bad so much as just worthless. Or, as the Simpsons sang:
We... are... the...
Adequate, forgettable,
Occasionally regrettable
Caretaker presidents of the U-S-A!
And in order they go:
28. Rutheford B. Hayes
27. Chester Arthur
26. James Garfield
25. John Tyler
24. John Quincy Adams
23. Benjamin Harrison
22. Martin Van Buren
21. George H.W. Bush
Read more!
Presidents
Alexandra at All Things Beautiful recently challenged the blogosphere to compose a list of the ten worst Americans in our Nation's history. Many have responded, including Captain Ed Morrissey. All in all a pretty good list from the Captain, though I might quibble with putting J. Edgar Hoover at the top of the list.
It did get me to thinking, and quite honestly I had trouble compiling a list. Part of the problem is that I had difficulty putting people of good will on the lost - people who were bad for America, but not malicious. More troubling for me was that as a Jefferson-basher who is currently writing a dissertation on why the Jeffersonian ideology is bad for America, I still couldn't bring myself to include him on the list.
So, instead, I have decided to list the ten worst presidents in American history. Actually, I'll probably list the other 29 (not inlcuding Bush - still in office, Clinton - not enough removed from his presidency, and William Harrison - only served for a month) in succeeding days.
So, without further ado, the worst ten presidents, going from least worst to worst. Click on read more
10. Millard Fillmore - The nation almost avoided the Civil War, thanks in part to the relatively even-handed direction of Zachary Taylor. Unfortunately, upon his death his Vice-President took the helm and steered the Nation full tilt back to war. A completely incompetent hack, Fillmore managed to bumble his country to the brink of war and his political party (Whig) to its ultimate collapse. He kow-towed to the slave interest, angering the north while doing little to appease the south.
9. Herbert Hoover - In fairness, very little of the blame for the Great Depression can be laid at his feet, but he also did little to help guide the Nation out of the Depression. More a victim of circumstances, but sometimes grim circumstances are the siutuation which cause men to become heroes. Alas, such was not the case with Hoover.
8. Lyndon Johnson - Were it not for his ability to steer through passage of the civil rights acts, LBJ would arguably be the head of this list. And even this action was guided more by partisan gamesmanship than through genuine sympathy for southern blacks. His Great Society was the crowning achievement of the leftist establishment, and it says much that said establishment is gone. And then there was that war that wasn't a war. And to make matters worse, LBJ is perhaps the most vile and despicable human being ever to have graced the Oval Office. Not the worst president, but perhaps the worst American.
7. Warren Harding - Were it not for the complete and utter corruption of his administration, Harding merely would have been an unknown mediocrity. Luckily for him, I suppose, he had that corruption to fall back upon in order to secure future fame. But no cigars to seal said fame.
6. Ulysses S. Grant - Another victim of corruption, and in this case it is probable that he had a small role to play in it. But he was responsible for those under his command. More importantly, when the Nation desperately cried out for a strong political leader to guide them through Reconstruction, Grant failed to become such a figure, and our country was all the worse for it.
5. Richard Nixon - Sometimes it is said that he was a good President save for that whole Watergate thing. Legitimizing the red Chinese government, wage and price controls, "realpolitik," screwing up all but one his Supreme Court appointments, and prolonging the Vietnam War all say otherwise.
4. Jimmy Carter - It is a testament to the strength of this great Nation that it could survive a full-term headed by one of the most incompetent political figures in world history. It is staggering when one considers just how complete were this man's blunderings. It says much that many if not most within his own party were thankful when someone from the other party took his place. A completely naive foreign policy, a weak-kneed approach to the Soviet Union, the near destruction of the economy (misery index, anyone?), a botched hostage rescue, complete egoism, a horrendous cabinet to boot, etc. And to think his post-presidency is even worse.
3. James Buchanan - Sort of like Hoover in that much of the momentum was set in place by the time he took office, and there was little he could have done to avert the Civil War. But, he could have tried something in the four-month interim between Lincoln's election and his inauguration as state after state seceded from the Union. You know, like, anything. Fiddling while the Nation came apart, and for that alone his presidency is nearly the worst.
2. Andrew Johnson - The reason that John Wilkes Booth is probably the worst American in history is because his assassination of Lincoln caused this man to become President. It is true that the Radical Republicans were much too harsh in dealing with the defeated Confederacy, but Johnson had absolutely none of Lincoln's political skills and he was unable to moderate Union policy. In fact, his quasi-maniacal ego made matters worse, and he nearly destroyed the very institution of the Presidency because he had no capability to deal effectively with Congress. What he did accomplish was to effectively delay blacks from achieving full civil rights for another century.
1. Franklin Pierce - In some ways he was such a non-entity that it's really difficult to categorize him as the worst President in our Nation's history. But there was one last hope to avoid Civil War, and Pierce blew it - big time. He had no control over the country or his own political party whatsoever. In fact, he was the first President to experience regular veto overrides. And as Kansas bled and our country was essentially split into two, he did absolutely nothing.
So there you have it. It's interesting to note that these presidents come in three clusters. You have five from the Civil War era, all who immediately proceeded or preceeded Lincoln. Then there are the three Vietnam/Watergate-era Presidents, and then he interwar Presidents (and Wilson is number 11).
We'll look at the next batch later.
Read more!
It did get me to thinking, and quite honestly I had trouble compiling a list. Part of the problem is that I had difficulty putting people of good will on the lost - people who were bad for America, but not malicious. More troubling for me was that as a Jefferson-basher who is currently writing a dissertation on why the Jeffersonian ideology is bad for America, I still couldn't bring myself to include him on the list.
So, instead, I have decided to list the ten worst presidents in American history. Actually, I'll probably list the other 29 (not inlcuding Bush - still in office, Clinton - not enough removed from his presidency, and William Harrison - only served for a month) in succeeding days.
So, without further ado, the worst ten presidents, going from least worst to worst. Click on read more
10. Millard Fillmore - The nation almost avoided the Civil War, thanks in part to the relatively even-handed direction of Zachary Taylor. Unfortunately, upon his death his Vice-President took the helm and steered the Nation full tilt back to war. A completely incompetent hack, Fillmore managed to bumble his country to the brink of war and his political party (Whig) to its ultimate collapse. He kow-towed to the slave interest, angering the north while doing little to appease the south.
9. Herbert Hoover - In fairness, very little of the blame for the Great Depression can be laid at his feet, but he also did little to help guide the Nation out of the Depression. More a victim of circumstances, but sometimes grim circumstances are the siutuation which cause men to become heroes. Alas, such was not the case with Hoover.
8. Lyndon Johnson - Were it not for his ability to steer through passage of the civil rights acts, LBJ would arguably be the head of this list. And even this action was guided more by partisan gamesmanship than through genuine sympathy for southern blacks. His Great Society was the crowning achievement of the leftist establishment, and it says much that said establishment is gone. And then there was that war that wasn't a war. And to make matters worse, LBJ is perhaps the most vile and despicable human being ever to have graced the Oval Office. Not the worst president, but perhaps the worst American.
7. Warren Harding - Were it not for the complete and utter corruption of his administration, Harding merely would have been an unknown mediocrity. Luckily for him, I suppose, he had that corruption to fall back upon in order to secure future fame. But no cigars to seal said fame.
6. Ulysses S. Grant - Another victim of corruption, and in this case it is probable that he had a small role to play in it. But he was responsible for those under his command. More importantly, when the Nation desperately cried out for a strong political leader to guide them through Reconstruction, Grant failed to become such a figure, and our country was all the worse for it.
5. Richard Nixon - Sometimes it is said that he was a good President save for that whole Watergate thing. Legitimizing the red Chinese government, wage and price controls, "realpolitik," screwing up all but one his Supreme Court appointments, and prolonging the Vietnam War all say otherwise.
4. Jimmy Carter - It is a testament to the strength of this great Nation that it could survive a full-term headed by one of the most incompetent political figures in world history. It is staggering when one considers just how complete were this man's blunderings. It says much that many if not most within his own party were thankful when someone from the other party took his place. A completely naive foreign policy, a weak-kneed approach to the Soviet Union, the near destruction of the economy (misery index, anyone?), a botched hostage rescue, complete egoism, a horrendous cabinet to boot, etc. And to think his post-presidency is even worse.
3. James Buchanan - Sort of like Hoover in that much of the momentum was set in place by the time he took office, and there was little he could have done to avert the Civil War. But, he could have tried something in the four-month interim between Lincoln's election and his inauguration as state after state seceded from the Union. You know, like, anything. Fiddling while the Nation came apart, and for that alone his presidency is nearly the worst.
2. Andrew Johnson - The reason that John Wilkes Booth is probably the worst American in history is because his assassination of Lincoln caused this man to become President. It is true that the Radical Republicans were much too harsh in dealing with the defeated Confederacy, but Johnson had absolutely none of Lincoln's political skills and he was unable to moderate Union policy. In fact, his quasi-maniacal ego made matters worse, and he nearly destroyed the very institution of the Presidency because he had no capability to deal effectively with Congress. What he did accomplish was to effectively delay blacks from achieving full civil rights for another century.
1. Franklin Pierce - In some ways he was such a non-entity that it's really difficult to categorize him as the worst President in our Nation's history. But there was one last hope to avoid Civil War, and Pierce blew it - big time. He had no control over the country or his own political party whatsoever. In fact, he was the first President to experience regular veto overrides. And as Kansas bled and our country was essentially split into two, he did absolutely nothing.
So there you have it. It's interesting to note that these presidents come in three clusters. You have five from the Civil War era, all who immediately proceeded or preceeded Lincoln. Then there are the three Vietnam/Watergate-era Presidents, and then he interwar Presidents (and Wilson is number 11).
We'll look at the next batch later.
Read more!
I know, I know
I am back in town after a festive Christmas. There are quite a few issues to tackle, and hopefully I can get to at least some of them today.
But first, a public mea culpa. Yeah, got that Giant-Skins game a little bit wrong. Silly old me had no idea that the Giants wouldn't be able to play defense. I guess I'm just silly to expect Will Allem to, you know, cover someone. Here are some words of advice Will. First of all it's okay to take a quick glance back at the ball. Just staring at the receiver as he catches the ball is NOT really playing defense. Also, merely throwing your body at a receiver - again, not really the best form of defense. You might want to throw your arms around the person and bring them down to the ground. It's a little thing - it's a technical term that they use in football . . . what's it called? Oh, yeah, TACKLING. Oh, and Jeremy, shut the fuck up and actually continue playing until they blow the whistle.
On the bright side, Atlanta managed to knock themselves out of the playoffs with one of the dumbest coaching decisions in the history of the sport. Let's see, there's a minute left in OT, your team must win the game - a tie pretty much eliminates you from playoff contention - and it's fourth down. Do you go for it? No, silly, of course you punt it away and in doing so piss away any chance you've got at making the playoffs, and, if you're coach Mora, any chance you've got of actually coming back to the team next year. Huzzah, huzzah.
Read more!
