What the article doesn’t mention is that the birthers have already fully exhausted their legal pathways. Twice. My post from December, which discussed the denials of stay in Donofrio v. Wells (08A407) and Wrotnowski v. Bysiewicz (08A469), may be worth a read for anyone interested in the history or politics of the issue. Plus, the article contains an explanation of some fascinating and often-misunderstood Court procedure courtesy of Lyle Denniston. I guess that makes my Denniston Number equal to +1?

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

1) Engage Foreign Leaders- As our policy stands now, we ignore countries that are ‘bad’ until we need them to do something for us. Well, we’ve usually ‘ignored’ (alienated) them for so long that they are usually more than hesitant to cooperate. The next President needs to keep the line of communication open with countries, not use negotiations as a bonus for nations that appease us.

2) Increase Foreign Aid- The next President needs to push Congress to increasing financial and humanitarian aid to the developing world. As we throw away money on the Conflict in Iraq, China and other competing nations are developing relationships with smaller nations. Foreign aid helps us develop spheres of influence around the world that will come in handy the next time we need help. The best thing for America right now would be a paradigm shift away from unilateral wars and towards common, consensus-building endeavors.

3) Diversify Our Energy Supplies- This isn’t a strictly foreign policy issue, but it would have a profound effect on our foreign policy. The next president needs to provide funding for alternative energies. Regardless when we reap the benefits from the investment, the foreign nations that have oil-inflated egos are going to find themselves in a precarious position with America on the path to energy independence.

4) Pull Out of Iraq (Mostly)- The War in Iraq is not going to get better with more troops. If the next President can’t pass legislation that would remove us from Iraq in the first year of his presidency (meaning a withdrawl the next year, or 2010), I would say that his legacy will be mired by Iraq the same way the current President’s has. Other nations are becoming more and more openly hostile to the notion of an Imperial Empire taking over the Middle East and if the President can’t get support domestically, how can we expect any potential to do the same in their country? I would expect the next President to the troop level in Iraq by at least 75% in order to achieve any level of success on the Iraqi issue. Pulling out of Iraq is the first step towards pressing other countries on issues that are important to us.

5) Re-engage the UN- International Organizations may or may not be effective, but our participation in them is an important indication of our standing amongst the international community. The first step in improving our relationship with the UN would be to appoint a nominee that can get strong support domestically (ie. not another Bolton-esque hack). The next step is to increase our activity outside the hallowed-halls of the Security Council. This is a daunting task for any administration, but we need ignore the War in Iraq and forge a coalition with other nations in the broader war against poverty and disease.

6) Ratify the Kyoto Protocol- It’s irrelevant whether the United States’ economy can handle joining Kyoto (which it probably can). The US economy has proven itself resilient time and time again, and arguments against Kyoto are all tainted with the bias of big business. The act of signing on to Kyoto would be a huge win for the global environmental protection movement. Seeing as how the United States is the only major developed country not to have signed Kyoto, it’s rather embarassing that we can even talk about countering global warming.

7) Repeal the Mexico City Policy- Quick synopsis: the Mexico City Policy is known as the Global Gag Rule, and outlaws US foreign aid to any international family planning organizations that condone (or even don’t speak out about) abortion. This policy is the centerpiece of the New Right’s campaign to export its twisted conservative Christian agenda and impose it on the developing world. Ironically, the Global Gag Rule increases abortion, and especially unsafe abortion, as women have no access to family planning counseling and contraceptives. As long as the Global Gag Rule is in place, the United States will be seen as a country willing to play games with women’s lives in order to climb on its moral pedestal.

8) Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court- The ICC was created to prosecute war criminals. This may be why President Bush seems particularly hesitant to join the ICC. The Bush Administration argues that joining the ICC would open the legal floodgates to thousands of charges against US soldiers and military officials. One must ask, though, why the US would resort to such an excuse: perhaps it already knows its own guilt? As long as the US remains outside the jurisdiction of the ICC, the preemptive strike doctrine, torture, and other Bush Administration hobbies will stay legitimate, and the international community will continue to question our leadership.

