Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee voted to cite Karl Rove for contempt of Congress. The vote was only a recommendation. It still needs to be approved by the full House and the Senate - both of which are not terribly likely to happen. But still. It's nice to see that Congress has gotten into the contempt game. After all, the administration has been hurling contempt at Congress for years now.
As has become shocking for the lack of shock it elicits, Congress summoned some member of the administration to testify under oath about something. The administration member refused and Congress got mad. None of this is new stuff. In fact, it's pretty much the standard playbook for an administration that doesn't have much belief in its own need to follow the Constitution. So this time the committee voted to take some action.
The irony of this is that it doesn't matter to this administration for precisely the same reason that the contempt recommendation was made. Not since Andrew Jackson said that the Supreme Court would also have to enforce the ruling he disagreed with has a president shown such lack of regard for the supposedly co-equal branches of government.
That's the catch in all this. Congress is considering voting to hold Rove in contempt because he doesn't respect their authority to call him in to assert their oversight duties. However, the contempt vote won't really matter because Rove doesn't respect Congress' authority. Tough spot. I'm just glad that January is around the corner.
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Rights? What Rights?
Every so often the Bush administration does something to help us remember just what it is about the Bush administration that we really don't like. This probably counts as some sort of constituent service in their eyes.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
The latest example I submit to you is that the Justice Department is apparently on the verge of condoning racial profiling as an investigative technique. My favorite line from the AP article is: "Currently, FBI agents need specific reasons — like evidence or allegations that a law probably has been violated — to investigate U.S. citizens and legal residents. The new policy, law enforcement officials told The Associated Press, would let agents open preliminary terrorism investigations after mining public records and intelligence to build a profile of traits that, taken together, were deemed suspicious."
That's right. The Justice Department is deciding that there doesn't need to be evidence or even allegations that a law has been broken to start an investigation. Instead, they'll look a profiles of traits that seem suspicious.
Wow. I know the Fourth of July isn't until tomorrow, but doesn't that just make you proud to be an American.
Yet again, the Bush administration is making it pretty clear that they'll ignore the Constitution anytime it seems like it might prove an inconvenience.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Penumbras, Guns, and Abortion
A lot more than gun rights may be at stake when the Supreme Court hears arguments today in the case District of Columbia v. Heller. The case immediately at hand is whether or not Washington, D.C.'s ban on individual gun ownership is legal or if the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to bear arms.
A quick walk down Constitution lane. As it was written by the Founding Fathers, the second amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' So, in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is explicitly tied to the formation and existence of a well regulated militia. Clearly, random people owning handguns in their homes is not a well regulated militia. As such, D.C. says that it has not violated any Constitutional rights by banning individual weapons. The argument goes that there is a collective, not individual, right to have a gun. Clearly, others (the NRA being foremost among them) disagree. And that brings us to the lawsuit before the court today.
There's been a lot of writing about how the court hasn't really heard a gun rights case in 69 years and how the second amendment has never been comprehensively interpreted. And in that sense, this could be a big case. However, I want to know how this case applies to abortion rights.
Pretty much since the day that Roe v. Wade was issued, it's been attacked for inventing rights that don't exist in the Constitution. (Technically, this isn't accurate. The right to privacy was actually invented in the case Griswold v. Connecticut. But that's not really the point here.) Strict constructionist judges (think Scalia) say that we need to look at what the Constitution really says and that it's not the role of judges to go around saying what should be in there or not. This sparks an elaborate argument that I won't go into just now. However, keep in mind that the position usually staked out by the conservative justices is one of strict construction that shuns the so-called "penumbras" of implied rights that "emanate" from the explicit rights laid out in the Constitution.
And yet, now in order to find an individual right to bear arms unconnected with a well regulated militia, the court would have to find a conservative version of those very penumbras that gave us the right to privacy. A strict reading of the Constitution would lead us to think that the right to bear arms is tied to the existence of a well regulated militia. Absent that, the Constitution is silent. That being the case, states have the power to make their own decisions on the matter (thank you tenth amendment) and the D.C. ban should be valid. However, if there is an implied right for individuals to own guns (say, from the second, ninth, and fourteenth amendments) then why could there not also be an implied right to privacy, and with it, the right to have an abortion?
While the arguments will be held today, we won't get the decision for months yet. And my guess is that when we do hear the court's ruling, it will follow the O'Connor model of a narrowly written opinion that doesn't address the sweeping issues at stake. But maybe it will. And if it does, it will be very interesting to see what the court thinks.
A quick walk down Constitution lane. As it was written by the Founding Fathers, the second amendment says, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'' So, in the Constitution, the right to bear arms is explicitly tied to the formation and existence of a well regulated militia. Clearly, random people owning handguns in their homes is not a well regulated militia. As such, D.C. says that it has not violated any Constitutional rights by banning individual weapons. The argument goes that there is a collective, not individual, right to have a gun. Clearly, others (the NRA being foremost among them) disagree. And that brings us to the lawsuit before the court today.
There's been a lot of writing about how the court hasn't really heard a gun rights case in 69 years and how the second amendment has never been comprehensively interpreted. And in that sense, this could be a big case. However, I want to know how this case applies to abortion rights.
Pretty much since the day that Roe v. Wade was issued, it's been attacked for inventing rights that don't exist in the Constitution. (Technically, this isn't accurate. The right to privacy was actually invented in the case Griswold v. Connecticut. But that's not really the point here.) Strict constructionist judges (think Scalia) say that we need to look at what the Constitution really says and that it's not the role of judges to go around saying what should be in there or not. This sparks an elaborate argument that I won't go into just now. However, keep in mind that the position usually staked out by the conservative justices is one of strict construction that shuns the so-called "penumbras" of implied rights that "emanate" from the explicit rights laid out in the Constitution.
And yet, now in order to find an individual right to bear arms unconnected with a well regulated militia, the court would have to find a conservative version of those very penumbras that gave us the right to privacy. A strict reading of the Constitution would lead us to think that the right to bear arms is tied to the existence of a well regulated militia. Absent that, the Constitution is silent. That being the case, states have the power to make their own decisions on the matter (thank you tenth amendment) and the D.C. ban should be valid. However, if there is an implied right for individuals to own guns (say, from the second, ninth, and fourteenth amendments) then why could there not also be an implied right to privacy, and with it, the right to have an abortion?
While the arguments will be held today, we won't get the decision for months yet. And my guess is that when we do hear the court's ruling, it will follow the O'Connor model of a narrowly written opinion that doesn't address the sweeping issues at stake. But maybe it will. And if it does, it will be very interesting to see what the court thinks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)