It seems that Bush attempted to do both at the same time.

On Friday, President Bush issued a Memorandum of Disapproval on H.R. 1585, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.”

In the Memorandum, the President states he is “pocket vetoing” the legislation. Yet in the same document, the President states he is sending the bill back to the House with objections. So which is it - a pocket veto or a veto?

More importantly, why the transparent attempt to do both?  Read more 

Many have pointed out the acts of President George W. Bush and his cabal as being “criminal.” Take, for example, the words of Keith Olbermann:

It is a fact startling in its cynical simplicity and it requires cynical and simple words to be properly expressed: The presidency of George W. Bush has now devolved into a criminal conspiracy to cover the ass of George W. Bush.

…

Now if that’s what this is all about, you tortured not because you’re so stupid you think torture produces confession but you tortured because you’re smart enough to know it produces really authentic-sounding fiction - well, then, you’re going to need all the lawyers you can find … because that crime wouldn’t just mean impeachment, would it?

That crime would mean George W. Bush is going to prison.

I so admire the glibness of Mr. Olbermann, the sharpness of his language and most of all, his passion.

However, under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, President George W. Bush, and all those he chooses to include in pardons, will never be prosecuted for crimes committed against the United States absent impeachment.  Read more 

Unfortunately, we probably won’t get an actual review of the merits of “Mayfield v. United States due to a lack of standing. But just for kicks, and on the off chance that someday a plaintiff might be able to get to the merits, an analysis of Judge Ann Aiken’s decision regarding FISA is worth while.

In the Plaintiffs’ (Mayfields’) Amended Complaint, attorney Gerry Spence seeks the following on behalf of his clients:

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that 50 U.S.C. §§ 1804 and 1823, as amended by the Patriot Act, violate the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, on their face, because they:

a. permit the federal government to perform covert physical searches and electronic surveillance and wiretaps of the home, office and vehicles of a person without first requiring the government to demonstrate to a court the existence of probable cause that the person has committed a crime;

b. permit the federal government to perform covert physical searches and electronic surveillance and wiretaps of a person without first requiring the government to demonstrate to a court that the primary purpose of the searches and surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

c. permit the federal government to covertly collect, disseminate and retain information collected through covert physical searches and electronic surveillance without first requiring the government to demonstrate to a court the existence of probable cause that the person who is the target of physical searches and electronic surveillance has committed a crime, or, alternatively, that the primary purpose of the searches and surveillance are to obtain foreign intelligence information.

Based on Judge Aiken’s decision I say, Gerry Spence for next Justice of Supreme Court rather than Judge Aiken!  Read more 

The outcome in this case seemed like a victory for the Constitution.

Upon further research, the reasoning of the Oregon court is open to attack and as discussed here, the court’s ruling will be reversed on procedural grounds.

From the Plaintiffs’ (Mayfields’) Memorandum in Mayfield v. United States:

In March 2004, Brandon Mayfield - a United States citizen, an Army veteran, a member of the Oregon State Bar - unknowingly found himself, along with his wife and three school age children, within the crosshairs of the United States government. The full power of the federal law enforcement and foreign intelligence communities was focused upon the Mayfield family. The family’s most intimate conversations were recorded. They were followed. When the FBI thought the Mayfields were not at home or at work, FBI agents on multiple occasions surreptitiously entered their house and law office, looking at and copying their personal and private documents, legal files and computer hard drives. The government admits that over 300 photographs were taken inside the Mayfield home, and additional photographs inside Mr. Mayfield’s law office. On at least one occasion one of the Mayfield children cowered in a bedroom closet while government agents searched the family home. Mr. Mayfield had committed no crime, and no court had approved the eavesdropping, wiretapping, or covert physical searches of the Mayfields’ home or law office under the traditional Fourth Amendment probable cause warrant requirements.

