Indiana Returns to Dark Ages

Should have known the progress implied by Obama's victory in the proud-to-be-racist-and-stupid state was too good to last. The Hoosiers are pissing on the nation's parade with a court decision that turns the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution into toilet paper.

The Indiana Court of Appeals issued a ruling Monday that affirmed Indiana's "In God We Trust" plates are constitutional.

The appeals court upheld an earlier trial court judgment against the ACLU of Indiana, which claimed that motorists who ask for God plates get special treatment because they don't have to pay a $15 administrative fee charged for specialty plates.

In its decision, the appeals court affirmed that Indiana offers two alternatives to standard license plates and that the fee structure for those plates is "uniformly applicable to all similarly situated license plates."

Indiana also offers specialty license plates for organizations, which requires the $15 administrative fee, under state statute.

The court ruled that the "In God We Trust" plate, along with another, "Lincoln's Boyhood Home," are simply alternatives to the standard plate and that the fact that motorists who choose them aren't subject to the additional fee is not arbitrary.

No, it's not arbitrary. It's un-fucking-constitutional.

(More after the jump.)
I'm not a lawyer, but it's hard not to wonder if the Indiana ACLU screwed the pooch by challenging the fee structure rather than making the straightforward First Amendment case that government agencies cannot promote religion. Period.

As I wrote back in July, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear will push the 2009 General Assembly to approve the same plate for Kentucky.

Yesterday Beshear announced that Kentucky is facing a $456 million deficit for the fiscal year that ends June 30. If he actually wastes a single second of the 30-day legislative session trying to use tax dollars to publicize an invisible sky wizard, we should impeach his ass.

If you need more evidence, let's review the stunning ignorance of our only guv - an actual lawyer, by the way - of history, law, and the constitution.

Beshear said vehicle owners could get the plates -- which have been controversial in other states, including Indiana -- as an alternative to the current standard-issue "Unbridled Spirit" plate at no extra cost.

" 'In God We Trust' is essentially our national motto," he said in an interview. "And that national motto belongs to every American and indeed every Kentuckian. In my opinion nobody should have to pay extra to have that national motto reflected on their license plate."

Is it too much to ask that elected officials know a smidgeon of American history? "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto until 1956, when McCarthyist witch hunts intimidated Congress into replacing the 174-year-old motto adopted by the actual Founders in 1782: "E pluribus unum," or for those of you who flunked Latin, "Out of many, one," a reference to the federalism that unites diverse states.

It was during the commie scares of the 1950s that "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance (which, by the way, was written in the 1892 by a Socialist who wanted a secular substitute for the prayers recited by children in Catholic schools), and that "so help me God" was added to the oath to tell the truth in court.

The Founders, who deliberately and decisively kept all mention of god out of the Constitution, would have been horrified.

"In God We Trust" was added to coinage during the Civil War, in a blatant and futile attempt to pacify Southerners who were, at the time, claiming divine christian justification for slavery.

The proper interpretation of the "In God We Trust" phrase on our money is: "God says n*****s aren't human, so we can enslave, starve, beat, rape and murder them all we want."

How about that one, Stevie? How about a license plate that reads: "God says n*****s aren't human, so we can enslave, starve, beat, rape and murder them all we want."

The two million Kentucky racists who voted against our new President-elect should like that one a lot.

The national ACLU needs to step it up and put a stop to this government-promoting-god shit once and for all. It's gone on way too long.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic.

There's more: "Indiana Returns to Dark Ages" >>

If We Had a Real Congress

Things are past bad when it takes a republican former congressman to tell a Democratic majority Congress to do its Constitutional duty.

Long-time former GOP Congressman Mickey Edwards of Oklahoma testified before a Senate hearing today on the rule of law and said this:

There are a great many salient questions facing the American people and those of you who are charged with the responsibility of enacting the nation's laws: access to affordable health care; repair of an aging infrastructure; reducing energy dependence; ensuring the national security. But not one of those issues – and not all of them combined – is as important now or for the future as securing our position as a nation governed by the rule of law. . . .

(More after the jump.)

Let me be both candid and clear: the current greatest threat to our system of separated powers and the protections it affords stems not just from executive overreaching but equally from the Congress. America's founders envisioned a system in which each of the branches of government would guard its prerogatives and meet its obligations, each acting to serve the nation through the empowerment the Constitution grants and to protect our liberties through the constraints the Constitution imposes.

For most of the past eight years, and for many years before that, the Congress has failed to lived up to its assigned role as the principal representative of the people. . . .

Here is the challenge, stated as candidly as I can state it. Each year the presidency grows farther beyond the bounds the Constitution permits; each year the Congress fades farther into irrelevance. As it does, the voice of the people is silenced. This cannot be permitted to stand. The Congress is not without power. It can refuse to confirm people the President suggests for important offices; it can refuse to provide money for the carrying out of Executive Branch activities; it can use its subpoena power and its power to hold hearings and above all, it can use its power to write the laws of the country. . . .

Do not let it be said that what the Founders created, you have destroyed. Do not let it be said that on your watch, the Constitution of the United States became not the law of the land but a suggestion. You are not a parliament; you are a Congress -- separate, independent, and equal. And because of that you are the principal means by which the people maintain control of their government. Defend that right, and that obligation, or you lose all purpose in holding these high offices. That is how you preserve and defend the rule of law in the United States.

Cross-posted at They Gave us A Republic ....

There's more: "If We Had a Real Congress" >>

Shitting on the First Amendment

How appropriate that on Constitution Day one of Kentucky's most embarassingly stupid public officials (and that's saying plenty) gives me the opportunity to slap him upside the head with the First Amendment.

Kentuckians wanting to display the nation's motto on their license plates will soon have their chance if legislation pre-filed by state Rep. Jim Gooch becomes law.

The bill calls for a new license plate containing the words "In God We Trust" and any other design the Transportation Cabinet decides is appropriate. It would be offered as an alternative to the standard-issue license plate featuring the "Unbridled Spirit" logo, and would not carry any additional fees.

"It's time we take this step and recognize what has long been our country's and our commonwealth's guiding principle," Rep. Gooch said. "Kentuckians should not have to wait any longer."

If Rep. Gooch's bill becomes law, the "In God We Trust" license plates would be available in January 2010.

(More after the jump.)

As I wrote back in July when Governor Steve "Huge Disappointment" Beshear floated this particular abomination:

Is it too much to ask that elected officials know a smidgeon of American history? "In God We Trust" did not become the national motto until 1956, when McCarthyist witch hunts intimidated Congress into replacing the 174-year-old motto adopted by the actual Founders in 1782: "E pluribus unum," or for those of you who flunked Latin, "Out of many, one," a reference to the federalism that unites diverse states.

It was during the commie scares of the 1950s that "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance (which, by the way, was written in the 1892 by a Socialist who wanted a secular substitute for the prayers recited by children in Catholic schools), and that "so help me God" was added to the oath to tell the truth in court.

The Founders, who deliberately and decisively kept all mention of god out of the Constitution, would have been horrified.

"In God We Trust" was added to coinage during the Civil War, in a blatant and futile attempt to pacify Southerners who were, at the time, claiming divine christian justification for slavery.

The proper interpretation of the "In God We Trust" phrase on our money is: "God says n*****s aren't human, so we can enslave, starve, beat, rape and murder them all we want."

How about that one, Stevie? How about a license plate that reads: "God says n*****s aren't human, so we can enslave, starve, beat, rape and murder them all we want."

In Indiana the 2006 General Assembly authorized an "In God We Trust" plate, prompting a lawsuit by the state's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

SNIP

Carl Wedekind, treasurer of the ACLU of Kentucky, said yesterday that he did not know whether the organization would challenge the license plate in court if it becomes available.

And if you don't, Carl, you can cancel my membership and refund all my donations for the past seven years. The ACLU's stated mission, Carl, is to defend the Bill of Rights. This license plate violates my First Amendment rights, Carl. Get off your ass and do your fucking JOB, Carl.

