Inspire Political Discourse

Pawlenty Replacement, GOP-Endorsed 2012 Gubernatorial Candidate is a Tentherist - Nullificationist

And here you thought that all the secessionists and nullificationists lived in the South…

Not so. Apparently, the GOP’s Minnesota candidate for governor, State Rep. Tom Emmer, is another one cast in the same mold. 

The Minnesota Republican Party's official candidate to succeed Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who is looking ahead to a 2012 run for President, is a staunch conservative well to Pawlenty's right who has a long history of "Tentherism," the attempts by the far right-wing to invoke the Tenth Amendment and nullify federal laws on various liberal initiatives. He has even proposed a state constitutional amendment that would allow federal laws to operate in Minnesota only if they were consented to by super-majorities of the state legislature.

VIDEO: Republican Congressman, Duncan Hunter Supports the Deportation of Babies and Children Who Are US Citizens

Representing the 52nd District in California, Duncan Hunter [R] is calling for the deportation of children born to undocumented immigrants. Children and babies who are U.S. citizens, no less.

"Would you support deportation of natural-born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens," Hunter was asked. "I would have to, yes," Hunter said. "... We simply cannot afford what we're doing right now," he said. "... It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It's what's in our souls. ..."

The Fourteenth Amendment:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Contact Hunter to let him know how you feel.

If you'd like to contact me about a legislative issue, you can reach me via e-mail, by phone at (202) 225-5672 or regular mail.  Please mail all correspondence to: Congressman Duncan Hunter; 1429 Longworth House Office Building; Washington D.C.; 20515.

Via Steve Benen.

Palin and the Separation of Church and State

The silly twit never seems to get the history. Has she ever even read any American history? Or European? Is she even aware of that thing called The Enlightenment? You know, that period that the Founding Fathers were a part of, and that strongly influenced the founding of this country, as well as the principles contained in our Constitution. We are, in fact, blessed with a "Godless" constitution.

A certain former half-term governor appears to be drifting even further away from the American mainstream. Over the weekend, appearing at an evangelical Christian women's conference in Louisville, Sarah Palin rejected the very idea of separation of church and state, a bedrock principle of American democracy.

She asked for the women -- who greeted her with an enthusiastic standing ovation -- to provide a "prayer

The Morons er Tea Partiers Are Gonna Love This

Hahahahaha.........I am still laughing over the history lesson I came across on Cesca's blog. An excerpt:

Now here’s the part Sarah Palin loves about George Washington, her favorite Founding Father: Agreeing with Hamilton that some serious taxation was necessary to pay for the ass-kicking we’d just handed Britain and to “secure the power of the new federal government,” Washington did what any freedom-loving anti-tax Teabagging historical Super-Patriot would have done. He got the fuck on his horse and – in the first real test of Federal Authority – led a massive army against these tax-dodging pricks.

Let me repeat this for our Teabagging friends who don’t read so good, or can’t understand “irony”: In the first real crisis of the new Federal Government, Sarah Palin’s bestest Founding Father Figure (you know, the one she loves because he’s the one she remembers from all the crisp one dollar bills she feeds into the Fox News Mountain Dew machine) personally horsed up and led a federalized army into battle against protesters bitching about high federal taxation. And he kicked the shit out of them, which wasn’t difficult because most were – much like today’s Teabaggers – drunken or retarded.

---

Sarah Palin: We don't need no constitutional law professor

We all know that the Tea Baggers love to cite the Constitution to bolster their arguments. Whether or not they actually understand the legal ramifications of what they cite is another matter entirely.

Over the weekend, Palin launched a new line of attack on the President, telling the baggers [paraphrased]:

We don't need no constitutional law professor for a president.

Via Think Progress

Frickin' hypocrites........

Frivolous lawsuits from the criers of "torte reform now"?  Of course. They can't resist the display of utterly useless hypocrisy.

Will Republican oppostion to health care reform hurt them in November?

The Republicans have threatened to repeal the health care reform bill one piece at a time. 13 attorneys general, all Republicans, have filed a lawsuit against the federal government to exempt their states from health care reform.