9) Stop Being Complicit in Torture – Call it “enhanced”, “invasive”, or just downright human-rights violating, but the current interrogation tactics legitimated by the US military/intelligence services are not only immoral but also impractical. On ethical grounds, it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive for the President to claim that everyone deserves human rights precisely because they’re human, and at the same time, designate captured terror suspects as “enemy combatants” not prisoners of war. As a result, the Bush Administration attempts to rhetorically side step the Geneva Conventions by literally denigrating terror suspects to subhuman status. So, on moral grounds, we violate the universalizing ethic of human rights by excluding who can be fully human and therefore claim full human rights. On practical grounds, torturing suspects in Gitmo/Abu Grahib/Eastern European Prison, or handing them over for Jordan/Syria/Egypt to torture them undermines our ability to project our soft power into the Muslim world. After all, a pyramid of naked prisoners cowering in fear at an attack dog doesn’t exactly project benevolent intentions.

10) Rethink the Free Trade Mantra – Basic macroeconomic theory tells us that if two nations specialize in different goods such as guns and butter, and they trade with each other, the result is mutually beneficial. Too bad the US and China don’t just make guns and butter. What’s happening today is that US manufacturing companies are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to the rest of the world where labor costs are minimal and tax breaks and investment opportunities are provided by the foreign government. As a result, unfettered free trade is exerting downward pressure on US living standards and wages. The next administration needs to include labor rights concerns and environmental guarantees into its future trade agreements with other countries in an effort to equalize the disparities in manufacturing conditions from Flint, Michigan, and Bangalore, India.

Kedar wrote the first five suggestions, Yao wrote the next three, and Gary wrote the last two. Gary very specifically wanted me, Kedar, to remind everyone that he totally disagrees with suggestion #4 regarding our pullout from Iraq. Gary wrote at great length about his views here but I totally disagree. We’ll discuss this later.

Related posts

• Supreme Introductions (December 20, 2008)
• Supreme Court to Promptly Release DC v. Heller Oral Arguments (March 6, 2008)
• Supreme Court Grants Cert. In Important Second Amendment Case (September 30, 2009)

Hilary Clinton- A-: She kept her lead and didn’t mess it up. If you call that a victory, then she got an A-, if you consider a victory a performance that will sway voters to her side, she got closer to a B+ or B.

Barack Obama- B+: Good, but not as he needs to take overtake Clinton.

John Edwards- B: Edwards didn’t take the initiative that he needed to in order to creep into the top tier of candidates. He might have held is ground, but I would truly be surprised if he gains a lot of supporters from this performance.

Mike Gravel- B-: Even though he sounded angry the whole time, he had some answers that really pandered to the radical liberal base. I think he answered the questions in ways that might help him grab some primary vote, but it certainly won’t be enough to push im into the top or even second tier.

Dennis Kucinich- C+: He was silly but that’s his thing. I still keep trying to look for the ‘one ring, to rule them all’ on his hand.

Joe Biden- C: He had a perfectly mediocre performance. In my school, a ‘C’ was considered average, but it certainly wasn’t enough to to catch up to the top tier candidates.

Chris Dodd- C-: He behaved a lot like Biden but didn’t have the the same understated charm. He was brash and his attitude made it hard for me to take him seriously.

Bill Richardson- D: That was the way a desperate, desperate candidate sounds. He looked like he had practiced so hard on his answers the he actually ended up being really stiff and insincere.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The Obama Rama Party (August 2, 2007)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

The Iraq progress report due out in the next week will state that none of the political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government.”Events are spinning out of control for this White House,” said former presidential adviser David Gergen. “George Bush’s presidency I think is in desperate trouble.”

Even worse, two prominent Republican Senators, Lugar (senior Republican on the foreign relations committee) and Warner(senior Republican on the Arms Services Committee) have already expressed deep reservations over the surge and are calling for a new strategy in Iraq. Lugar wants to hold a diplomatic summit with everyone in the Middle East and the withdrawal of the majority of our forces. Now, we all remember the political firestorm the “surge” generate under the leadership of General Petraeus but now many in Congress don’t want to give Patraeus that chance in September. However, Iraqslogger reported back in May that Patraeus’s assessment would not provide anything “definitive” by his own admission. So, politically, Iraq has officially dragged President Bush’s approval ratings beyond Carter-like-catastrophe.

Clearly, the White House is beginning to understand the political gravity of Iraq. Thus, Bush announced that

Fearful of a Republican rebellion over Iraq that his own aides believe could force him to change course, President George W. Bush said Tuesday that the United States would be able to pull back troops “in a while,” but called on Congress to wait until September to debate the future military presence there.

