Why the Federalist Society is illogical and ridiculous

In honor of my Law School's first Federalist Society guest speaker (on the topic of whether President Obama can kill an American citizen with a predator drone. Really? Why is that an issue, again?) I'd like to talk about the idea behind the federalist society; namely, that states should have more power and authority, and the federal government should have less. And really, this issue stems from the Federalist Society idea that the constitution should be read in a narrow way, as the Founding Fathers wrote it, which created a weak federal government and strong states.
That is a completely bogus statement.
Historically, the United States Constitution was formed after the fall of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles, as every 6th grader learns, was a document that created one branch of federal government, a legislature, which had the power to declare war, create coins, and...that was about it. Every other power and authority was left to the individual states.
That system failed miserably.
As the Federalists love to claim that they're representing the original will of the Founders, I'd like to quote a few:
Referring to the absolute lack of power to tax, Thomas Jefferson stated, "It will be said there is no money in the treasury. There never will be money in the treasury till the Confederacy shows its teeth. The states must see the rod" (Emphasis added).
Jon Jay, referring again to the lack of taxation powers, declared that other nations would say, "That America had no sooner become independent than she became insolvent"
A federal government that cannot tax appropriately is a government that will not last, as evidenced by the Articles. But taxes are not the only problem that Federalists have with the federal government. A second is the role of the judiciary.
Under the Articles, there was no executive or judiciary branch, only a Congress. Federalists have, since their inception, complained of "Judicial activism". They believe the role of the Supreme Court is merely to interpret the Constitution (in the most conservative way possible) as a dead document, something that cannot change, and that any society-altering decision should be made by the legislative or executive branch, not the judiciary. There is a logical, as well as historical, problem with that argument.
Logically, the Judicial branch is a co-equal branch of government. It is not lower than the other two. To say that the Court should only "Interpret" the Constitution makes no sense realistically. When any controversial decision is made by the Court, it is backed by precedence (Stare Decisis) and a view of how the issue meshes with the Constitutional provisions at issue. No Court decision, ever, has been based solely on the wants of its members, yet that is the claim of Federalists. They point to any decision that is "Ahead of its time" such as Brown and Roe (Notice it's only decisions that promote social justice that are the focus of their ire) and say the Court was being "Activist" and should have waited for the legislature to decide those issues.
The Constitution knows no such time limits. Nowhere is the phrase, "The Judicial shall wait until the Legislature has made a decision before the Judiciary shall make the same decision" or else there would be no purpose in a judiciary at all. The role of the Court is not to merely affirm the decisions of the Legislature. If Congress passes a law that is unconstitutional, is the Court supposed to wait for them to fix it? Their role is to determine what is constitutional and what is not, and yet Federalists would argue they are NOT to do so; instead, they should sit on their hands until Congress gets around to fixing their mistakes. But this has never been the role of the Judicial branch; it was never intended to be so, for otherwise it would be logically inconsistent for it to even exist; there would be no point if their job was simply to affirm the work of Congress.
Federalists will also argue that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally intended by the Founding Fathers. But this, too, rings hollow. Justice Brennan once said that the only way a person of the 21st century can interpret the Constitution is as a person of the 21st century. We can't pretend to be in 1780, because we aren't experiencing the same problems that the Founding Fathers were. Current hot-button topics include free speech on the world wide web, copyright and trademark infringement, gay marriage, and unlimited funding of political campaigns by massive corporations. Which of those issues was in the minds of the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution? No, you cannot play Founding Father to find a constitutional solution to those issues, they are uniquely modern.
The second issue with interpreting based on the Founding Fathers is a realistic one; how do you know what the Founding Fathers thought? Yes, they wrote a few things down, but that's hardly a thorough road map to solving every modern problem. And if you know anything about how the Continental Congresses worked, every issue was highly contentious, and hotly debated. So even if an issue is addressed by a black-and-white reading of the Constitution, WHICH Founding Fathers would you listen to, and which would you ignore? Madison did not write the Constitution by himself. Many issues had several sides, with Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and dozens of others split into various factions. Which do you choose? You can't. The Founding Fathers were not some amalgomous hive-mind, they were a group of individuals fighting for the values they each thought were most important, just as happens today. To say that we should judge, "Based on the Founding Fathers" is so simplistic as to completely avoid settling any issue ever.
The United States tried a system of state power and limited federal government. It failed miserably. To sit comfortably in the 21st century and attempt to handle the problems of our time using the non-existent unanimous opinion of the Founding Fathers is no plan at all. To say that the Judiciary should never contradict the will of the legislature is nonsensical and completely unsupported by the Constitution itself. The Federalist Society is then, by definition, as nonsensical as its foundational points.

