The coolest thing I've seen today

I found this over at http://etherealgirl.blogspot.com/ (which I mention as she has a link to my page! Thanks EtherealGirl!)



Uh, I'll take two.
Support our troops. In a big-ass welcome-home party. Without guns. Or Improvised Explosive Devices.

The US Constitution, Revisited

I'm feeling the need to repost this posting because not enough people saw it and it seems to be relevant, again.

One blogger has had enough. Bill Clinton lied about his sex life while under oath, an offense, while punishible, did not abdicate his duities as president specifically outlined by the constitution.

While there is much discussion regarding whether or not Bush's policies violate our civil rights, violate the liberties ascribed to american life, or the entirety of the 4th amendment (and the 9th, but who's counting), there is little discussion of President Bush's failure to uphold his constitutionally mandated responsibilities

US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE III, Section 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Regardless whether you are a liberal or a "strict constuctionist" there can be little interpretation of that last line. The president is mandated to see the laws of the United States faithfully executed. There is no exclusion for laws you find inconvienant in times of national crisis. In fact, our forefathers had quite a bit of experience with the necessity for such laws, yet the president upheld his duity.

When you find a law that is inconvienant, one you are supposed to execute, what recourse do you have? Funny you should ask, Article III mentions just such a situation:

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, receive 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 to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Those guys thought of everything. So, if you are president, you are sworn to uphold the laws of the United States, and in the event you don't like the law, you can take it to the Supreme Court. Wait, there is something else in there as well ...

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

Wait, what is that about treaties? You mean that the president cannot rule independantly that a treaty (such as the Geneva Conventions) no longer applies to the United States?

Article VI, Paragraph 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So treaties are treated by the constitution as federal laws. And we already know the president is required to execute federal laws. So the president is required to uphold treaties as well as federal laws. If the president doesn't aggree with the treaty, much the same as a law, he needs to either take his case to the Senate where they can make decisions regarding treaties, or take it to the Supreme Court.

But what about times of national crisis and national security issues, and protecting the US Citizens. Nothing in the constitution gives the president any authority to make special exceptions to his constitutionally designated responsibilities. Nothing gives him the right to selectively violate United States law.

But what if you don't like the Supreme Court and the laws of Congress? Well, it seems that you aren't really a team player, but more of a monarch, which the constitution was designed to prevent. It even put in a clause for just such a person:

Article II, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There you have it. When the President, regardles of why he chooses to violate the laws of the United States, or fails to uphold our enforce treaties (i.e. Geneva) can loose his job just like anyone else who fails to perform their duties. But, the problem is, who is willing to bring a case against him. Why was the congress so motivated to impeach Clinton over a blowjob, but unwilling to do so to Bush who has clearly abdicated his constitutionally mandated duties to uphold the laws of the United States?

Oh, right, partisan politics. Or is it that they are scared of him. He has become too powerful for his opponents, whether they be congress or judicial, they are frightened. Interestingly enough, while it is clear the constitution would allow, nay, require the impeachment of this administration, there is one glitch. The constitution also mentions something else:

Article I, Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Partisanship would overrule should the House ever get over their fear and be able to live up to their constitutionally mandated authority to impeach the president and vice-president. Viva la republicanos.


It is never too late to begin the impeachment and removal from office of the president and vice president.

Fascism, defined

In a recent rant against the National Review, J. Brad mentions the following (in re: Francisco Franco)

As to fascism: the German philospher Ernst Nolte's classic Fascism in Its Epoch set out six key characteristics of fascism:

• Strong belief that--through social darwinism--morality is ultimately tied to blood and race, understood as descent and genetic relationship.
  
• Strong rejection of the classical "liberal" belief that individuals have rights that any legitimate state is bound to respect
  
• In its place, an assertion that individuals have duties to the state, seen as the decision-making organ of the collectivity.
  
• A rejection of parliamentary democracy and other bottom-up institutions to assess the general will.
  
• The assertion that the general will is formed by the decrees of the leader.
  
