Motley Moose – Archive

Let us put aside for the moment that not only did most of you not have any qualms about such surveillance during the Bush Administration.  Let us also put aside that during those years you not only lacked any qualms, but also supported it and questioned anyone that disagreed with you over it.  Let us assume, for purposes of argument, that this is genuine concern rooted in privacy issues and not rooted in politics.

President Obama has made clear that members of Congress have been briefed on this issue.  Therefore, if you are truly concerned, and you truly believe that the public had a right to know what was happening, there is a simple solution that was available to you the moment you found out.  What is that solution?

Read everything you know about the surveillance programs into the Congressional Record.

This could be done through an actual speech on the floor of the House or the Senate.  This could be done through a speech in committee.  This could be done by moving to insert the full text of what you have into the Congressional Record.  There are all sorts of ways to do this and with its insertion it would enter the public domain.

Now you’re probably thinking that you could get in serious amounts of trouble, and go to prison for a long time, for what is effectively leaking highly classified information.  You couldn’t be more wrong.  See, that Constitution you claim to hold so dear, and you claim you know pretty much inside and out, protects you pretty much absolutely if you had chosen to go this route.  I direct your attention to Article I, Section 6, Clause 1:

Senators and Representatives…  for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.

This is a grant of congressional immunity for your speeches in Congress and your insertions into the Congressional Record.  In fact, this is how Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) helped ensure that the Pentagon Papers would enter the public domain.  A subsequent case held that this protection also extends to congressional aides for conduct for which a representative or senator would be immune from prosecution.

So, there you have it Republicans.  If you were so concerned about this matter, and you truly believed that the public had the right to know, rather than just as part of an attempt to create a scandal, there was a way open for you to raise your concerns and inform the public.  This way was created in the Constitution and is now nearly 226 years old.  Furthermore, it has been used before.  With all the constitutional scholars you claim to have, I’m surprised you never thought of this before.

Yes, I used that word, ‘liberal.’  I identify as one after all.  I have already made clear why I prefer that term to the one currently in vogue, ‘progressive.’  Now I lay out what, exactly, as a liberal I believe.  This has all been out there before, but I feel the need to reiterate it.

I believe in democracy and the will of the people.  We are nation governed by people and ruled by laws.  That means when conservatives and Republicans win elections they inherently have my consent to govern on that basis and I will accordingly defend their right to do so.  While I will forcefully oppose the elements of their agenda I consider bad, I will nonetheless support their right to enact it so long as it is consistent with the Constitution.

I believe regulated capitalism is the best economic system for prosperity and societal development and advancement.  There must be regulations in place to curb its excesses, but, overall, it is better than any other system that has been put out there.  When properly regulated, the invisible hand postulated by Adam Smith can, and will generally, be effective.  It is not always pretty, and it is certainly not perfect, but many people will innovate based upon the perceived economic benefits to be reaped by accurately judging society’s wants and needs.

I do not believe corporations are inherently evil.  They are mere pieces of papers; fictional constructs designed to limit the liability of investors to the size of their investment.  That limited liability encourages investment.  It helped promote significant economic growth here and in other nations.  As with other elements of a capitalist economic system when its excesses are not curbed it can, and will, cause significant damage.  That, however, is not an argument to eliminate the concept of limited liability, or capitalism for that matter.  Instead it is merely a reason to pursue effective and reasonable regulations.

Do I believe that marijuana should be legalized?  Yes.  Would I vote for legalization if I were a member of Congress?  Yes.  Would I support bills that decriminalize marijuana at the state level?  Yes.  Would I have voted for either the Colorado or Washington initiatives that legalized, rather than merely decriminalized, marijuana in those states?  No.  Would I have signed the bill that Colorado governor John Hickenlooper did to establish a regulatory scheme for marijuana in his state?  No, I would have vetoed it.

At first glance it doesn’t sound logical that I favor legalization of marijuana and yet would oppose the various initiatives at the state level to do so.  How, exactly, are these seemingly conflicting viewpoints not contradictory?

The answer lies in the second question I ask.  The other four questions all deal with state-level issues.  That second question is one of federal power.  Individual policies are important, but there is something even more important than individual policies.  That is respect for the federal Constitution, which includes acting in accordance with its provisions.

First, let’s start with what the Constitution defines as offenses warranting impeachment and removal from office.  Those can be found in Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Treason and bribery are pretty straightforward, but what, exactly, constitutes high crimes and misdemeanors.  Here’s what former House Minority Leader (and former president) Gerald Ford (R-Michigan) said about them:

An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor admitted that the Court possibly erred when it decided to take Bush v. Gore:

Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.

That, however, wasn’t even the kicker.  This was:

It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day. (emphasis my own)

Think about that for a second.  She pretty much admits that the biggest decision rendered while she sat on the Supreme Court she provided the necessary vote to get it wrong and swing a presidential election.  Perhaps this could have been somewhat understandable if George W. Bush had won the popular vote and there was a sense in the nation that the courts should step in to make sure the popular vote winner took office.  That, however, was not the case.  Bush lost the popular vote and her vote helped pave the way for the loser to take office.