Kentucky currently offers 99 - count 'em, that's one fewer than a solid hundred - different license plates in 11 different categories. They range from the special military plate for recipients of the Medal of Honor, of which there are currently a grand total of two in the entire state, and the "Choose Life" plate, which is an inexcusable discriminatory slap in the face to those of us who Choose Suicide.

Jim Gooch is infamous in Kentucky as the most shameless hod-carrier for the coal industry in the General Assembly. He constantly puts himself in danger of being forcibly committed for terminal stupidity by insisting, during public sessions of the legislature, that there is no such thing as global warming and burning ten times more coal than we do will solve all our problems.

If all Jim Gooch's jeebus-humping hasn't raised his IQ out of single digits by now, advertising his belief in an invisible sky wizard on a license plate isn't going to help.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Shitting on the First Amendment" >>

Celebrate Constitution Day: Stand Up for American Liberty

Two hundred and twenty-one years ago, on September 17, a few dozen mostly young and mostly wealthy white men, exhausted and apprehensive after months of furious debate, put forward a document more fragile, yet more powerful, than any created before or since.

Fragile, because its very existence depended on the power not of armies or monarchs or gods, but of people themselves to protect and maintain it.

Powerful, because it put the people first, before armies or monarchs or even gods.

Everything the United States of America is, everything it has accomplished, every hope its people have for the future, is embodied in the document George W. Bush calls "just a goddamned piece of paper."

That piece of paper, you smirking chimp, gives to the people the power to throw you out of office for the offense of that remark alone. Alas, Article One fails to include "spine" among the qualifications for Congress.

For eight years, Smirky/Darth have attacked the Constitution with everything in their authoritarian arsenal, but it still survives. Weakened, mutilated, defiled. But still there, waiting for real Americans to restore it.

(More after the jump)

Ways to celebrate Constitution Day here.

The Constitution itself with hyptertexted links.

The Constitution in outline format.

Constitution facts, fun quiz and free pocket copies of the Constitution.

The Wikipedia history of the Constitution.

Catherine Drinker Bowen's classic history of Constitutional Convention, which reads like a thriller.

And a superb new history of the Constitution from the Revolution to 2006.

And finally, from the introduction to Naomi Wolf's new book on reclaiming American liberty:

Liberty is a state of mind before it is anything else. You can have a nation of wealth and power, but without this state of mind -- this psychological "America" -- you are living in a deadening consciousness; with this state of mind, you can be in a darkened cell waiting for your torturer to arrive and yet inhabit a chainless space as wide as the sky.

"America," too, is a state of mind. "Being an American" is a set of attitudes and actions, not a nationality or a posture of reflexive loyalty. This tribe of true "Americans" consists of people who have crossed a personal Rubicon of a specific kind and can no longer be satisfied with anything less than absolute liberty.

This state of mind, I learned, has no national boundaries. The Tibetans, who, as I write this, are marching in the face of Chinese soldiers, are acting like members of this tribe; so did the Pakistani lawyers who recently faced down house arrest and tear gas in their suits and judicial robes. Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, and Ida B. Wells, who risked their lives for liberty, acted like "Americans." When the crusading journalist Anna Politkovskaya insisted on reporting on war crimes in Chechnya, even though her informing her fellow citizens led -- as she knew it well could -- to her being gunned down on her doorstep as she went home to her fourteen-year-old daughter, she was acting like an American. When three JAG lawyers refused to sell out their detainee clients, they were being "Americans." When Vietnam vet David Antoon risked his career to speak out in favor of the Constitution's separation of church and state, he was being an "American." When journalist Josh Wolf went to jail rather than reveal a source, he was being an "American" too. Always, everywhere, the members of this tribe are fundamentally the same, in spite of the great deal that may divide them in terms of clothing and religion, language and culture. But when we quietly go about our business as our rights are plundered, when we yield to passivity and switch on the Wii and hand over our power to a leadership class that has no interest in our voice, we are not acting like true Americans. Indeed, at those moments we are essentially giving up our citizenship.

The notion that "American-ness" is a state of mind -- a rigorous psychodynamic process or a continued personal challenge, rather than a static point on a map or an impressive display in a Fourth of July parade -- is not new. But we are so used to being raised on a rhetoric of cheap patriotism -- the kind that you get to tune in to in a feel-good way just because you were lucky enough to have been born here and can then pretty much forget about -- that this definition seems positively exotic. The founders understood "American-ness" in this way, though, not at all in our way.

SNIP

The stories I read and reread of the "spirit of 1776" led me with new faith to these conclusions: We are not to wait for others to lead. You and I are meant to take back the founders' mandate, and you and I are meant to lead. You and I must protest, you and I must confront our representatives, you and I must run for office, you and I must write the opeds, you and I must take over the battle. The founders -- the unknown as well as the well-known Americans who "conceived" the nation in liberty -- did not intend for us to delegate worrying about the Constitution to a cadre of constitutional scholars, or to leave debate to a class of professional pundits, or to leave the job of fighting for liberty to a caste of politicians. They meant for us to defend the Constitution, for us to debate the issues of the day, and for us to rise up against tyranny: the American who delivers the mail; the American who teaches our children; ordinary people.

Today we have most of our rights still codified on paper -- but these documents are indeed "only paper" if we no longer experience them viscerally, if their violation no longer infuriates us. We can be citizens of a republic; we can have a Constitution and a Congress; but if we, the people, have fallen asleep to the meaning of the Constitution and to the radical implications of representative and direct democracy, then we aren't really Americans anymore.

So we must listen to the original revolutionaries and to current ones as well, and explain their ideas clearly to new generations. To hear the voices of the original vision and the voices of those modern heroes, here in the U.S. and around the world, who are true heirs to the American Revolution is to feel your wishes change. "[Freedom] liberated us the day we stopped living in a world where 'truth' and 'falsehood' were, like everything else, the property of the State. And for the most part, this liberation did not stop when we were sentenced to prison," wrote Sharansky. "I was not born to be forced," wrote Henry David Thoreau. "I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest...they only can force me to obey a higher law than I." You want to stay in that room where these revolutionaries are conversing in this electrifying way among themselves. It feels painful but ultimately cleansing and energizing. You want to be more like them; then you realize that maybe you can be -- then finally you realize that you already are.

Our "America," our Constitution, our dream, when properly felt within us, does more than "defend freedom." It clears space to build the society that allows for the highest possible development of who we ourselves personally were meant to be.

We have to rise up in self-defense and legitimate rebellion. We need more drastic action than e-mails to Congress.

We need the next revolution.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....

There's more: "Celebrate Constitution Day: Stand Up for American Liberty" >>

If You Think FISA Doesn't Matter

Tomorrow the U.S. Senate will vote to take away the last shred of your protection against the government spying on your every move, without a warrant.

If you can't be bothered to follow Glenn Greenwald's impeccable arguments, if you still hold Judith Miller against the New York Times, then please take a few seconds to read a four-line poem from an Obama supporter opposed to his FISA cave:

When politicians continue to play fast and loose with the Bill of Rights, it's more than a core issue. It's a violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. If you don't value those rights, that's fine. But there will come a time when you may have a need of those rights. Don't think that the government will just give those rights back once they take them. Martin Niemöller's poem comes to mind. If you will allow me a slight variation (Original Poem):

First they came for my right of protection against illegal searches and seizures,- but I had nothing to hide, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for my right to due process,- but I was not accused, so I did not speak out.
Then they came for my right of habeas corpus,- but I was not locked up, so I did not speak out.
And when they came for my freedom of speech, there was no way left for me to speak out.

Slippery slope, people. Slippery slope.-Alexis N. Mueller

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "If You Think FISA Doesn't Matter" >>

Want a More Progressive Obama? Then Make It Happen

UPDATE Below

Author David Sirota, on tour promoting his new book The Uprising, gave an intriguing take on Barack Obama as an "empty vessel."

He didn't mean that as an insult. Nor did he mean it in the sense that Democrats tend to project their own hopes and dreams onto Obama.

He meant that Obama will be the candidate and potentially president that we - progressives - make him.

Just as Ronald Reagan, though an idealogue, was molded by determined fanatics into the star of their wingnut fantasies, so, too will Obama move in the direction progessives push him.