Roles in and of Society, pt.1

I think some people have a weird misunderstanding regarding the purpose of "Society" in its citizens lives. Politically, Democrats and Republicans see things differently, although I doubt many people actually spend time to think about such things properly. Recently, however, someone did, and I'd like to share his idea:

"I feel that everyone should contribute what they can to society, and that they should reap rewards proportional to the usefullness of their contribution to society"

There are so many vague, useless statements within that sentence it's hard to know where to start. But off the top of my head; "Contribute what they can" in what way, proportional to finances, to time, to physical ability or proficiency? "Reap rewards" what kind of rewards does that even mean? Awards, like medals and commendations? Money? Christmas presents? "Proportional to the usefulness of their contribution to society" is the big one. What qualifies as a "Contribution to society"? Who decides what is "Useful" and how do we judge different degrees of usefulness? And then, who decides what is "Proportional" to that usefulness?

The whole process is ridiculous and amusing. Society doesn't exist to reward people for doing their jobs. The entire concept of the "Social Contract" as established by Socrates and developed further by Locke states that societies were created and exist to help and protect individuals from hostile outside or inside forces, and that by staying in a society, you're implicitly agreeing to follow their rules and play within their system. And that system is designed to help ALL of those people, not some absurdly defined minority who are the most "Useful" to society, and when ALL people cannot be helped, the majority is substituted.

So here's a thought; when people make claims about how society "Should" be, keep in mind what it actually is, and how it got there. And don't make vague statements in the "Ought" form, since they're generally poorly-formed and irrelevant. Society exists to help the majority, and when those few thousand very privileged people (who generally INHERITED that position coughBushcough) start ranting about how they should be treated differently because of their position in society, they should keep in mind that the millions of people upon whom THEY rely could easily shove a pitchfork up their privileged asses at a moment's notice.

10 Commandments and the eternal wall, revisited

I have a few articles by some fool for you to read...
Here.....................and Here

God, I love the Bill of Rights, especially when they are taken completely out-of-context by people with extremist agendas. He never claims anything to the contrary, either. These two articles are closely related, so I've decided to share my opinions on both.

Okay everyone, listen closely, I'm going to make two things very clear here...One, calling people Liberals doesn’t make you right, you self-righteous, pompous idiot. See, I can label people too!
And Two, Liberals don't hate God, they hate the fact that some people want to force their religions into a democratic government where it is obvious it cannot exist, for the sake of all the people it represents.
"Now bear in mind, as recently as 1892 the Supreme Court had specifically cited the "mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." So their 180-degree change of course to require "separation of Church and State" 70 years later was truly a reversal of historic proportions — not to mention a legal proposition theretofore unheard of in all of American history."

Yes, Supreme court Justice Brewer wrote that in summary of a transportation case. He also wrote later, in his memoirs, that when he said that, all he meant was that a lot of Americans were Christians; Nothing more. That quote is just a reflection of culture from 100 years ago, not justification for the eradication of the wall protecting us from religion.
This one really gets me, and just shows how ignorant the writer is, and how little he actually knows about American law and just works off assumptions that suit his cause rather than doing a little research;
" Once they had successfully kicked God out of school, the Liberal secular humanists went after God's laws in the public square. Look at the Ten Commandments — a perfectly good set of morals and values that just so happen to have been the cornerstone of Western Civilization and jurisprudence for 2,000 years or so — yet for 40 years Liberals have fought religiously (oxymoron) to remove all reference to these God-ordained decrees from schools and courthouses across the land."

Let's examine this a bit, shall we? For starters, OUR American legal system is the only relevant one as far as this argument is concerned. ALL judicial systems are based of King Hammurabi's original law codes, written almost 4000 years ago; NOT some Christian doctrine. American law is an adaptation of British common law. What is common law? Well, back during Britain's reign as a superpower, the first law was that you could not disturb the "King's Peace". Judges were then sent across the country to rule on cases, using that concept, as well as precedent from their peers, to create new law. Common Law, or judicially created law, is the foundation of our modern system, and is still used today in many ways.

Did I mention the 10 commandments as a foundation for our modern law documents anywhere? No? Weird...