But first, a public mea culpa. Yeah, got that Giant-Skins game a little bit wrong. Silly old me had no idea that the Giants wouldn't be able to play defense. I guess I'm just silly to expect Will Allem to, you know, cover someone. Here are some words of advice Will. First of all it's okay to take a quick glance back at the ball. Just staring at the receiver as he catches the ball is NOT really playing defense. Also, merely throwing your body at a receiver - again, not really the best form of defense. You might want to throw your arms around the person and bring them down to the ground. It's a little thing - it's a technical term that they use in football . . . what's it called? Oh, yeah, TACKLING. Oh, and Jeremy, shut the fuck up and actually continue playing until they blow the whistle.
On the bright side, Atlanta managed to knock themselves out of the playoffs with one of the dumbest coaching decisions in the history of the sport. Let's see, there's a minute left in OT, your team must win the game - a tie pretty much eliminates you from playoff contention - and it's fourth down. Do you go for it? No, silly, of course you punt it away and in doing so piss away any chance you've got at making the playoffs, and, if you're coach Mora, any chance you've got of actually coming back to the team next year. Huzzah, huzzah.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Pondering National Security II – A Rejoinder to Gipperclone
Below my good friend Gipperclone effectively articulates the case for a broad grant of executive power to the President especially when it involves matters of “national security.” While neither of us can settle the debate definitively, I thought that I would take my best shot at communicating the other side of the debate, namely, that the President’s powers are no more extensive simply because we are dealing with matters relating to “national security,” and more specifically, that Congress’s power in arena is broader than many who take GC’s position would like to admit. Like GC did, I’m going to this time try to avoid much of the legal minutiae that has plagued many analyses of this issue and speak more broadly about executive and congressional power under the Constitution.
Click the Read More Button to see rest of the post.
GC’s post poses a hypothetical situation in which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, enacts a statute or law that prohibits the use of bombs. GC properly calls this hypothetical absurd and I agree, however, not for the reasons asserted by what follows in GC’s post. According to GC, not only is the policy absurd, but it also infringes on the President’s Constitutional duty to protect the nation. I fully agree with the first part of that statement, but not the second. Rather, I would argue the hypothetical is absurd because the policy is so dumb that even Congress couldn’t muster the political will to do something along those lines. It is, however, perfectly constitutional for Congress to take such an action. As a result, the President would be obligated to follow the law as enacted by Congress, his “inherent” Presidential authority, however one wishes to define it, cannot under our Constitution ever be used to thwart the will of a co-equal branch of government. Should Congress act unconstitutionally we likely would have a different result, but, as all of here at TPS have said at one time or another, stupid is not necessarily unconstitutional. Thus, if Congress acts in a manner consistent with the Constitution, we are bound by their decisions, every one of us, including the President.
Simply put, it is well-within Congress’s power to outlaw the use of bombs. Several clauses of the Constitution give this power directly to Congress and to no other branch of government. For example, the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to “raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years …” In addition, Congress has the sole authority to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…” Thus, it is long accepted and well-established that Congress controls the “power of the purse” and, as such, they could easily and constitutionally prohibit the use of funds for making, using, distributing or otherwise employing bombs of any type. Stupid yes, but unconstitutional I don’t see how. Therefore, the President has no constitutional remedy other than to veto the legislation. Assuming, as GC’s hypothetical does, that Congress has the votes to override the veto, the President is charged with the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not to decide which laws he wants to follow and which ones he does not. Like the Line Item Veto, or the Legislative Veto (See INS v. Chadha), mechanisms that subvert or alter the formal lawmaking and executing process established by the Constitution are in and of themselves unconstitutional and cannot stand. The President’s available, legal, and constitutional option is to convince Congress to change their stupid law, not to simply ignore it and decide to continue doing that which Congress has expressly prohibited.
Admittedly, my analysis has followed a sort of a formalistic bent, similar to the type followed by many of the recent Supreme Court Justices in cases such as Raines v. Byrd and Clinton v. New York. There is another way to argue this and I think GC has done it, albeit implicitly in his previous post, but his is more of a “functional” analysis that can easily lend itself to a charge of being a “living constitutionalist,” a point-of-view that I know that he deeply objects to. That said, I don’t think he’s 100% wrong; rather, I think it’s an open political/legal question that needs to be debated and settled, but I’m not sure this is either the time or the case to do it in. There is too much about this that we don’t know; there are too many facts that will likely never be disclosed, and there are too many possibilities to render a comprehensive answer. The problem is that GC’s argument, like many of its functionalist predecessors, is politically appealing. Functionalist arguments are designed to fit the current political/military situation quite well, are by definition malleable and, therefore, are able to fit almost any situation where they are required. Currently, functional arugements are being designed to provide the President unchecked ability to fight terrorists. Previously, they have been used to curtail federal spending (line-item veto), while at other times they have been used to try to protect the institution of the Presidency (Nixon/Watergate), or to protect the nation from internal destruction (Lincolin's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus). I don’t argue one bit with the logic of GC’s argument, as there is a great deal to be said about flexibility and ability to respond to the threat posed by terrorists. That said, however, there is a right way and a wrong way to get the flexibility that this threat requires and that is to use the channels expressly made available in the Constitution. Yes, they are potentially slow and often the results are painful, but they have withstood for over 200 years, through numerous conflicts both foreign (WWI, WWII, etc.) and domestic (Civil War).
It is without a doubt true that Congress may not be the most efficient or even the most well equipped institution to handle many of the problem faced by our nation in the 21st century, but they are the institution empowered by the Constitution to try, and until we as a country take the affirmative steps to change that we are stuck in the system created by the founders and enshrined in the text of the Constitution. Are there inherent authorities vested in the President, yes, on this GC and I don’t disagree. However, what those are, there scope, and the solution when they conflict with other equally vested powers remains something that we have to and should seriously debate. Too many vested powers can be abused, and Lord Acton’s warning that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind. Too few, and there is a legitimate concern that the President will be incapable of protecting us from future threats. There is a balance to be had here, but it will not come by the branches exercising unilateral authority to act in contravention of the Constitution. Again I don’t know if the President violated either the law (FISA) or the Constitution, but I do know that to continue unchecked down this path is potentially dangerous to the United States. We as a nation have to decide these questions, and we should do so in as open a forum as possible using as deliberative a process as necessary. We shouldn’t shy from our duties out of fear, for if we do the terrorists will win without ever having to physically attack us again.
Read more!
Click the Read More Button to see rest of the post.
GC’s post poses a hypothetical situation in which Congress, in its infinite wisdom, enacts a statute or law that prohibits the use of bombs. GC properly calls this hypothetical absurd and I agree, however, not for the reasons asserted by what follows in GC’s post. According to GC, not only is the policy absurd, but it also infringes on the President’s Constitutional duty to protect the nation. I fully agree with the first part of that statement, but not the second. Rather, I would argue the hypothetical is absurd because the policy is so dumb that even Congress couldn’t muster the political will to do something along those lines. It is, however, perfectly constitutional for Congress to take such an action. As a result, the President would be obligated to follow the law as enacted by Congress, his “inherent” Presidential authority, however one wishes to define it, cannot under our Constitution ever be used to thwart the will of a co-equal branch of government. Should Congress act unconstitutionally we likely would have a different result, but, as all of here at TPS have said at one time or another, stupid is not necessarily unconstitutional. Thus, if Congress acts in a manner consistent with the Constitution, we are bound by their decisions, every one of us, including the President.
Simply put, it is well-within Congress’s power to outlaw the use of bombs. Several clauses of the Constitution give this power directly to Congress and to no other branch of government. For example, the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to “raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years …” In addition, Congress has the sole authority to “provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…” Thus, it is long accepted and well-established that Congress controls the “power of the purse” and, as such, they could easily and constitutionally prohibit the use of funds for making, using, distributing or otherwise employing bombs of any type. Stupid yes, but unconstitutional I don’t see how. Therefore, the President has no constitutional remedy other than to veto the legislation. Assuming, as GC’s hypothetical does, that Congress has the votes to override the veto, the President is charged with the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” not to decide which laws he wants to follow and which ones he does not. Like the Line Item Veto, or the Legislative Veto (See INS v. Chadha), mechanisms that subvert or alter the formal lawmaking and executing process established by the Constitution are in and of themselves unconstitutional and cannot stand. The President’s available, legal, and constitutional option is to convince Congress to change their stupid law, not to simply ignore it and decide to continue doing that which Congress has expressly prohibited.
Admittedly, my analysis has followed a sort of a formalistic bent, similar to the type followed by many of the recent Supreme Court Justices in cases such as Raines v. Byrd and Clinton v. New York. There is another way to argue this and I think GC has done it, albeit implicitly in his previous post, but his is more of a “functional” analysis that can easily lend itself to a charge of being a “living constitutionalist,” a point-of-view that I know that he deeply objects to. That said, I don’t think he’s 100% wrong; rather, I think it’s an open political/legal question that needs to be debated and settled, but I’m not sure this is either the time or the case to do it in. There is too much about this that we don’t know; there are too many facts that will likely never be disclosed, and there are too many possibilities to render a comprehensive answer. The problem is that GC’s argument, like many of its functionalist predecessors, is politically appealing. Functionalist arguments are designed to fit the current political/military situation quite well, are by definition malleable and, therefore, are able to fit almost any situation where they are required. Currently, functional arugements are being designed to provide the President unchecked ability to fight terrorists. Previously, they have been used to curtail federal spending (line-item veto), while at other times they have been used to try to protect the institution of the Presidency (Nixon/Watergate), or to protect the nation from internal destruction (Lincolin's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus). I don’t argue one bit with the logic of GC’s argument, as there is a great deal to be said about flexibility and ability to respond to the threat posed by terrorists. That said, however, there is a right way and a wrong way to get the flexibility that this threat requires and that is to use the channels expressly made available in the Constitution. Yes, they are potentially slow and often the results are painful, but they have withstood for over 200 years, through numerous conflicts both foreign (WWI, WWII, etc.) and domestic (Civil War).
It is without a doubt true that Congress may not be the most efficient or even the most well equipped institution to handle many of the problem faced by our nation in the 21st century, but they are the institution empowered by the Constitution to try, and until we as a country take the affirmative steps to change that we are stuck in the system created by the founders and enshrined in the text of the Constitution. Are there inherent authorities vested in the President, yes, on this GC and I don’t disagree. However, what those are, there scope, and the solution when they conflict with other equally vested powers remains something that we have to and should seriously debate. Too many vested powers can be abused, and Lord Acton’s warning that “absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind. Too few, and there is a legitimate concern that the President will be incapable of protecting us from future threats. There is a balance to be had here, but it will not come by the branches exercising unilateral authority to act in contravention of the Constitution. Again I don’t know if the President violated either the law (FISA) or the Constitution, but I do know that to continue unchecked down this path is potentially dangerous to the United States. We as a nation have to decide these questions, and we should do so in as open a forum as possible using as deliberative a process as necessary. We shouldn’t shy from our duties out of fear, for if we do the terrorists will win without ever having to physically attack us again.
Read more!
