An Introductory Lesson on Signing Statements

We're all familiar with Bush's controversial "signing statements," which have been decried as impinging on legislative power. The real issue here, however, is what they mean, or what they are worth. No one disputes -- Bush included -- that Congress has absolute legislative authority. Congress makes the laws. They become effective when signed by the President. No one disputes that, when interpretation of laws becomes necessary as a result of disputes over their application, the arbiter of this interpretation is the judiciary. No one disputes the fact that we all are bound by those laws, presidents, congresspeople and judges included. That's Civics 101.

Any law student will tell you that a judge's job in interpreting statutory language is fairly prescribed. Their are well-known canons of interpretation and construction which guide the procedure of such interpretation. First, for instance, if a statute is unambiguous, then it must simply be applied as written. If there is an ambiguity, the appropriate tool is to look to what's called "legislative history" which is material that reflects the intent of the law's drafters. Typically this material is found in hearing transcripts and other texts produced by the leglislature (Congress, in the case of federal laws). There is no canon of construction that looks to the intent of either of the other two branches -- executive or judicial -- to interpret the meaning of statutory language. Indeed, conservatives often point this out insofar as they decry "judicial activism" -- which is a judge interpreting a law according to his own view, rather than the view of the legislature who drafted the law. This is exactly the argument that informs us that the President's signing statements are worthless. They may not be considered by judges (or Justices) when they interpret statutes of disputed meaning. They are, in my view, worth no more than any other citizen's take on a statute that governs him or her. Indeed, if it makes folks feel better, everyone should start issuing "signing statements" as to how or why or when the law that was passed does not apply to them.

Oops - I Said Something Controversial

Hoping for my first ever commenters to come over from Americablog -- which I adore, but which pisses me off sometimes. I went over there and questioned blind "support the troops" nonsense. That's a big no-no in Bush's America. We'll see. Even a negative comment would be nice at this point.

Revoking War Authorization

Below is a portion of my recent missive to my local House Rep.

VIA FACSIMILE: 202-225-5933
Congressman Chris Murphy
501 Cannon House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Murphy:

Congratulations on your new office. It’s a promising new year on the Hill. . . . I offer the following views and suggestions, wholly unsolicited, purely in the spirit of improving our nation’s plight overseas.

I write to strongly recommend a potential legislative course of action to confront the continued usurpation of legal authority by the Executive Branch under the Bush Administration, in its prosecution of the Iraq War: revisit the authorizing legislation.

As you know, in October, 2002, the U.S. House and Senate passed Pub. Law 107-40, entitled “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq.” (hereafter “the 2002 Resolution”). The bill, which won broad bi-partisan support and was signed into law by the President, contains a narrowly drafted authorization of Executive war power. Congress authorized this war to fulfill only two very narrow objectives, as follows:
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
See Pub. Law 107-40 §3 (2002).

Furthermore, Section 4 contains reporting requirements, which, it is safe to say, have not been fulfilled by the Executive Branch, other than in dubious fashion. Seizing on the limited authority granted by the 2002 Resolution, and ramping up scrutiny on the reporting requirements, are legislative methods that have the potential to bring together members of Congress in both houses and from both sides of the aisle, some of whom supported the 2002 Resolution, and some of whom did not. It is a way to challenge assertions of Executive authority, which, as you know, derives its Constitutionality only to the extent of the legislative authorization.

More simply put, it is a means by which to re-build a Constitutional barrier to the continuing loss of U.S. lives and treasure, and at the expense of the U.S.’s international security interests, in a country which never did pose a threat to the United States worthy of force authorization, and which was clearly no longer in violation of any relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. Thus, the two narrow bases upon which Executive authority rests have long since evanesced, if ever they existed.

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to support, or even introduce legislation which reiterates the limitations on Executive authority under the 2002 Resolution.

Goode Gone Bad!

In case you've been following the ridiculous debate between Reps. Goode (R - Va) and Ellison (D - Mn) over Ellison's stated plan to be sworn in to the new session of Congress holding a Koran, I think you'd have to say Ellison has handily won this debate, having just landed a bit of a haymaker. It seems, a month or so before Goode's stupid comments insulting Ellison and everyone in his district, Ellison contacted a former constituent of his MN district, who is now a director of special collections at the Library of Congress, and will be using an extremely rare, antique copy of the Koran originally owned by a fellow who was born in Goode's VA district, namely, Thomas Jefferson (in case you haven't heard of him, he's one of those jerks who forgot to put God anywhere in the Constitution which both of these guys will be swearing to uphold).

Hat tip to Americablog on this one.

Solemn Consternation About the Proper Decorum at a Hangin'

Here is another human exercise in the absurd:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/world_saddam_execution

Apparently, folks are outraged that the proper decorum for a hanging was not followed for Saddam's solemn ceremony. IT'S A HANGING! I think we should be looking at the behavior of the folks who secured rope around a man's neck, let him drop, and dangled him by his head. Or the puppet president who signed the order decreeing that it should be done. Or the American military, who we must constantly pledge to support, who simply handed him over, knowing what would be done with him. That's what I'm outraged about.

. . . and More Death

This pretty well sums up my take on Saddam, and capital punishment generally:

“Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him,” al-Maliki said.

