Deal to Extend PATRIOT Act in Place

A deal is supposedly in place between John Boehner in the House and Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell in the Senate to extend the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act that allow for roving wiretaps, document seizures, and roaming surveillance of the American Public for another 4 years.

The Obama Administration has continued to ask for extension of the extraordinary powers that the Bush Administration got rammed through congress in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States.

Attorney General Eric Holder is actually on record as wanting to see these provisions become permanent: "We believe, I believe, it is absolutely essential that these expiring provisions be reauthorized. We never want to see these acts, these provisions, expire. The fact that they have sunset, period, and requiring us to come back periodically to get them reauthorized, is not helpful to us ... We need certainty. Our prosecutors, our investigators, need certainty in that regard ... So my hope is that these provisions are reauthorized for as long as we possibly can. If they were extended permanently, that is not something we would be opposed to."

If any Tea Party folks are out there reading this, please explain to me why this is overlooked as an acceptable intrusion into Liberty in the name of Security, but the Democratic Healthcare Bill is such a fundamental threat to your Freedom as an American that you need to take such drastic action?

I've read both bills all the way through, I can tell you that 'Obamacare' is not 1/100th times as onerous to me as the PATRIOT Act.

And for you folks on the Left: why was it only an intrusion on your privacy when it was the Bush Administration peeking in on your library records, but Obama gets a near universal pass for refusing to relinquish the same powers of surveillance?

There is almost total silence on this issue from both sides of the political noise factory. Why is this issue not at debate in a time when nearly all else is?

This Flag Bows Before No Earthly King

In case you didn’t hear, they had a little wedding over in England this morning.
If you are one of the millions in the States who are enthralled, enamored, and all wrapped up in this farcical fairy tale, you probably should bail out on this column right now.

You’re still with me? Good.

I do not understand why we in this Country are so smitten with a Monarchy we cast off over 200 years ago. It truly befuddles me. I take pride in our Flag, our Constitution, and our Democratic Republic. Not in some ancient regime which we discarded any allegiance to on the Concord Bridge and in the hallowed Halls of Independence.

This is nothing against the British people, but I despise the very concept of Monarchy, Nobility, and Royalty. The arcane and archaic espousal of power into a familial lineage regardless of their character or qualifications is no legitimate way to determine a Head of State. Who gives them this authority? Is it still some divine right?

At least in modern times they have had the good sense to put a limit upon the powers of this Aristocratic lunacy and the Monarchs whim is no longer the absolute law of the land. The real power is invested in their representative Parliament, and the Monarch in almost all circumstances performs only ceremonial power within the Realm. And if they choose to continue to prop up these antiquated institutions of heralded heredity, then I guess that is their endowed right to do so. Over there. Far away from me.

So why, oh why, do I ask, does the media from the United States cover this outlandish and garish event like it is our own crowning achievement? Are we so starved off from pomp, circumstance and glitterous, glorified extravagance that we need to somehow collectively tap into our obedient collective colonial roots to fixate our infatuation for foppish foolery? I, for one, am sick and tired of being bombastically bombarded with the Royal hullabaloo.

For on July 4th, 235 years gone by, we cast off these tired customs of rulership through arbitrary marriage, life, and death of far off Kings and Queens. We stood up as a nation of Free and Independent People declaring: “enough with your ancient and capricious lordship, our ennobled powers of State shall be invested in the Common Man!”

Our sacred artifacts are not those of Crowns, Carriages, and Trappings of Lordship. They are documents of ink and parchment declaring our Freedoms and Protections from obtrusive intervention by a whimsical Governing Authority. Why can we not celebrate these Freedoms, which are our sacred birthright, as extravagantly as we commemorate far-off nuptials betwixt those whom would station and allot themselves above us in life?

I say what makes our nation great is that we do not sit by and watch as subjects, but instead we take action as free and independent Citizens.

God Save the Common Man

Obama should put Libya engagement before Congress

The international mission in Libya seems to be extending well beyond enforceing a UN mandated 'no-fly zone.' President Obama has come out and stated that it is U.S. policy that Muammar Gaddafi has lost legitimacy and should go. When the President has made such a declaration and has the military involved in targeting forces supporting the leader to be disposed, it is clear and obvious that we are engaged in an all out war in a foreign land. That being the circumstances as they are, Obama would be gravely remiss not to put this matter before a vote in Congress for authorization to carry out these actions. As Commander in Cheif he has some wiggle room to function without Congress, but the longer this goes without a vote, the more it strays into a major violation of the seperation of powers. Even as President of the United States, Obama is still legally obligated to abide by the Constitution he has sworn to protect and uphold.

The Supreme Court of the United States (Part 2)

If you look back at part 1 of this series on The Court, all I put up at first was article III of the U.S. Constitution. I did that because those few paragraphs set up the framework for the entire Federal Judicial system. If you look back on that rather brief and unassuming section of our country's founding document, you will notice that it is quite remarkable for what is missing from its instructions, as it is for what it lays out. There is no mention of the number of Justices that are to sit on the Court or what their qualifications are to be, nothing about how many cases they are to take on or how they are to come to their decisions. Most striking by its absence however is explicit authority for what has come to be known as THE most important function of the Court: its jurisdiction to review laws and determine whether they are or are not within the bounds of the Constitution.
This act of Judicial Review is absolutely vital to our concept of a system of "checks and balances" upon our Federal Government. And although it is implied and interpreted from the Supremacy clause in Article IV, it is not an explicit power granted unto the Court in Article III. Why is this seemingly crucial doctrine not included within the bedrock of the Federal Courts? The answer, I believe, lies within chasm that seperates our idealized national narrative of how our Country was formed and the practical realities and constraints of the "living and breathing" times that those who laid down the foundations for our Nation lived within.
There is a deep rooted mythology within the American pysche in regards to our Founding Fathers. They are our secular saints; a group of rag-tag rightously pious patriots who, uniquely in the annals of history, cast off the iron clad shackles of tyranny and unbearably cruel and intolerable oppression; to immediatley grant unto their Continent, and the World at large, a fully functional and perfected Union, that would unquestionably become the Shining Beacon on the Hill and lead the world into a new age of peace and prosperity. What is amazing is that worship and deitization of these founders, rather then being marginalized and reduced over the years, only seems to grow more polished and refined within each passing generation. It would be a grave misstatement to say that Americans do not know Their history. The emphasis must be placed however must be placed on the Their, not the 'history.' As explained in James Loewon's groundbreaking book "Lies My Teacher Told Me," the American history that is disseminated through our textbooks and schools is a white-washed melodrama of enduring progress meant to indoctrinate this secular mythology, not to raise levels of critical thinking or encourage civic engagement.
How does this mass misreading of history affect our concept of Judicial Review? It is because the Founding Fathers were not a monolithic rightous entity that this radical concept was not included directly within our Constitution. Although 5 of the 13 States had some form of Judicial Review or Veto within their State Constitutions in 1787, this was still a controversial idea at the time. It was not included for reasons having to do with political compromise of the times to ensure that all States ratified the novel Federal document. So we can see that even at the very foundations of our country's laws, there is an element of give and take between individual liberty, States rights, and Federal Powers.


Stay tuned for my next Supreme Court entry where I explore the way the Court obtained the power of review and its use of such power in the absolute worst decision in its History.

The Supreme Court of the United States (Part 1)

Article III of the United States constitution: Section 1. The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, recieve for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of the same State claiming land under grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Corut shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such exceptions, and under such Regulations, as the Congress shall make. The trial of all Crimes, except in the case of Impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trials shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed in any State, the trial shall be at such Place or Places as Congress may by law have directed. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their enemies, Giving them Aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.