If we sit around moping over his FISA capitulation, pitying ourselves over being fooled into supporting a centrist once again and muttering about third-party candidates, then we'll get exactly what we're complaining about: a nominee and possible president who's a centrist because the centrists are the only ones pushing him their way.

Make your voice heard. One individual voice has a bigger impact this year for two reasons: 1) Obama knows better than anyone that individual small donors got him the nomination and he needs them to get the nomination. Five bucks gets you entree by email. And 2) Because of the Internet, each of us can magnify our voices exponentially - tell all your friends, comment on every blog, make it viral.

On Glenn Greenwald's Salon blog, cherished commenter William Timberman makes an eloquent case for dealing with a candidate's bad votes:

In my opinion, candidate worship is just another symptom of a neutered population. The problem isn't the people's impotence, which is an illusion fostered in every way possible by politicians who stand to benefit by it, and by a media dominated by commercial interests which do it as a matter of course, whether to sell a candidate or to sell soap. No, the problem isn't impotence, it's inactivity. As long as we expect to be saved by some external force, and can only rouse ourselves to petulance when this or that candidate disappoints us, we more or less deserve what we get.

If we're to be saved, we'll have to do it ourselves. In tactical and strategic terms, what we do matters, but doing anything is better than doing nothing. Once you get in the habit, you can adjust what you do according to what works. Then it is just a matter of strategy and tactics, and not an insurmountable existential paralysis.

Don't mourn, in other words -- organize.

And The Nation knows where to start.

After the Patriot Act became law, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC) began a national campaign to get cities, counties and states to stand up for the Constitution.

Thanks to the determined efforts of this small but remarkably effective group, more than 400 communities and eight states have passed resolutions declaring their support for restoring protections guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

The BORDC is still fighting the good fight. This week, the Massachusetts-based group is sounding the alarm against congressional moves to undermine 4th amendment privacy rights.

But the BORDC is not satisfied to simply play defense.

"At BORDC, we know many of our subscribers are outraged at the number of times their legislators have given in to fear mongering and supported freedom-robbing legislation because they believe voters are willing to give up their freedoms for a promise (a hollow promise!) of greater security," BORDC director Nancy Talanian and her colleagues explain.

"Responding to Congress's ongoing unconstitutional actions can often feel tiring and ineffective. Join the People's Campaign for the Constitution so that together the grassroots can set our government's agenda and hold our government accountable to the constitutional principles upon which it was founded."

The People's Campaign for the Constitution seeks to bring together all groups and individuals -- right and left, Republican and Democrat, Libertarian and Green, independent and partisan -- who are concerned about renewing the rule of law to a country where it has been severely threatened by executive arrogance and legislative lethargy. "Fighting against one violation at a time fragments our movement," the BORDC says. "It is time to unite to face the common source of these problems."

Something of a national debut will come July 4, when Bill of Rights Defense Committee plans to purchase a half-page advertisement in the New York Times to sound the call for Constitutional renewal. I've signed on and I hope that readers of The Nation will join in this essential effort to raise the profile of our struggle to renew civil liberties in a time of warrantless wiretapping, torture, signing statements and all the other evidences of kingly arrogance in the executive branch of what is supposed to be a republic.

To learn more about how you can support this new declaration of faith in America's founding principles, visit the committee's Web site and sign on for the Constitution.

One of the themes of Sirota's The Uprising is that we are at a historical turning point, when progressives can turn the country around the way they did in 1900 and 1930 and 1960.

Can, but not necessarily will. At the last such turning point, in 1980, it was conservatives who grabbed the uprising opportunity and succeeded.

Don't let them do it again.

UPDATE, 5:46 p.m.: Obama supporters have formed a networking group specifically to pressure Obama on FISA. Get the details at TPM here, and join the group here.

Cross-posted at Blue in the Bluegrass.

There's more: "Want a More Progressive Obama? Then Make It Happen" >>

Feingold Gets Week's Reprieve for the Constitution

Take heart, American patriots: the battle to save the Fourth Amendment is not yet lost.

Objections by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) will push back an overhaul of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) until after lawmakers return in July, Democratic leaders said Thursday. Feingold is strongly opposed to language that would likely give telephone companies that participated in warrantless surveillance retroactive immunity from lawsuits.

For Barack Obama and everybody else who thinks this FISA abomination is no big deal (Yarmuth and Chandler, you putzes), Patrick Radden Keefe at Slate has a slap in the face:

Here, then, is the bitter joke of the new legislation:
From 2001 to 2007, the NSA engaged in a secret program that was a straightforward violation of America's wiretapping laws. Since the program was revealed, the administration has succeeded in preventing the judiciary from making a definitive declaration that the wiretapping was a crime. Suits against the government get dismissed on state-secrets grounds, because while the program may have been illegal, it was also so highly classified that its legality can never be litigated in open court. And now suits against the telecoms will by dismissed en masse as well. Meanwhile, the new law moves the goal posts, taking illegal things the administration was doing and making them legal.

Whatever Hoyer and Pelosi—and even Obama—say, this amounts to a retroactive blessing of the illegal program, and historically it means that the country will probably be deprived of any rigorous assessment of what precisely the administration did between 2001 and 2007. No judge will have an opportunity to call the president's willful violation of a federal statute a crime, and no landmark ruling by the courts can serve as a warning for future generations about government excesses in dangerous times.

What's more, because the proposal so completely plays into the Bush conception of executive power, it renders meaningless any of its own provisions. After all, if the main lesson of the wiretapping scandal is that we need more surveillance power for the government, what is to stop President Bush—or President Obama or President McCain—from one day choosing to set this new law aside, too? "How will we be judged?" Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., asked in a stirring speech deploring the legislation yesterday. "The technical argument obscures the defining question: the rule of law, or the rule of men?"

Read the whole thing, but if that's not enough, Glenn Greenwald has more:

In American Prospect, Julian Sanchez exposes the myth being peddled by Nancy Pelosi and others that the FISA bill doesn't legalize warrantless eavesdropping on Americans:

The award for the most bald-faced lie on the House floor Friday, however, goes to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who insisted that the bill "does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans." She is wrong. It does.

The broader spying powers given to the executive branch by the compromise bill require intelligence agencies to "target" foreigners. But if those foreign "targets" happen to call or e-mail Americans, those communications are fair game. And since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is only permitted to review the broad targeting procedures government eavesdroppers use to determine that a target is abroad, and not the substantive basis for authorizing surveillance of any target, anyone is a potential target.

The bill, in other words, allows the government to conduct "vacuum cleaner" surveillance -- sweeping up international traffic willy-nilly -- then filter it for anything that looks interesting. Indeed, many believe that licensing such surveillance is precisely the point of this legislation. If so, "warrantless surveillance of Americans" could well become routine, whether or not they are the formal "targets" of eavesdropping.

Whatever else is true, if Democrats and Barack Obama vote this bill into law, they will be (a) legalizing warrantless spying on Americans and (b) embracing the core premise of Bush radicalism: that as long as the President says something is legal (as he told telecoms that warrantless spying was legal), then it ought to be treated as such.

There's more: "Feingold Gets Week's Reprieve for the Constitution" >>

The Garden Club is Next

Suppose an anti-abortion group becomes frustrated by its inability to shut down the sole clinic providing abortions in your town. Decades of protests, lobbying the legislature and governor, disseminating educational materials have accomplished nothing; the abortions go on.

Several of the group's more excitable members decide that the only option left is direct action. They decide to burn down the clinic.

But they will burn it down at night, when the clinic is closed and no one is inside. Adjoining buildings will also be empty.

One person builds the incendiary device, he and three others break into the building at night and set the device, and a fifth person stands guard outside with a walkie-talkie to warn the others if guards or police appear.

The operation is successful. The building burns to the ground, no one is physically harmed, and the access to safe and legal abortions in your town is eliminated for the time being.

Most importantly, the group has sent a message to elected officials: abortions will not be tolerated in this town.

The arsonists are criminals, certainly, but are they terrorists?