Full story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/

Wreaking Death

Congratulations to the Bush Administration. According to the latest casualty figures, http://www.icasualties.org/oif/, George Bush and his band of neoconservative warmongers have achieved in about four years, and $400 billion what it took 19 men with box cutters, and about $4,000 worth of plane tickets, to do in about four hours: the deaths of 2973 Americans. Of course, unlike the hijackers, George Bush didn't have the balls to lead the charge and go down in flames, literally, with his malevolent choice.

The God Delusion

I've delved into Richard Dawkins' impressive argument for atheism. Thanks a lot Dawkins. Now I'm an agnostic about Thor.

Agressive Interrogation Techniques

Here is a pretty simple question to ask someone -- without using the word "torture," but rather by using the dictionary definition of torture -- to determine whether they advocate torture or not:

Do you believe that it is justifiable to inflict severe pain on a suspected terrorist in order to obtain information that the suspect would otherwise not provide?

Whoever answers "yes" to this question is not my friend.

God was Wrong

Remember when George W. Bush, when asked if he sought the counsel of his father, George H.W. Bush, on matters pertaining to the impending Iraq war, replied that he sought the counsel of a "higher father?"

I think Bush's "other" father was a little higher than we all thought. The failure of the "higher father's" policy vis-a-vis George H.W. Bush's policy is striking. It means, logically, that (1) Bush was lying when he said he recieves counsel from a God; (2) Bush was not lying, and the God who counsels him knows less about foreign policy than George H.W. Bush; (3) God was lying to Bush to test his intelligence; or (4) Bush is always lying and he and his God are stupid.

Objectivity and Fairness

Eric Deggans at HuffPo writes about objectivity vs. fairness in journalism (in the absurd context of Bill O'Reilly doing research on journos' political affiliation): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-deggans/why-is-bill-oreilly-keep_b_35512.html

It is often noted that journalists in the U.S. more proportionately register as Democrat than Republican. It is not-so-often noted that doctors, lawyers and scientists are also disproportionately Democrats. Do we question doctors' ability to do their jobs whether their patients are Republicans or Democrats?

Did Congress Authorize this War?

I'm not so sure it did:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

God Bless America

Here's CNN talking about the new more difficult citizenship exam:

http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/questions-get-harder-on-citizenship.html

I particularly enjoy this sentence: "No longer would it be sufficient to know the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judicial)."

Presumably, the parenthetical is for CNN's American readers.

Has an official movement begun, by the way, which insists that elected officials also pass the test? How about religious leaders? Here's an exam question for them: How many times does the word "God" appear in the U.S. Constitution?

On religion

We'll be talking alot about religion on this blog, so long as one day there is a "we" beyond me and myself. At any rate, Sam Harris at HuffPo is apparently involved in an organized debate about religion and atheism. Mr. Harris represents atheism, and answers the question "why are atheists so angry?"

This atheist, for one, is not angry. Sad for the state of humanity sometimes, but fairly infrequently angry. The thought of religion makes me a little angry sometimes, but then, thinking of the final episode of Six Feet Under makes me happy, so go figure.

Here's Sam Harris:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/jewcys-big-question-why_b_35180.html

Araphica

By the way, for all my regular readers, the Dems won control of both houses like 5 weeks ago or something.

Vigilante Mob Allegedly Beats, Kills Wrong Man

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/02/fatal.beating.ap/index.html

Two sets of comments here. I won't even make the obvious one. How about the medium component, however, with CNN's headline? Seems severely misleading. To me, it implies that this mob came to the conclusion that it had been horribly wrong in identifying its victim. Reading the article, I'm not so sure the mob didn't really care that the guy they were beating didn't kill their friend. This was simply good old American blood thirstiness. I bet they'd do it again. Better, more accurate headline "Mob Allegedly Beats, Kills Man." Of course, I suppose CNN needs to distinguish its domestic headlines from its Iraq coverage.

Cusacks are the best

Here's Bill on HuffPo, a must read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-cusack/osama-bin-laden-is-kickin_b_28478.html

I wish I were a Cusack

What a wonderful family. Here's Bill, over on HuffPo, with some compelling, occasionally far-fetched, but constantly cunning and tragicomic analysis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-cusack/osama-bin-laden-is-kickin_b_28478.html

Man the Red Sox Suck

Life is meaningless, death is a passing into nothingness, and the Yankees are 8.5 games up in the AL East.

Challenging Pacifism

Was is the pacifist to make of cases like this, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5217424.stm, a 16 year old girl hanged in public in Iran for promiscuity with a married man (alternately described by the State-run newspaper as 22 years old, and guilty of adultery). This type of atrocity cannot be committed alone. It takes at least a government, and almost always a measurable section of society, to commit such atrocity. How does the pacifist meet the challenge of preventing such tragedy?

One obvious solution would be to beg of 22 year old Iranian adultresses (and/or 16 year old Iranian promiscuelles) not to ever commit such offenses. That, of course, constitutes appeasement. Nonetheless, it is a potentially non-violent solution.

Another solution would be to turn back time to when important impressions were formed at a cultural/societal level that caused a shift in mores that would led to the accomodation of violence as a solution, and ensure that a different path be taken, one that ultimately leads to peaceful existence.

What effect do you suppose having executions be made public would have on American perception of capital punishment? I suppose it might either weaken support for the practice, or, as may have happened in Iran, it might coerce acceptance through fear.

Goodnight nobody.