Friday, December 23, 2005
Merry Christmas
I am off to New York in the morning for Christmas with the family, so no internet for a few days. I hope all of you have a blessed Christmas, Hannukah, or just some sweet time off from work.
God bless.
Read more!
God bless.
Read more!
Hyperbole Alert
Found this courtesy of Fire Joe Morgan:
By the way, it kind of makes you wonder - what do you think would take less time: Babe Ruth running from home to first, or a Bernie Williams throw from center to second base?
Speaking of Yankee center fielders, I would be remiss if I didn't point out their faaaaaaaaabulous new addition:
Doesn't he look adorable? I'm sure Reversed Curse is somewhere vomiting. Not necessarily over this picture, but just because.
Read more!
The Yankees announced Thursday that they had agreed to a $1.5 million, one-year contract with popular outfielder Bernie Williams, who has been in pinstripes since 1991 and compiled statistics that put his name alongside the team's greatest players.Umm, yeah. I'm gonna say no to that. Bernie Williams is a nice ballplayer, but it's just a teensy, weensy bit of a stretch to put him in the same company as the aforementioned players.
"He ranks right there with the Gehrigs and the Berras and the Ruths and the Mantles," Yankees general manager Brian Cashman said.
By the way, it kind of makes you wonder - what do you think would take less time: Babe Ruth running from home to first, or a Bernie Williams throw from center to second base?
Speaking of Yankee center fielders, I would be remiss if I didn't point out their faaaaaaaaabulous new addition:
Doesn't he look adorable? I'm sure Reversed Curse is somewhere vomiting. Not necessarily over this picture, but just because.
Read more!
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Strike over?
It appears that they will go back to the negotiating table, and the workers will return.
Story here.
Read more!
Story here.
Read more!
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Jolly Christmas decorations
Don't have a lot of money to spend on Christmas decorations? Here are some creative decorations one can make with a common hygiene product.
Read more!
Read more!
Letterman's woes
I believe this is the judge that looks awfully foolish for having an issued a TRO against David Letterman.
Read more!
Read more!
DC stadium deal in doubt
Story here.
If it were anybody but Marion Barry at the head of the line opposing the deal, I'd be more supportive of the Council. Actually, I think they're doing the right thing. From a bargaining perspective, baseball needs DC more than DC needs baseball. I do think that economically speaking the Stadium will be a great boon for the city, so I think the Council ought to vote to approve the lease. On the other hand, the costs are getting excessive, and I am leery of spending too much government money on a sports stadium - big sports fan that I am. Thus the Council's caution is warrented.
Ultimately, this is - as usual - all Major League Baseball's fault. They have screwed this whole thing up, and have been doing so since they bought out the Expos. The idiotic courting that took place before they finally moved the Expos was simply stupid. Did anybody really think that Portland or Las Vegas were viable options? But by continually hemming and hawing baseball, when it finally awarded the franchise to DC, did not allow enough time to adequately a stadium package in place. The Council had to rush through something at the last second last year, and that impacted these very events.
More importantly, baseball's reluctance to finally award the franchise to any single owner has been disastrous. Aside from the fact that it is unfair to the team because it cannot fully enter the market, the lack of an owner is a sign of bad faith on the part of Major League Baseball. Why should the city spend nearly $700 million on a ballpark when MLB has had no interest in settling the team's ownership situation? More importantly, without a deep-pocketed owner at the helm, the city is left without any assurance as to who will pick up the tab if there are signficant cost overruns. If there had been an owner in place during this process, it is unlikely that we would be witnessing this deacle. Perhaps the owner could have promised to buck up the extra $200 million or so to get this deal finalized.
Major League Baseball has not seen this sweet a deal in ages. They are poised to make millions off of the sale of this franchise, and they are set to have a brand new ballpark in the Nation's capital. Only Major League Baseball could so royally fuck up such a good thing.
Update: More chutzpa from MLB. Now they're warning prospective owners not to tell the city that they'd put up some money for the stadium. Yes, heaven forfend the city not be raped for every cent possible in order to construct the ballpark. It's amazing, but MLB has accomplished the impossible task of making me side with the DC City Council.
One side note: Part of the exorbitant cost is a $60 million stadium design consultant fee. Man, I'm in the wrong line of work.
Read more!
If it were anybody but Marion Barry at the head of the line opposing the deal, I'd be more supportive of the Council. Actually, I think they're doing the right thing. From a bargaining perspective, baseball needs DC more than DC needs baseball. I do think that economically speaking the Stadium will be a great boon for the city, so I think the Council ought to vote to approve the lease. On the other hand, the costs are getting excessive, and I am leery of spending too much government money on a sports stadium - big sports fan that I am. Thus the Council's caution is warrented.
Ultimately, this is - as usual - all Major League Baseball's fault. They have screwed this whole thing up, and have been doing so since they bought out the Expos. The idiotic courting that took place before they finally moved the Expos was simply stupid. Did anybody really think that Portland or Las Vegas were viable options? But by continually hemming and hawing baseball, when it finally awarded the franchise to DC, did not allow enough time to adequately a stadium package in place. The Council had to rush through something at the last second last year, and that impacted these very events.
More importantly, baseball's reluctance to finally award the franchise to any single owner has been disastrous. Aside from the fact that it is unfair to the team because it cannot fully enter the market, the lack of an owner is a sign of bad faith on the part of Major League Baseball. Why should the city spend nearly $700 million on a ballpark when MLB has had no interest in settling the team's ownership situation? More importantly, without a deep-pocketed owner at the helm, the city is left without any assurance as to who will pick up the tab if there are signficant cost overruns. If there had been an owner in place during this process, it is unlikely that we would be witnessing this deacle. Perhaps the owner could have promised to buck up the extra $200 million or so to get this deal finalized.
Major League Baseball has not seen this sweet a deal in ages. They are poised to make millions off of the sale of this franchise, and they are set to have a brand new ballpark in the Nation's capital. Only Major League Baseball could so royally fuck up such a good thing.
Update: More chutzpa from MLB. Now they're warning prospective owners not to tell the city that they'd put up some money for the stadium. Yes, heaven forfend the city not be raped for every cent possible in order to construct the ballpark. It's amazing, but MLB has accomplished the impossible task of making me side with the DC City Council.
One side note: Part of the exorbitant cost is a $60 million stadium design consultant fee. Man, I'm in the wrong line of work.
Read more!
Padilla and the Fourth Circuit
Take a gander at this Fourth Circuit Opinion by J. Michael Luttig in the Padilla case. The Judges are incensed at the federal government for attempting to avoid Supreme Court review of the case by indicting Mr. Padilla in Federal District Court in Miami. There is an old and familiar cliché, namely, “don’t bite the hand that feeds you.” Given the court's opinion, it could certainly be argued that the Administration has really pissed off arguably the nation's friendliest Circuit court, at least with respect to executive powers. One wonders what exactly the Bush Administration/Justice Department are thinking.
Read more!
Read more!
Timewaster o' the day
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Price Gouging for the holidays
Thanks to the illegal strike GC alluded to below, it will be costing people upwards of $300 to get to JFK Airport.
Read more!
In what may be a case of prohibited price gouging related to the transit strike, a Queens car-service company says it will charge a $300 fare for a passenger traveling to JFK Airport today.
Crosslands East Transportation in Long Island City normally charges $40 per hour for its car service.
But yesterday, in response to two requests for rides to JFK, a dispatcher said the company is accepting reservations for today only from customers with existing corporate accounts, at a charge of $50 per hour, with a six-hour minimum.
The dispatcher said that the special $300 fare was in effect because of the expected subway and bus strike.
Read more!
Random blog question
Every now and then I'll check the referrals to the blog, and I'll see a grouping of 6 or 7 blogs together. But these blogs haven't referenced us as far as I can tell, nor do they even have us on their links. Anyone out there with some blogger knowledge who knows what that is?
Read more!
Read more!
The NSA Wiretaps and the President's Article II Powers
(Warning, very, very, very long post, so please click the “Read more” button.)
Okay, so my first effort at dealing with this NSA imbroglio caused many lawyers and non-lawyers to have their eyes glaze over with legal text. In addition, it appears that it may also have cured some minor cases of insomnia. That being said, I’m going to risk things and take another crack at untangling some of the legal issues associated with this ever developing story.
Let me start by covering my ass a bit. First, while there is a lot that has been reported, there is so much more that we do not know. In fact, much of what we do not know (and perhaps should never know for reasons related to national security) is critical and may play a huge role in assessing the legality or illegality of what the President has authorized on the advice of his lawyers (White House Counsel) and the Justice Department. That said, I think we know enough to make some assumptions and raise some questions, to which hopefully our diligent commentators will find interesting.
[UPDATE] I'd be remiss if I didn't post a link to Prof. Orin Kerr's analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Prof. Kerr concludes that while the Executive's actions may be constitutional they also may be in violation of the statutory provisions of FISA. He does quite a comprehensive job, although he goes in a bit of a different direction than I do. Nevertheless, it is an excellent piece that I encourage all to read either before, after or instead of slogging through my thoughts.
It seems to me that the predicate question that we have to deal with is what kinds of “intercepts” or “wiretaps” are we talking about; are they domestic or international and; what, if anything, is the difference? These are all excellent questions for which the operative statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Wiretap Act, generally do not provide good answers for. Many people have tried to make a distinction between international communications and domestic communications, but while that distinction is clear in some cases (i.e., a call from LA to NY is clearly domestic, while a call from London to Paris is clearly international), it hardly seems to cover the universe of possibilities (i.e., what is a call from London to NY, or a call from LA to Paris?).
Second, you have the open question of who are the persons involved in the phone calls? Are they US citizens or not; are they terrorists, or are they merely persons suspected or believed to have terrorist links; or do they fall into some other category of persons not previously defined? The FISA statute and the Wiretap Act clearly state that no surveillance of US persons (defined by FISA at 50 USC 1801(i) to include, not only citizens, but also “alien[s] lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States”) can be conducted without a court order.
Let’s assume for the purposes of this writing that the predicate questions have been clearly answered as such. First, the communications are entirely international; however you want to define the terms. This precludes the argument made by some that phone calls from NY to LA are being tapped, but says nothing either way about whether one of the systems involved was in the US or not. Second, let us assume that there were at least some US persons involved either placing the calls or receiving them. Note I used the term “person” and not “citizen,” in order to encompass those people who may be in the US legally, but are not considered citizens. This of course preserves the potential Fourth Amendment augments that might be made later.
So now where are we? Well it seems as though what we have is an Executive Order, from the President authorizing the NSA to conduct limited intercepts of international communications (broadly defined) regardless of whether they involve US persons or not, without having to obtain a FISA or any other court order. Next question, is this legal, and if so, by what authority? Here’s where things get interesting, at least from my perspective. The predicate questions are important and perhaps determinative, but not the most fun. Besides, we may never know the answers to them anyway. Nevertheless, it seems that we can make several legal arguments based on my assumptions about the answers to those predicate questions. One question that I won't attempt to answer is, that if all of this was so clearly leaglly authorized by FISA and other statutes, why issue an additional Execuitve Order? If existing statutory law covered the entire universe of what this program was intended to accomplish then it seems to me that the EO was unnecessary. The fact that one was issued at least raised the possibility that there is much more to this than meets the eye and arguably much more than FISA authorizes, which is why there are classified legal memorandum that purport to provide justification for this program. Like I said, I don't have the answers to those questions, but it seems to at least at some point undermine the arugment that all of this is clearly legal or clearly within the law as currently drafted. But enough of that, let's get to the far more interesting Article II discussion.
