My Beauty Best Teacher

Increasingly, I think a dominant feature of Obama's Presidency is the lawlessness of it- he does whatever he wants, regardless of what the law says. Bankruptcy law is well developed, but he ignores it and instead resorts to threats and attacks using the office of power he is in. Private companies operate under business laws, but he attacks them to to force them to his will. Environmental law is lawless enough, but even the rules and guidelines there are not enough- Obama as President does whatever he wants, regardless of the law. And now, President Barack Obama is going to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Via powerlineblog:

President Obama made a short statement about the retirement of Justice Souter in which he outlined what he will be looking for in Souter's replacement. He stated, in part:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.

I'm going to pose this very question to my students in my classroom- what kind of a Justice do they want on the Supreme Court-

A) someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, but about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives- a justice that has empathy and identifies with people's hopes and struggles (extreme liberal person who is a judge)

B) someone who understands legal theory and is deeply knowledgeable with all the footnotes and cases in our judicial history, and will focus not how how law affects people's lives but whether the law is valid and just- a justice that is learned and experienced in the law (a judge of any philosophy)

UPDATE: For a scary game, imagine that Obama appoints a justice as liberal as Souter became, who given the power and freedom of the Supreme Court becomes more liberal yet. See this fun graph via the New York Times to see the evolution of justices.

In Pambazuka Ronald Elly Wanda makes a case for re-instituting the indigenous institution of traditional jurisprudence:

Ronald Elly Wanda

Since flag independence in the 1960s, African governments have been in a rush to normalise authoritarian rule and human rights abuses under the auspices of maendeleo (development) and economic growth. A short stroll in any African village today confirms that the globalised Western culture of justice delivery or innovation that most African leaders seem to trust has not improved the well-being of our local communities or delivered justice for them. On the contrary, it has often blocked viable indigenous innovation of cultures and suffocated African justice. Here in East Africa, cultures of innovation have largely accrued from the jua kali (informal), and not the formal sector. Indigenous cultural innovations have also been at the centre of development in most highly indebted poor countries (HIPC), such as in Uganda or its slightly richer sister Kenya, notably because of wanainchi (citizens) exceptionally limited access to capital.
As such, when it comes to delivering justice in Africa, we ought to revise our priorities by doing away with existing preconceived ideas that might have worked within the European cultural setting. They have clearly not worked in the face of the socio-cultural heritages of African societies, and neither has the opposite, the Africanisation of Western concepts of justice delivery.

More here

Clarence Thomas has long been my favorite Supreme Court Judge, and that was even before I read his amazing book. This weekend marks his 20th year on the Court, and we as a nation can only hope that he is on there for another 20 years. John Yoo wrote the following article as a tribute to him in the Wall Street Journal, and I hope you all get a chance to read it. Here it is in part...

This weekend marks the 20th anniversary of Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court. In his first two decades on the bench, Justice Thomas has established himself as the original Constitution's greatest defender against elite efforts at social engineering. His stances for limited government and individual freedom make him the left's lightning rod and the tea party's intellectual godfather. And he is only halfway through the 40 years he may sit on the high court.

Justice Thomas's two decades on the bench show the simple power of ideas over the pettiness of our politics. Media and academic elites have spent the last 20 years trying to marginalize him by drawing a portrait of a man stung by his confirmation, angry at his rejection by the civil rights community, and a blind follower of fellow conservatives. But Justice Thomas has broken through this partisan fog to convince the court to adopt many of his positions, and to become a beacon to the grass-roots movement to restrain government spending and reduce the size of the welfare state.

Clarence Thomas set the table for the tea party by making originalism fashionable again. Many appointees to the court enjoy its role as arbiter of society's most divisive questions—race, abortion, religion, gay rights and national security—and show little desire to control their own power. Antonin Scalia, at best, thinks interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning is "the lesser evil," as he wrote in a 1989 law journal article, because it prevents judges from pursuing their own personal policies. Justice Thomas, however, thinks that the meaning of the Constitution held at its ratification binds the United States as a political community, and that decades of precedent must be scraped off the original Constitution like barnacles on a ship's hull....

Make sure you take a minute to read the rest and gain hope for the future of our great nation.