What if they are environmentalists opposed to genetic engineering of trees who burn down an empty research lab?

The federal government is now using draconian post-9/11 powers to intimidate, attack and imprison for "terrorism" political dissenters who commit property crimes.

Don't get me wrong; I hold no brief for people who destroy personal property, especially if it is my personal property.

However, as a native-born American citizen and taxpayer in good standing, I really prefer that the FBI concentrate on homicide cases involving the actual murder of actual human beings rather than, you know, trespassing. Or even arson.

And I really, really don't want them exaggering political dissent into "terrorism" as an excuse to use the Constitution for toilet paper.

Salon has the frightening, depressing and infuriating details.

Earlier this month, on March 6, a federal jury in Tacoma, Wash., found Waters guilty of two counts of arson for serving as a lookout at the University of Washington fire. According to two women who testified against her in return for dramatically reduced sentences, Waters hid in a shrub near the Center for Urban Horticulture with a walkie-talkie, ready to alert the others if the campus police strolled by. Waters testified she wasn't even in Seattle that night.

Although Waters was on trial for only the University of Washington arson, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Friedman charged that she was part of a conspiracy -- a member of a "prolific cell" of the Earth Liberation Front, responsible for 17 fires set in four states over five years. Ten conspirators have pleaded guilty and been sentenced; four have fled the country; three are awaiting sentencing. Waters, the only one of the accused to have pleaded innocent and therefore the only one to have stood trial, now faces 20 years in prison.

Prosecutors celebrated the guilty verdict against Waters as a signal victory in the campaign against "eco-terror," a mission that the U.S. Department of Justice has made the centerpiece of its domestic counterterrorism program. "This cell of eco-terrorists thought they had a 'right' to sit in judgment and destroy the hard work of dedicated researchers at the UW and elsewhere," U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Sullivan declared in announcing Waters' conviction. "Today's verdict shows that no one is above the law."

Civil libertarians draw a different moral from the verdict. For them it is evidence of how the Justice Department has exaggerated the threat of eco-sabotage; they see Waters' story as a disturbing example of the misuse of federal authority and the excessive reach of the American counterterrorism program in the wake of 9/11. As Lauren Regan, director of the Civil Liberties Defense Center in Eugene, Ore., remarks: "There's a question of whether burning property is really the equivalent of flying a plane into a building and killing humans."

(SNIP)

Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller decided "they are going to restructure the FBI as a terrorism prevention organization rather than just a crime-fighting organization," explains Ben Rosenfeld, a civil rights attorney in San Francisco. The FBI vastly expanded its domestic and international terrorism capabilities, adding whole new categories of crime to its terrorism portfolio. Acts once considered property crimes -- like the arson at the University of Washington --were now assigned not to the bureau's criminal division but to the terrorism division.

(SNIP)

In the wake of 9/11, federal prosecutors had some new legal tools at their disposal. Historically, the crime of terrorism has required civilian deaths. In fact, the tate Department defined terrorism as "premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatants." But the USA Patriot Act created a new category of domestic terrorism, which is defined as an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government" or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Under this broad definition, eco-saboteurs become terrorists if their crime seeks to change government policy or action.

Several Republican members of Congress didn't want to stop there. In a letter sent to eight mainstream environmental groups such as the Sierra Club, Colorado Rep. Scott McInnis and six other congressmen demanded that respectable environmental organizations "publicly disavow the actions of eco-terrorist organizations." In
2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which imposes severe punishments on anyone who "intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property used by an animal enterprise."

(SNIP)

If Waters encounters the full force of the government's anti-terror zeal, it will be when she is sentenced on May 30. Prosecutors have not yet decided whether to seek a "terrorism enhancement" -- a sentencing rule that was written into the federal sentencing guidelines in 1995, after the bombings in Oklahoma City and at the World Trade Center, and would allow the judge to add up to 20 years to her prison term if her crime can be construed as a terrorist act.

Prosecutors sought the enhancement for six of the 10 Operation Backfire arsonists, who have been sentenced already, a significant departure from legal convention. (Meyerhoff, despite his cooperation, received a 13-year sentence.) "Never before has the terrorism enhancement been applied where there were no deaths," says Lauren Regan of the Civil Liberties Defense Center.

(SNIP)

Nonviolent protesters have already felt the heat. Documents obtained in 2005 by the ACLU reveal that the FBI has been surveying animal rights and environmental groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Greenpeace, sending undercover agents to activist conferences and cultivating inside informants. Some of the documents suggest that the bureau was also attempting to link those groups with the ELF and ALF. The National Lawyers Guild reports that it receives calls regularly from environmental and animal-rights activists all over the country who had been contacted by the FBI after attending political events. "It has a chilling effect on free speech," says Guild director Boghosian, "and that's where the real damage to the Constitution is happening."

' ... an offense "calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government."' Ever seen a bunch of really pissed-off Garden Club members raise hell at a city council meeting? What if one of the mayor's options was calling the FBI to haul them off to Guantanamo?

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "The Garden Club is Next" >>

The Breeze is Picking Up

Roper: "So now you'd give the devil the benefit of law?"

More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the devil?"

Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that."

More: "Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

"Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."

---A Man for All Seasons

UPDATE Below

TPM Muckraker has the list of the Teleco Ten, the "Democratic" Senators who voted this afternoon to kill a FISA bill that did NOT give amnesty to lawbreaking telecommunications companies.

The final tally was actually 60-36, not 60-34, and the full list of Dems voting to kill were: Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Tom Carper (D-DE), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), and Ken Salazar (D-CO).

Now comes the "debate" on the FISA bill that hands Smirky-Darth dictatorial powers and gives amnesty to the telecommunications companies who illegally wiretapped innocent American citizens.

Glenn Greenwald at Salon has a great analysis, and FiredogLake is liveblogging the debate.

Meanwhile, Salon commenter Jim White reports that John Edwards is finally stepping up on this issue:

I just got this email from Edwards. He stops short of calling for Obama and Clinton to go to Washington but he does say all of the right things otherwise. I think those calls and emails are helping.

Dear Jim,
When it comes to protecting the rule of law, words are not enough. We need action.

It's wrong for your government to spy on you. That's why I'm asking you to join me today in calling on Senate Democrats to filibuster revisions to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would give "retroactive immunity" to the giant telecom companies for their role in aiding George W. Bush's illegal eavesdropping on American citizens.

The Senate is debating this issue right now -- which is why we must act right now. You can call your Senators here:

Mel Martinez, (R): (202) 224-3041

Bill Nelson, (D): (202) 224-5274

Granting retroactive immunity is wrong. It will let corporate law-breakers off the hook. It will hamstring efforts to learn the truth about Bush's illegal spying program. And it will flip on its head a core principle that has guided our nation since our founding: the belief that no one, no matter how well connected or what office they hold, is above the law.

But in Washington today, the telecom lobbyists have launched a full-court press for retroactive immunity. George Bush and Dick Cheney are doing everything in their power to ensure it passes. And too many Senate Democrats are ready to give the lobbyists and the Bush administration exactly what they want.

Please join me in calling on every Senate Democrat to do everything in their power -- including joining Senator Dodd's efforts to filibuster this legislation -- to stop retroactive immunity and stand up for the rule of law. The Constitution should not be for sale at any price.

Thank you for taking action.

UPDATE, 6 p.m.: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rejected Mitch McConnell's motion to end debate - which would have handed Smirky-Darth their victorious execution of the Rule of Law - and postponed further debate until Monday.

That gives us all day tomorrow to call and email our Senators to warn them about the comming hurricane.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "The Breeze is Picking Up" >>

FISA and Dodd's Fight for the Constitution

Now that Senator Chris Dodd has dropped out of the presidential race, let's not forget that he was and remains the only prominent Democrat in the country fighting to restore our Constitutional rights.

And when I say "fighting," I don't mean complaining about that meanie in the White House after the latest dictatorial legislation has passed and it's too late.

I mean Dodd returned to D.C. at the height of the Iowa campaign to stand alone in the well of the Senate and say to telecom immunity in the FISA bill:

"This shall not pass."