Initially, we have an argument that this may be justifiable based on the President’s inherent powers under the Constitution. Specifically, this argument relies on Article II, section 2, clause 1, commonly referred to as the “Commander in Chief clause,” which states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States …” Like many clauses of the Constitution this one is a bit vague. If opens the door to questions such as what does this clause mean; what are its limits, if any and; what have the Courts said about its interpretation? I’ll try to provide some of those answers below.
With respect to meaning, surprisingly there appears to have been little discussion at the Constitutional Convention, during the ratifying debates, or by the Supreme Court of the so-called “Commander-in-Chief” clause. From the available evidence, it appears that the Framers vested this power with the President because historical experience counseled against vesting command of military forces in either a group or in a person separate from elected political leaders. See E. May, The President Shall Be Commander in Chief, reprinted in The Ultimate Decision, the President as Commander in Chief (E. May ed., 1960) 1. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison, replying to Patrick Henry’s objection that danger lurked in giving the President control of the military, is quoted as asking if “the sword ought to be put in the hands of the representatives of the people, or in other hands independent of the government altogether?” J. Elliot, 3 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 393 (1836). Similarly, at the North Carolina convention, Mr. Iredell is quoted as having noted that “[f]rom the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. The secrecy, dispatch, and decision, which are necessary in military operations, can only be expected from one person.” See id. at Vol. 4, 107.
Initially, it appears that the clause was interpreted narrowly as only including the purely military aspects of being Commander-in-Chief. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, the office “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.” In addition, Joseph Story states in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that:
In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850), also appears to have adopted this narrow understanding of the clause, noting that the duties and powers of the President “are purely military.” According to the Chief Justice, the President
Conversely, a broader interpretation of the Commander-in-Chief clause derives from President Lincoln’s assertion that the “war power” could be used for the purpose of suppressing rebellion. See 7 Messages and Papers of the President 3221, 3232 (J. Richardson comp., 1897). In 1863, a divided Supreme Court in the Prize Cases sustained this theory. See The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Bl.) 635 (1863). The Prize Cases addressed the validity of President Lincoln’s blockade of Southern ports following the attack on Fort Sumter. Opponents of the blockade argued that for such an action to be legitimate there must be a validly declared “public war,” and only Congress could constitutionally declare war. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert C. Grier argued in favor of a broad interpretation of the President’s Commander-in-Chief power by asserting that, “whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be ‘unilateral.’ ... A declaration of war by one country only is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.” Id. at 668-670.
Also important when discussing the President’s constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief is the Supreme Court’s opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, commonly referred to as the “Steel Seizure Case.” 343 U.S. 579 (1952). During the country’s involvement in the Korean War, President Truman ordered the seizure of the steel industry, which was then in the throes of a labor strike. Congress had provided no statutory authority for such a seizure, and the Solicitor General defended the action before the Court as an exercise of the President’s Article II powers, including his powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Court rejected this argument 6-3, holding the seizure void. Congress’s express rejection of seizure proposals when considering labor legislation and subsequent enactment of procedures that were not followed by the President created a doctrinal problem for the Court and, thus, the case produced no clear majority opinion. Four Justices appear to have been decisively influenced by the fact that Congress had denied the power claimed in an area in which the Constitution vests the decision making power, at least concurrently, if not exclusively, in Congress. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 593, 597-602 (Justice Frankfurter concurring, though he also noted he expressly joined Justice Black’s opinion as well), 634, 635-40 (Justice Jackson concurring), 655, 657 (Justice Burton concurring), 660 (Justice Clark concurring). Three and perhaps four Justices appear to have rejected the Government’s argument on the merits, while three accepted it in large measure. Despite the inconclusiveness of the opinions, it seems clear that the result was a substantial retreat from previous opinions of the Court, which have been interpreted as having greatly expanded the scope of presidential powers.
In more modern times, proponents of an expansive interpretation of presidential power have cited defenses of the course followed by various Presidents while involved in Indochina. For example, a Legal Adviser to the State Department contended that under the Constitution, “the President, in addition to being Chief Executive, is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. ... These duties carry very broad powers, including the power to deploy American forces abroad and commit them to military operations when the President deems such action necessary to maintain the security and defense of the United States ....”
Conversely, opponents of such an expanded interpretation of presidential powers have contended that the authority to initiate war is not divided between the Executive and Congress, but rather is vested exclusively in Congress. The President appears to have the duty and the power to repeal sudden attacks and act in other emergencies, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief arguably is empowered to direct the armed forces only for purposes specified by Congress. Though Congress has asserted itself in some respects, it has never really managed to confront the President’s power with any sort of effective limitation, until the passage, over presidential veto, of the War Powers Resolution. It should also be noted that in Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court returned in part to the opinions in Youngstown Sheet & Tube, stating that its holdings embodied “much relevant analysis” regarding the issue of presidential power.
Even more recently, Congress, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, enacted the “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” which provides that the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks [or] harbored such organizations or persons.” In addition to the broad grant of authority from Congress, the Executive Branch has argued that it has plenary authority under Article II to engage in specific war related activities. For example, the Executive Branch argued to the Supreme Court that it possesses the inherent authority to hold “enemy combatants” for the duration of hostilities, and to deny them meaningful recourse to the federal courts. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court agreed that the President was authorized to detain a United States citizen seized in Afghanistan; however, a majority of the Court appeared to reject the notion that such power was inherent in the Presidency, relying instead on statutory grounds.
So after all of this we are left not really knowing if the President’s inherent Article II powers confer him the authority to order NSA intercepts without having to first acquire a court order. Depending on your view of the scope of Article II’s grant of authority, it seems that reasonable arguments can be made both in favor of such a program as well as opposed to it. Personally, I think this comes really close to the line, but it’s not clear that it crosses it, unless you can clearly show that US citizens were involved on either end of the communication. If that is the case then it seems to me that you have arguments available pursuant to the Fourth Amendment that I tried to preserve above. It seems rather clear that wiretaps qualify as unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, thus requiring law enforcement to either get a court order (warrant), or demonstrate that an exception to the warrant requirement applies (i.e., exigent circumstances). Absent that there appears to be no legal bases for asserting authorizations. Congress, even it its War Powers Resolution can’t waive the Constitution, and it seems that neither can the President under Article II even citing national security concerns. Now it may be that in some of these cases the standards for something like exigent circumstances existed, which would have justified the intrusion absent a court order, however, since we will likely never know the answer to that question either way, it seems fruitless to speculate.
At the end of the day I stick by my claim that we likely will need an investigation into some of these questions. While I know that is going to be complicated and likely fruitless, I nevertheless think it serves some limited purpose of checking unfettered executive power. All of this may in fact turn out to be both legal and politically acceptable, but right now I think that’s hard to say even if you are an unabashed supporter of the President. As I said before, hopefully Congress will follow through with their threats to hold hearing and demand documents and information. At the very least it will make the executive plead its case more clearly and then we’ll all be able to judge for ourselves whether this is acceptable behavior or not. And isn’t that what a republic like ours is all about
Read more!
Okay, so my first effort at dealing with this NSA imbroglio caused many lawyers and non-lawyers to have their eyes glaze over with legal text. In addition, it appears that it may also have cured some minor cases of insomnia. That being said, I’m going to risk things and take another crack at untangling some of the legal issues associated with this ever developing story.
Let me start by covering my ass a bit. First, while there is a lot that has been reported, there is so much more that we do not know. In fact, much of what we do not know (and perhaps should never know for reasons related to national security) is critical and may play a huge role in assessing the legality or illegality of what the President has authorized on the advice of his lawyers (White House Counsel) and the Justice Department. That said, I think we know enough to make some assumptions and raise some questions, to which hopefully our diligent commentators will find interesting.
[UPDATE] I'd be remiss if I didn't post a link to Prof. Orin Kerr's analysis over at the Volokh Conspiracy. Prof. Kerr concludes that while the Executive's actions may be constitutional they also may be in violation of the statutory provisions of FISA. He does quite a comprehensive job, although he goes in a bit of a different direction than I do. Nevertheless, it is an excellent piece that I encourage all to read either before, after or instead of slogging through my thoughts.
It seems to me that the predicate question that we have to deal with is what kinds of “intercepts” or “wiretaps” are we talking about; are they domestic or international and; what, if anything, is the difference? These are all excellent questions for which the operative statutes, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Wiretap Act, generally do not provide good answers for. Many people have tried to make a distinction between international communications and domestic communications, but while that distinction is clear in some cases (i.e., a call from LA to NY is clearly domestic, while a call from London to Paris is clearly international), it hardly seems to cover the universe of possibilities (i.e., what is a call from London to NY, or a call from LA to Paris?).
Second, you have the open question of who are the persons involved in the phone calls? Are they US citizens or not; are they terrorists, or are they merely persons suspected or believed to have terrorist links; or do they fall into some other category of persons not previously defined? The FISA statute and the Wiretap Act clearly state that no surveillance of US persons (defined by FISA at 50 USC 1801(i) to include, not only citizens, but also “alien[s] lawfully admitted for permanent residence (as defined in section 1101 (a)(20) of title 8), an unincorporated association a substantial number of members of which are citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or a corporation which is incorporated in the United States”) can be conducted without a court order.
Let’s assume for the purposes of this writing that the predicate questions have been clearly answered as such. First, the communications are entirely international; however you want to define the terms. This precludes the argument made by some that phone calls from NY to LA are being tapped, but says nothing either way about whether one of the systems involved was in the US or not. Second, let us assume that there were at least some US persons involved either placing the calls or receiving them. Note I used the term “person” and not “citizen,” in order to encompass those people who may be in the US legally, but are not considered citizens. This of course preserves the potential Fourth Amendment augments that might be made later.
So now where are we? Well it seems as though what we have is an Executive Order, from the President authorizing the NSA to conduct limited intercepts of international communications (broadly defined) regardless of whether they involve US persons or not, without having to obtain a FISA or any other court order. Next question, is this legal, and if so, by what authority? Here’s where things get interesting, at least from my perspective. The predicate questions are important and perhaps determinative, but not the most fun. Besides, we may never know the answers to them anyway. Nevertheless, it seems that we can make several legal arguments based on my assumptions about the answers to those predicate questions. One question that I won't attempt to answer is, that if all of this was so clearly leaglly authorized by FISA and other statutes, why issue an additional Execuitve Order? If existing statutory law covered the entire universe of what this program was intended to accomplish then it seems to me that the EO was unnecessary. The fact that one was issued at least raised the possibility that there is much more to this than meets the eye and arguably much more than FISA authorizes, which is why there are classified legal memorandum that purport to provide justification for this program. Like I said, I don't have the answers to those questions, but it seems to at least at some point undermine the arugment that all of this is clearly legal or clearly within the law as currently drafted. But enough of that, let's get to the far more interesting Article II discussion.