Continuing on the subject of conflict resolution we take a look at a comparative study(PDF) authored by Luc Huyse on various traditional approaches:

What role does traditional justice play in dealing with legacies of human rights abuses? How can interpersonal and community-based practices interrelate with state-organised and internationally sponsored forms of retributive justice and truth telling? This International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) report provides a comparative analysis of traditional justice mechanisms in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Uganda and Burundi. Most of the countries studied combine traditional justice and reconciliation instruments with other transitional justice strategies.-GSRDC

via Pambazuka

The First Amendment to the Constitution was added to the Constitution in 1791 because many feared that the national government would become so powerful that it would erode our democracy and take away our ability to freely participate in the political system of our nation. If the government attempts to prohibit you from speaking freely about an issue, the First Amendment will be your protection. As you can clearly see in it, it prevents Congress from making laws that prohibit you from speaking freely. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It clearly does not say that Congress SHALL pass any sort of laws, and it appears to clearly prohibit the government from passing laws which would force others to support certain candidates that they do not support. And yet, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan seems to think the First Amendment says the exact opposite. In a recent decision, she wrote:

"The First Amendment’s core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate."

The word that I focus on is 'foster'. 'Foster' is a positive and active word; she choose this word because in her mind, the First Amendment is not a barrier to an over-reaching government, but rather is some sort of empowering act that gives the government more power, power to take property from others and then distribute it to candidates that it favors. To her, the amendment does not stop government, but rather allows government permission to violate the rights of citizens, as long as government employees can justify the violations under some sort of vague and arbitrary standard by claiming that these violations are 'healthy' and create 'robust debate.'

Elena Kagan is dangerously extreme and her interpretation of the Constitution and the laws that govern our nation are flat out wrong. She may have more degrees than me and been a good friend of Obama, but if she thinks that the core purpose of the First Amendment is to empower an active government to take property from some people and give it to other people that no one wants to listen to so that she feels better, than she is no more qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than my dog.

During her confirmation hearings, Justice Sotomayor testified that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right for every citizen of the United States to bear arms. In her Senate testimony, sworn under oath, she said "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller" and, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans." Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law."

Sotomayor was nominated by a Democrat (President Barack Obama), the confirmation hearings were conducted by Democrats, and every single Democrat in the Senate voted for her to be confirmed. Now they need to be held accountable for her bald-faced lying under oath.

In the recent McDonald v. Chicago court case, which was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the issue of gun rights, the Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. This decision confirmed how important the right to bear arms is to Americans, and it followed up the recent Heller decision and made sure that Heller was settled law.

One would assume that Justice Sotomayor joined in the majority, since her sworn testimony agrees with all of these ideas- but she didn't, since she told the Democrats whatever they wanted to hear and they confirmed her without digging further. The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense." She disagrees with the other Justices who think that the Second Amendment says that people's right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, and felt that it was legal and proper and right for states to ban handguns and mandate that guns be re-registered annually with payment of the fees, among other requirements.

It's fine that Justices Breyer and Ginsburg dissented- they never promised anyone that they considered Heller to be "settled law." They never lied about their beliefs and views and played up "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans." On the other hand, Sonia Sotomayor promised to do one thing and then did the opposite- she said one thing, and then did the exact opposite.

Federal judges have lifetime appointments, and so there is no real way to hold them accountable directly. But that does not mean that Judges can feel free to lie under oath in confirmation hearings and not worry about repercussions. That does not mean that those who appoint, question, and confirm judges that lie can not be held accountable- they can, and they should. Obama, the Democrats who questioned Sotomayor, and the Senators who voted to confirm her need to be held accountable by voters the next time they are up for election for their failures to appoint people who tell the truth, for their failures to question people such that their falsehoods are exposed, and for their judgement to vote to confirm a judge who lies so easily and so quickly.

One can only hope that the process won't be repeated during the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings.

From the EG Justice site:

We believe that by educating, engaging and empowering the people of Equatorial Guinea, we can create an Equatorial Guinea in which justice, equality, and harmony are fully realized...We envision a truly democratic and open society in which power and resources are shared; in which all people participate meaningfully in the decisions that affect their lives; in which every person has food, shelter, health care, education, and a safe and sustainable livelihood; in which all human rights are protected; in which the environment is cared for; and in which people come before profits.