The only question now it seems, is when that “in a while is”.

But, it seems to me that our current debate on Iraq is a bit narrow-minded. After all, no credible vision for Iraq exists post-US involvement. Right now, a civil war is occurring and it will only get worse once we’re gone. There are multiple secretarian groups fighting amongst themselves and without US support the Maliki government will probably collapse.

In fact, I think the United States actually has a political obligation to make sure it doesn’t leave Iraq in worse shape than when it invaded. After all, at its most basic level, the United States military is the closest thing to a sovereign authority in Iraq. By any stretch of the imagination, sovereignty is defined as the ability to control one’s borders and one’s internal affairs. While Iraq’s borders are porous and insurgents run amok in the Anbar province for example, the United States is the only political actor with the resources, international support(albeit limited), and manpower to enforce its will in the country. For instance, the United States military is the only actor able to literally detain whoever it wants in Iraq and question them. It literally wields a monopoly(in conjunction with the Iraqi military/police) on legitimate physical force in the country (another characteristic of sovereignty). Thus, it’s morally reprehensible to just leave Iraq because “It is the Iraqi government which has failed to make the tough decisions that are important”(Hillary’s politically convenient analysis).

Let’s look at a brief/vague timeline of the war so far…
2001 – 9/11 attacks, world sympathy for the United States, Bush approval rating off the chart, every news anchor begins to wear a flag lapel on their suit.
2002 – Bush begins to alienate the international community. Drumbeat for invading Iraq begins.

2003 – Colin Powell goes to the UN, makes the case for war. WMD alleged to be in Iraq and we can’t trust Saddam with them. We invade Iraq, and Foxnews presents a lot of good footage of the shock and awe of the United States. Almost all critical voices are silenced.

2004-now – War in Iraq goes not go as planned. The capture of Saddam does not stop the violence. Coalition mistakes such as disbanding the Baathist army (gee, firing a bunch of surly men who need money and are adept at organizing military violence is real smart…) turning the corner in Iraq becomes the mantra of the Bush Administration.

We subsequently turn about 8 corners, so Iraq officially is an octagon. By the way, no WMD in Iraq says David Kay. Without WMD, Bush tries to make the world forget why the US went to war. Now, democracy promotion becomes the new black. Now, the United States is rhetorically committed to bringing liberty to the world…so Iran and North Korea, you’re on notice. Iraqi’s approve a constitution and vote. A lot of pictures of Iraqi’s with their finger tips wet with purple ink…peace does not follow. More Shi’ite religious sites are attacked. Moqtada al-Sadr becomes a US household name. media firestorm after US passes 2,000 dead. Now we’re at 1609 above 2000…continued firestorm. Public opinion turns against the war. General Patraeus, an academic super soldier is sent to save the situation on the ground.

Now, WE’RE GOING TO LEAVE?? Now, 3609 soldiers dead is a lot, but it’s war. War doesn’t just mean we lob missiles from long distance, use predator drones for lightning quick precision strikes and Navy Seals to assassinate enemy targets. War means to take control of an area, and destroy the ability of the enemy to fight. War demands sacrifice and like it or not, this country, the United States of America made a collective decision to support President Bush and go to war. Our faith in President Bush and the GOP to make America safer lead to a wave of GOP victories in the 2002 midterm elections (just ask Max Cleland how bad it was to be a Democrat).

Now, when the going gets tough and billions of dollars are down the drain, we suddenly want to get out. That’s a short term political victory over a long term security threat. There is Al-Quaeda in Iraq, not when we invaded initially, but they’ve slipped in since. So, it’s politically inconvenient but necessary to stay in Iraq and stabilize the country. Involving regional actors is a must. Lugar’s idea of a regional summit should be done. But setting a timetable for withdrawal will destroy the Maliki government and sabotage any chance at success.

According to Pentagon estimates, a minimum of 67,172 Iraqi civilians have died in the war so far. Even if we assume that the Pentagon tries to make sure its accurate in its counting (it’s not, it has a perverse incentive to understate the full extent of civilian casualties), 67,172 people is about the size of a small town in the US. We owe them more than a country where militias and terrorists rule in what can only be described as bloody anarchy.