And let's take a look at the 10 Commandments, shall we?

1. Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me Can anyone find this one in the Federal statutes for me? No, and in fact, it is contradictory to the first amendment’s protections against imposition of religion on anyone. Not a law, not a concept, not even close to anything resembling a cornerstone of religious jurisprudence.
2. Thou Shalt Not Make Graven Images There are a few ways that this could be interpreted, none of them helpful to Tabor's cause. The first would be that you aren't allowed to make any kind of visual representation of God, such as is popular in the Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, not a law...never has been, never will be. The second would be that you aren't allowed to worship false idols, as is a very common interpretation by layman. Such is also a contradiction of the First amendment, and therefore, stupid.
3. Thou Shalt Not Take the Name Of The Lord In Vain Freedom of speech...any questions?
HMMMMM, 3 down. Not looking good for the commandments
4. Remember the Sabbath, Keep it Holy The Superbowl is played on Sunday. People work on Sunday. Stores are open on Sunday. Even during the revolutionary war, you think they just stopped fighting when Sunday rolled around? No.
5. Honor Thy Father And Mother Oh look, another suggestion that isn’t actually a law. No state requires "Honor" to be shown, as that would be another free speech issue. Another one bites the dust.
6. Thou Shalt Not Kill OH MY GOD! We finally come across an actual law. Unfortunately, you shouldn’t get too hyped up yet. This is a law in every nation in the entire world. Does that mean Iran and Iraq, stoutly Muslim nations, are based in the 10 Commandments? NO! The no killing law dates back to Hammurabi, when he enforced an eye-for-an-eye sanction against those who committed it. Sorry guy, the Mesopotamians got there first.
7. Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery This actually used to be a law, but isn't anymore. In other countries it is punishable by up to death, but here in America, we can have sex with whomever we want, whenever we want, and the government can't legislate against it unless it creates social harm, such has statutory rape.
8. Thou Shalt Not Steal See number six, cause it pertains here, too.
9. Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbors This one is actually kinda tricky. It seems like it means you can't lie to your neighbors, which we all know isn’t illegal. If, however, it means you can't lie in court, then it IS a law. Unfortunately, it's a law shared by every other country in the world AGAIN. Sorry Tabor.
10. Thou Shalt Not Covet Not only is this NOT a law, it's almost contradictory to our capitalist way of life.

So as you can see, only 3 of the Commandments are actually laws, and all of them are universally accepted. They were also all created LONG before the 10 commandments were claimed to have been written.
Simultaneously, along the way, a new generation of super-secular Scientists replaced the Biblical account of Divine Creation as a manifestation of God's handiwork with the logically absurd theory that we humans have evolved from apes (recently) and pond scum (ultimately). Today these pseudo-intellectual, self-styled "genius experts" even ridicule the perfectly valid concept of Intelligent Design, derisively calling it "junk science." No inquiring open minds here: nothing but vintage Darwin will do for these Liberal denizens of our academic ivory towers.
LOL. "Honey look, the pot is calling the kettle black." Not only does he immediately dismiss theories with scientific backing, he then defends a theory that has NONE, but claims people who pay attention to science aren't "open minded". WOW, idiocy and hypocrisy apparently runs very deep here. Intelligent Design IS a junk science, and it's called that because there is no scientific proof to back it up, only theologically supported ideas that claim things are too complicated for some people to understand, so someone smarter than you must have been in charge of making them. The “God of the gaps” as it is also called, because it attempts to insert into our current lack of knowledge about certain steps in evolution and the big bang some kind of divine entity. It’s nonsense. Do we know everything there is to know about evolution? No. But at least scientists are still looking and learning new things every day. These religious fanatics wouldn’t even try; they’d rather just attribute it to “God”. And in relation to government-funded chaplains for Military sermons he says "Imagine that — a Christian chaplain who might dare to tell people about God! It's simply scandalous." Nobody cares if u wanna go to a sermon, but we take DEEP offense when it is our governments money that is paying their salary.