In the real world, the deliberate targeting of clinics where women seek to exercise a constitutional right is called terrorism.  In the world of Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers, it is not (h/t Media Matters):

Just b/c the bombing suspects were Muslim, that doesn’t make it ‘terrorism’ any more than a crazy abortion clinic bomber is a terrorist.

– Kirsten Powers (@kirstenpowers10) April 19, 2013)

And, as Media Matters points out:

The intent behind this tweet isn’t immediately clear, but the message it conveys — that an anti-abortion zealot who sets off a bomb inside of an abortion clinic is not a terrorist — is absolutely false. The FBI treats attacks against abortion service providers as acts of terrorism and anti-abortion movements that resort to violence as terrorist groups.

Do we elect them to fight the good fight, come up short and, in the end do absolutely nothing?  No.

We elect them to get stuff done, even if it is only “any sort of line they can sign no matter how minuscule.”

We don’t live in a dictatorship where President Obama can sign executive order after executive order and allocate money and resources and make laws.  We live in a federal republic where power is split between the federal and state governments and where within each of those governments power is further split between the various branches.  Given that the Republicans currently control the House, that means some Republicans must vote for any piece of legislation before it can even reach President Obama’s desk.

Yes, there are certain things President Obama can get done with executive orders, but not the heavy lifting.  He cannot unilaterally raise taxes.  He cannot unilaterally reallocate funds from one line in the budget to another.  He cannot unilaterally raise or cut spending.  Similarly, he cannot change immigration rules; he can only direct the relevant agencies to exercise prosecutorial discretion, an action easily reversed by his successors in the absence of legislation.

While it’s the awkward lunge for the water bottle that everyone will remember from Marco Rubio’s rebuttal of the State of the Union, what the content and tone of the address convey is significant.  Yes, Rubio flubbed the speech, although what impact that has upon his chances for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination remains to be seen.  However, the defensive tone of the speech, combined with the content, indicates a Republican Party on the ropes that is struggling with messaging and ideas.  That was evident from the moment he opened his mouth and began to speak last night.

At the very outset it was clear that Rubio was on the defensive against what Republicans are correctly perceived as wanting to do.  He discussed what Republicans didn’t want to do.  He launched into the same old, and tired, attacks against President Obama.  He effectively called him a communist, socialist, take your pick of various scare tactics used against anyone left of center.  It was straight out of the Republican playbook, but with a tone that made clear the speaker was unsure if those scare tactics would work.  After all, Mitt Romney ran on those exact same scare tactics and he’s still Former Gov. Romney, while President Obama just delivered another State of the Union address.

Most remarkable, though, was a prescient criticism of the Rubio rebuttal that I heard, although I forgot the person who mentioned it.  It basically went along these lines:

Marco Rubio just criticized ‘big’ government by pointing out everything that government has done for him and his family.

While it’s the awkward lunge for the water bottle that everyone will remember from Marco Rubio’s rebuttal of the State of the Union, what the content and tone of the address convey is significant.  Yes, Rubio flubbed the speech, although what impact that has upon his chances for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination remains to be seen.  However, the defensive tone of the speech, combined with the content, indicates a Republican Party on the ropes that is struggling with messaging and ideas.  That was evident from the moment he opened his mouth and began to speak last night.

You currently seem all caught up in the idea of adopting the congressional district system that’s currently used by Maine and Nebraska.  You believe that it would give you a hand up in those Democratic and swing states where you control the legislature and the governorship.  You also know that everyone sees through what you’re doing and realize that it’s nothing more than a naked power grab.  Therefore, I have a little piece of advice for all of you.  Dispense with the pleasantries and formality of democracy.  Dispense with the whole concept of letting the people vote for their president.  Openly, and completely, embrace your naked power grab that attempts to subvert the will of the people and prevent that evil Democrat Party from doing pesky things like winning election.

So, how, exactly, can this be done?  It’s good that you ask.  You claim to love the Constitution and only want to enforce it.  Well, there’s a provision in the Constitution that would allow you to do exactly that.  It’s Article II, Section 1, second paragraph:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

See these words:

in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct

?

That means you don’t have to hold elections to appoint electors.  You can just state that your state will have their electors appointed by the legislature, rather than by popular vote.  This means that you can just appoint Republican electors and it won’t matter that the people you claim to represent support a Democratic candidate for president and vice president.  You’re just exercising your constitutional authority.  It’s perfectly legal and it’s perfectly undemocratic.  In fact, there’s even precedent for it.  In the early days of the Republic, nearly all states had electors appointed by the legislature and not elected by popular vote.  In fact, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that South Carolina finally gave up that practice and every state saw presidential and vice presidential electors voted in by the people.