Initially, we have an argument that this may be justifiable based on the President’s inherent powers under the Constitution. Specifically, this argument relies on Article II, section 2, clause 1, commonly referred to as the “Commander in Chief clause,” which states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States …” Like many clauses of the Constitution this one is a bit vague. If opens the door to questions such as what does this clause mean; what are its limits, if any and; what have the Courts said about its interpretation? I’ll try to provide some of those answers below.
With respect to meaning, surprisingly there appears to have been little discussion at the Constitutional Convention, during the ratifying debates, or by the Supreme Court of the so-called “Commander-in-Chief” clause. From the available evidence, it appears that the Framers vested this power with the President because historical experience counseled against vesting command of military forces in either a group or in a person separate from elected political leaders. See E. May, The President Shall Be Commander in Chief, reprinted in The Ultimate Decision, the President as Commander in Chief (E. May ed., 1960) 1. At the Virginia ratifying convention, James Madison, replying to Patrick Henry’s objection that danger lurked in giving the President control of the military, is quoted as asking if “the sword ought to be put in the hands of the representatives of the people, or in other hands independent of the government altogether?” J. Elliot, 3 The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 393 (1836). Similarly, at the North Carolina convention, Mr. Iredell is quoted as having noted that “[f]rom the nature of the thing, the command of armies ought to be delegated to one person only. The secrecy, dispatch, and decision, which are necessary in military operations, can only be expected from one person.” See id. at Vol. 4, 107.
Initially, it appears that the clause was interpreted narrowly as only including the purely military aspects of being Commander-in-Chief. As Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, the office “would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the Military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the confederacy.” In addition, Joseph Story states in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States that:
The propriety of admitting the [P]resident to be commander in chief, so far as
to give orders, and have a general superintendency, was admitted. But it was
urged, that it would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any
restraint, as he might make a bad use of it. The consent of both houses of
Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should take the actual
command. The answer then given was, that though the president might, there was
no necessity that he should, take the command in person; and there was no
probability that he would do so, except in extraordinary emergencies, and when
he was possessed of superior military talents.
In 1850, Chief Justice Taney, writing for the Supreme Court in Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 603, 615 (1850), also appears to have adopted this narrow understanding of the clause, noting that the duties and powers of the President “are purely military.” According to the Chief Justice, the President
[a]s commander-in-chief, is authorized to direct the movements of the naval and
military forces placed by law at his command, and to employ them in the manner
he may deem most effectual to harass and conquer and subdue the enemy. He may
invade the hostile country, and subject it to the sovereignty and authority of
the United States. But his conquests do not enlarge the boundaries of this
Union, nor extend the operation of our institutions and laws beyond the limits
before assigned to them by the legislative power.
Conversely, a broader interpretation of the Commander-in-Chief clause derives from President Lincoln’s assertion that the “war power” could be used for the purpose of suppressing rebellion. See 7 Messages and Papers of the President 3221, 3232 (J. Richardson comp., 1897). In 1863, a divided Supreme Court in the Prize Cases sustained this theory. See The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Bl.) 635 (1863). The Prize Cases addressed the validity of President Lincoln’s blockade of Southern ports following the attack on Fort Sumter. Opponents of the blockade argued that for such an action to be legitimate there must be a validly declared “public war,” and only Congress could constitutionally declare war. Writing for the majority, Justice Robert C. Grier argued in favor of a broad interpretation of the President’s Commander-in-Chief power by asserting that, “whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be ‘unilateral.’ ... A declaration of war by one country only is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.” Id. at 668-670.
Also important when discussing the President’s constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief is the Supreme Court’s opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, commonly referred to as the “Steel Seizure Case.” 343 U.S. 579 (1952). During the country’s involvement in the Korean War, President Truman ordered the seizure of the steel industry, which was then in the throes of a labor strike. Congress had provided no statutory authority for such a seizure, and the Solicitor General defended the action before the Court as an exercise of the President’s Article II powers, including his powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Court rejected this argument 6-3, holding the seizure void. Congress’s express rejection of seizure proposals when considering labor legislation and subsequent enactment of procedures that were not followed by the President created a doctrinal problem for the Court and, thus, the case produced no clear majority opinion. Four Justices appear to have been decisively influenced by the fact that Congress had denied the power claimed in an area in which the Constitution vests the decision making power, at least concurrently, if not exclusively, in Congress. See Youngstown, 343 U.S. at 593, 597-602 (Justice Frankfurter concurring, though he also noted he expressly joined Justice Black’s opinion as well), 634, 635-40 (Justice Jackson concurring), 655, 657 (Justice Burton concurring), 660 (Justice Clark concurring). Three and perhaps four Justices appear to have rejected the Government’s argument on the merits, while three accepted it in large measure. Despite the inconclusiveness of the opinions, it seems clear that the result was a substantial retreat from previous opinions of the Court, which have been interpreted as having greatly expanded the scope of presidential powers.
In more modern times, proponents of an expansive interpretation of presidential power have cited defenses of the course followed by various Presidents while involved in Indochina. For example, a Legal Adviser to the State Department contended that under the Constitution, “the President, in addition to being Chief Executive, is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. ... These duties carry very broad powers, including the power to deploy American forces abroad and commit them to military operations when the President deems such action necessary to maintain the security and defense of the United States ....”
Conversely, opponents of such an expanded interpretation of presidential powers have contended that the authority to initiate war is not divided between the Executive and Congress, but rather is vested exclusively in Congress. The President appears to have the duty and the power to repeal sudden attacks and act in other emergencies, and in his role as Commander-in-Chief arguably is empowered to direct the armed forces only for purposes specified by Congress. Though Congress has asserted itself in some respects, it has never really managed to confront the President’s power with any sort of effective limitation, until the passage, over presidential veto, of the War Powers Resolution. It should also be noted that in Dames & Moore v. Regan, the Court returned in part to the opinions in Youngstown Sheet & Tube, stating that its holdings embodied “much relevant analysis” regarding the issue of presidential power.
Even more recently, Congress, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, enacted the “Authorization for Use of Military Force,” which provides that the President may use “all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks [or] harbored such organizations or persons.” In addition to the broad grant of authority from Congress, the Executive Branch has argued that it has plenary authority under Article II to engage in specific war related activities. For example, the Executive Branch argued to the Supreme Court that it possesses the inherent authority to hold “enemy combatants” for the duration of hostilities, and to deny them meaningful recourse to the federal courts. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court agreed that the President was authorized to detain a United States citizen seized in Afghanistan; however, a majority of the Court appeared to reject the notion that such power was inherent in the Presidency, relying instead on statutory grounds.
So after all of this we are left not really knowing if the President’s inherent Article II powers confer him the authority to order NSA intercepts without having to first acquire a court order. Depending on your view of the scope of Article II’s grant of authority, it seems that reasonable arguments can be made both in favor of such a program as well as opposed to it. Personally, I think this comes really close to the line, but it’s not clear that it crosses it, unless you can clearly show that US citizens were involved on either end of the communication. If that is the case then it seems to me that you have arguments available pursuant to the Fourth Amendment that I tried to preserve above. It seems rather clear that wiretaps qualify as unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment, thus requiring law enforcement to either get a court order (warrant), or demonstrate that an exception to the warrant requirement applies (i.e., exigent circumstances). Absent that there appears to be no legal bases for asserting authorizations. Congress, even it its War Powers Resolution can’t waive the Constitution, and it seems that neither can the President under Article II even citing national security concerns. Now it may be that in some of these cases the standards for something like exigent circumstances existed, which would have justified the intrusion absent a court order, however, since we will likely never know the answer to that question either way, it seems fruitless to speculate.
At the end of the day I stick by my claim that we likely will need an investigation into some of these questions. While I know that is going to be complicated and likely fruitless, I nevertheless think it serves some limited purpose of checking unfettered executive power. All of this may in fact turn out to be both legal and politically acceptable, but right now I think that’s hard to say even if you are an unabashed supporter of the President. As I said before, hopefully Congress will follow through with their threats to hold hearing and demand documents and information. At the very least it will make the executive plead its case more clearly and then we’ll all be able to judge for ourselves whether this is acceptable behavior or not. And isn’t that what a republic like ours is all about
Read more!
Monday, December 19, 2005
Shocking News Story of the Day
This one's for Gipper Clone:
Read more!
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.In other news, a team of scientists has discovered that women like chocolate, bears do in fact shit in the woods, and the Pope is Catholic. More at 11 with the team "No Shit, Sherlock" Action News.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
Read more!
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Hail, Hail to the victors
That was quite the thumping the Redskins put on the Cowboys, and I must say I am quite pleased with the Skins 35-7 shallacking of dem Cowboys. It's always heartwearming to see the Cowboys playoff hopes so devastatingly hampered.
But what's even more satisfying about the Redskins victory is that it will make watching the Giants roll into FedEx Field on Saturday. utterly humiliating the Redskins for the second time this year, clinching a division title while simultaneously crushing the Redskins fleeting hopes, all the more delicious.
Oh it's going to be quite something listening to the vapid sports radio this week and hearing all the cute, gullible Skins fans talking up this team as if they are anything worth hyping. Sadly I will be out of town next Monday, so I won't get to hear the dejection in their voices as they, once again, fall short of even making the playoffs.
Ah, good times.
Read more!
But what's even more satisfying about the Redskins victory is that it will make watching the Giants roll into FedEx Field on Saturday. utterly humiliating the Redskins for the second time this year, clinching a division title while simultaneously crushing the Redskins fleeting hopes, all the more delicious.
Oh it's going to be quite something listening to the vapid sports radio this week and hearing all the cute, gullible Skins fans talking up this team as if they are anything worth hyping. Sadly I will be out of town next Monday, so I won't get to hear the dejection in their voices as they, once again, fall short of even making the playoffs.
Ah, good times.
Read more!
Friday, December 16, 2005
A Stern Goodbye
Today was Howard Stern's final day on free, or as he likes to call it, terrestrial radio. He closed his career on free radio with a mini parade/rally outside his studios.
I must admit it was something of a sad moment for me. Believe it or not I have been a listener for over 15 years, though I skipped most of last year and his daily Bush bash. There were also those torturous years in Atlanta with no Stern. But for most of my days I woke up to the sound of Stern in the morning. Back in high school I would go jogging while Stern was on the air, and the hilarity of his show and particularly the news with Robin Quivers (and I can hear the sentimental music that introduced the newscast as I type this) kept me going that extra mile or two.