Before the war started, the Washington Post recounts Collin Powell’s warning to President Bush

Before the war with Iraq, Powell bluntly told Bush that if he sent U.S. troops there “you’re going to be owning this place.” Powell and his deputy and closest friend, Richard L. Armitage, used to refer to what they called “the Pottery Barn rule” on Iraq: “You break it, you own it,”

Now, the US public has a mess on its hands and wants to return it with the receipt. Too bad Pottery Barn only gives store credit…

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

You can find the full text of President Bush’s address here(subscription required). President Bush essentially spends what was probably 4-5 minutes of his speech outlining the reasons why Scooter Libby didn’t get a fair shakes, then says that he listened to people on both sides of the debate. He concludes:

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend 30 months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Well, it was more or less inevitable. During the most recent Republican debate, when the candidates were asked if they would pardon Libby, they all replied that they would. Even if they didn’t, it wouldn’t be hard for President Bush to simply add Libby to his list of midnight pardons(20 of Clinton’s went towards cocaine dealers!).

The whole notion of a pardon is laid out pretty explicitly in Article II, Section II of the Constitution:

[The President] shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

The power to pardon was developed in England and designed to be a deterrent against irrational sentences. In our contemporary court system, Judges have more power to fact mitigating and aggrevating evidence into a sentence but at the time the idea of a pardon was being developed, the law was more more concrete.

The Presdiential pardon then became an important too for diplomacy. In an effort to let go of a dark period of history, President Washington used the Pardon against man of the rebel-rousers of the Whiskey Rebellion. President Madison pardoned people who has disserted the American Revolution and President’s Lincoln and Carter did the same for veterans of the wars in their respective eras. President Ford’s pardon of Nixon prevented the American people from seeing a former President go to jail.

I found this bit of history to be interesting:

It appears as though a pardon can even be granted against the will of the grantee. Originally, however, a pardon could be refused. In the case of U.S. v Wilson (32 US 150) the Supreme Court stated that a pardon is like a gift that can be refused, upholding the notion in Burdick v U.S. (236 US 79). Then began a reversal of the so-called “acceptance doctrine” in Biddle v Perovich (274 US 480) when it declared that the commutation of a death sentence to a life sentence could not be refused: “A pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed.” President Calvin Coolidge, in an unadjudicated case, pardoned a prisoner named Craig, and when he refused the pardon, ordered him removed from the prison and “the doors locked behind him.”

The liberal blogs that I read were on fire today. They posted almost 3 times as much as comparable conservative blogs who mostly stayed quiet on the issue, posting a simple article stating the news. DailyKos has a great post about the Presidential candidates reactions and MyDD has another great article on the President’s decision. Last Thursday, the legal blogs that I read were unusually busy reporting on end-of-term news and the next day, iDay, saw a massive surge in tech blogs reporting on every aspect of the iPhone (iGlorious?). Forget Google Trends, I have my RSS reader.

I’m glad that Libby’s conviction will have ‘long-lasting’ effects on his ‘former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen.’ I sure hope that the lobbying position that pays $2 million a year gives him a hard time and makes him work 4 hours per week instead of 3. Don’t you just love the sweet smell of justice being served?

Related posts

• WSJ Op-ed on Judicial Elections (March 22, 2008)
• Wisdom (May 23, 2007)
• Which Justices Write The Most 9-0 Opinions? 5-4 Opinions? (February 27, 2009)

Democratic Primary Race (click the thumbnail to enlarge via lightbox):

^^^(NOTE: I re-keyed Gore as greeen in an (unsuccessful) atttempt to amuse myself)^^^

Republican Primary Race (click the thumbnail to enlarge via lightbox):

Also, I’ve added a model that tracks the presumptive party frontrunners (Giuliani (R-NY) vs. Clinton (D-NY)) in a hypothetical national election. This General Election Model can be found below (click the thumbnail to enlarge via lightbox):

Those of you who are curious can find my data here: DailyWrit Poll Aggregates (.xls file).

Continuing on a previous note, Rasmussen is ridiculous. I crosschecked my Giuliani v. Clinton data with similar data at RealClearPolitics and found that, after using many of the same polls, we had substantially different averages for Mlle. Clinton (D-NY). After playing with the numbers, I found that Clinton’s RCP average on RealClearPolitics (around 48%) becomes a full point higher (and then some!) if you remove Rasmussen polls and then recalculate. Freaking ridiculous.