And it didn't! Dodd won! Temporarily, yes, but it was the first and only victory by Democrats in defense of the Constitution in the 12 months since they took over Congress.

It was also the biggest single accomplishment by any of the Democratic presidential candidates, by far.

The Hydra-headed FISA re-authorization that hands amnesty to corporate law-breakers is coming back soon, and it's critical we stand behind Dodd again.

Glenn Greenwald, as always, nailed it:

Dan Froomkin yesterday reported on what the top legislative priority is for the Bush administration and the reasons why it is such: As President Bush begins his final year in office, the White House is aiming for one last major domestic legislative triumph: permanent expansion of government spy powers, including retroactive immunity for the telecom companies that assisted in warrantless surveillance.

(More after the jump.)

In an impromptu briefing aboard Air Force One, as Bush returned to Washington from his Texas vacation yesterday, White House counselor Ed Gillespie told reporters that an administration-supported bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is Bush's top priority.

"FISA is front and center," Gillespie said, according to a pool report from New York Times White House correspondent Sheryl Gay Stolberg. "If it is allowed to lapse we will be less safe as a country" . . .

Why is this such a big deal to the White House? Eric Lichtblau, James Risen and Scott Shane explained in the New York Times last month: "At stake is the federal government's extensive but uneasy partnership with industry to conduct a wide range of secret surveillance operations in fighting terrorism and crime". . . .

In short, it's a historic battle over the future of the country as a surveillance state.Indeed it is. I would add that retroactive immunity is also so vital to the White House because it is the key to suppressing permanently any prospect that their illegal spying will be investigated and adjudicated by a court.

That's why obtaining telecom immunity is the top priority for Bush. That's why stopping it ought to be a top priority for anyone who cares about the rule of law and limits on our government's surveillance powers. And that's why it is so obscene for Democrats such as Harry Reid and Jay Rockefeller to be leading the way in ensuring that Bush is given everything he is demanding.

In a email to supporters (I'm an Edwards partisan, but I gave money to Dodd to support his FISA fight) after Iowa, Dodd wrote this:

I know a lot of you came to this email list through a shared desire to return our nation to one that respects the rule of law, and I want to make one thing clear to all of you:

The fight to restore the Constitution and stop retroactive immunity does not end with my Presidential campaign. FISA will come back in a few weeks and my pledge to filibuster ANY bill that includes retroactive immunity remains operative.

You've been an invaluable ally in the battle, and I'll need you to stick by my side despite tonight's caucus results.

We made a real difference in shaping the debate, and we'll continue to do so in the coming days, weeks and years.

Chris Dodd

Smirky and Darth have a whole year left to finish shredding the Constitution and divide the citizenry into sheep and detainees.

Don't let the presidential election distract you from the fateful battle former candidate Chris Dodd is still fighting.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "FISA and Dodd's Fight for the Constitution" >>

Put Your Civil Liberties Down and Back Away Slowly

I have just finished reading Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy by Pulitzer Prize-winning Boston Globe reporter Charlie Savage, and can sum it up this way:

The phrase "we are so completely fucked" is the understatement of the century.

Over the past two years, as one outrage after another by the Smirky-Darth administration has come to light, the cumulative impact has been numbing: Abu Graib, torture, rape and murder of innocent civilians, American citizens secretly and indefinitely detained, warrantless wiretapping of anyone and everyone, hundreds of billions of dollars stolen from taxpayers to enrich bush/cheney cronies, laws ignored, laws broken, the Constitution shredded.

Even the death of our last hope - the self-strangling of the "Democratic" Congress - is just one more hardly-felt blow to a body politic already at death's door.

The great revelation of Savage's meticulously documented book is just how thoroughly, successfully and permanently this maladminstration has stripped power from citizens, from Congress, from the bureaucracy and from the courts, until there is legally and literally nothing anyone can do to stop this or any other president from exercising the absolute power he has finally acquired.

Right now, this minute, if Smirky took it into his head to declare martial law, dispatch Blackwater to round up everyone who objects and throw them into Guantanamo forever or just summarily execute them, there is nothing - nothing - to stop him.

(More after the jump.)


Martial law? Specifically authorized by Congress in the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Secret and indefinite detention of citizens? Once it was stopped only by the prospect of a Supreme Court decision on Jose Padilla, but Congress specifically stripped the courts of jurisdiction in such cases in - you guessed it - the MCA.

"The Republican-led Congress used the Military Commissions Act to virtually eliminate the possibiity that the Supreme Court could ever again act as a check on a president's power in the war on terrorism. The bill aslo granted a congressional blessing, in statute, for many of the hugely expanded executive pwoers that the Bush-Cheney administration had previously seized onb its own, ensuring that they would be even more difficult to roll back."

The "Commander in Chief" of America now has powers over his own citizenry that dictators like Pinochet, Somoza, and Mugabe, who slaughtered thousands of their countrymen, could only dream of.

Because the powers of the "Commander in Chief" of America were handed to him on a silver platter by a Congress democratically elected by the people.

We asked for it, we deserve it, we got it.

Forgive us, Ben: you gave us a Republic, but we couldn't keep it.

If you're thinking about next year's elections, don't bother. Seriously, if you'd spent seven years accumulating unprecedented power, the kind of power that allows you to straddle the world as a colossus and do exactly as you damn well please, would you just give it up and walk away? Especially if it meant handing all that hard-won power to someone who stands for everything you hate, despise and loathe?

And if you were that someone, suddenly handed, by virtue of having won a democratic election, power on the level of that wielded by medieval kings, would you demand that Congress take it away from you? Especially when you need all the power you can get to undo the damage done to your beloved country and the world over the previous eight years?

The kind of power that we, the people, have handed to the Commander in Chief of America is the kind of power I wouldn't trust in the hands of anyone. Not Obama, not Edwards, and certainly not Hillary.

Hell, that kind of power would turn even gentle, Department-of-Peace-creating Dennis Kucinich into a monster.

We are lip-deep in the quicksand, people, and sinking fast. This one is not going to be fixable in a year, or a decade, or a generation.

No, I don't have the answer. I don't think a real, bullets-flying revolution is practical, much less winnable. Nor do I think continuing to elect "Democrats" who perpetuate the status quo is going to cut it.

But because so many of these dictatorial powers are tied to Smirky's claims of inherent and exclusive executive powers in prosecuting the "war on terror," the key may be taking that excuse away.

I've argued for a long time that the Iraq occupation and the temporarily derailed attack on Iran have nothing to do with terror, oil or even enriching cronies. They are all about creating and perpetuating permanent war. And permanent war is the one irreplaceable ingredient in establishing and maintaining a dictatorship.

Leaders at peace are leaders with minimal power. Leaders at war have carte blanche.

So the first step in restoring the Constitution is to not just end the Iraq occupation, but change the "war on terror" into what it should have been from the beginning: a criminal investigation, with law enforcement making arrests and civilian courts trying suspects before civilian juries.

It's going to be a long, hard slog through the enemy jungle, dodging snipers, drinking fever-water, eating our boots.

But it's one we've faced before, and one that the smartest sumbitches who ever lived (thank you Molly) knew we'd face again. One of them spoke the words that gave them strength then, and give me strength now:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

Happy New Year.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Put Your Civil Liberties Down and Back Away Slowly" >>

Mitt Has Founders Spinning in Their Graves

In response to Mitt Romney's evisceration of the U.S. Constitution' religious protections today, I would like to post in full a long comment posted in Salon last night.

As Gadfly noted today Mitt tried to square the circle of unconstitutional Xianist wingnuttery by saying, in part:

'Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

Wrong, wrong, so very, very wrong and lethally dangerous.

In Salon, vasmurti commented on an article about Romney's religion problem thusly:

Romney's religious identity should be completely irrelevant
In the secular, political arena, one's religious identity should be completely irrelevant.

In 1787 when the framers excluded all mention of God from the Constitution, they were widely denounced as immoral and the document was denounced as godless, which is precisely what it is.

(More after the jump.)

Opponents of the Constitution challenged ratifying conventions in nearly every state, calling attention to Article VI, Section 3:
“No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

An anti-federalist in North Carolina wrote: “The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. Pagans, Deists and Mohammedans might obtain office among us.”