Yes, it was/is a rather crude show, and it's only going to get cruder now that he has absolutely no restrictions. But the show was much more than just strippers, lesbians, and weird people who had sex with their mothers/sisters/grandmothers/dogs. Okay, not much more, but it beats the hell out of the rest of the morning schlock. I can not bare the thought of listening to some insipid morning zoo (Oh joy, Elliot in the Morning, I can listen to his whacky DJ voice for hours, I tells ya). Then there's the old coyboy Lameus in the Morning. Even just thinking of listening to that drooling old fart for more than a few minutes causes me to yearn for sweet, sweet death to come and take me. I guess Mike and Mike are okay, but God help us if one of them is out (which seems to be the case like 90% of the time). The sound of Eric Kesilius (or however the hell it is spelled) makes me want to bore a hole through my eye socket with a blunt screwdriver.
So, I guess I'll miss the Stern show. Yeah, he got a little whiny at the end - okay, more whiny than usual. And his repeated invocation of the "American taliban" is pretty freaking stupid. But he did sort of have a point about the FCC, though it's hard to get too worked up about a guy who will now be earning hundreds of millions of dollars for his "persecution."
Fare thee well, Mr. Stern. I might get satellite radio one day, though if I do, well, let's just say "okay, terrific" to the guys I'd prefer to be listening to.
Read more!
I must admit it was something of a sad moment for me. Believe it or not I have been a listener for over 15 years, though I skipped most of last year and his daily Bush bash. There were also those torturous years in Atlanta with no Stern. But for most of my days I woke up to the sound of Stern in the morning. Back in high school I would go jogging while Stern was on the air, and the hilarity of his show and particularly the news with Robin Quivers (and I can hear the sentimental music that introduced the newscast as I type this) kept me going that extra mile or two.
Yes, it was/is a rather crude show, and it's only going to get cruder now that he has absolutely no restrictions. But the show was much more than just strippers, lesbians, and weird people who had sex with their mothers/sisters/grandmothers/dogs. Okay, not much more, but it beats the hell out of the rest of the morning schlock. I can not bare the thought of listening to some insipid morning zoo (Oh joy, Elliot in the Morning, I can listen to his whacky DJ voice for hours, I tells ya). Then there's the old coyboy Lameus in the Morning. Even just thinking of listening to that drooling old fart for more than a few minutes causes me to yearn for sweet, sweet death to come and take me. I guess Mike and Mike are okay, but God help us if one of them is out (which seems to be the case like 90% of the time). The sound of Eric Kesilius (or however the hell it is spelled) makes me want to bore a hole through my eye socket with a blunt screwdriver.
So, I guess I'll miss the Stern show. Yeah, he got a little whiny at the end - okay, more whiny than usual. And his repeated invocation of the "American taliban" is pretty freaking stupid. But he did sort of have a point about the FCC, though it's hard to get too worked up about a guy who will now be earning hundreds of millions of dollars for his "persecution."
Fare thee well, Mr. Stern. I might get satellite radio one day, though if I do, well, let's just say "okay, terrific" to the guys I'd prefer to be listening to.
Read more!
The Problem with Simplistic Legal Analysis to Make Political Points
I’m sure that by now everyone has seen the stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post regarding the alleged NSA wiretapping of US persons pursuant to a secret Executive Order that may or may not be legal. I’m going to be very careful about the words I use because this is an incredibly complicated matter and I’m far from the most qualified attorney to pass judgments, especially legal ones. That said, I am qualified to read the US Code and that’s why this post from NRO’s The Corner both surprised me and at the same time ticked me off.
Here is the excerpt from the beginning of Mr. Levin’s post. Levin is, by the way a noted attorney and popular conservative legal commentator:
“Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”
Seems simple enough, right? The President can under certain circumstances authorize wiretaps or other electronic surveillance without obtaining a court order. However, when you actually read the text of 50 USC 1802 you get a much more restricted view of what actually is permitted.
Here’s a small snippet of the statute, with my own emphasis added:
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and …
From this it seems that, in fact, Levin’s depiction of the statute completely contradicts what the statute actually says. A FISA court order is required for all forms of surveillance except those that are exclusively between foreign powers or on foreign soil, AND where there is no likelihood of hearing a US person’s conversations. Not as Levin claims where “the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” Bottom line is that Mr. Levin is just wrong, 180 degrees wrong.
Now I don’t have any reason to think that there is ill will or intentional deceit here, just laziness. Nevertheless, this kind of thing is completely inexcusable, especially from a lawyer. If you don’t know something, just say “I don’t really know or haven’t checked but here are my thoughts for what they are worth.” We here at TPS, myself especially, do this all time. It’s a CYA mechanism, nothing more nothing less, and there is no shame in admitting you don’t know something. Here, however, Levin not only states things as fact, but provides code citations to support his positions. Unfortunately, the two don’t add up and it leaves a false impression about what is going on. Both papers reported that there were legal opinions, albeit classified ones, issued on this topic written by some very well-credentialed attorneys, and thus, I’ll reserve judgment until either they are released or a better case is presented. At best we can conclude that there is something to investigate, and hopefully Congress won’t shirk its Constitutional responsibility to conduct executive oversight by backing down yet again.
Read more!
Here is the excerpt from the beginning of Mr. Levin’s post. Levin is, by the way a noted attorney and popular conservative legal commentator:
“Some brief background: The Foreign Intelligence Security Act permits the government to monitor foreign communications, even if they are with U.S. citizens -- 50 USC 1801, et seq. A FISA warrant is only needed if the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.”
Seems simple enough, right? The President can under certain circumstances authorize wiretaps or other electronic surveillance without obtaining a court order. However, when you actually read the text of 50 USC 1802 you get a much more restricted view of what actually is permitted.
Here’s a small snippet of the statute, with my own emphasis added:
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that—
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at—
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title;
(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party; and …
From this it seems that, in fact, Levin’s depiction of the statute completely contradicts what the statute actually says. A FISA court order is required for all forms of surveillance except those that are exclusively between foreign powers or on foreign soil, AND where there is no likelihood of hearing a US person’s conversations. Not as Levin claims where “the subject communications are wholly contained in the United States and involve a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power.” Bottom line is that Mr. Levin is just wrong, 180 degrees wrong.
Now I don’t have any reason to think that there is ill will or intentional deceit here, just laziness. Nevertheless, this kind of thing is completely inexcusable, especially from a lawyer. If you don’t know something, just say “I don’t really know or haven’t checked but here are my thoughts for what they are worth.” We here at TPS, myself especially, do this all time. It’s a CYA mechanism, nothing more nothing less, and there is no shame in admitting you don’t know something. Here, however, Levin not only states things as fact, but provides code citations to support his positions. Unfortunately, the two don’t add up and it leaves a false impression about what is going on. Both papers reported that there were legal opinions, albeit classified ones, issued on this topic written by some very well-credentialed attorneys, and thus, I’ll reserve judgment until either they are released or a better case is presented. At best we can conclude that there is something to investigate, and hopefully Congress won’t shirk its Constitutional responsibility to conduct executive oversight by backing down yet again.
Read more!
So long. Farewell. Auf Wiederschauen. Goodbye
ST. LOUIS -- Braden Looper and the Cardinals agreed Thursday to a $13.5 million, three-year contract, giving St. Louis another newcomer in the bullpen.Hehehehe. Suckers.
Looper had 28 saves in 36 chances with a 3.94 ERA for the New York Mets last season, but will be a setup man for closer Jason Isringhausen with the Cardinals. The 31-year-old right-hander fills a slot held the past two seasons by Julian Tavarez, who became a free agent.
Looper's deal calls for salaries of $3.5 million in 2006, $4.5 million in 2007 and $5.5 million in 2008. He can earn $1 million annually in performance bonuses, some of them based on games finished in case he becomes the closer.
Maybe away from the bright lights of New York, and in a set-up rather than closer role, Loopey (intentional sic) will do all right. But over $4 million per year for the guy?
Looks like someone else will be winning the NL Central this year.
Read more!
Thursday, December 15, 2005
On the other hand . . .
John Hawkins at Right Wing News presents some evidence that suggests that Cory Maye, whose story I linked to a couple of days ago, was not as innocent as the original blog post indicated.
Update: And Balko responds to this and other critiques here.
Read more!
Update: And Balko responds to this and other critiques here.
Read more!
Iranian President calls Holocaust a myth
I know that I wrote that I would prefer not to link to the sayings of whackjobs and idiots, but unfortunately this whackjob idiot is the President of Iran.
Read more!
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday called the extermination of 6 million Jews during World War II a "myth," bringing a new cascade of international condemnation onto a government that is increasingly viewed as radical even within Iran.Hmmmm. You know, it would be a real shame if an Israeli fighter plane accidentally flew off course and accidentally flew over Iranian airspace and accidentally let loose with a pay load that decimated Iran's nuclear capability. But maybe we shouldn't rely on Israel to bail us out of trouble with yet another crazy Middle Eastern country's efforts to construct a nuclear bomb.
"They have created a myth in the name of the Holocaust and consider it above God, religion and the prophets," Ahmadinejad said in an address carried live on state television.
The speech in the Iranian city of Zahedan echoed the president's remarks at a conference of Islamic nations in Saudi Arabia last week, when he suggested that if Europeans established Israel out of guilt over the Nazi campaign, the country should be carved out of Europe.
Read more!
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Confessions of a Blogger
Kathryn Lopez expressed thanks for being a Times Select suscriber when she saw the one-line description of Maureen Dowd's latest screed. In the back of my mind I was prepared to run over to my company's library to dig out the print edition of the Times to see what Dowd had to say, just so I could have the opportunity to mock her. But then I thought, "why bother?" What is the point of even wasting three minutes of my life reading a woman who is one of the dumbest and least engaging writers of our time? She contributes nothing to the political discourse, and really no one takes her seriously.
This is part of a larger issue I have been struggling with for some time. Pssst. More after the fold. Hit read more. I have been struggling with the question of how to deal with or respond to, if at all, to people who really are not worth wasting one's time dealing with. Now, this is not about arguing with people whom I simply disagree with. After all, this blog is dedicated to thoughtful discourse between people of varying ideological beliefs. We have upheld, for the most part, a pretty high standard. Both my co-bloggers and the commenters consistently offer thoughtful, intelligent comments. So I have no problem engaging in debate, even if it sometimes gets heated. And I enjoy, for lack of a better term, picking apart other writings. The most notoriety I have received in a year and a half of blogging was my Confirm Them rebuttal to Hugh Hewitt. But what made that piece, and in fact that whole month of blogging, more worthwhile was the knowledge that I was engaged in debate with people whose opinion I deeply respected. It's much more stimulating analyzing a column or debating another individual when there's a high measure of intelligence coming from the other side, or when the other person is clearly a reasonable and thoughtful individual.
But what of people who are clearly lacking in intelligence, or who are generally unreasonable, or who are simply crude and idiotic. For example, Francis Beckwith linked to a story about a college professor who linked to a "Benny Hill" version of the "Passion of the Christ." Now, the professor in question deserves scorn for said action, but I also wonder what's the point in even drawing attention to such idiocy. Another example is the Toynbee article DS linked to last night. I saw this some time ago, have seen it mentioned on other blogs and have briefly commented on it, but never linked to it myself (I believe) on this site. Why? Because I wondered about the propriety of linking to such malicious drivel. Similarly, I never linked to a Phil Pullman critique of Narnia because his observations were so obtuse that I could not take his argument seriously. And, most infamously, is the case of Andrew Sullivan. His religious writings have become so unhinged that any trace of logic and reason has seemed to have vanished. He has libeled the Pope, and seems to lament the fact that the Pope is actually Catholic in belief and doctrine. The conservative and Catholic blogosphere has exploded in response to his writings, but I haven't really bothered. Why not? Because, again, what's the point?