In less maddening news, check out the sweet new About Page and/or DailyWrit’s Full Calendar of the 2008 Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions.

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

To understand Hein, it is imperative to first understand Flast v. Cohen. The court held in Flast (again, I discussed this a great length here) that Taxpayers have standing in certain establishment clause cases that arise from congressional appropriations. This is how Chief Justice Warren described the central conflict in his majority opinion:

As we understand it, the Government’s position is that the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, and the deference owed by the federal judiciary to the other two branches of government within that scheme, present an absolute bar to taxpayer suits challenging the validity of federal spending programs. The Government views such suits as involving no more than the mere disagreement by the taxpayer “with the uses to which tax money is put.” According to the Government, the resolution of such disagreements is committed to other branches of the Federal Government and not to the judiciary.

Standing is an aspect of justiciability and, as such, the problem of standing is surrounded by the same complexities and vagaries that inhere in justiciability. Standing has been called one of “the most amorphous [concepts] in the entire domain of public law.” Some of the complexities peculiar to standing problems result because standing “serves, on occasion, as a shorthand expression for all the various elements of justiciability.” In addition, there are at work in the standing doctrine the many subtle pressures which tend to cause policy considerations to blend into constitutional limitations.

The court went on to establish two rules to help define when this type of Article III standing is appropriate.

(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute.

(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8.

As you can see, the Court’s ruling in Flast provides taxpayer standing for individuals against establishment clauses that arise from “legislative enactment” alone. The fact that Flast only provided for standing in legislative appropriations is central to Hein.

The majority (Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito) came out swinging in Hein. Junior Justice Alito wrote the plurality opinion and he expressed unusual candor. There was no majority opinion, with Justice Alito penning an opinion that was signed by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia writing an opinion that was signed by Justice Thomas. He writes in section 4 of the summary:

A taxpayer’s purely psychological disapproval that his funds are being spent in an allegedly unlawful manner is never sufficiently concrete and particularized to support Article III standing. Although overruling precedents is a serious undertaking, stare decisis should not prevent the Court from doing so here. Flast was inconsistent with the cases that came before it and undervalued the separation-of-powers function of standing. Its lack of a logical theoretical underpinning has rendered the Court’s taxpayer-standing doctrine so incomprehensible that appellate judges do not know what to make of it. The case has engendered no reliance interests. Few cases less warrant stare decisis effect. It is past time to overturn Flast.

They address standing again later:

As a general matter, the interest of a federal taxpayer in seeing that Treasury funds are spent in accordance with the Constitution does not give rise to the kind of redressable “personal injury” required for Article III standing. Of course, a taxpayer has standing to challenge the collection of a specific tax assessment as unconstitutional; being forced to pay such a tax causes a real and immediate economic injury to the individual taxpayer.

Here is really the best thing Alito said:

Over the years, Flast has been defended by some and criticized by others. But the present case does not require us to reconsider that precedent. The Court of Appeals did not apply Flast; it extended Flast. It is a necessary concomitant of the doctrine of stare decisis that a precedent is not always expanded to the limit of its logic. That was the approach that then-Justice Rehnquist took in his opinion for the Court in Valley Forge, and it is the approach we take here. We do not extend Flast, but we also do not overrule it. We leave Flast as we found it.

At first I really liked the way Justice Alito handled this case. I’m afraid that he makes one major mistake: he has now weakened the Flast precedent to the point where a considerable number of lower-court judges are sure to take it into their own hands to overrule the Flast precedent. This only means that in a matter of years the court will be asked to rule on the issue again. Leaving a precedent like this in limbo is the most sure-fire way of getting conflicting circuit court rulings. Justice Scalia, in his concurring opinion that was signed by Justice Thomas, argues that the court needs to either extend Flast to “all challenges to the governmental expenditure of general tax revenues in a manner alleged to violate a constitutional provision specifically limiting the taxing and spending power, or Flast should be repudiated.” He ultimately suggests that the second option is the appropriate one, but concedes that the Court needs to pick a side (we’re at war!). Bravo Justice Scalia, Bravo.