Mahmood Mamdani writes in LRB:

Many have compared Mugabe to Idi Amin and the land expropriation in Zimbabwe to the Asian expulsion in Uganda. The comparison isn’t entirely off the mark. I was one of the 70,000 people of South Asian descent booted out by Idi Amin in 1972; I returned to Uganda in 1979. My abiding recollection of my first few months back is that no one I met opposed Amin’s expulsion of ‘Asians’. Most merely said: ‘It was bad the way he did it.’ The same is likely to be said of the land transfers in Zimbabwe.

What distinguishes Mugabe and Amin from other authoritarian rulers is not their demagoguery but the fact that they projected themselves as champions of mass justice and successfully rallied those to whom justice had been denied by the colonial system. Not surprisingly, the justice dispensed by these demagogues mirrored the racialised injustice of the colonial system. In 1979 I began to realise that whatever they made of Amin’s brutality, the Ugandan people experienced the Asian expulsion of 1972 – and not the formal handover in 1962 – as the dawn of true independence. The people of Zimbabwe are likely to remember 2000-3 as the end of the settler colonial era. Any assessment of contemporary Zimbabwe needs to begin with this sobering fact...[continue reading]

via 3QuarksDaily

Related articles by Zemanta

• John Sentamu: It's time to topple the tyrant Robert Mugabe

Kersty McCourt writing in Pambazuka:

Corruption and excessive pretrial detention are mutually reinforcing: A criminal justice system that overuses pretrial detention is susceptible to corruption, and an environment marked by corruption will likely lead to over-reliance on pretrial detention. Both corruption and excessive pretrial detention flourish under the same circumstances. The two form a vicious cycle: A dysfunctional justice system leads to corruption, and that corruption further twists the justice system.

Continuing:

All over the world, poor people are arrested because they cannot pay a bribe to the corrupt police officer, then denied access to counsel or family because they cannot bribe the corrupt guard or prosecutor, then held indefinitely – or found guilty – because they cannot bribe the corrupt judge. The ability to put cash in the right hands often makes the difference between freedom and detention. Pretrial detention centres are populated almost entirely by poor people.

More here

According to the AP, President Barack Obama's new chief of staff William Daley respond to the proposal from congressional Republicans to cut $55 billion from the federal budget by going on CBS' 'Face the Nation' and asking the "Where's the beef?" He then elaborated that he is very curious to see exactly where those cuts will come from, implying that Republicans are playing the same sort of game that Obama plays often where he makes vague statements with no details to back them up. Both President of the United States Barack Obama (Democrat) and him apparently can't find the details for these cuts and so think that this is some sort of trick.

This is really sad, because I opened up internet explorer, went to google, searched 'details of gop plan', and the very first site that was listed was "A Roadmap for America's Future: The Budget Committee Republicans," which links to the GOP's detailed plans to cut $55 billion from the federal budget. That I was able to find the details to the plan so easily and yet the President of the United States and his chief of staff were not able to speaks to one of two things- one, they're all incompetent idiots who lack basic computer and research skills because they are all stuck in the pre-internet past, or two, they are disingenuous liars who are knowingly trying to scam and fool the American people because they know they are not decent or honest or truthful people so they can't find any refuge there.

Daley is thus either an incompetent idiot or a disingenuous liar- either way, the fact that he was chosen to be the main advisor to our President speaks to the kind of people that our President has chosen to surround himself with.

In case Obama or Daley ever do figure out how to use the internet and read by blog, I'll help them out by putting the apparently hard to find information on where 'the beef' is below:

• LEGISLATIVE BRANCH...............................$1,283,000,000. (23%)
• Notes: The Government Printing Office is abolished.
• JUDICIAL BRANCH......................................$2,434,000,000. (32%)
• AGRICULTURE............................................$42,542,000,000. (30%)
• The Agriculture Research Service, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Resources Conservation Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service are abolished. The Forest Service gets a $1.2 billion haircut.
• COMMERCE...................................................$5,322,000,000. (54%)
• National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is cut by $857,000,000.
• DEFENSE.......................................................$47,500,000,000. (6.5%)
• EDUCATION..................................................$78,000,000,000 (83%)
• Only the Pell grant program survives.
• ENERGY............................................................$44,200,000,000 (100%)
• The Defense Department takes over all of Energy's remaining functions (nuclear waste, for example) and about $18 billion of its budget.
• HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES..............$26,510,000,000. (26%)
• Notes: FDA is cut by $230,000,000; Indian Health Service is cut by $650 million; CDC is cut by $1.17 billion; NIH by $5.8 billion.
• HOMELAND SECURITY.................................$23,765,000,000. (43%)
• Notes: Coast Guard is shifted to Defense. TSA's funds are cut by $900 million.
• HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT....$53,100,000,000. (100%)
• Notes: Completely eliminated. Veterans' housing programs are transferred to the VA
• INTERIOR........................................................$10,934,000,000. (78%)
• Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs are abolished.
• JUSTICE.............................................................$9,057,000,000. (28%)
• Note: Office of Justice Programs is abolished.
• LABOR....................................................$2,803,000,000. (2%)
• OSHA, MSHA, and the The Employment and Training Administration are spared all cuts (no cuts to unemployment benefits)
• STATE...................................................................$20,321,000,000. (71%)
• Note: Massive foreign aid cuts. All international commissions and organizations are defunded.
• TRANSPORTATION............................................$42,810,000,000. (49%)
• Notes: Amtrak is completely de-funded.
• VETERANS’ AFFAIRS..........................................No cuts
• CORPS OF ENGINEERS......................................$1,854,000,000. (27%)
• EPA..............................................................$3,238,000,000. (29%)
• GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.....$1,936,000,000. (85%)
• INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS...$24,300,000,000 (100%)
• NASA.........................................................................$4,500,000,000 (25%)
• NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION...............$4,723,000,000. (62%)
• OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT.......$9,070,000,000.
• SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.........No cuts
• FCC...........................................................$2,150,000,000. (22%)
• ABOLISH...............................................................$2,050,000,000. (100%)
• (1) Affordable Housing Program.
• (2) Commission on Fine Arts.
• (3) Consumer Product Safety Commission.
• (4) Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
• (5) National Endowment for the Arts.
• (6) National Endowment for the Humanities.
• (7) State Justice Institute.
• MISC
• Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees........$3,000,000,000.
• Freeze Federal Government employee pay...................$2,000,000,000.
• Reduce Federal Government travel..............................$7,500,000,000.
• Repeal Davis-Bacon..................................................... $6,000,000,000.
• Prohibit union project labor agreements......................$2,000,000,000.
• TARP repeal.................................................................$4,481,000,000.
• Sell Federal Buildings..................................................$19,000,000,000.
• Reduce Federal vehicle budget..........................................$600,000,000.

UPDATE: Comment from theblogprof's story on this subject, which I echo:

Note the one cut close to the end: "Collect delinquent taxes from Federal Employees." $3 BILLION??? Good grief. How are they still federal employees at all?

On last Thursday evening , DC Jobs with Justice hosted a Workers' Rights Board hearing at the DC City Council. I was happy to be an invited guest to speak at this event. The purpose of this event was to allow city workers to discuss their concerns about what is happening across the board to city government workers and public services under the Fenty administration. Panelists of city workers testified before the Workers' Rights Board. This board plans to develop an action plan to address concerns from city workers in DC Public Schools, Child and Family Services Administration, and Department of Mental Health. Amongst the recommendations are upcoming meetings with the DC City Council.

"Catastrophe, intimidation, terror. These were common words used to describe DC Mayor Adrian Fenty’s two years in office by over a dozen speakers at Thursday’s Workers’ Rights Board (WRB) hearing. The hearing – which took place at the John A. Wilson Building to a standing-room only crowd of hundreds of residents, workers and activists – was held to examine Mayor Fenty’s assault on DC public sector workers and proposals to cut public services. “I see what is happening right now as a major catastrophe,” said Roger Newell, chair of DC Jobs with Justice. “We need to speak loudly and strongly that working people made this city and stuck with this city through times of crisis. Workers should be respected not attacked and politicians who attack workers should be held accountable.”