Sometimes the idiocy reaches a higher level. Howard Dean has become a caricature. I have posted more than a few links to Dean's brand of lunacy, and have commented on why I believe he is destructive to the Democratic Party. But I didn't comment when he declared the Iraq War to be essentially unwinnable. Frankly, I have grown tired of writing about an individual who seems to be dumber than a post. On the other hand, he is the Chairman of one of the two major political parties, so he does have the potential to indirectly influence policy. And Andrew Sullivan has a daily readership of some 100,000. Kos approaches 1,000,000 hits a day, as does Democratic Underground. So it might be reasoned that these people merit responses simply because so many others listen to them, and there needs to be a voice offering a rebuttal. But it also seems that their idiotic blustering speaks for itself.
So I guess I am fairly conflicted. Blogging is a form of venting, and frankly it feels good to let loose with a nice little rant. But at what cost to my own sense of sanity? Is it really worth the headache to sift through the noise? Is it really worth it to read a Maureen Dowd or Eugene Robinson column just so I can snarkily comment on its insipidness? It seems my efforts can be better put to use elsewhere.
Just thinking out loud I guess.
Read more!
This is part of a larger issue I have been struggling with for some time. Pssst. More after the fold. Hit read more. I have been struggling with the question of how to deal with or respond to, if at all, to people who really are not worth wasting one's time dealing with. Now, this is not about arguing with people whom I simply disagree with. After all, this blog is dedicated to thoughtful discourse between people of varying ideological beliefs. We have upheld, for the most part, a pretty high standard. Both my co-bloggers and the commenters consistently offer thoughtful, intelligent comments. So I have no problem engaging in debate, even if it sometimes gets heated. And I enjoy, for lack of a better term, picking apart other writings. The most notoriety I have received in a year and a half of blogging was my Confirm Them rebuttal to Hugh Hewitt. But what made that piece, and in fact that whole month of blogging, more worthwhile was the knowledge that I was engaged in debate with people whose opinion I deeply respected. It's much more stimulating analyzing a column or debating another individual when there's a high measure of intelligence coming from the other side, or when the other person is clearly a reasonable and thoughtful individual.
But what of people who are clearly lacking in intelligence, or who are generally unreasonable, or who are simply crude and idiotic. For example, Francis Beckwith linked to a story about a college professor who linked to a "Benny Hill" version of the "Passion of the Christ." Now, the professor in question deserves scorn for said action, but I also wonder what's the point in even drawing attention to such idiocy. Another example is the Toynbee article DS linked to last night. I saw this some time ago, have seen it mentioned on other blogs and have briefly commented on it, but never linked to it myself (I believe) on this site. Why? Because I wondered about the propriety of linking to such malicious drivel. Similarly, I never linked to a Phil Pullman critique of Narnia because his observations were so obtuse that I could not take his argument seriously. And, most infamously, is the case of Andrew Sullivan. His religious writings have become so unhinged that any trace of logic and reason has seemed to have vanished. He has libeled the Pope, and seems to lament the fact that the Pope is actually Catholic in belief and doctrine. The conservative and Catholic blogosphere has exploded in response to his writings, but I haven't really bothered. Why not? Because, again, what's the point?
Sometimes the idiocy reaches a higher level. Howard Dean has become a caricature. I have posted more than a few links to Dean's brand of lunacy, and have commented on why I believe he is destructive to the Democratic Party. But I didn't comment when he declared the Iraq War to be essentially unwinnable. Frankly, I have grown tired of writing about an individual who seems to be dumber than a post. On the other hand, he is the Chairman of one of the two major political parties, so he does have the potential to indirectly influence policy. And Andrew Sullivan has a daily readership of some 100,000. Kos approaches 1,000,000 hits a day, as does Democratic Underground. So it might be reasoned that these people merit responses simply because so many others listen to them, and there needs to be a voice offering a rebuttal. But it also seems that their idiotic blustering speaks for itself.
So I guess I am fairly conflicted. Blogging is a form of venting, and frankly it feels good to let loose with a nice little rant. But at what cost to my own sense of sanity? Is it really worth the headache to sift through the noise? Is it really worth it to read a Maureen Dowd or Eugene Robinson column just so I can snarkily comment on its insipidness? It seems my efforts can be better put to use elsewhere.
Just thinking out loud I guess.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Narnia and a modern critique
Lest there be any doubt about the depth of hatred that some hold towards faith and persons of faith, The Guardian has this http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1657942,00.html to offer. The parallel drawn between Christianity, the U.S., and broader concepts of "faith" is remarkable and worth a read.
Read more!
Read more!
A death sentence actually worth commuting
Now that all the celebrities have gone home, perhaps they can take some time to travel east to Mississippi and urge clemency for a convicted murderer who actually deserves it. See here. More on Maye here.
Read more!
Read more!
Couldn't have said it better myself, so I won't even try
Captain Ed precisely captures how I feel on the Tookie Williams matter:
Read more!
Again, I oppose the death penalty, primarily on two grounds: religious and practicality. I don't think the state should take a life unless the person represents a present threat to the safety and security of the public, or a threat to the national security of the US or our allies. I also don't think that the death penalty saves us any money, and needlessly clogs our appellate courts with frivolous motions and delaying tactics. When we have the person locked up, he should stay locked up -- and I mean locked up for good, and none of the Club Fed treatment, either. Three hots and a cot, and anything else depends on how well the prisoner behaves. That to me settles the entire case in a relatively expeditious manner without having twenty years of legal motions keeping the case alive.Exactly right. Meanwhile, Baldilocks has an absolutely spot-on rebuttal to a young and foolish college student. Again, a simply excellent must-read.
So why am I not up in arms about Tookie? As I wrote earlier, the people of California decided that they do want the death penalty. It has withstood challenges from political opponents because it has a bipartisan appeal to Californians, with some estimates as high as 70%. One day, perhaps, they will change their mind and commute the sentences of people like Williams to LWOP. Until then, the people deserve to get the justice they've chosen.
More than that, however, I'm disgusted by the actions of the celebro-activists that continually degrade the anti-execution cause by attempting to transform murderous thugs like Tookie Williams into misunderstood geniuses who deserve special consideration after murdering people in cold blood. Tookie executed his victims brutally and without a hint of compassion. To this day, he has not shown any remorse for the crimes which got him on Death Row. Instead of remembering the victims, the Hollywood moral midgetry has once again decided that the criminal is their hero -- and it appalls me even though I disagree with his execution.
Tookie Williams spent his life victimizing his community, creating criminal gangs that would kill thousands in turf wars, and brutalizing the defenseless, taking at least four lives by his own hand that could have contributed meaningfully and positively to the community. For that track record, he deserves to spend the rest of his life in a small cell contemplating how he wasted his own life and others. Perhaps he might truly repent at some point, although he obviously hasn't now. However, for that list of crimes, the only redemption can be found in the next life, not here -- and certainly co-authoring a few "Just Say No To Gangs" kids' books weighs pretty lightly against the maelstrom of destruction for which Tookie is responsible.
If the celebrities want to do something about the death penalty, I'd suggest trying to convince Californians that LWOP means no release, ever, under any circumstances except innocence. They could start by ending their peculiar practice of promoting the murderers as heroes and ignoring their victims. Once the public no longer has to listen to ridiculous arguments about the brilliance and courage of people who shoot helpless victims in the back and can focus on the issues of the death penalty itself, then perhaps we can convince people that we can live without executions and all the lunacy they entail.
Read more!
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Rethinking Christmas materialism
At this time of the year the most common theme - aside from the so-called war on Christmas - is that of the unfortunate rise of materialism during the Christmas season. It is true that we seem to have lost focus of what Christmas is all about. Instead of anticipating the celebration of the birth of our Savior, we spend a lot of time in malls buying up Christmas presents for our friends and family. Television barrages the senses with Christmas sales and specials beginning sometime in, oh, September. And I do think that Christmas has been tarnished by this crass commercialization.
But, there is one silver lining to this. Rather than it being a sign of greed and materialism, this Christmas rush does indicate a sense of selflessness. After all, these people are not in a rush to go buying material goods for themselves. Okay, we might all take a little bit of that Christmas bonus and buy ourselves a goody or two (as I did in purchasing a new humidor), but by far the vast majority of that money being spent is by individuals buying gifts for others. It is something of a healthy sign about human nature that people would spend so much time, energy, and money in order to make others happy.
Again, that's not to say that we should not channel that Christmas spirit in other directions, but it does strike me that there is at least one positive message to gleen from the commercialization of this sacred holiday. It's not much, but cranky pessimism is not the singular Christian virtue.
Read more!
But, there is one silver lining to this. Rather than it being a sign of greed and materialism, this Christmas rush does indicate a sense of selflessness. After all, these people are not in a rush to go buying material goods for themselves. Okay, we might all take a little bit of that Christmas bonus and buy ourselves a goody or two (as I did in purchasing a new humidor), but by far the vast majority of that money being spent is by individuals buying gifts for others. It is something of a healthy sign about human nature that people would spend so much time, energy, and money in order to make others happy.
Again, that's not to say that we should not channel that Christmas spirit in other directions, but it does strike me that there is at least one positive message to gleen from the commercialization of this sacred holiday. It's not much, but cranky pessimism is not the singular Christian virtue.
Read more!
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The madness of our Congress
George Will covers yet another maddening spending bill before Congress. Because, as we all know, it's government's responsibility that we all have digitial television. I believe Locke or Burke said something to that effect one.
Two excellent paragraphs:
Read more!
Two excellent paragraphs:
Now, the hardhearted will, in their cheeseparing small-mindedness, ask: Given that the transition to digital has been underway for almost a decade, why should those who have adjusted be compelled to pay money to those who have chosen not to adjust? And conservatives who have not yet attended compassion reeducation camps will ask: Why does the legislation make even homes with cable or digital services eligible for subsidies to pay for converter boxes for old analog sets — which may be worth less than the government's cost for the boxes?I defy anyone to explain why this program is even remotely a good idea. Please, please, please. And he concludes:
What oil is to Saudi Arabia — a defining abundance — cognitive dissonance is to America. Americans are currently in a Founding Fathers literary festival. They are making bestsellers out of many biographies of the statesmen who formulated America's philosophy of individualism and self-reliance and who embodied that philosophy — or thought they did — in a constitutional architecture of limited government. Yet Americans have such an entitlement mentality, they seem to think that every pleasure — e.g., digital television — should be a collective right, meaning a federally funded entitlement. Clearly, Americans' civic religion of reverence for the Founders is, like most religions, more avowed than constraining.Amen.
Read more!