I stand squarely with Justice Scalia in this case. I can find no reason why taxpayers should have a legitimate standing in a case in which they are not being directly harmed. Sure, Faith-Based Initiatives are unconstitutional to some, but that doesn’t mean that we all have standing. The purpose of the court system is to allow individuals to find solution to harms that are inflicted upon them by others. In this case, there is nothing that can be given to FFR that would alleviate their ‘pain’ because they were never directly harmed. The question of Faith-Based Initiatives is a purely political question and FFR would have been wise to spend money on lobbying instead of court costs. Justice Souter writes an almost incomprehensibly short 7-page opinion that feebly argues that we allow other people who are directly harmed by the legislature to have standing. He lists a number of examples but they all have more direct harm than the Freedom From Religion organization so his argument is really moot.

Related posts

• The People v. God, et al.: Scalia Never Stops Talking (Duh?) (May 17, 2007)
• Updated Humor Statistics (March 7, 2008)
• Unity Defined (June 11, 2007)

5) God- No one doubts that every candidate will talk about their faith. Mitt Romney isn’t going to have any trouble making his faith compatible with the republican base, but I want to count how many times the candidates mention God and their faith.

4) Foreigners- Like Yao, I think immigration will be a major topic. I am interested to see which candidate is going to make his position seem unique, and by extention, the most right (conservative and correct.)

3) Centrism- How far to the right will the candidates go? How will they answer the gay marriage question?

2) McCain- I’m interested in a few things about McCain. First, how far to the right will he go? Most of the candidates want to appeal to the right and center but McCain just needs the core Republican base at this point. Second, how is he going to reconsile his position on Iraq with other Republican positions? Finally, will he fix his hair? (compare to here)

1) Awkward- The Republicans don’t need to distance themselves from Bush much at this point, but they also don’t want to say anything that could get them in trouble in the general election. I am soooo excited about seeing the republicans answer the question ‘Is America more or less safe as a result of the War in Iraq?’ Imagine the awkward (vague) answers.

I’ll be liveblogging the debate tomorrow night. I’ve never done a simulblog before but I think it will be quite a bit of fun.

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)

Barack Obama- Barack Obama is officially just another candidate. After losing a lot of the steam that he entered with, Obama looked flat after last night’s uninspiring performance. After being hailed as a magnificent speaker, Obama definitely let his supporters down with a stiff and boring performance. Obama’s diss on Edwards for being late to oppose the war fell on its face and seemed rude at best.

Hilary Clinton- It looked like Hilary was the most assertive, but some would argue that makes her look bad. She was definitely making a lot of bold statements and she talked about her husband more than I think she would have liked. Unlike Gore in 2000 however, Hilary seems more wiling to latch on to a lot of his accomplishments. On the other hand, a whole 10 minutes were spent talking about the Bill, so it was hard for her to avoid to the issue. I think she might have strengthened her position a bit, but she was the frontrunner anyway.

John Edwards- Edwards was probably the second most successful candidate. He answered questions with solid but short answers. I think he would have been wise to use his charm a bit more and maybe make a few jokes, but he did an okay job. His whole thing about the war being a bumper sticker was just setting up Hilary to talk about how she was strong on terror after being a NY senator.

Joe Biden- Biden did a solid job, but I think he might be too far behind to catch up. Biden didn’t really show off a lot of the foreign policy experience that he has. I always like Biden a lot but it looks like he’s going to need to really strut his stuff soon. I really liked his answer to questions about why he voted for the recent spending bill.

Dennis Kucinich- Kucinich looks like a clown but did a mediocre job last night.

Bill Richardson- I think he plugged his record as a governor a bit, but not as much as I would have suggested. I think Richardson should really talk about how he’s actually had leadership experience and isn’t simply a politician like senators.

Mike Gravel- Cranky but thats nothing new. He definitely has a right to be. He wants to ‘rock the boat‘ of electoral politics but I think he might be a bit extreme. Mike, if you want to come to my dorm, I’d love to have you.

Chris Dodd- Honestly, I had no idea that Chris Dodd was even there.

The stupid handshaking photo-op the candidates all did turning the short break was oh-so-silly. That really turned me off of the entire second half of the debate. After seeing the candidates so shamelessly smile and shake hands while lining up like cattle, it was hard for me to take anything they said very seriously.