Metro Council President Jos Williams said that Mayor Fenty has created an “environment based on intimidation” of workers through the gutting of the Public Employee Relations Board (PERB) , abolishment of the Labor-Management Partnership Program and the appointment of School Chancellor Michelle Rhee who “has made it her mission to make every employee at-will.” “The door was closed to labor immediately by the Mayor after taking office,” said Dwight Bowman, AFGE National Vice President for District 14. “The Mayor chose to ignore our efforts to reach out.” Bowman also compared Mayor Fenty’s refusal to address the crisis with the PERB to similar moves by the Bush Administration to destroy the federal grievance process.

Other panelists discussed Mayor Fenty’s assault on DC public sector workers in specific agencies, including the DC Public Schools, the Child and Family Services Agency and the Department of Mental Health (DMH), and its impact on education and public and mental health services. “I have never seen a climate like what is occurring now,” said Jeff Canady, a 17-year teacher in the DC Public Schools (DCPS). “Everyday I run into workers and teachers who have horror stories about intimidation on the job…It is an absolute climate of intimidation and terror that teachers are facing.” Canady argued the problem is not bad teachers but a lack of resources, supplies and support for teachers as well as Chancellor Rhee’s “complete lack of understanding about what needs to be done.”

Candi Peterson, a 16-year veteran of DCPS and active member of WTU Local 6, criticized Fenty and Rhee for the firings of hundreds of DCPS workers which, she argued, created overcrowded classrooms and forced teachers to work in areas outside their certification. “Rhee regularly blames teachers and argues that union contracts and teachers' seniority rights stand in the way of the best education for our children.” But the reality is that her “anti-union tactics support more privatization and outsourcing of public education, the creation of more unchecked charter schools, unsound educational practices, gutting hard-earned job protections and union busting”."

Maria Jones , a parent active in school issues and a 26-year resident of DC, called Rhee’s school reform plan a redistribution of wealth and “children are being exploited and denied a quality education” as a result.

Marketta McCoy – a recently fired investigator at the Child and Family Services Agency (CFSA) and member of AFSCME Council 20 – said workers are being scapegoated for the recent high-profile failures at the CFSA . McCoy added that the real issue is Mayor Fenty and CFSA management’s refusal to help provide workers with desperately needed resources and a reduction in caseloads. “Management should treat workers with dignity and respect,” said McCoy.

Roy Rogers – an employee of the DC DMH Community Services Agency (CSA) and 1199SEIU member – and Dr. Ray Brown – President of the DC Doctors Council/AFSCME – also discussed the Fenty Administration’s plans to privatize mental health services . “Closing DC CSA will leave the most vulnerable, victimized, voiceless, neediest and exploited citizens of the District without a safety net,” said Rogers. “Why eliminate these jobs now with the current economic crisis which is bound to cause more need for mental health services?” Brown said the privatization plan could affect 4,000 patients and put communities into crisis. “This is a catastrophe,” said Brown adding that the DC City Council must act to pass emergency legislation to stop the contracting out (click here to take action on this issue).

DC City Councilmembers Phil Mendelson and Harry Thomas Jr. briefly sat in with the Workers’ Rights Board to listen to panelists’ testimony. Councilmembers Kwame Brown and Yvette Alexander also made appearances. Mayor Fenty, Chancellor Rhee and other Councilmembers were invited to attend but did not show, says DC Jobs with Justice Organizer Ruth Castel-Branco. “The response to this event was overwhelming,” said Castel-Branco. “We received more requests for people to testify than we could fit into the short time frame we had. It shows that workers and DC residents are fed up with Mayor Fenty’s anti-worker, anti-democractic agenda.” An action plan, based on the testimony and recommendations of panelists, from Workers’ Rights Board members is expected in the coming months. Courtesy of DC Metro Labor-AFL-CIO. "(Posted by The Washington Teacher).

In the Detroit News today is this fun story- there is nothing serious about this, it's just a neat quirk of the American political system:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., swearing in a new president for the first time, flubbed the opening words of the oath of office. President Barack Obama, paused, then repeated the right words slightly out of order.

That is what makes the oath Obama took Tuesday before nearly 2 million spectators so interesting. It might be that they didn't witness Obama being sworn in. The Constitution is clear that the oath's 35 words must be spoken exactly.