Now, part two of our double-header, the separation of church and state. I'm not sure if I’ve already talked about his, so I'll just go over everything I have.
This is the most commonly used argument against the separation, and unfortunately for anyone educated enough to actually research it, the most flawed as well.
But the Constitution doesn't contain the phrase "separation of church and state" anywhere. That phrase actually comes from a letter written by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association, who were concerned that Anglicanism might become the official (or Established) denominational preference of the new nation. Jefferson was trying to reassure the worried Baptists that no such "establishment" skullduggery was afoot.
The Danbury Papers are an extension of Jefferson’s thoughts on the first amendment, and are an excellent explanation of exactly what the founding fathers meant when they wrote it. Also, in the 1879 case of Reynolds V U.S., the SUPREME COURT ruled that Jefferson’s views, as expressed in the Danbury Papers, "may be accepted as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment". The Supreme Court just said that everything Jefferson said in those papers should be seen as the actual definition of the first amendment regarding freedom from religion. In those papers, he states that there should be a wall between any religion and the state, because any government that, not only gives preferential treatment, but ANY kind of treatment to a religion is endorsing it regardless of their motives, and therefore is a threat to freedom. You cannot have a free nation when the government endorses ANY religion.

"President John Quincy Adams, the son of the great statesman from Massachusetts who did so much to inspire the Declaration of Independence, stated the truth succinctly on July 4, 1821: "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."" Remind me again what this has to do with the constitution? Last time I checked, a personal statement made by the President didn't erase amendments. This coming from a man who cheated to get elected by conspiring with congress to screw Andrew Jackson; definitely a role-model, someone we should look to when trying to decide moral and ethical issues.

Fifty years later, the Liberal icon Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court: "The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of Church and State . . . We find no constitutional requirement makes it necessary for government to be hostile to religion and to throw its weight against the efforts to widen the scope of religious influence. The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects . . . We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility toward religion." (Zorach v. Clauson, 1952)

Read that over again carefully this time, without bias, then tell me what it says. Cause as far as I can tell, this pertains to preferential treatment of one religion over another by government, and only when taken COMPLETELY out of context does it even remotely help your cause. The key phrase there is, "The government must remain neutral when it comes to competition between sects". This means that when different religions are competing, the government cannot become involved in supporting one or another (Or both), because that is unconstitutional.

This blatant distortion of our nation's history is a slap in the face of American taxpayers, who are footing the bill for this widespread anti-Christian disinformation campaign. The public schools should be teaching our children the truth, not just what they want kids to believe. Those of us who know the truth need to hold the Liberals accountable for their insidious lies.

AHHHHHH, and now we see his agenda. Gotta love those extreme religious zealots who want to impose their religion on innocent, impressionable children. I already wrote about his, so I’ll just repeat that this kind of behavior is despicable, and any adult who wants to force their beliefs on someone not yet old enough to make up their own minds should be ashamed. Your blatant lack of faith in your religion's ability to convert those NOT indoctrinated betrays your lack of faith towards your religion. He wants public schools to teach, “The truth” but what he really means is, “His truth”, his religion’s beliefs. He is the very reason the First Amendment exists, to keep religious thoughts from being forced, through government, onto the general populace.

In closing, Here's A Thought... If you want to live in a Theocracy, move to Iran. Here in America, we don't impose our religions on others, especially those deemed legally incapable of making decisions and judgments for themselves. You wanna talk about religion being well established in American history? Lets look at the beginning then, shall we? Last time I checked, the pilgrims left England to be free from the same religious principles you are now trying to force onto everyone else. "Liberals" don't want religion to be eradicated, just that nobody be forced into believing in one, or have it taught to their children.

Beliefs and ethics collide, with lives on the line

A show I am really growing to respect lately, The Big Idea with Donnie Deutsche, recently reported on a situation that chills me to the bone and angers me (almost) beyond words.

A mother was on the show, telling quite a heart-tugging tale with a horrible twist. Her young daughter was out late one night, when a stranger asked her for directions. She proceeded to help him out with his request, when she was hit over the head and violently raped.

Her mother took her to the hospital, where a nurse assisted her in getting a rape kit taken care of. She was released and went home. Her mother was talking to one of her friends about the incident, and the friend asked whether or not she was prescribed a Plan B pill, a post-intercourse contraceptive. The mother didn’t even realize such an option existed. She went back the hospital and spoke with the nurse again, inquiring as to the option and why it was not presented to her daughter. The nurse then conferred with the doctor who had overseen the treatment, and informed the mother the doctor neither presented the option, nor would prescribe the medication, because it was against his religious beliefs.