Health care now becomes a policy story rather than a legislative sausage-grinding story. Tales of death panels and warnings about losing your doctor can now be falsified. (That's what happened to the early scare stories about Social Security and Medicare.) And Republicans who denounce the program and promise to repeal it will no longer be bashing an abstraction. They will be proposing to take away existing, tangible benefits. [.....]

Legislating From the Bench?

Since the announcement of Supreme Court Justice Souter’s impending retirement, there has been much speculation online as to who President Obama might choose to replace him. Worth noting are comments from Obama himself during his surprise appearance at Friday’s white house press briefing. Video below, bolding is mine.

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

“Throughout his two decades on the Supreme Court, Justice Souter has shown what it means to be a fair-minded and independent judge. He came to the bench with no particular ideology. He never sought to promote a political agenda. And he consistently defied labels and rejected absolutes, focusing instead on just one task -- reaching a just result in the case that was before him.

He approached judging as he approaches life, with a feverish work ethic and a good sense of humor, with integrity, equanimity and compassion -- the hallmark of not just being a good judge, but of being a good person.

I am incredibly grateful for his dedicated service. I told him as much when we spoke. I spoke on behalf of the American people thanking him for his service. And I wish him safe travels on his journey home to his beloved New Hampshire and on the road ahead.

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

As I make this decision, I intend to consult with members of both parties across the political spectrum. And it is my hope that we can swear in our new Supreme Court Justice in time for him or her to be seated by the first Monday in October when the Court's new term begins.”

While Republicans are focusing on the usual canard when it comes to judicial appointments --- “he/she/it is going to legislate from the bench”, let’s just clear that up right now and get on with speculation as to WHOM he might select.

A judge is obligated to consider not just the law, but the facts surrounding a particular issue. Those right wingers who want to interpret the Constitution by strict word-for-word literalism, just like many of you do with the Bible, don't have a fundamental understanding of the foundation of our legal system. To be specific….

Our legal system, like most systems in those nations which were originally English colonies, is based primarily on the system of common law. That means much of our law is based upon the principle of stare decisis, or a system of judicially decided precedent law. Our Constitution is a framework in light of our common law background, which was intended to organize our federal system and through the Bill of Rights as a list of limits on the power of the federal government. It was not designed as an exclusive and literal list of only those things that the federal government could do. If that were the case, it would have been in conflict with the existing framework of English common law which formed the balance of laws and legal theory during that period in our early history.

Currently, our law is based upon the framework of the Constitution, supplemented by common law, statutory law at both state and federal levels, and administrative regulations.

__________________________

Anonymity, Political Commentary, and Why Alaska Democrat Mike Doogan is an Asshat

This country has a long, and revered history of anonymous political commentary, beginning with Thomas Paine, the author of the widely read pamphlet, Common Sense (1776), which advocated for America’s independence from Great Britain, and The American Crisis (1776–1783), a pro-revolutionary pamphlet series.

Our founding fathers also utilized the ability to anonymously make political commentary in the creation of our country. The greatest example of this is The Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers are comprised of 85 articles advocating the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and were originally published between October 1787 and August 1788. They were written by  Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, using the pseudonym "Publius," in order to preserve anonymity and to ensure that the ideas were considered on their own merit, separate from the authors of the ideas. These papers are still today a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, being that they outline both the philosophy and the motivation for the system of government being proposed.

Bush Wanted to Get Rid of the First Amendment Right to Freedom of the Press

:: In one of the secret Bush memos released by the DOJ yesterday, we learned exactly how far Bush was willing to go.
Freedom of the press, guaranteed under the First Amendment, necessary for a Democracy to exist, was nothing to Bush. From Newsweek:

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.had been asked to

Many of the actions discussed in the Oct. 23, 2001, memo to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's chief lawyer, William Haynes, were never actually taken.

But the memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel—along with others made public for the first time Monday—illustrates with new details the extraordinary post-9/11 powers asserted by Bush administration lawyers. Those assertions ultimately led to such controversial policies as allowing the waterboarding of terror suspects and permitting warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens—steps that remain the subject of ongoing investigations by Congress and the Justice Department. The memo was co-written by John Yoo, at the time a deputy attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel. Yoo, now a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, has emerged as one of the central figures in those ongoing investigations.