The presidential oath says, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

When Roberts administered the oath, he misplaced the word "faithfully." Obama said, "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear ... " Roberts continued, "that I will execute the office of the president to the United States faithfully..." Obama paused and then said, "that I will execute ... " Roberts interjected, "faithfully the office of the president of the United States ... " Then, Obama said, "the office of president of the United States faithfully."

Constitutional law experts agree the flub is insignificant. Yet two previous presidents -- Calvin Coolidge and Chester Arthur -- repeated the oath privately because of similar issues.

Lawyers said Obama and his supporters need not be worried about the legitimacy of his presidency: technically, Obama was already president anyway -- the Constitution says the term of the incoming president begins at noon Jan. 20.

Just to emphasize, there is nothing serious in this, but if I were him, I would put any controversy to rest and follow the precedents of Coolidge and Arther and just say it again privately.

Fascinated, I decided to google Coolidge and try to find out about his mess-up with regards to the oath of office. What I found was this, which I think is from his autobiography:

On the night of August 2, 1923, I was awakened by my father coming up the stairs calling my name. I noticed that his voice trembled. As the only times I had ever observed that before were when death had visited our family, I knew that something of the gravest nature had occurred...He placed in my hands an official report and told me that President Harding had just passed away. My wife and I at once dressed.

Meantime, I had been examining the Constitution to determine what might be necessary for qualifying by taking the oath of office. It is not clear that any additional oath is required beyond what is taken by the Vice-President when he is sworn into office. It is the same form as that taken by the President.

Having found this form in the Constitution I had it set up on the typewriter and the oath was administered by my father in his capacity as a notary public, an office he had held for a great many years.

It seemed a simple and natural thing to do at the time, but I can now realize something of the dramatic force of the event.

Pretty interesting, but I don't know if that qualifies as the error similar to that of Obama. Perhaps it wasn't done with the right people, and that's why it was an error? I did find this line at several sources "Coolidge was resworn by a federal official upon his return to Washington," but wasn't about to come up with more information in my modest researching. I did find this site though- it makes some good points about how those of us of a certain age tend to point to Ronald Reagan as "the great conservative of our time"--we forget that Reagan often claimed as his "model President" Calvin Coolidge.

How about Chester A. Arthur?

On September 20, 1881, upon the death of President Garfield, Vice President Arthur received a group at his home in New York City to take the oath of office, administered by New York Supreme court Judge John R. Brady. the next day he again took the oath of office, administered by Chief Justice Morrison Waite, in the Vice President's Office in the Capitol in Washington, D.C.

It looks like to me that the reason he took the oath twice was not because he 'flubbed' it the first time, but because it wasn't official enough, although my research on this was limited.

Now I am bothered by this event, and not the fact that Obama didn't say the words in the right order- I'm bothered by the sloppy and poor job the media did writing about this. Every newspaper is carrying this story, and all are implying the same thing- that past Presidents didn't say the words in the right order and so it's no big deal. But my research indicates that that didn't happen. Again, it doesn't really matter, but if I turned up this in 5 minutes of research, it shows what a bad job our media does, and how easy it is to introduce a false premise into the media, who will then repeat it over and over.

UPDATE: Just to be safe, Obama did take the Oath again. The story is here. I agree with the logic- it isn't really that hard to just re-do it correctly, and would put to rest any weak controversy. I'm still bothered by the weak reporting though, as this story again says that "Two other previous presidents have repeated the oath because of similar issues, Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur"- but the 'similar issues' are only similar in that they were about repeating the Oath of Office, not about getting the words right. It might be over-analyzing, but I'm pretty sure no one did any research on this line, and it shows.

From the WSJ comes this impressive and timely post about how we USED to deal with the pirate issue compared to how we deal with it now, and it once again shows that as we try to be more politically correct and more fair, we create a world that is both more unfair and less right. With some editing, here is the article (try this link too), by Bret Stephens:

Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising. Why?

The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.

What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week.

As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.

Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.

In March 2006, the U.S. Navy took 11 pirates prisoner, six of whom were injured. Not wanting to set a precedent for trying pirates in U.S. courts, the State Department turned to Kenya to do the job. The injured spent weeks aboard the USS Nassau, enjoying First World medical care.