Related posts

• Today Is “Safe Harbor” Day 2008 (December 9, 2008)
• The Obama Rama Party (August 2, 2007)
• The In Vogue Word Of The Day: Stare Decisis (June 28, 2007)

On the whole, the few candidates who seemed even remotely likable appeared that way for mere seconds, and even then only while spewing rehearsed and prodigiously irrelevant nonsense. I was most charmed by the senile commentary of Mike “Doesn’t Matter If I’m Elected!” Gravel (D-AL), who during the April debate called upon Senate Majority Leader Reid to author legislation making the continuation of the Iraq war felonious. He then (perhaps only to invoke the fine tradition of “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, released during his early sixties) entrusted Reid with finding the 60 votes necessary to override the filibuster that would (obviously) result. Inspired, I searched diligently to find a position on which Gravel and I agreed, but found such a search to be wasteful after reviewing the transcript from the April debate. Therein, Gravel alleges that Operation Iraqi Freedom was botched “the day Bush invaded on a fraudulent basis” – an argument with which commievegan Dennis Kucinich largely agrees. Regardless, this idea perfectly frames the Iraq issue among the declared candidates. If I were a political consultant for Clinton, I would view this line of thinking as a perfect way to escape my guy’s troubling paper trail. The argument from Clinton – and others who voted for the original appropriation – should be simple. The ultimate problem with the war’s execution was a lack of planning. Of the G8 Heads of State, only Chirac was competent enough to forsee the fact that the war intelligence would become irrelevant the moment American aircraft cleared Iraqi airspace. Chirac, in a rare moment of coherency, argued that a Shi‘aa majority was not a synonym of democracy. He alone predicted the civil war. My theory of poor execution is evidenced by the fact that the US could easily have “won“ the Iraq war – even if it began on the fraudulent basis that Gravel alleges (I assume he references the Powell UN speech / WMD controversy).

Look then at the candidates, each who has worked over the course of the past months to manufacture foreign policy credentials. Obama (who has pandered girlishly in Sudanese affairs) vaguely rambed about living in a more dangerous world after the war. This was essentially correct, but too predicatable. This guy is not a war candidate. Edwards (who hasn’t even bothered to express any international opinions, save Iraq) almost made sense with his amusingly elementary explanation of Congressional con-sti-tu-tion-al authority, but stopped short and then stupidly remarked that “Hillary is right.” Although this briefly challenged for the award of stupidest comment of the debate, the coveted prize was eventually won by Clinton (a self-proclaimed Israeli-Palestenian authority). “We are safer than we were,” she screamed, “…but not safe enough.” Stupid. False.

Enter Al Gore.

Since his 2000 “loss”, Gore has engaged in a wide variety of charity and consulting work that he artifically calls “fulfilling.” Presumably, the Gore camp (and there is a Gore camp) is waiting to make a late entrance. The questionably literate readers of TIME magazine may have noticed the cover story of last week’s edition, which attempted to explore a potential Gore run. Niether I nor TIME has a perfect explanation for Gore’s waiting game. Obviously, a late entrance incubates the possibility of the “breath of fresh air” emotion which has all-to-often swung the new Hampshire momentum late in the game. Delay also voids the possibility of stupid early errors (ie: Obama is “clean!”) and damaging soundbites (ie: “Mr. Gore, you’re no Mr. Clinton (a remark that someone should pay me for (seriously))). Additionally, Gore doesn’t need to worry about name recognition; Hopefully voters passionate enough to vote in a primary will remember the best eight years of their lives during the Clinton reign. Gore can quickly generate necessary funds, and would not require the litmus test that many interest groups use to screen national rookies like Romney. By waiting, Gore can frame his positions more precisely within the context of the remaining candidates rather than resorting to more generalized banter. Gore’s DNC connections have no expiration date. Further, waiting allows Gore to escape the horserace. Instead of listening to misinterpreted polls being pushed by pseudo-meteorologists on the local news, Americans can continue to see Gore as irrelevant – an asset that must be wisely and properly managed.

For having not said a word, Gore is polling beautifully. The most recent Quinnipiac study reveals that registered Democratic voters prefer Gore (16%) to Obama (13%), and that Gore is the best-liked Democrat in Pennsylvania, a swing state being bombarded by Giuliani door knockers. But, for Gore, this is beautiful: When asked, “If the 2008 election for President were being held today, and the candidates were Al Gore the Democrat and Rudy Giuliani the Republican, for whom would you vote?” Gore BEATS Giuliani (45% to 44%, respectively). Gore is, as of today, the only Democratic candidate that approaches Rudy. AND he’s a Mac user!