• A strong fear of twentieth-century Communism, and an eagerness to adapt and use its weapons--suspension of parliaments, mass propaganda, rallies, street violence, and so forth--to fight it.

Ok I'll shoot.
1) Yes (Cronyism, think Michael Brown, Michael Powell)
2) Yes (NSA, Gtmo, torture, enemy combatants, rendition)
3) Yes (evidence is harder to conjur up, but faith-based initiatives?)
4) Yes (Distain and rallying against congress, CBO, GAO, etc)
5) YES (What the leader wants, end abortions, faith-based, increase immigration (yes, I'm actually *for* that one, but it should piss off the religious right)
6) Uhoh. Does it *have* to be communism that they are afraid of, and not terrorism? Because we used to equate anarchists, terrorists, and communists as fellow travellers.

Will he never learn? No, you say, I think you are right

The rumor going around in Judiciary Committee circles late last week was that Senator Kerry’s decision to filibuster was staff-driven. Speculation focused in one staff member in particular: Mirah Horowitz, one of Kerry’s chief legal advisors. Horowitz is a liberal lawyer and blonde braniac who previously clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer, before joining a decidedly less successful enterprise — the Kerry presidential campaign.

Um. Um. Ok, let's do this.

What was one of the great smears of the last campaign? What do we all remember about John Kerry? FLIP FLOP. He was for the war and then he's against it. blah blah.

Where did that impression come from? Well according to the behind-the-scenes Newsweek article (sorry, no link, I'm lazy today) from the week after Nov 2, 2004, the problem was created because Kerry listened to the advice of his staffers and campaign people, many of whom had conflicting opinions. And now this.

1) John Kerry is an idiot. Yes, I'm bitter that after I worked months on his campaign (really, against my will, I wanted Dean) he didn't even wait for the last poll to close in Ohio (voting irregularity) before conceding defeat. But that's not the point here. The point is he's an idiot.

2) Yes, political suicide is good, and we needed someone to say "Filibuster" but it would have been better had it come from someone with credibility. Kerry has zero.

3) There is no way, unfortunately, to block Alito at this point. The best thing to do is hope he and Scalia take to eating a high-fat, high-carbohydrate, high-salt diet and the next president (i.e. NOT John Kerry) will appoint Michael Moore and Al Franken to the court to replace them. I beleive both have significantly higher chance of attaining judicial independence then the Cheneyites.

Exxon Sees Record Profits for US Firm

IRVING, Texas (AP) -- Exxon Mobil Corp. on Monday posted a record profit for a U.S. company of $10.71 billion in the fourth quarter, as the world's biggest publicly-traded oil company benefited from high oil and gas prices and demand for refined products.

Hmm. So wait, why are gas prices high again if its just driving profits? Let's do some math ... 10.71 billion ... nicely divides into the 107 million households in the US ... I guess that's only $10 per household per quarter per oil firm.

REVISION. SOMEONE Pointed out that I can't add very well. That is $100 per household per quarter per firm. This negates the rest of my blog article where I pander to the interests of the oil companies.

Negated blog follows
Assume all 4 major oil companies are roughly equally profitable. So that's $40 per household per quarter. Assuming we burn about 125 billion gallons per year, thats 1168 gallons per household per year, 292 per quarter. That creates .14 per gallon of "profit tax," or a pure profit margin of 6.1% profit.

Ok, so when I started writing this article, I was angry at the unnecessary price gouging. Now, I kinda figure they really *are not* making extra-normal profits. We are just consuming extra-normal supplies of gasoline. I mean, I'd like to see their profit decrease to 4%, but that's not realistic given current circumstances. They *do* need to reinvest in future technologies.

Try again. $400 per household per quarter, or $1600 per year is paid per household to pure profit of the oil companies. Now, carrying on.

Holy profiteering batman! That is $1.37 of PURE PROFIT per gallon. Wait, that can't be right. It just can't be, thats a 60% profit margin.

Can someone tell me if I made a mistake here that I'm just not getting? Because this is really bad. My units are consistent, always using households. It seems right, but. Um. I'll be back. I'm going into the oil business.