All this legal exquisiteness stands in contrast to what was once a more robust attitude. Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis -- enemies of the human race -- to be dealt with accordingly by their captors. Tellingly, Cicero's notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages; its recovery traces the recovery of the West itself.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained." Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.

Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice -- chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience -- we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. "We're humane warriors," says one U.S. Navy officer. "When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that's a lot tougher than taking bodies."

Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism at work today: There are the suicide bombers on Israeli buses, the stonings of Iranian women, and so on. But piracy is certainly the most primordial of them, and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we've regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy. A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.

This is a pretty good article, and matches my thoughts on it. I really do think that what we need is an awesome pirate war to clear out all that bothers us- a good old fashioned butt-whooping of real bad guys. Let's see the liberals spin that as a bad thing! As Commodore Decatur declared "We shall offer them liberal and enlightened terms, dictated at the mouths of our cannons." That's how we should take care of this problem. Here is what a liberal is going to say- we're being mean terrorists. William Eaton, commander of the Marines' march to Tripoli, said this about dealing with real terrorists: "There is but one language that can be held to these people, and this is terror." Chew on that.

Change of Heart: A Novel Cheap Wholesale

   Buy Lowest Price !! See Lowest Price Here Cheap Change of Heart: A Novel. This Store is the best place to buy cheap Change of Heart: A Novel. If you want to buy Change of Heart: A Novel in the best price, try to see specail offers or read the best customer reviews from this page. That can help you to make easy decision to buy this product. This product Shipped and Sold by Amazon Shopping Store. Usually ships in 1-2 business days This item ships for FREE with Super Saver Shipping. Order The Best price From This Page - Read more Informations by Click at the Big Links.

» See More Images « Change of Heart: A Novel

Change of Heart: A Novel | Cheap Sale Discount Price By Amazon  Helpful Reviews : ★★★★  Product By : Amazon  List Price : $26.95 Discount To : Very Low Price! Buy it Now!! Shipping : Usually ships in 1-2 business days   In Stock. & FREE with Super Saver Shipping

Overview Change of Heart: A Novel

The acclaimed #1 New York Times bestselling author presents a spellbinding tale of a mother's tragic loss and one man's last chance at gaining salvation.

Can we save ourselves, or do we rely on others to do it? Is what we believe always the truth?

One moment June Nealon was happily looking forward to years full of laughter and adventure with her family, and the next, she was staring into a future that was as empty as her heart. Now her life is a waiting game. Waiting for time to heal her wounds, waiting for justice. In short, waiting for a miracle to happen.

For Shay Bourne, life holds no more surprises. The world has given him nothing, and he has nothing to offer the world. In a heartbeat, though, something happens that changes everything for him. Now, he has one last chance for salvation, and it lies with June's eleven-year-old daughter, Claire. But between Shay and Claire stretches an ocean of bitter regrets, past crimes, and the rage of a mother who has lost her child.

Would you give up your vengeance against someone you hate if it meant saving someone you love? Would you want your dreams to come true if it meant granting your enemy's dying wish?

Once again, Jodi Picoult mesmerizes and enthralls readers with this story of redemption, justice, and love.

Available : In Stock.

FREE with Super Saver Shipping Usually ships in 1-2 business days

Best Sale Change of Heart: A Novel. Most comprehensive list of Change of Heart: A Novel, Cowmooflage pricing, specifications, accessories, and reviews.

On Friday- September 26, 2008 @ 6:30 pm. Please join us for a Prayer Service for Social Justice In The Workplace. The service will feature Denise Hamilton, a blind teacher (certified) of visually impaired students who was wrongly terminated by DCPS. The service will also facilitate a Call to Action on behalf of all public servants including teachers, aides and other workers who have been fired unjustly. The service will be held at the Covenant Baptist Church located at 3845 South Capitol Street SW, Washington, DC. Contact phone number: 202-321-9071.

Wangui wa Goro writes in Pambazuka:

Most worryingly, is the fixing of tradition as something staid that will never change and which condemns the majority into servitude or slavery. For me, culture should answer the question whether it can promote and deliver democracy, equality and social justice for the majority. A pro-people culture would bode well for peace, justice and democracy in Africa; a culture that would enable a re-engagement with the self that has been lacking - a re-engagement with our neighbours and the world in ways that are powerful and which would yield tremendous wealth, enjoyment, creativity, learning and exchange.