Subtraction through addition
I haven't yet commented here on the excellent job Omar Minaya has done this off-season to bring the Mets closer to the promised land of dethroning the (cough, cough, chokce, choke) Braves from atop the NL East. Though BJ Ryan was younger and arguably the better choice, his cost was prohibitive, and the Mets landed a solid closer in Bill Wagner, who will make Mets fans sweat much less than did the recently departed - from the team, not this mortal coil - Braden Looper. They then traded some magic beans in exchange for Carlos Delgado and Paul LodDuca. All that's left, it seems, is for them to offer the Marlins a Singe-A Pitcher (who some same fans will still bitch about trading because they're "mortgaging the future"), Aaron Heilman, and a case of Johnny Walker Red - okay, okay, we'll give them blue, for Miguel Cabrera and Dontrelle Willis. Then they should be all set.
But not only have the Mets vastly improved the ballclub through these moves - and they're probably not even done yet - but the rest of the division has gotten weaker. The Marlins might be great in three or four years, but next year they might give the '62 Mets a run for their money. The Phillies are, well, the Phillies. (And not to get off too much on a Philadelphia tangent, but did anyone see that Monday Night Football game? Woof. It almost makes you feel bad for Philly fans. Almost.) Even the Braves will probably come down a notch considering that they overachieved last year.
And then there are the Nationals. I won't even get into the absolute negligence of Major League Baseball in failing to award the franchise's ownership by now, meaning the Nationals cannot truly compete in the free agency market. Nor will I discuss the bungling city council and the stadium issue. But after having lost starter Estoban Loiza and set-up man Hector Corrasco, the team deals for . . . second baseman Alfonso Soriano?
Don't get me wrong. Soriano is an excellent pickup - if this were a fantasy baseball league which - like mine - includes average but not on-base percentage, and does not punish you for strikeouts. But this being the real world, the trade makes absolutely no sense. Soriano is an awful player in almost every phase of the game save for his power numbers. But he is going from one of the most hitter friendly parks in the game to one of the worst, and we can be certain those 40 or so homers will decline to something more like 30. Not to mention that second base is one of the few positions where the Nationals are strong at - assuming Vidro comes back healthy, an admittedly questionable proposition.
At this point I can only assume that the Nats made this trade to offer relief from the oppressive DC summer heat. Considering how often Soriano whiffs, it's almost like having a human ceiling fan. Now, the Nats didn't give up an awful lot to get Soriano. Brad Wilkerson is a good, but not great player, but Soriano is almost subtraction through addition.
Most importantly, now the Mets won't be trading for Soriano. Thanks to the Nats for taking him off Omar's radar screen. Hopefully they will also sign Slammin' Sammy Sosa to truly put Mets fans at ease.
Read more!
But not only have the Mets vastly improved the ballclub through these moves - and they're probably not even done yet - but the rest of the division has gotten weaker. The Marlins might be great in three or four years, but next year they might give the '62 Mets a run for their money. The Phillies are, well, the Phillies. (And not to get off too much on a Philadelphia tangent, but did anyone see that Monday Night Football game? Woof. It almost makes you feel bad for Philly fans. Almost.) Even the Braves will probably come down a notch considering that they overachieved last year.
And then there are the Nationals. I won't even get into the absolute negligence of Major League Baseball in failing to award the franchise's ownership by now, meaning the Nationals cannot truly compete in the free agency market. Nor will I discuss the bungling city council and the stadium issue. But after having lost starter Estoban Loiza and set-up man Hector Corrasco, the team deals for . . . second baseman Alfonso Soriano?
Don't get me wrong. Soriano is an excellent pickup - if this were a fantasy baseball league which - like mine - includes average but not on-base percentage, and does not punish you for strikeouts. But this being the real world, the trade makes absolutely no sense. Soriano is an awful player in almost every phase of the game save for his power numbers. But he is going from one of the most hitter friendly parks in the game to one of the worst, and we can be certain those 40 or so homers will decline to something more like 30. Not to mention that second base is one of the few positions where the Nationals are strong at - assuming Vidro comes back healthy, an admittedly questionable proposition.
At this point I can only assume that the Nats made this trade to offer relief from the oppressive DC summer heat. Considering how often Soriano whiffs, it's almost like having a human ceiling fan. Now, the Nats didn't give up an awful lot to get Soriano. Brad Wilkerson is a good, but not great player, but Soriano is almost subtraction through addition.
Most importantly, now the Mets won't be trading for Soriano. Thanks to the Nats for taking him off Omar's radar screen. Hopefully they will also sign Slammin' Sammy Sosa to truly put Mets fans at ease.
Read more!
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
RIP Harry?
Captain Ed reports that Jim Dale, the voice of Harry Potter in the US audiobooks, has hinted that JK Rowling will kill off Harry Potter in the next and final installment.
You dirty bird.
Read more!
Actor Jim Dale - the voice of the teenage wizard in the US audio books - believes the seventh and final instalment will spell the end for Harry.I've heard this speculated on by many Potter fans, and this seems to be a fairly common consensus. If Rowling does indeed decide to go through with this, then she should probably avoid Colorado during the snow season, and she should definitely steer clear of overweight women who claim to be her biggest fan.
He made the astonishing claim after meeting with the writer to discuss his characterisation of the parts.
The revelation will shock millions of die-hard Potter fans.
He said: "She's lived with Harry Potter so long she really wants to kill him off." Predictions about the fate of Harry in the seventh book have enthralled millions worldwide.
You dirty bird.
Read more!
May ours be the noble heart
Fellow Regians (I know there's a few of you out there reading) and any other alumnus of a Jesuit institution should find this amusing. In response to Boston College's administration canceling a LGBTG dance, the school newspaper opined:
Suddenly I'm having flashbacks of a certain Theology teacher explaining all about certain priests "and their loyal disagreements" with the Pope.
HT: Amy Welborn.
Read more!
The Issue: BC denies GLBT dance due to conflict with the churchI think St. Ignatius just died again.
What we think: BC should follow Jesuit values, not Catholic doctrine.
Suddenly I'm having flashbacks of a certain Theology teacher explaining all about certain priests "and their loyal disagreements" with the Pope.
HT: Amy Welborn.
Read more!
I tremble with fear for my country . . .
. . .well, when I think of my country.
43% of Americans believe that we are still in a recession.
Well, if 5% or lower unemployment and 3% GDP growth and higher is recessionary, bring on the boom.
HT: Ace.
Read more!
43% of Americans believe that we are still in a recession.
Well, if 5% or lower unemployment and 3% GDP growth and higher is recessionary, bring on the boom.
HT: Ace.
Read more!
Monday, December 05, 2005
"Former Stanford Dean Fails California Bar Exam"
Does this mean that we can rest assured that Kathleen Sullivan will ever be on the Supreme Court? (Seen at HA.) Yes, the bar exam is difficult and many smart people fail it every year; these results can be due to nerves, a bad day, overconfidence, or untold number of other causes.
And the post goes on to discuss other prominent people who attained high office after failing the exam once (or more than once). But let me suggest that Kathleen Sullivan is nevertheless doomed. Most people attaining high office who failed the exam would have failed it 30 years or more in the past; her failure will be relatively close in time to any future nomination, which means that it will be fresh in the memory of her opponents. (And its sting will be fresh in her own memory.)
Thank goodness. At least one radical has been disqualified from the Court. Now just 10,000 more law professors to go.
Read more!
And the post goes on to discuss other prominent people who attained high office after failing the exam once (or more than once). But let me suggest that Kathleen Sullivan is nevertheless doomed. Most people attaining high office who failed the exam would have failed it 30 years or more in the past; her failure will be relatively close in time to any future nomination, which means that it will be fresh in the memory of her opponents. (And its sting will be fresh in her own memory.)
Thank goodness. At least one radical has been disqualified from the Court. Now just 10,000 more law professors to go.
Read more!
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Our mighty VP
This just might be the funniest blog thread ever. Ace of Spades recently requested that his readers submit all the cool facts they know about Dick Cheney, a la Bill Braskey from those old SNL skits. The results are some of the funniest - and most disturbing things - ever posted on the blogosphere. Read ahead.
Read more!
Read more!
Friday, December 02, 2005
An Interesting Thread
Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy has two excellent posts up, one for the religious, and one for the irreligious. He asks some great questions about morals, faith, and beliefs or the absence thereof. I don’t have the time, energy, or inclinations to attempt to answer them, but I encourage all to click over and take a look. Thus far, the comments to both posts seem to be quite interesting and above all respectful of differing points-of-view.
Read more!
Read more!
So these guys have shorter life expectancies?
See if you note something odd about this paragraph from the Telegraph:
Read more!
The racist thugs who ambushed and murdered Anthony Walker were given life sentences yesterday that will keep them in prison until they are approaching middle age. (emphasis mine)
Read more!
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Spinsanity
I cringe when I recall that I used to be a regular watcher of the O'Reilly Factor. Well, it was after 9/11 and I was feeling patriotic I guess. Over the years my antipathy to O'Reilly's ginormous ego and his incessant populism has kicked me from that bad habit. But TKS alerts me to this amazing exhange bewteen O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto that aptly highlights both of those charming qualities.
Read more!
CAVUTO: Okay. Gas prices are down a lot. Why do you think that is?Yes, that's right, Bill O'Reilly's bullying of the oil companies is what sparked the decrease in gas prices. For his next trick, Bill O'Reilly will singlehandedly defeat the insurgency, and then stop in France on his way back to fix its immigrant problem. Thanks be to our Lord and Savior, Bill O'Reilly.
O’REILLY: Because they’re afraid they’ll go to jail. And those C.E.O.s who manipulated them–
CAVUTO: Why are you sure that they manipulated them?
O’REILLY: I have guys that are inside the five major oil companies - my father used to work for one of those oil companies, by the way - who have told me that in those meetings they look for every way to jack up oil prices after Katrina, every way. When they didn’t have to. And they got scared because in my reporting and some other reporting, they said –
CAVUTO: Wait, you’re taking credit for gas prices being down?
O’REILLY: My reporting and reporting of others.
CAVUTO: Has nothing to do with refineries that came back online or the crisis calmed after the hurricanes?
O’REILLY: The demand for oil in this country is the same now as it was one day after Hurricane Katrina. It’s the same. Selling the same amount of gas and oil.
CAVUTO: But the supply has increased, right?
O’REILLY: The supply has increased? Who knows.
CAVUTO: And it’s traded like a stock, correct?
O’REILLY: It’s traded by speculation, and the bottom line is they were afraid of a federal investigation and they said–
CAVUTO: I think you’re crazy, but you're right on the Christmas, but wrong on this.
Read more!
Oh (potentially offensive word with a religious connotation deleted) night
Following on Gipper Clone's heels, here's a thoughtful article from Jonah Goldberg. I think this paragraph should be well heeded by all:
Read more!
Yet conservatives should be wary of launching a backlash. Just as it is counterproductive for a secular liberal to take offense at a well-intentioned "Merry Christmas," it doesn't help if a conservative says "Merry Christmas" when he really means "Eat yuletide, you atheistic bastard!" If you're putting up a Christmas tree in order to tick off the ACLU, you've really missed the point.
Read more!