__________________________

VIDEO: Petition Attorney General-designate Eric Holder to Appoint a Special Prosecutor

A Democracy Requires That We All Become Aware and Involved, or We Risk Losing it

My reasons for writing this post are solely to encourage you, and to arm you. I am compelled to do so not only by the events of the past eight years, but by what has been revealed in Keith Olbermann's interview with former National Security Agency analyst, Russell Tice.

My intent is simple: that you and your family, if you have not been focusing your attention on national politics, as indeed, I myself did not until last August, are able to become aware of and absorb the events that occurred in this country under the auspices of the Bush administration.

The events which sent the United States barreling towards becoming a Fascist Republic, and signified the end of our Democratic Republic. Indeed, in the 200+ year history of our nation, such a situation had never been allowed to occur, and yet it did, on our watch. We must guard our freedom well to prevent any possibility of a recurrence, because we love our children and our country. And guarding it requires awareness and action.

But..... it's over, you say. President Bush and Vice President Cheney are no longer in power. In part, certainly. However, in order to safeguard our freedom for future generations, we must all be aware of, and pass on what happened to this country to cause it to conform with the ideals of a fascist republic, and give up our constitutional rights to a group of men who sought power that was not their's under the tenets of our constitution.

This is so important, that this era of our history will forever become a part of all unbiased teachings about our constitution, the history of our republic, and so on. We as a country, came just this close to becoming what the constitution was supposed to have prevented.

It occurred because a group of men, led by President George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove, sought an inordinate amount of power in order to personally benefit from the wielding of that power. Their methods included the intent to instill so much fear in the American people that we would willingly accept restrictions upon our liberty, the revocation of the tenets of our constitution, and they were indeed highly successful. They benefited personally on a scale never before seen, and we have been left with the nation's coffers empty, the monies handed over to Halliburton, Blackwater, and others, a resulting economic crisis of a magnitude not yet reached, a global financial crisis that may take years to recover from, two wars, one of them completely unnecessary and immoral, and our reputation in shreds all over the world. 

videos after the jump

Political News Summary: Wednesday, January 21, 2009

:: Executive order would close down Guantanamo within one year. Trials were halted as of today.
The order was drafted today, is undated, and has yet to be signed. However, I would expect that it will be done as soon as possible. From HUFFPOST:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration intends to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year and halt military trials of terror suspects held there, according to a draft order obtained Wednesday.

The executive order was one of three expected imminently on how to interrogate and prosecute al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters believed to threaten the United States.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons
__________________________

Leaders of the Anti-Civil Rights "Yes on Prop 8" Group "Command" the California Court to Nullify 18,000 Marriages

In a lawsuit filed by the leaders of the anti-civil rights group responsible for Prop 8, and representing the evangelicals, the Mormons, and all those well-meaning demented religious fanatics who think that they must have the ability to regulate the lives of us all, have "commanded", yes, the language used was "COMMANDED" the California courts to "bow" to the will of the people, and nullify 18,000 marriages.

From Dr. Jeffrey Feldman at the Huffington Post:

“The idea that civil rights can be stripped by a simple majority plebescite is not just unethical, but actually violates the principles on which our system of government is based.  First off, it is unconstitutional to pass laws that deprive citizens of rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution (e.g., equal protection), a basic point the Prop 8 folks do not seem to get.  Second, the purpose of the judiciary is to uphold the Constitution as form of systemic balance to the other two branches of government--not to bow down to them.

The language of the 'Yes To 8' brief suggests that group see itself in a moral struggle not just to strip gay people of rights, but to mobilize public against the California judiciary.

Time will tell which effort will hold the day.  However, I suspect there are few judges in California (or anywhere else) who respond well when lawyers 'command' them to 'bow' down.  Come to think of it, nobody responds well.  And when you think about it, that really is the point of this whole Prop 8 nonsense, is it not?   Try to strip American citizens of their equal rights, and when that does not work:  raise a bloody stink about the supposed despotic decline of the United States judicial system.”

Meanwhile, California attorney general, and former governor, Jerry Brown, has filed a lawsuit claiming that Prop 8 is in violation of the civil rights of "a classification of people". Hey, we told you that in November! Below, quoting myself from my original article.

“This being the case, Prop 8 is not a matter of legitimate policy. It is a law which revokes the federally guaranteed civil rights of a classification of people, and is thus unconstitutional, and would not hold up to a review by the Supreme Court.”

And Brown, as quoted in the LA Times:

“Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification.”

And indeed, both Brown and I are right. My question is, when he wins his lawsuit, how enraged will these prop 8 purveyors be? Ah, ever helpful, I have some suggestions for the inimitable purveyors of hate. Got any of your own? Tell me in a comment.

Political News Summary - Monday, December 15, 2008

:: Cheney denies perverting the constitution.

In an on-air interview with Rush Limbaugh [gag], via Politico, Cheney says that he believes that "the next president" will thank him for expanding presidential authority, and denies exceeding their constitutional authority.

"We did not exceed our constitutional authority, as some have suggested," Cheney added. "The President believes, I believe very deeply, in a strong executive, and I think that's essential in this day and age. And I think the Obama administration is not likely to cede that authority back to the Congress. I think they'll find that given a challenge they face, they'll need all the authority they can muster."  POLITICO

__________________________

:: IPD Daily Cartoon Find

 

Bob Lang/Christmas Giving

__________________________

Facts for the Right-Wingers Still Obsessing About the "Born Conspiracy"

I am quite sorry to disappoint those who believe in the validity of the "born conspiracy". I am however, bloody tired of listening to/reading the truly and deeply pathetic opinions of those who can not bear the thought of a black man occupying the White House (and yes, I think that has much to do with the fringe who are so bent on the idea that they can have this president-elect declared unqualified).

As you should know, the Constitution does not require that both of your parents be US citizens in order to become the president.  

Below you will find the full text of the 14th Amendment. Pay close attention to nos. 1 and 3, as they both discuss matters relevant to the  "born conspiracy".

Further, please note the word "naturalized". The definition of naturalized/naturalization via Wikipedia:

Naturalization is the acquisition of citizenship or nationality by somebody who was not a citizen or national of that country when he or she was born.
In general, basic requirements for naturalization are that the applicant hold a legal status as a full-time resident for a minimum period of time and that the applicant promise to obey and uphold that country's laws, to which an oath or pledge of allegiance is sometimes added. Some countries also require that a naturalized national must renounce any other citizenship that he currently holds, forbidding dual citizenship, but whether this renunciation actually causes loss of the person's original citizenship will again depend on the laws of the countries involved.

And the definition of "natural born" via Wikipedia.

The United States Constitution requires that Presidents (and Vice Presidents) of the United States be natural born citizens of the United States. Therefore, it is undisputed that children of American citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to hold the office of President upon reaching the required age, and that persons naturalized as U.S. citizens after birth are disqualified from holding that office.

For further information on citizenship and related matters, click here.

Finally, if the Supreme Court agrees to hear any of these moronic cases being thrown at it, it will likely do so out of a desire to finally make it perfectly clear, that these cases have no validity whatsoever.

Now, do try to find something else to obsess about because this whole thing has become utterly mind-numbing in it's stupidity, and you really should attend to your mental health before it fails you completely.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Daily Political News Summary - Monday, December 8, 2008

►Condi RIce and Hillary Clinton to have dinner tonight at Rice's Watergate apartment.  

“NBC News reports that the current Secretary of State is having her successor over for dinner: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host Hillary Clinton tonight for dinner at Rice's Watergate apartment, State Department transition sources tell NBC News.”

................................................................................................................

►President-elect Obama's choice of an education secretary will very likely displease one faction or the other.

Two competing factions, the "reformers", and the teacher's unions, have different ideas as to who it should be, and there doesn't seem to be an actual candidate who can bridge that divide.One person does come close, Chicago schools superintendent, Arne Duncan.

“Can Obama make both sides happy? Not likely, said Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.”

One candidate might fit the bill _ Chicago schools chief Arne Duncan, who has spent seven years running the country's third-largest school district.

