Kiyemba v Obama

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Kiyemba_v._Obama

A new check on the Congress?

It just struck me that the president doesn't get to exert his check on the Congress (the veto) unless the bill in question is passed by both houses. Considering that the Senate is much more reactionary than the House and that it has its own tools to obstruct bills from ever getting to the president's desk, should we start thinking about providing the president with another check on the more reactionary, less representative Senate when they kill bills?

Obama Is Making Plans to Use Executive Power for Action on Several Fronts

Obama Is Making Plans to Use Executive Power for Action on Several Fronts:

Although it will be painful, Obama should refuse to exert executive power in order to pass the agenda that Congress refuses to. Caving to pressure would continue the dangerous practice of undermining the checks and balances built into the Constitution. Just as bad, the bandage that he stands to create can be revoked by the next occupant of the White House is not the solution.

Quiz Time!

Which branch of the United States Government at the federal level doesn't even have one elected official? For the answer, try consulting the tags for this post!

Is Congress THE Problem?

Is Congress THE Problem?: "

Nothing Lawrence Lessig says here is false exactly. But if Congress is the problem and the problem is the money, how can there never -- in anybody's predictable articles on this topic -- be any mention of the fact that the president takes more money than any congress member, and power to do most things has been handed over by Congress to the president? How can these two points be avoided?

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review

Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review: "

The decision not only preserves federal court review as a necessary check on executive powers, but it also affirms the basic principle that immigrants are entitled to fair process.

"

(Via AlterNet.org: Rights and Liberties.)

Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion

Tangle Of Detainee Rules Leads To Court Confusion: "

One year after President Obama pledged to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, 200 detainees remain there. A new study finds judges using wildly different criteria to review the cases — the result of a lack of clear guidelines on issues such as the use of coercion — and how to define an enemy combatant.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

"

(Via Top Stories.)

Grassroots movement for Free Speech for People ONLY!

http://freespeechforpeople.org/

Proposed: Constitutional Amendment to undo the disastrous Citizens United decision

After health-care reform, Senate reform

After health-care reform, Senate reform: "Washington Post - By Ezra Klein - Dec. 27 (Opinion) - To understand why the modern legislative process is so bad, why every Senator seems able to demand a king's ransom in return for his or her vote and no bill ever seems to be truly bipartisan, you need to understand one basic fact: The government can function if the minority party has either the incentive to make the majority fail or the power to make the majority fail. It cannot function if it has both.

NewsTrust Rating: 4.2 average (not enough reviews) - See Review » - Review It        Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Obama Still Fighting to Cover Up Rendition-to-Torture

Where is the revolution? Why aren't we fighting this unconstitutional abuse of power? This article does a good job at speculating what the motivations of the administration might be (even if they aren't themselves continuing the program...[doubtful])

Obama Still Fighting to Cover Up Rendition-to-Torture:

From the article:

If the government could block Mohamed v. Jeppesen, the panel said, that would effectively 'cordon off all secret government actions from judicial scrutiny, immunizing the CIA and its contractors from the demands and limits of the law.'

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

Ballot initiatives

I was just thinking about possible misuse of the referendum process, which took me to thinking about the ballot initiative process. Ballot initiatives should be publicly funded to get on the ballot (let's say with a $25/person max contribution). If ballots were only to appear on the ballot if enough money has been raised (e.g., $500,000), this would translate into a minimum number of supporters and would cover the cost of putting the initiative on the ballot. (It saddens me that I need to specify no business contributions...I'm sorry, but companies just aren't people and so they do not have the right to free speech). From there, the ballot should just happen...no huge mudslinging PR campaign. No nothing. It's time for people to be engaged in governance by educating themselves about the issues! One thing that would help with this is if all legal documents were written in simple english! I never want to read another "Whereas" again!

What about the poor, who might not have the disposable time to educate themselves as they try to hold down 2 or more jobs? If I were president, there would be a living wage in place of the woefully inadequate minimum wage. There, problem solved!

Leave of Absence during Ethics Investigations

Washington's Worst: McConnell and 14 Other Corrupt Lawmakers: Beyond just calling out our corrupt representatives, this article provides solutions:

McConnell is one of only three lawmakers on CREW's list who are not currently facing a formal investigation. Which leads to a bigger question posed by annual reports like this: Why do other public servants (police officers, district attorneys, etc.) have to take a leave of absence when they are implicated in ethical violations but lawmakers like Rep. John Murtha can keep passing out the pork for years under the cloud of federal investigation?

The list:

Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)

Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.)

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.)

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.)

Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.)

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.)

Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.)

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Calif.)

Rep. Pete Visclosky (D-Ind.)

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)

Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

VIDEO: David Swanson on Healthcare Reform and Democracy Reform

VIDEO: David Swanson on Healthcare Reform and Democracy Reform: "

Nine more parts to this video, including lively Q and A here.

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Is destroying the rule of law illegal?

"Eight Years Ago":

From the article:

"For the crimes committed under his administration, George W. Bush should have been impeached. Period, end of file. They should have locked him in jail and thrown away the jail, but they didn't, because the greatest crime he committed isn't technically against the law. Nowhere on the books is any rule, codicil, edict or law that says it is illegal to destroy the rule of law itself. His crimes were too big for the law, so surpassingly damaging that his very presence paralyzed the Constitution itself. He should have been prosecuted for lying America into war, for spying on everyone, for bypassing the FISA court, for robbing the Treasury, for torture, for murder, but he wasn't, and the political cowardice that allowed him to escape into private life is the last, worst stain left in his wake."

Future of Journalism

Future of Journalism: "Love The Daily Show, HuffPost, All Things Considered, Kevin Drum? We do, too, but much of what you're consuming is built from reporting (read: going to places, talking to people, and digging through documents) done elsewhere. Or as Rachel Maddow said at her MoJo fundraiser in April, "Without the David Corns of the world, there is no show. [MoJo DC bureau chief] David Corn can do his job without me, but I can't do my job without him."

A Party Is Not a Movement

A Party Is Not a Movement: "The difference between parties and movements is simple: Parties are loyal to their own power regardless of policy agenda; movements are loyal to their own policy agenda regardless of which party champions it. This is one of the few enduring political axioms, and it explains why the organizations purporting to lead an American progressive 'movement' have yet to build a real movement, much less a successful one."

"Of course, frustrated progressives might be able to forgive the groups who promised different results, had these post-election failures prompted course corrections.

For example, had the left's preeminent groups responded to Democrats' health care capitulations by immediately announcing campaigns against these Democrats, progressives could feel confident that these groups were back to prioritizing a movement agenda. Likewise, had the big antiwar organizations reacted to Obama's Afghanistan escalation plans with promises of electoral retribution, we would know those organizations were steadfastly loyal to their antiwar brand."

read more

"

(Via Truthout - Opinion.)

Who Has the Power of War?

You have got to read this!

Who Has the Power of War?:

By David Swanson, Voters for Peace

David Swanson is the author of the new book 'Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union' by Seven Stories Press, an immediate bestseller at Amazon.com http://tr.im/xBt3 This article is adapted from 'Daybreak.'

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Supreme Court Appointments

Many people are talking about amending the Constitution to limit Supreme Court justices careers. Where are people talking about electing (rather than appointing) justices? This would be one way of a check and balance from the electorate onto the government.

Why the Supreme Court Is a Failed Protector of the People

The brilliant insight of our Founding Fathers was to have three branches of government that were kept in check through separation of powers. There was at least one thing they got very wrong, though. To all those people decrying activist judges, I would like to say the following: The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the people from an overbearing, authoritative government. The way in which the Fathers chose to do this is to draft a set of principles which neither the government nor individuals can violate, which they called the Constitution. But in paying so much deference to this 200-odd year old document, they miss out on the opportunity to be the most powerful force of justice. There are things the Fathers missed, such as the extent to which businesses determine what gets done in government...it just wouldn't have been possible without telephones or airplanes when they were drafting it. That's why I want to see one of our legislators propose a convention to discuss what the Constitution means in today's society and what the role of the courts is.

(This post might have something to do with the impending decision of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission)

Time for new checks and balances!

With all the countries there are that meddle in others' affairs (surely we're not the only ones!), is the problem of mobocracy? Much of my time in college was spent making it a more democratic place. So what happens when you achieve the perfect democracy, in which everyone has one vote, and the votes add up to something terrible: slavery, war, laissez-faire capitalism, etc.? In such a situation, those holding minority opinions would be forced to persuade the majority through the force of logic. Wouldn't that be nice?

And now we get to US politics: where are the provisions in the Constitution for participatory democracy within an election cycle? The recall, you say? That has dismal success on the state level and is not provided for on the federal level in the Constitution. Shouldn't a politician's constituents be able to ouster him or her immediately? And would this actually lead to mob rule? And is that such a bad thing?

An old idea, but a good one: the Virginia Plan

Provisions in the Virginia Plan that we should perhaps revisit:

Federal-level recalls

and Rotation in office