While the latest decision in Oregon Federal District Court by Judge Ann Aiken ruled two of the Patriot Act’s amendments to FISA unconstitutional, the ultimate outcome will be nothing to cheer about.  Read more 

Courtesy of Rollins Riggs for the NYTimes

From the Memphis Times via the NYTimes:

On Independence Day, Lady Liberty was born again

As the congregation of the World Overcomers Outreach Ministries Church looked on and its pastor, Apostle Alton R. Williams, presided, a brown shroud much like a burqa was pulled away to reveal a giant statue of the Lady, but with the Ten Commandments under one arm and “Jehovah” inscribed on her crown.

And in place of a torch, she held aloft a large gold cross, as if to ward off the pawnshops, the car dealerships and the discount furniture outlets at the busy corner of KirbyParkway and Winchester that is her home. A single tear graced her cheek.

It was not clear if she was crying because of her new home, her new identity as a symbol of religion or, as the pastor said, America’s increasing godlessness.

You were maybe expecting Martin Luther King Jr? Or the modern equivalent?  Read more 

**(See Chicago Dyke’s post here.)

Another stunning example emerges, of the Christian Right’s version of “free to be me,” which invariably involves making claims that the privileging of Christianity in various ways at various levels of governement is a constitionally protected claim to religious liberty.

A large Delaware school district promoted Christianity so aggressively that a Jewish family felt it necessary to move to Wilmington, two hours away, because they feared retaliation for filing a lawsuit. The religion (if any) of a second family in the lawsuit is not known, because they’re suing as Jane and John Doe; they also fear retaliation. Both families are asking relief from “state-sponsored religion.”

What might those two families mean by that phrase, “state-sponsored religion?”  Read more 

We don’t have a Scaife on the left, who props up otherwise unsaleable authors of fascist poop with bulk orders to get them on “best-seller” lists. The alternative would be that we all become little promoters, not just by buying books for ourselves but by getting a couple (dozen if practicable) extra copies and spreading them around to folks who otherwise might not see them. Here’s my nominee for the first test project: The Constitution (Translated For Kids).  Read more 

The big story for Fox News, this Sunday, was the perfidy of the New York Times.

The SCOTUS decision on the Guantanamo detainees wasn’t so much treated as an after-thought than as part of the same subject - why are these people, liberals, the far left, Democrats, of whom the New York Times is the perfect embodiment, so determined to thwart all Bush administration efforts in the “War on Terror,” which are only meant to protect Americans from the evil ones.  Read more 

Featured Guests: Senator McCain, coming to you from Aspen, (there to attend the western version of that Renaissance Weekend), and Senator Feinstein, from somewhere.

Plus a roundtable of mighty pundits: Cokie Roberts, Joe Klein, and the former Senator who plays a DA on TV, Fred Thompson.

First subject - “how about that Supreme Court decision.” Or as This Week framed it, wasn’t this a rebuke to the Bush administration’s entire theory of presidential power?  Read more 

Remember when other countries gave us presents to commemorate our committment to liberty?

Democracy-forcing is Jack Balkin’s phrase, used in a much-linked-to piece to describe the central import of the Hamden decision.

If you’ve resisted other exhortations to click and read it, here’s another opportunity; go ahead; do yourself a favor, it really is a wonderfully clear and provocative post.

Balkin’s analysis emphasizes that the decision should be read primarily as one that reaffirms the separation-of-powers doctrine embedded through-out the constitution.

Thus, although Stevens’ opinion cites particular provisions of both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, the President is bound by them not because the provisions are sacrosanct on some universal human rights basis:

The reason why the President is bound by these requirements is because Congress passed the UCMJ and because the UCMJ uses the laws of war— which include the Geneva Conventions— as a benchmark for procedures in military commissions. So when Congress acts under its constitutional authority to regulate military justice, as it has throughout the country’s history, the President must abide by those regulations.

And yes, as Commander-In-Chief, Presidents get to conduct wars, and are generally in charge of foreign policy, but while reminding myself that our government is based on a tripartite structure, I decided to refresh my own memory about what the actual constitution has to say about the role of congress in these matters.  Read more