Following your religious beliefs is absolutely fine; it’s your right, as guaranteed by the 1^st Amendment. However, when your right to practice your religion violates the rights of others, or your ethical obligation to your patients, then we have a problem. This doctor placed his religious beliefs above the medical needs of a patient, something that must be considered a violation of his Hippocratic oath; the pledge all doctors take before being allowed to actually practice medicine. This doctor, by nature of his profession itself, chose to swear to uphold the following; “To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority.” This is not a difficult concept. This poor girl was violently raped, and a Plan B medication would have prevented a forced conception, but this doctor felt that it was more important to impose his religious beliefs on this girl, and all the possible harms associated with that choice, than to simply do what he had sworn.

What if you were severely injured in a car accident and taken to the emergency room. You’re lying there in your rolling bed, the smell of sterility all around you, strangers in masks surrounding you, speaking in tongues you can’t even begin to understand. Your life is hanging in the balance. And then your nurse informs you that your doctor will not allow surgery to be performed on you, because it violates his personal religious beliefs. What if? This is the kind of slippery slope that could only occur in a hypothetical, yet here it is. Doctors cannot be allowed to provide or withhold medical care based on their personal feelings, regardless of their inspiration; they hold the lives of too many people in their hands to be guided by such. Whether it be personal politics, religious beliefs, or their own feelings, they have no place in hospitals.

War in Iraq, part 7,459,637

President Bush has given a LOT of speeches about the "War" in Iraq, but he said something very interesting and very important earlier today during an exchange with reporters.

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

About time someone in the administration said what all of us have known for 2 years; Iraq had NOTHING to do with our other "War", that on terrorism. They've always been talking and hinting about Iraq having "connections" with Al Quieda, Zarkawi, etc, but now he has finally admitted that they had nothing to do with each other. I guess it's time to check off number 17 my "List of reasons we invaded Iraq that turned out to be completely false and the President knew it."

Something else that is interesting about that exchange is his stuttering at the end. This wasn't a planned release, soemthing that they WANTED to admit to, or else he wouldn't have been unnerved by spilling it there. Oh, those reporters are just too tricky for poor old President Bush. And after he accidently let the lying, document-falsifying cat out-of-the-bag and tried to recover by going back to his stand-by excuse for everything, September 11th. That day is NOT a catch-all excuse for every stupid mistake he makes.

In a seperate interview, Bush also said:

"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

Umm, more deaths in the past 3 months than any 3 month span in our occupation's history, took the elected Iraqi officials months to even get together and begin working on selecting a leader, that is democracy? I think not. What we have in Iraq right now is an anarchy; no order, people living in constant fear of death, these are not the ingredients of a sucessful democracy.

And finally, Bush has said multiple times that as long as he is president, we will not leave Iraq. As if he has a choice. You see, while calling our occupation of a sovereign nation a "War" may have helped his political policy in the short run, and the fact that he has obviously never read the Constitution, the legislative branch has final authority regarding troop control. I've touched on this in the past, so let me just review; the powers invested in the president as "Commander in Chief" were described by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers as being "No more tha Chief strategist or general." And as we all know, generals do not start or end wars, they only do the planning during. The legislative branch can, at any time due to a vote, withdraw troops from any situation of war.
So the question becomes, is the "War" in Iraq an actual war? Well, we never actually signed a declaration of war, so that would be a strike against it. However, the president, his administration, as well as every member of congress have made it a point to call it both the "War in Iraq" and the broader "War on Terrorism." Also, over the past 40 years congress has passed, instead of declarations of war, Authorizations of Force, which amount to almost the same thing. What it comes down to, as many issues do, is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. And that is a very cloudy issue to be debated by people even smarter than I. What is NOT debatable, however, is that the invasion of Iraq has been pushed down our throats as a "War" since day one. The president and congress have both treated it as one since it began. Just because the nametag doesn't say "War" doesn't mean we should all be decieved, especially when the president just throws around the word to help his political agenda. And if this IS a war, then congress has the power to withdraw troops at any time, regardless of what the president wants. Remember, Commander-In-Chief means chief strategist, not supreme leader who answers to nobody.

War in Iraq, part 7,459,637

President Bush has given a LOT of speeches about the "War" in Iraq, but he said something very interesting and very important earlier today during an exchange with reporters.

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

About time someone in the administration said what all of us have known for 2 years; Iraq had NOTHING to do with our other "War", that on terrorism. They've always been talking and hinting about Iraq having "connections" with Al Quieda, Zarkawi, etc, but now he has finally admitted that they had nothing to do with each other. I guess it's time to check off number 17 my "List of reasons we invaded Iraq that turned out to be completely false and the President new it."