Amos Singletary of Massachussetts, one of the most outspoken critics of the Constitution, said that he “hoped to see Christians (in power), yet by the Constitution, a papist or an infidel was as eligible as they.”

Luther Martin, a Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 wrote that “there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief in the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country, it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.”

Martin’s report shows that a “Christian nation” faction had its say during the convention, and that its views were consciously rejected.

The United States Constitution is a completely secular political document. It begins “We the people,” and contains no mention of “God,” “Jesus,” or “Christianity.” Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as the “no religious test” clause (Article VI), and “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (First Amendment)

The presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a Bible (Article II, Section 1). The words “under God” did not appear in the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, when Congress, under McCarthyism, inserted them.

Similarly, “In God we Trust” was absent from paper currency before 1956, though it did appear on some coins since 1864. The original U.S. motto, written by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, is “E Pluribus Unum” (“Of Many, One”) celebrating plurality and diversity.

In 1797, America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This reassurance to Islam was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

We are not governed by the Declaration of Independence. Its purpose was to “dissolve the political bonds,” not to set up a religious nation. Its authority was based upon the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” which is contrary to the biblical concept of rule by divine authority.

The Declaration deals with laws, taxation, representation, war, immigration, etc., and doesn’t discuss religion at all. The references to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence” in the Declaration do not endorse Christianity. Its author, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist, opposed to Christianity and the supernatural.

It was Thomas Jefferson who established the separation of church and state. Jefferson helped create the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, incurring the wrath of Christians by his fervent defense of toleration of atheists:

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

In his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson wrote:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

Later in his life, James Madison similarly came out against state-paid chaplains, writing, “The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” He also concluded that his calling for days of prayer and fasting during his presidency had been unconstitutional.
In an 1819 letter to Robert Walsh, Madison wrote, “the number, the industry and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”

In an undated essay called the “Detached Memoranda,” written in the early 1800s, Madison wrote, “Strongly guarded...is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States.”

In 1833 Madison responded to a letter sent to him by Jasper Adams. Adams had written a pamphlet titled “The Relations of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States,” which tried to prove that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. Madison wrote back:

“In the papal system, government and religion are in a manner consolidated, and that is found to be the worst of government.”
In the early part of the 19th century, a general understanding existed that the government should not promote religion, or favor one religion over another:

“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what is false,” stated a government official.
“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for violation of what Government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our Government the power of defining the divine law.”
-- vasumurti
[Read vasumurti's other letters]
Permalink Wednesday, December 5, 2007 10:05 PM

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Mitt Has Founders Spinning in Their Graves" >>

Chris Dodd Under Siege

The long knives are out for Courageous Senator Christopher Dodd, whose one-man fight to save our Constitutional Rights is being attacked by his very own "Democratic" "leadership."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trampling on 220 years of Senate tradition to ignore Dodd's hold on the bill to grant telecommunications companies amnesty for illegally spying on innocent American citizens.

Dodd is fighting back with a vow to launch a filibuster - a real one, not the fake threats the repugs use to terrify Reid & co. - but the powers funded by telco billions are just getting started.

Bloggers everywhere, including  FiredogLake, have publicized Dodd's fight, and thousands of people have responded with supportive emails to Dodd and contributions to his presidential campaign.

After bloggers revealed Harry Reid's machinations, thousands of calls and emails have poured into Reid's office, where by 4 p.m. his staff had reached the point of hanging up on people.

But it's not yet enough.  It's going to take millions of calls, emails and donations to stop the telco amnesty juggernaut.  It's going to take people talking about it to everyone you know, because the mainstream media is refusing to cover Dodd's Rebellion.

Let's get his back. 

Watch a video of Dodd talking about the bill and why he is fighting it.

Read Glenn Greenwald's superb coverage of the issue.

Read Retired Military Patriot's perfect letter to Reid.

Send a supportive email to Dodd.

Send a polite but passionate email to Harry Reid.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Chris Dodd Under Siege" >>

Help Chris Dodd Save the Constitution

UPDATE After the Jump, UPDATE II

One - and only one - Member of Congress is at this moment standing in front of a stampeding horde of telecommunications companies, bushies and bought-off Senators determined to burn the Constitution to the ground in the name of giving the telcos amnesty for illegal spying.

Trust me on this: Go to Dodd's blog right now and add your comment supporting him. His office and campaign telephones are ringing off the hook, but so far the comment section on his blog is pretty open. Plus, it's more permanent and you can write rationally instead of screaming hysterically.

If you want the details, check out Glenn Greenwald's post on how the Senate is planning to cave completely to Smirky, the telcos and all the forces of UnConstitutional Evil.(More after the jump.)

UPDATE: To his credit, Chris Dodd has been, by far, the most vocal Democratic presidential candidate on the issues of executive power abuses and restoring our constitutional framework. Unsurprisingly, he has issued a very strong condemnation of telecom amnesty along with a vow to try to stop it:
While the President may think that it's right to offer immunity to those who break the law and violate the right to privacy of thousands of law-abiding Americans, I want to assure him it is not a value we have in common and I hope the same can be said of my fellow Democrats in the Senate.
For too long we have failed to respect the rule of law and failed to protect our fundamental civil liberties. I will do what I can to see to it that no telecommunications giant that was complicit in this Administration's assault on the Constitution is given a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The vow to "do what [he] can" to stop amnesty is interesting. Big Tent Democrat suggests he lead a filibuster to stop it (h/t Atrios), but I doubt, given Rockefeller's support, that they could get anywhere near the 40 votes necessary to sustain that. Dodd could, however, place a "hold" on any bill containing amnesty and prevent it from reaching the floor for a vote: "Senate tradition allows any senator to keep a piece of legislation from reaching the Senate floor by placing a hold on the bill." That is what Sen. Wyden did previously to prevent a vote on an anti-net-neutrality bill.
Dodd's emphasis in his campaign on constitutional issues -- along with his excellent voting record this year -- has generated significant positive feelings towards his campaign. But demonstrating real leadership on this incomparably important issue would almost certainly generate real, tangible support for his campaign in many circles.
Telecom amnesty implicates not only all of the issues raised by warrantless surveillance and the rule of law, but really calls into question the basic fairness of our entire political system, i.e, whether the wealthiest and most powerful corporations in Washington can literally buy their way out of lawbreaking. Anyone who boldly impedes what would be this bipartisan travesty -- and a "hold" on an issue of this magnitude would, in the context of Senate customs, be very bold -- is someone who will have demonstrated genuine leadership on a truly critical issue. There has been precious little of that thus far in the presidential race.
* * * * *
Amos Hochstein is the Policy Director for the Dodd Campaign. He can be reached at (202) 737-3633. It may be very helpful to have him hear from those who have appreciated Sen. Dodd's outspokenness thus far on constitutional issues to understand what Sen. Dodd's leadership on this issue here would mean. It is vital to have someone in the Senate take an emphatic stance against what would be the true atrocity of telecom amnesty (Atrios adds some insightful thoughts about the strategic rationale behind a Dodd hold).

Yeah, yeah, I'm committed to Edwards, and it's not really fair to compare him to Dodd on this one, since Dodd is right there in the Senate and Edwards is not, but I swear, if Dodd succeeds in stopping this abomination, his presidential campaign gets my Christmas Fund.

UPDATE, 2:50 p.m.: Senator Dodd has just successfully placed a hold on this disgusting piece of crap posing as legislation. Send the man some love!"

UPDATE II, 4:27 p.m.: Quote from Dodd: "It's about delivering results -- and as I've said before, the FIRST thing I will do after being sworn into office is restore the Constitution. But we shouldn't have to wait until then to prevent the further erosion of our country's most treasured document. That's why I am stopping this bill today."


Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.

There's more: "Help Chris Dodd Save the Constitution" >>

Changing the U.S. voting and political system radically

In a post below, I talked a bit about wanting to change the U.S. electoral system. In response to one of the comments, I added some information there, and I’m going to talk more here about what I’d like to see changed.