Related posts

• YouTube 4 President (June 14, 2007)
• When Mitt Met Hillary (July 5, 2007)
• Updated Presidential Polls (June 28, 2007)

First, the frontrunners (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) certainly played it very safe. I suppose you could say that they approached it in classic politician format: not giving any definitive answers. Playing it careful is probably a good idea, but it’s giving too much ground for the fringe candidates to grasp onto. The fringe candidates, in my mind, went a bit wild. Former Senator Gravel might as well be running under the Pat Buchanan platform, with the energy and vigor that can only be matched by a Klan meeting in regards to immigration. I found this bit particularly rich, given he’s from Alaska, which has literally zero experience in dealing with immigration from Mexico.

Second, the Clinton-Obama difference became incredibly noticeable during the debate. Obama’s campaign has so far been operating on the belief that informing voters of the decision-making process is more important than discussing past decisions. Clinton is much more focused on showing a track record of success and experience. It’s honestly way too early to decide which style will win out, but Clinton’s is more alienating, while Obama is more vague.

Third, I thought the big winner amongst the fringe candidates was Senator Biden. He seemed a bit Howard Dean-esque, but was authoritative and confident without actually screaming too loudly. His answer to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” question was amazing. Senator Dodd seemed wild, Kucinich was his typical violently leftist (and lovable) self, and Richardson dodged questions (on immigration of all issues) and was too held back. I suppose the loser of the night was Former Senator Gravel, but the man is so far behind anyway that he’s essentially already lost.

And was it just me or did Clinton come out a bit too strong? Given she’s been a clear frontrunner for a while now, she was speaking as if she had ground to make up. I honestly think the loud, aggressive, and borderline angry style won’t be seen as passionate and instead strengthens her alienating image.

The Republican debate is going to be really fun to watch. I can see the comedic effect of Tom Tancredo already.

Related posts

• No related posts detected.

On February 28, 2007, the Court heard oral arguments in Hein v. Freedom from Religon. The Freedom from Religion organization filed suit against Jay Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives for supporting religious organizations in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The District Court threw out the case based on standing, and the Ninth circuit overruled, claiming that taxpayer money need only be ‘generally appropriated’ to the Executive branch to envoke standing under Flask.

In 1923, the Court held in Frothingham v. Mellon that simply being a taxpayer concerned about future tax increases was not sufficient standing to bring suit against Congress. A woman brought suit against the federal government for the Maternity Act of 1921 which provided funding to decrease infant mortality. The Court rejected the woman’s contention that Congress had overstepped its bounds- increasing taxes and unlawfully taking her property in violation of Due Process standards. (Sidenote: The Court’s decision in Frothingham is a short, interesting read. At one point, they cite the ill-fated Chisholm v. Georgia case.) The Court developed an exception in 1968 in Flast v. Cohen that taxpayers could have standing against very specific Establishment Clause issues if they meet two criteria:

(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute.

(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8.

A lot of the conflict in this case comes down to specific allocation of money. Hein claims that since the Executive is in question and has not directly appropriated any funds to this issue, there is no similarity to Flast and there is no controversy. Freedom from Religion claims that even the indirect allocation of money to the Executive for administrative tasks is enough to grant standing.

The petitioner argues that the respondent lacks standing because they have received no ‘direct dollars-and-cents injury.’ Flast rested on an individuals controversy over the government’s textbook-purchasing policy towards parochial school. That type of narrowly-defined controversy is justicible, but the plaintiff in this case hasn’t yet developed a very narrow scope for this case.

I’ll cover the oral arguments in this case soon, but in an unrelated sidenote, I’ve found the coolest surname ever. I was at my sister’s 7th grade band concert last night and I took a look at the flyer and there is a clarinetist with the last name of ‘Jurisprudencia.’ I’m jealous.

Related posts

• BONG HITS 4 JESUS (May 6, 2007)
• The People v. God, et al.: Scalia Never Stops Talking (Duh?) (May 17, 2007)
• Which Justice Will Author The Medellin Opinion? (March 19, 2008)