Op-Ed: Prop 8 Unconstitutional

"Prop 8 is simply democracy at work." That comment was posted on a forum, and as is obvious to most, it is far too simplistic.

We live in a constitutional democracy, with a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental civil rights/freedoms. In California, there is a constitutional right to marry. On the Federal level, the US constitution assures us the right to equal protection under the law. Additionally, every single state in the union has a constitution which also guarantees this right to equal protection under the law.

Thus, marriage equality is a civil right, and may only be abridged by changes to the Federal constitution. States may not revoke a freedom as it is provided under the tenets of the US Constitution. Only the Supreme Court may do that, and only if they change the US Constitution.

This being the case, Prop 8 is not a matter of legitimate policy. It is a law which revokes the federally guaranteed civil rights of a classification of people, and is thus unconstitutional, and would not hold up to a review by the Supreme Court.

Now, the Supreme Court can revise that part of the constitution [14th Amendment] in order to make Prop 8 and similar laws legitimate. We could then discriminate against other classes of people as well. For instance, we could ban any specific group from marrying --- religious freaks, for example. Unfair? Sure. But so is preventing same-sex marriage, and as they say, "you reap what you sow".

Consider long and hard the next time you vote in favor of a law which seeks to abridge and deny a fundamental civil right.

Your own liberty is also at stake.

Props to cabieri (a Republican who voted for Obama) who inspired me to clarify my thoughts on this matter.

RELATED - RECENT POST

>Washington Post Columnist and Dem, Thanks Fox News
>Reversing Bush 43's Midnight Regulations
>Behold the Election of Obama - Europe Peers into the Mirror
>Keith Olberman: Gay Marriage is About Love
>Obama Administration Announces Ethics Rules for Transition Team
>Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity Dive In
>The Vet Who Didn't Vet 
>Obama and Bush 43 in the White House Together

>Obama Confronts Guantanamo

On Amendment 48, Measure 11, and Proposition 4

If you are pro-choice and live in California, Colorado or South Dakota, please help to defeat these ballot initiatives for they will eventually affect women nationwide.

The pro-life crowd may ever more frequently be heard saying "I'm pro-choice, but I believe that it should be decided by the states." Can you say "bait and switch" twice rapidly?  That is exactly what defines this statement, and here is why.

Local organizers have been busy at work pushing to get direct challenges to Roe Vs Wade on state ballots. Currently, three states have measures on their ballots which directly attack pro-choice.

Colorado is the most dangerous of the three as a challenge to Roe Vs Wade, and to the rights of women in the state of Colorado. Additionally, if Amendment 48 passes, women in Colorado may find it difficult to utilize certain types of contraception, fertility  and related treatments, thus affecting not only those who are pro-choice and wish to have an abortion, but affecting any woman who simply wishes to use contraception, etc., even the pro-life crowd.

The stewards of Measure 11 and Amendment 48 created these ballot initiatives in the knowledge that they will be challenged. They are gambling that when a challenge occurs, the Supreme Court will have enough conservative (via McCain selections) judges to overturn Roe Vs Wade.

1. California - Proposition 4 | would limit but not ban abortion by requiring parental notification for minors. ["Proposition 4 is endorsed by Americans United for Life, among others. This is an organization that has worked to slowly erode women's access to abortion care with bills that limit available abortion methods after 12 to 13 weeks of pregnancy; require waiting periods, biased counseling, and ultrasound viewings prior to an abortion; create burdensome and medically unnecessary regulations for abortion clinics; assert that fetuses feel pain during an abortion; and allow health care employees to refuse to counsel, refer, or treat patients for any service to which they object. In other words, Americans United for Life and its allies favor laws that make it exceptionally hard to get an abortion--through cost, distance, stigma, and delay--but do not explicitly ban abortion."  ........]
2. South Dakota - Measure 11 | would ban abortion except under very limited circumstances
3. Colorado - Amendment 48 | Would create a definition of a fertilized egg as a person, resulting in severe restrictions on access to abortion, fertility treatments, birth control, and stem cell research.

Videos after the jump. Cross-posted on Inspire Emotion.