First, as I mentioned there, I encourage everyone here who is interested in political science issues to read David Lazare’s “The Frozen Republic.” It is the best book I know advocating a parliamentary government for the U.S.

The first reason I cite is based on the analogy of the U.K. and other modern parliamentary democracies. You have an election, and the new government, if there is a change of parties, takes over the next day. If a coalition is needed, it takes over as soon as coalition details are in place. Opposition parties already have “shadow” cabinet secretaries, etc.

In a nuclear-armed, and computer-driven age, the U.S Constitution (the body, not the various civil liberties and rights) is antiquated in many ways. This is the most egregious way. It’s simply unacceptable for the world’s most-powerful (both militarily, and for a bit longer, at least — watch that Chinese shadow — economically) nation to have a transition of 10 weeks between governments, with another two-three weeks after that before a cabinet is in place.

The second way it’s antiquated is illustrated by the 2006 election. First, a change of Congress like this would have booted Bush out of power.

Related to that, especially if (per my discussion on voting changes, below), we had third parties holding seats (let’s say, Greens and maybe a Libertarian or two) and the Democrats’ margin was narrow, the Democratic party would have to actually deliver on getting out of Iraq. If not, deaths, resignations, by-elections (to use that wonderful British term), etc., would undercut Democrats’ power to govern without coalition.

Beyond going to a parliamentary system, I’m also ready to change specifics of those representatives.

First, in addition to the 435 single-member district Representatives (which we might change to call them “state-proportioned Representatives), let’s elect another, say, 165 off a national list, on a proportional basis. I’m directly using the German Bundestag, with a 400/200 split, as my starting point. Having a national list (with a lower cutoff percentage for third parties to qualify than in Germany) would give third parties a better chance of getting a couple of seats, at least.

Second, to eliminate the perpetual campaign, and tracking the norm in other states, Representatives would serve four-year terms. But, to make government even more responsive, we would stagger this to have half the House elected every two years. Or, to give a “mid-term” feel, we could have single-member districts on one four-year cycle and the national list on another.

Third, though I would not make the Senate as weak as the British House of Lords, since this is a parliamentary government, I would weaken it somewhat, a la the German Bundesrat, the Japanese Diet’s upper house, etc. And, to further reflect regionalism, versus single-state federalism, I would consider the idea of having some Senators elected on a regional basis; also, to lessen the small-state inequity of the Senate, regional Senators would be apportioned to different regions (South, Mid-Atlantic, New England, etc.) on a population basis.

States would also be allowed to have their Representatives elected by a method other than first-past-the-post single-member districts. The particular method for this would be of their choice.

Here are Wiki links for single transferable vote (a method I like more than what Clay proposes, but which would probably require change in federal law), preferential voting in general (which includes both IRV and the STV I like, and voting systems in general, including Clay’s range voting.

I favor the Single Transferable Vote system, myself.

A strong federal Congressional campaign finance law would also be passed, including money for third-party candidates meeting reasonable thresholds.

I would also eliminate the “life or good behavior” tenure in office of federal judges. District judges would serve 12-year terms, reappointable once. Appellate and Supreme Court justices would serve 14- and 16-year terms, respectively, also reappointable once. (Extra appointments could not be carried over from inferior to superior courts.)

Now, I’m not at all sanguine about ANY of this actually happening. But, you can now see how dissatisfied and disaffected I am with the current political process.

There's more: "Changing the U.S. voting and political system radically" >>

Happy Constitution Day

Today we celebrate the document that embodies the American spirit.

In May of 1787, when the delegates to the Federal Convention convened to overhaul the Articles of Confederation, debate over the issues the new nation faced brought the delegates to the conclusion that the original governing document should be set aside, and an entirely new frame of government established.

The end result was the Constitution of the United States; the Social Contract that to this very day governs our lives and defines the boundaries of our relationship with our government.

Competing visions of government were considered and debated, and a draft emerged on August 6^th. Two weeks later, commerce and slavery collided, and nearly ceased the proceedings. A week into September, the delegates were exhausted and ready to return home, and the final draft was turned over to committee for the preparation of the final draft, which was returned finished on September 12. On September 15, it was voted on by the convention for the last time, and it passed unanimously. Every vote on the roll call was “aye.”

From there, it went to the states, where now the fight was between the Federalists who backed ratification and the anti-Federalists who opposed.

Pennsylvania was the first state to call for a ratification convention. All eyes in the nation were cast toward that state. Pennsylvania was large, wealthy and powerful, and there was much at stake. The positions of both Federalists and anti-Federalists were printed in newspapers throughout the land.

Passions were high.

When the Federalist-dominated state ratifying convention lacked a quorum of members to conduct the vote on September 29, an angry mob took Participatory Democracy to a whole new level.

They went to the homes of two anti-Federalist lawmakers and dragged them to the statehouse, forcing their presence, and a quorum.

Anti-Federalist sentiments ran equally high, however, and in New York, a series of essays penned under the pseudonym “Cato” began appearing, assailing the Constitution for the strong central government it established.

A counter offensive was undertaken by Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, with the help of James Madison. Before the end of 1787, the first of the Federalist Papers would be published. The 85 essays, most penned by Hamilton, examined the failings of the Articles of Confederation, and building the case for a strong central government. Thomas Jefferson later called the Federalist Papers the "best commentary on the principles of government ever written."

The fight was not over. By January 1788, only five of the nine states needed for ratification had voted to do so – Pennsylvania, Delaware, Connecticut, Georgia and New Jersey. The ratifying convention in Massachusetts did not ratify until the addition of a Bill of Rights.

That made six.

But the Federalists were not on the homestretch yet. The New Hampshire convention would be adjourned before the vote by Federalists sensing defeat. Rhode Island put it to the citizens in the form of a referendum, and the citizens turned down the Constitution with an overwhelming 10-to-1 rejection.

The Federalist leaders were getting nervous. They turned their focus to Maryland, and Madison wrote to George Washington "The difference between even a postponement and adoption in Maryland may . . . possibly give a fatal advantage to that which opposes the constitution." Madison expended much anxiety needlessly. The Maryland convention overwhelmingly approved the Constitution, with 63 delegates voting “aye” and only 11 “nays.”

That made seven.

In May, South Carolina adopted the Constitution, so when New Hampshire ratified in the summer of 1788, the Constitution became the Social Contract. With the ratification of the Constitution by a reconvened New Hampshire convention, the Congress appointed a committee "for putting the said Constitution into operation."

By September, Virginia and New York would ratify as well, but the votes were very close.

Heroes of the Revolution, Patrick Henry foremost, had opposed the new Constitution because it was vague, and it was only adopted when the amendments we know as The Bill of Rights were added.

It was an age of debate and participation and compromise. In the end, the founders gave us a Republic. It is our charge to keep it.

There's more: "Happy Constitution Day" >>

Better Late Than Never

Josh Marshall, Founder of the Talking Points Memo Empire, and one of the most eloquent progressive skeptics on impeachment, appears to finally be coming around.

"Without going into all the specifics, I think we are now moving into a situation where the White House, on various fronts, is openly ignoring the constitution, acting as though not just the law but the constitution itself, which is the fundamental law from which all the statutes gain their force and legitimacy, doesn't apply to them.

If that is allowed to continue, the defiance will congeal into precedent. And the whole structure of our system of government will be permanently changed.

Whether because of prudence and pragmatism or mere intellectual inertia, I still have the same opinion on the big question: impeachment. But I think we're moving on to dangerous ground right now, more so than some of us realize. And I'm less sure now under these circumstances that operating by rules of 'normal politics' is justifiable or acquits us of our duty to our country."

I've been a loyal TPM fan since 2001, when it was a one-man, bare-bones blog, just a few months old. TPM Cafe, Election Central, Horse's Mouth, Muckraker, TPMTv and the staff that keep TPM at the top of the blogging game were not even gleams in Josh's eye.

Yeah, he's always been a little too fond of the DLC line for my taste, but I was thrilled by the reporter's sensibility he brought to his posts - a sensibility now grown into the major-story-breaking hard news of TPMMuckraker.

