The President Is Not A King

July 24th, was the 34th anniversary of United States v. Nixon, in which the Court told the President that he was not above the law, no matter what executive powers he claimed. Thank goodness they did, because we now know what a whacked out weirdo Nixon was. Written by the Chief Justice, Amazingly that decision was uanimous where the majority were Republicans. Watergate was notorious for the abuses of power President Nixon thought he could get away with, and for the way our constitutional system performed. It took a Republican stalwart the likes of Barry Goldwater to tell President Nixon that he had to go.

Why didn’t this happen with the tremendous abuses of power the current administration has committed? One answer is that removal from office is an inherent political act, and intentionally difficult. Put another way, the Democrats are chicken. They are fearful that the public will shift against them. It is because they are afraid to lead. No Democrat is more fearful than my own Congresswoman, Nancy Pelosi.

While it may be the case that President Bush would not be convicted, we will never know. Too much information has been hidden. One could not imagine the current Court showing the courage the Burger court showed in 1974. The current Court has demonstrated a willingness to show such deference to this administration as to anoint this president King George.

War or no war, if we do not protect our civil liberties and protect against fascism, we will lose our freedom. That has been the major accomplishment of this adminsitration: to strip individuals of their freedom. To think that the previous president was impeached for a considerably lesser charge while that this one has gone untouched is just shameful.

“Law Enforcement” Stupidity Harms People

People who are in the country illegally take many risks. They risk being deported and not allowed back into the country. They risk not being able to take advantage of many aspects of the financial market for fear of being deported. They often risk their lives to get into America in the first place. And while it may seem reasonable for them to be arrested because they have entered the country illegally, that doesn’t mean they should be mistreated by the government while in detention. Such was the case with Juana Villegas, as the New York Times reported.

While in custody she went into labor, and was not permitted to see her husband in the delivery room. After the birth she was not permitted to breast feed her child or to have a breast pump. It is generally believed that breast fed babies are able to retain their mothers’ immunities longer than those who use formula. Many branches of our own government encourage breast feeding. And so by unnecessarily separating the mother from the child, the police effectively harmed the child, who is an American citizen and is eligible for social assistance. The child having already become sick once, is now costing Tennessee taxpayers.

This is all as a result of a program called 287G that turns police officers into immigration agents. The behavior of the police in Tennessee is precisely the result of design and desire of the Bush Administration. This is sad, because although this president has many flaws, one of his supposed bright spots was to be immigration reform. Unfortunately even there matters have gotten worse, as a fence is erected along the California border, and children suffer because of stupid policies such as that of this town in Tennesee.

One of the many remarkably stupid things in Mrs. Villegas’ case was the absurd statement made by the corrections official that they routinely bar medical equipment like a breast pump from a jail. It demonstrates either ignorance of the benefits, incompetence at being able to service inmates’ medical needs, blindness to the fact that an illegal immigrant is not the sort that is going to turn a breast pump into a bong, or all of the above. I wonder if they keep walking sticks away from the blind.

Exclusionary Rule In Trouble

The police are supposed to be our protectors, but in the control of a despot, they are oppressors. The Supreme Court formally recognized early in the 20th Century that the police could not be allowed to get away with crimes in order to find and convict the guilty. Thus was born the Exclusionary Rule. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have, on the one hand, complained about the rule, and on the other hand, managed to provide generally strong protection against criminals without having to violate it. According to this article by the New York Times, the United States is unique in its adherence to the rule. The article goes on to say that we may not adhere in the same way for long.

While it might sound reasonable to allow a judge to hold a hearing to determine whether or not tainted evidence should be allowed, we should remember that the rule is there to protect us against wanton police abuse and corruption, that the government has a vast amount of coercive power, and that it incredibly hard to identify abuse, absent the rule. A police officer already has enormous abilities to cite, arrest, and search individuals, pragmatically speaking without cause. Now the Court will consider weakening protections against those cases where the situation is blatant.

Keeping in mind that no rule is perfect, and that some criminals have been able to use the exclusionary rule to get their cases dismissed, the Court should tread carefully in an area where despotism looms, especially when we can argue that the rule has done its job well.

Let’s Outlaw Religion before outlawing homosexual marriages

vote button

One of the odd “advantages” of being married and gay in San Francisco must be that couples get to have weddings every couple of years. At first San Francisco passed a domestic partner law back in the 1990s and then they started issue marriage licenses under Mayor Gavin Newsom. At some point those were invalidated and now couples can once again get married. But wait, California has an initiative on the ballet to overturn the legality of those marriages. Presumably this debate will seesaw from one side to the other, and each time it becomes legal to do so, a gay couple can marry. The county clerk’s office makes out like a bandit until everyone gets tired of the game in the process.

Here’s the problem: each time a law is passed that forbids gay marriage, someone’s rights are taken away, in this case the right to be recognized as married, to have spousal rights, and to take advantage of other perqs only offered to married couples.

If the government is going to discriminate in such a way, we should ask either who it helps or who it hurts if they don’t. One could easily see why the government might need to restrict movements of someone with an infectious illness. One could agree with the argument for not giving driving licenses to the blind. But here, who is hurt if a marriage license is given to a gay couple? Nobody. Absolutely nobody.

It might make a person feel good to take someone else’s rights away, until that person has his or her rights taken away. Suppose we forbid the practice of religion? I could argue that there are immense social benefits to doing so. In fact I might continue that line of thought in the future. But keeping in mind the Spanish Inquisition, the recent abuse children in the Catholic church, and everything that went on in between (including standing by while many died in WWII), we could make a strong argument that religion is harmful, because we’ve seen evidence of it being harmful. We cannot say the same with gay marriages.

So let’s outlaw religion first, at least for a while, and see if the abuses curb. If not, then let’s agree to keep government out of the church. But let’s also agree to keep government out of the bedroom.

Viva La France!

France

Happy Bastille Day!

It was on this day in 1789 that The Bastille itself was stormed, it having become a symbol of oppression where many folks lost their heads. Let’s take a moment to recount just a few things the French have brought the world (and for now we’ll exclude french fries, french toast, and frenching).

French Wine— France offers a wide variety of reds and whites, including some interesting sparkling reds. Chateua Nuef de Pape, Cotes du Rhone, and the big ones like Pomerol are something they’ve given me.
Bread— Nobody does a better croissant than France. Napoleon even erected a fort in the Alps to keep the Italians from stealing all the good bread. Italians need to learn how to make bread like the french.
The Statue of Liberty— a remarkable lady whose purpose seems forgotten in this unkind time.
The United States of America— Without Lafayette there would have been no U.S.A.
The Citroen— without this peace of junk, there is no way the big three could have lasted as long as they have.
The Crepe— need I say more.

So Happy Birthday, France! Salut!