Via NaijaBlog

From the Belmont Club comes this note. The Washington Post reports that lawyers are successfully arguing that terror financiers can’t be blacklisted because it violates their fundamental rights. The European Court of Justice declared that the blacklist for those people financing the killing of civilians and the bombing of innocent people violates the “fundamental rights” of those targeted. The Court is concerned that the list lacks accountability and makes it impossible for terrorist groups, once on it, to contend that they are not terrorists.

To fight against terrorists, their lawyers, and those who would aid them requires courage, conviction, and force of will. Let's see if our new President has got those.

Shortly before the Presidential Election of 2008, I felt that it was important that I highlighted the fact that Members of our Military are Being Disenfranchised. Several personal cases were documented in my posts, and I became more uneasy about the disenfranchising of military voters, who usually vote Republican and whose votes are usually not counted by Democrats. No accusations were made, but I did feel important questions were raised.

I returned to this theme in January of 2009 with my story Soldiers Deprived of Right to Vote, which discussed that according to a Pew study, Michigan doesn't allow soldiers fighting bad buys overseas enough time to get their votes in, and that in 2006, about two-thirds of the estimated 1 million ballots distributed to military voters were not counted because they weren't returned on time, came back too late or had other problems.

So it is with great anger that I read the story on Pajamas Media BREAKING: DOJ Undermines Pentagon, Allows Wisconsin To Ignore Military Voting Protections:

Today the Department of Justice effectively rewrote the 2009 MOVE Act designed to protect military voters. In a settlement reached with the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board, the Holder Justice Department allowed Wisconsin to mail ballots to overseas military voters only 32 days before the election, instead of the statutorily mandated 45 days.

The Pentagon had denied Wisconsin’s application for a waiver from the 45-day requirement: “The states granted waivers presented thorough and comprehensive plans to protect the voting opportunities for military and overseas voters,” Bob Carey, director of the Federal Voting Assistance Program, said in a statement. Wisconsin’s waiver application didn’t even come close to compliance with the MOVE Act. They wanted to send ballots only 29 days before the election. The folks at the Pentagon rightfully denied the waiver request.

But instead of aggressively suing Wisconsin immediately after the waiver denial, the DOJ engaged in secret negotiations. An immediate lawsuit would have strengthened the negotiating position of the DOJ as well as preserved various equitable legal arguments, including the argument DOJ waited too long to commence litigation. Instead of doing the right thing, the DOJ did the easy thing and reached a settlement with Wisconsin that undermined the Pentagon’s denial of Wisconsin’s waiver request.

The tough negotiating stance of the Holder DOJ extracted a whopping additional three days out of Wisconsin. Ballots will mail 32 days before the election instead of 29. A consent decree filed Friday will reflect this quisling agreement.

This is a disgrace, plain and simple. Military voters, their families and veterans organizations should be outraged at the Holder DOJ.

Democrats often say that they care about democracy and pretend like every vote matters, but again and again have demonstrated that when it comes to the votes of the members of our military, they couldn't care less. They work to shorten the length of time that military voters have to vote, they quibble about spending additional money and time putting together alternatives or mailing ballots overnight, and they break the law and then have Democrat AG's agree with the breaking of the law. It is a disgrace, and they need to be held accountable.

This was passed to me by a friend... in it, you see a whistle blower who works for the Department of Justice report that officials in the DOJ appear to not be interested in enforcing certain provisions of the laws regarding voters (such as removing ineligible voters from voter roles because they are dead) and in fact may have issued an order to DOJ officials to willfully ignore the law and let ineligible voters fraudulently vote. Liberals and Democrats usually believe everything whistle blowers state and are passionate about voter fraud, so the fact that they don't care at all about this story and are trying to bury it demonstrates yet again the hypocrisy of liberals- they are only interested in power. On the other hand, I'm interested in protecting life, protecting liberty, and protecting private property rights, and am passionate about voter fraud and the truth, so I'm going to expose it. Watch the video that is embedded- it is 10 minutes, but you'll get most the info pretty quick.


Suggested book to read related to this post: America Votes!: A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights