Daily Archives: June 12, 2008

US Supreme Court saves habeus corpus

(More on this forthcoming… this is a great start, though… – promoted by odum)

I know .. it’s rare that the Supremes have ruled to save us from our government, but thanks to Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer (and no thanks to the dissenting fascists Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito) the hard to imagine has occurred!

Here’s the link to the SCOTUS decision: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1195.pdf.

And just a few quotes

The Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood thewrit of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure thatfreedom. Experience taught, however, that the common-law writ all too often had been insufficient to guard against the abuse of monarchial power. That historycounseled the necessity for specific language in the Constitution to secure the writ and ensure its place in our legal system.

That the Framers considered the writ a vital instrument for the protection of individual liberty is evident from the care taken to specify the limited grounds for its suspension: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not 13 Cite as: 553 U. S. __ (2008) Opinion of the Court be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Art. I, ยง9, cl. 2; see Amar, Of Sovereignty and Federalism, 96 Yale L. J. 1425, 1509, n. 329 (1987) (“[T]he non-suspension clause is the original Constitution’s most explicit reference to remedies”). The word “privilege” was used, perhaps, to avoidmentioning some rights to the exclusion of others.

(my emphasis)

The Court has been careful not to foreclose the possibility that the protections of the Suspension Clause have expanded along with post-1789 developments that define the present scope Opinion of the Court of the writ.

[Regarding Guantanamo Bay, Cuba] Our basic charter cannot be contracted away like this.The Constitution grants Congress and the President thepower to acquire, dispose of, and govern territory, not thepower to decide when and where its terms apply. Even when the United States acts outside its borders, its powersare not “absolute and unlimited” but are subject “to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 44 (1885). Abstaining from questions involving formal sovereignty and territorial governance is one thing. To hold the political branches have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will is quiteanother.

There’s much more … it’s a long read, but of historical interest and somewhat illuminating.

Convening a National Conversation about Democracy & America in Denver

By Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper

Now that one of the most remarkable primaries in our nation’s history has concluded, attention is turning to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.  In less than three months, the Mile High City and the Rocky Mountain West will host this historic event for the first time since 1908.

The Convention also coincides with Denver’s 150th birthday – a

century-and-a-half of progress and innovation since its birth at the height of the Colorado gold rush.  A hub of opportunity for people seeking new frontiers, people come to Colorado seeking much more than gold these days.  The spirit of visionary zeal and limitless possibility is as strong as ever in the New West.  So it’s fitting that as the Democratic Party marches toward its own new frontier, it will do so through Denver.

A message to all of you in Vermont: you don’t have to be in Denver – or on the Convention floor – to get in on the action though.  The Denver 2008 Convention Host Committee has organized two interactive ways for people anywhere in America to get involved.  We’re convening a national conversation about democracy and community and invite everyone to participate.

The Cinemocracy short film competition encourages anyone and everyone to submit short films about what democracy means to them.  You can submit films – as well as view and judge the entries – online at www.cinemocracy.org.  The top 25 videos, as determined through public online voting, will be screened publicly during Convention week and the winning film will be featured at the 31st Starz Denver Film Festival.

America: Live and In Person is a like a multi-media open mic night, inviting people to share personal stories of what America means to them through art, dance, music, drama, writing, technology, service projects and more.  Submissions will be viewable online for the public to enjoy and judge…and winning entries will be part of an exhibit at the Convention that will also travel through the Rocky Mountain West.

Both America: Live & In Person and Cinemocracy present innovative and interactive ways to participate in the Convention festivities…as a contributor or a spectator.  We encourage people throughout America to contribute their voices and creativity to this national conversation.

Just remember: entries for both Cinemocracy and America: Live and In Person are

due by July 15, 2008, so please – get those cameras and keyboards rolling.

The Pollina Paradox: Opposing Symington/Endorsing Obama

[Cross posted at Broadsides.org]

Did you hear the one about Pollina endorsing Obama? Oh wait, that wasn’t a joke. Pollina was serious. Or should I say: calculating. And, once again, he’s hoping no one will notice his latest “do as I say, not as I do” moment.

But, first, it’s true: Anthony Pollina, the rather dusty stalwart of Vermont’s Progressive Party, put out a press statement a couple of weeks ago announcing his endorsement of Barack Obama for president. Hmm, let’s see, besides everything, what could be strange about Pollina, the “I’m no Democrat,” endorsing Obama, the Democrat?

Good grief, Pollina apparently has no shame. Because, as you may recall, Pollina is running for governor of Vermont as a decidedly non-Democrat against – yep – a Democrat, Gaye Symington, and a Republican, Jim Douglas. And it’s the same Pollina who also ran against Vermont’s last Democratic governor, Howard Dean, who now, interestingly enough, is Obama’s choice to continue running the entire national Democratic Party.

This is getting weird.

For those of us with a memory – or at least access to Google – we remember when Pollina was calling Dean and the Democrats a mere extension of the Republicans. And, I have to admit, it was the kind of rhetoric that made my heart go pitter-patter. But, because I was familiar with Pollina’s nonsense, I knew he didn’t mean it. And, of course, he doesn’t – and didn’t. Why else would he now be endorsing the Dean-led Democratic Party’s candidate for president?

Wait. Don’t answer that. Because I know the answer: Self-serving desperation. And therein lies the difference between truly inspiring third – and fourth and fifth – party challengers and the self-serving, ideologically-adrift retreads like Pollina.

But let’s back up. For non-comatose Vermonters, we know that Pollina is running for governor (again) under the banner of the Progressive Party, the folks who have sometimes, kind of, maybe (depending on the day and the circumstances) tried to make the case that Vermont needs a viable third party because the Democrats and Republicans are hopelessly and ruthlessly protecting a political status quo that isn’t serving the rest of us very well. Can you say “Iraq War,” “health care,” “global warming,” “alternative energy,” “economic justice,” “corporate oligarchy”? I knew you could.

But the problem with Pollina and the Progs is that they only spew that rhetoric – or even pretend to believe in it – when it appears to be politically convenient. And they’ll just as soon say that there’s no hope in getting anything substantive done within the Democratic Party before announcing that they’re either cutting a deal with Dems over which electoral races to sit out or, in the case of Pollina, endorsing a Dem for the highest of political offices: president. Go figure.

So, when it comes to their ever-changing opinions/relations with the Dems,  Pollina and the Progs either don’t believe their own rhetoric, don’t understand that they’ve created a paper trail of opinions (and campaigns) that we can see, or they think their supporters are fools. Or, I guess, it could be all of the above.

How, for example, can Pollina run for governor against Democrat Gaye Symington, claiming “major differences” with her, and yet also endorse Obama for president? What, exactly, are the “major” policy differences between Symington and Obama? I don’t see any, as a matter of fact. Both, quite frankly, are liberal Democrats. Neither supports universal health care. Neither supported an immediate de-funding of the Iraq War. Neither supports a complete and total roll back of the trade policies that have so dramatically damaged working families. Neither supported impeachment of Bush. And both enjoy a ringside seat to the power elite game of inside politics, footsie with corporate lobbyists, and an absolute allegiance to “the party” with little regard for what that means for the people.

But yet Pollina – and other Progs like David Zuckerman – have now made it a point to cast Symington as the mortal enemy and Obama as the savior. It makes no sense. Unless, of course, you consider political expediency.

Pollina & Co. are hoping that voters and the Vermont media will forget all that rhetoric he spewed about Dean when he ran against him in 2000. Just as they’re hoping that people will forget about their on again/off again charges that the Dems are too snuggled with power to really get anything done. But they can’t have it both ways – blasting them one second and endorsing them the next.

The reason Pollina is constantly pulling the Obama card is obvious: he’s desperate. He’s willing to say “never mind” to his rhetoric of the last ten years in hopes that he’ll be able to get onto the Obama coattails in November. But someone needs to remind Pollina that he’s a member of the Progressive Party and Obama (and his opponent, Symington) are Democrats. Hey Anthony, may I introduce you to Ralph Nader? He’s great. He believes what you says. Fights for it, too. Try it sometime. That’s the point of “third parties,” you know.

Pollina knows that he probably won’t be made to feel embarrassed by his Obama endorsement. First, the sleepy Vermont media probably won’t figure out the oh-so obvious contradictions and, secondly, he knows that Obama won’t be bothered by a visit to Vermont – a visit that would certainly feature him with other Democrats like (ahem) Symington.

Poor Pollina. He’s seems really, really confused.

Dear Droppings,

I talked to Venis’ son this morning, and he told me of the funniest thing.

Apparently in today’s Barre/Montpelier Times Argus is this headline: Legislation to extend unemployment benefits fails in House by three votes (link here) that started with this paragraph

The House on Wednesday narrowly defeated a Democratic attempt to give unemployed Americans an extra three months of jobless benefits after the White House threatened to veto the bill.

.

But, my dear Droppings, when Venis’ son read the story he found “the final vote was 279-144”!

I went ahead and did the math and guess what? The bill actually passed by 135 votes … talk about stupid newspaper tricks.

Droppings, I can only assume this was a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in the article and headline, intended, I imagine, to take the onus off those who would keep this legislation from becoming law.

Oh well, just another day in the media I guess.

With love,

Clove Inhoof