And for all his DLC apologia, liberals and progressives owe Josh Marshall a permanent debt of gratitude for putting a stop, virtually single-handedly, to The Usurper's 2005 attempt to destroy Social Security.

I thought Josh was wrong when he expressed doubts about the wisdom of impeaching Bush and Cheney, but I respected his logic.

I respect him even more for his ability to consider changing his mind based on new evidence and circumstances.

Nevertheless, I think he's missing one of the strongest arguments in favor of impeachment: Nixon.

Josh is 38, which means he was in kindergarten during Watergate. I was only in high school, but I remember the extreme shock felt by people of all political persuasions when the full extent of Nixon's crimes was laid bare.

I remember the heart-swelling pride in the strength of our political system when Congressional Republicans and Democrats banded together to expose those crimes and demand the president be held accountable.

I remember my father - a third-generation Republican - and my mother, a sixth-generation Democrat - both emphasizing to me that the true lesson of Watergate was that the U.S. Constitution was stronger than any politican, stronger than any president, stronger than any crime perpetrated against it.

And I remember how all that shock, all that pride, all that faith in the Constitution was swept away by Gerald Ford's pardon.

Nixon skated. The man shat on the Constitution, came within a whisker of establishing a police state that put the East German Stasi to shame, and he skated.

The precedent for The Usurper's treason was established.

Reagan and Bush I used it to escape punishment for Iran-Contra (Presidents are above the law.) And the republican freakazoids of the '90s turned it inside-out to impeach Clinton for telling a lie told by thousands of married people every single day (Impeachment isn't a serious Constitutional mechanism; it's a political tool.)

If Nixon had been impeached, or indicted and convicted for his crimes after his resignation, it would have been much harder for Reagan and Bush I to resist Congressional investigation through secrecy and perjury. It would have been much harder for '90s republicans to justify using the Constitutional majesty of impeachment for a fib about sex.

And it would have been damn-near impossible for George W. Bush and Richard Cheney to continue to trample the Constitution for more than five years after a pre-Nixon Congress would have kicked their asses into the dustbin of history.

If Congress doesn't impeach Bush and Cheney - or given the time constraints, indict and convict them after they leave office - it won't matter who's elected president in 2008. It won't matter if Democrats take the Senate and House with 80-percent majorities. It won't matter if the republican party is shut out of every national, state and local election for the next three generations.

If Bush and Cheney skate, an even more dangerous precedent than Nixon's will be set in stone:

The president is King; Congress is a debating club; the judiciary is a joke; the Constitution is as dead as Ozymandias, and The American Experiment is a historical fluke that failed.

There's more: "Better Late Than Never" >>

The Bush View of the Constitution

Based on recent events, Bush must think this fine print is part of the U.S. Constitution:[inspired by Josh Marshall]

There's more: "The Bush View of the Constitution" >>

Fletcher Official Admits Political Gagging

If you're reading this at work - on your lunch hour or break, of course! - count your blessings and do something nice for your boss.

You're better off than Kentucky state employees, who cannot read this, or any other blog that republican Governor Ernie Fletcher doesn't like, at work.

Yeah, yeah, they shouldn't be reading blogs at work, blah, blah, blah.

That's what Fletcher officials said. AFTER they got caught blocking a particular blogger who was exposing their crimes and stupidity several times a day.

For 2-1/2 years, from his inauguration in December 2003, Ernie had no problem with state employees reading blogs at work. State computer techs blocked porn sites, of course, and if your blog reading interferred with your work, your boss would call you in for a little chat about productivity, but if you wanted to spend your break reading the latest on Daily Kos or Little Green Footballs, nobody cared much.

But in May 2006, a grand jury indicted Fletcher on charges of violating state merit law by firing civil-service-protected Democrats to make room for his republican cronies.

And Mark Nickolas attacked.

Nickolas, who managed the campaign of Ben Chandler, who lost the governor's race to Fletcher, operated a blog called BluegrassReport.org. For two years, he'd been posting news and snarky commentary about Fletcher's Keystone Kops administration - along with strong criticism of the state's cowardly and incompetent Democrats.

But after the indictment, Nickolas moved into overdrive, and BluegrassReport became the don't-miss, refresh-all-day, multi-commented Blog Everybody Reads.

And Fletcher couldn't take it. One day, state employees checked out BluegrassReport.org and found only a full-page message: "This Site Has Been Blocked by the Commonwealth Office of Technology."

WTF?

That first day, you could still get on Kos, and LGF, and TPM, and Drudge, and all the rest.

So by lunchtime, it was pretty obvious what had happened. Fletcher had specifically blocked BGR because Nickolas - and his many bright, funny, well-informed commenters - hurt his tiny widdle feewings.

Emails flew between Nickolas and his state employee informers, and by close of business, Nickolas was accusing Fletcher of targeting BGR in political retribution.

The next day, all the liberal/progressive blogs were blocked, but state employees could still spend all day soaking up the vomit spewed by LGF and Drudge and the rest of the bush-fellators.

Nickolas cried foul again: Republican blogs were fine, but Democrats and liberals need not apply.

Fletcher officials blustered and lied and stalled, but in the end, they had no choice. To cover up their un-Constitutional gagging of BGR from state computers, they had to block all blogs.

Elephant-footed, they blanket-blocked everything on the Internet, to the point that people who needed information couldn't access even federal government websites.

Over the course of months, COT refined its blocking techniques, lifting the block on specific web sites if an employee could justify it as work-related.

It's still highly suspicious: FOX gets a pass, despite being news-free, as do Amazon and most shopping sites. Right-wing and Christian religious sites get through, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster is blocked.

It's also somewhat arbitrary: Talking Points Memo, TPM Cafe, TPM Election Central and TPM Horse's Mouth are blocked, but TPMMuckraker is not. Salon's War Room blog is blocked, but its Broadsheet blog is not. Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog at washingtonmonthly.com hung on for a few months, but was gone by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Nickolas filed a federal First Amendment lawsuit against Fletcher and kept beating Ernie senseless on his blog.

In June, Nickolas moved to Montana and shut down BGR. But the lawsuit continues, and last Friday former Fletcher technology commissioner Michael Inman dropped a bombshell:

Robbie Rudolph, Fletcher's running mate for lieutenant governor and secretary of the executive cabinet, directly ordered Inman to block BGR.

"It was apparent that the state had intentionally targeted BluegrassReport.org and had blocked the category of blogs and other categories of Web sites in an attempt to disguise that fact," Inman said in a sworn statement.

No shit.

The Blocking of BGR is small potatoes compared to the wholesale burning of the U.S. Constitution perpetrated by Smirky and Darth Cheney. But the testimony of Inman - whom Fletcher stupidly fired - is a crack in the Right-Wing Authoritarian Wall.

It gives me hope on two counts: That republicans with integrity are not a myth, and that they will, when pushed hard enough toward the Dark Side, do the Right Thing. And that blogs like BGR and Watching Those We Chose can, indeed, Make A Difference.

Mark Nickolas and BluegrassReport contributed enormously to the 2006-2007 rebirth of the Kentucky Democratic Party, not least by flaying moribund and corrupt Democrats as raw as he flayed Fletcher and other republicans. Nickolas and BGR strongly supported Steve Beshear's gubernatorial candidacy and played a significant role in Beshear's 20-point drubbing of Fake Democrat and Convicted Criminal Bruce Lunsford in the May primary.

The new chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party is State Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who staunchly opposed Fletcher's Internet blocking. Miller was the Voice of Reason, pointing out that Indiana, Ohio, Illinois and other neighboring states manage to get the work of the people done without denying their employees access to anything on the Internet except porn.

Miller's withdrawal from the governor's race ensured Beshear's victory, so Steve owes him big time.

If Beshear wins the election in November, state employees will be able to read political blogs at work again by Christmas.

BGR is gone, but several other progressive Kentucky blogs are working hard to fill its shoes, including Bluegrass Roots, Kentucky Democrat, Drinking Liberally Louisville, Hillbilly Report, Kentucky Woman and Ditch Mitch Kentucky.

There's more: "Fletcher Official Admits Political Gagging" >>