Something else that is interesting about that exchange is his stuttering at the end. This wasn't a planned release, soemthing that they WANTED to admit to, or else he wouldn't have been unnerved by spilling it there. Oh, those reporters are just too tricky for poor old President Bush. And after he accidently let the lying, document-falsifying cat out-of-the-bag and tried to recover by going back to his stand-by excuse for everything, September 11th. That day is NOT a catch-all excuse for every stupid mistake he makes.

In a seperate interview, Bush also said:

"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

Umm, more deaths in the past 3 months than any 3 month span in our occupation's history, took the elected Iraqi officials months to even get together and begin working on selecting a leader, that is democracy? I think not. What we have in Iraq right now is an anarchy; no order, people living in constant fear of death, these are not the ingredients of a sucessful democracy.

And finally, Bush has said multiple times that as long as he is president, we will not leave Iraq. As if he has a choice. You see, while calling our occupation of a sovereign nation a "War" may have helped his political policy in the short run, and the fact that he has obviously never read the Constitution, the legislative branch has final authority regarding troop control. I've touched on this in the past, so let me just review; the powers invested in the president as "Commander in Chief" were described by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers as being "No more tha Chief strategist or general." And as we all know, generals do not start or end wars, they only do the planning during. The legislative branch can, at any time due to a vote, withdraw troops from any situation of war.
So the question becomes, is the "War" in Iraq an actual war? Well, we never actually signed a declaration of war, so that would be a strike against it. However, the president, his administration, as well as every member of congress have made it a point to call it both the "War in Iraq" and the broader "War on Terrorism." Also, over the past 40 years congress has passed, instead of declarations of war, Authorizations of Force, which amount to almost the same thing. What it comes down to, as many issues do, is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. And that is a very cloudy issue to be debated by people even smarter than I. What is NOT debatable, however, is that the invasion of Iraq has been pushed down our throats as a "War" since day one. The president and congress have both treated it as one since it began. Just because the nametag doesn't say "War" doesn't mean we should all be decieved, especially when the president just throws around the word to help his political agenda. And if this IS a war, then congress has the power to withdraw troops at any time, regardless of what the president wants. Remember, Commander-In-Chief means chief strategist, not supreme leader who answers to nobody.

War in Iraq, part 7,459,637

President Bush has given a LOT of speeches about the "War" in Iraq, but he said something very interesting and very important earlier today during an exchange with reporters.

Bush: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraqi have to do with that?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it’s part of — and nobody’s ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize,

About time someone in the administration said what all of us have none for 2 years; Iraq had NOTHING to do with our other "War", that on terrorism. They've always been talking and hinting about Iraq having "connections" with Al Quieda, Zarkawi, etc, but now he has finally admitted that they had nothing to do with each other. I guess it's time to check off number 17 my "List of reasons we invaded Iraq that turned out to be completely false and the President new it."

Something else that is interesting about that exchange is his stuttering at the end. This wasn't a planned release, soemthing that they WANTED to admit to, or else he wouldn't have been unnerved by spilling it there. Oh, those reporters are just too tricky for poor old President Bush. And after he accidently let the lying, document-falsifying cat out-of-the-bag and tried to recover by going back to his stand-by excuse for everything, September 11th. That day is NOT a catch-all excuse for every stupid mistake he makes.

In a seperate interview, Bush also said:

"if we ever give up the desire to help people who live in freedom, we will have lost our soul as a nation, as far as I'm concerned."

Umm, more deaths in the past 3 months than any 3 month span in our occupation's history, took the elected Iraqi officials months to even get together and begin working on selecting a leader, that is democracy? I think not. What we have in Iraq right now is an anarchy; no order, people living in constant fear of death, these are not the ingredients of a sucessful democracy.

And finally, Bush has said multiple times that as long as he is president, we will not leave Iraq. As if he has a choice. You see, while calling our occupation of a sovereign nation a "War" may have helped his political policy in the short run, and the fact that he has obviously never read the Constitution, the legislative branch has final authority regarding troop control. I've touched on this in the past, so let me just review; the powers invested in the president as "Commander in Chief" were described by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in the Federalist Papers as being "No more tha Chief strategist or general." And as we all know, generals do not start or end wars, they only do the planning during. The legislative branch can, at any time due to a vote, withdraw troops from any situation of war.
So the question becomes, is the "War" in Iraq an actual war? Well, we never actually signed a declaration of war, so that would be a strike against it. However, the president, his administration, as well as every member of congress have made it a point to call it both the "War in Iraq" and the broader "War on Terrorism." Also, over the past 40 years congress has passed, instead of declarations of war, Authorizations of Force, which amount to almost the same thing. What it comes down to, as many issues do, is the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law. And that is a very cloudy issue to be debated by people even smarter than I. What is NOT debatable, however, is that the invasion of Iraq has been pushed down our throats as a "War" since day one. The president and congress have both treated it as one since it began. Just because the nametag doesn't say "War" doesn't mean we should all be decieved, especially when the president just throws around the word to help his political agenda. And if this IS a war, then congress has the power to withdraw troops at any time, regardless of what the president wants. Remember, Commander-In-Chief means chief strategist, not supreme leader who answers to nobody.

Resolutions

Today, U.S. District Judge Anna Taylor issued an injunction against the Bush administration, preventing them from furthering their warrentless wiretapping program. This is a serious issue that has been neglected as-of-late due to many, MANY other problems the President's administration has caused, but remains one of the most important we face. Which is why it is so important that Judge Taylor got this one right.
Judge Taylor ruled that the warrentless wiretapping program violated not only FISA, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act, but also the First and Fourth Amendment. What does that mean? It means that not only did Bush knowingly violate the laws that were passed by Congress, but also our civil rights . Specifically, the First amendment's protection of both free speech and the press, but also our right to be protected from searches or seizures by the government without a warrent. Wow, look at that; our founding fathers saw this coming and specifically placed a provision in our most sacred document pertaining to this very situation, and Bush STILL saw fit to violate it. She found that the program violated our rights in multiple ways, and thus issued the injunction permanently stopping he and his administration from continuing to violate our rights.
What I find appaling, besides the President's blatant disregard for the laws he was sworn to uphold(twice), is the administrations response to the ruling.

The Justice Department appealed the ruling and issued a statement calling the program "an essential tool for the intelligence community in the war on terror."

It's just incredible that they don't even care that they were violating the law and endangering the very way of life they are so "Concerned" with protecting. They don't care. Their response wasn't, "Here is why the judge is wrong, here is our precident", or even, "We were obviously wrong, as this judge has now told us"; they just don't get it. It isn't about whether or not it is a useful program. Obviously, if the government could just spy on all of us indescriminently, and without supervision from the other branches of government entrusted with checking one another's powers, then yes, maybe fighting terrorism would be easier. But easier has nothing to do with it. The Bill of Rights exists to protect us from that very issue, from a government exercising too much power over it's citizens the same way that the monarchies the pilrims fled from abused their power. The administration doesn't care that it was violating each American's civil rights, only that having to follow the law made their job a little more difficult. And not only the law, as Judge Taylor pointed out, but also the most sacred of all documents governing the American way of life, the Bill of Rights. This was an obvious violation, as anyone involved realized, and the fact that is has now been rectified is a freat relief to me, as it should be to every other American citizen.

OMG A veto? Oh, of COURSE he's vetoing a GOOD bill

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that would increase funding for stem cell research. In case you don't know, stem cells are these amazing cells inside embryos that form into any other kind of cell the body needs while it's developing, creating entire organs when need be. These cells are also being used around the world to help find cures for thousands of dibilitating diseases. This sounds absolutely amazing, right?

As it turns out, president bush-league as decided to veto his first piece of legislation EVER today. Guess what that is?

It passed 63-37, which means, for now, it's 4 votes shy of being able to override a veto. However, when it comes back, they can reintroduce the bill, and HOPEFULLY get those last 4 votes. In a latest poll, almost 70% of americans support stem-cell research, realizing all the good it can do. The bill also enjoyed much bi-partisan support, obviously.

Then, of course, there are the idiots (*cough* bush*cough*) who, as his mouthpiece tony snow said, "believes stem-cell research is murder". Perhaps he should try, like, reading into the science a little bit, and not just jumping to conclusions. The embryos used, 400,000 I believe, are about to be discarded as medical waste, and destroyed forever. So why NOT put them to use curing diseases and helping people? It isn't murder, since those emryos will never become people anyway, but the president and apparently 37 senators don't see it that way. The choice isn't between ending life and doing research; the choice is between throwing away genetic material, or using it to save, potentially, millions of lives. It's really that simple.

No wonder bush doesn't understand. Somebody draw that guy a picture or something. Maybe if you put it in a Blues Clues episode he'll get it.