First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle
Yesterday the first volleys were fired by the religious Right against the IRS code that prohibits churches from endorsing candidates from pulpit.
Source
In 1954 Congress amended the tax code to prohibit certain non-profit groups from intervening in a political campaign involving candidates. The provision allows the IRS to strip the offending church of their tax-exempt status.
The Associated Press reported that "...33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund." This effort was premeditated and well thought out.
The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.
So what exactly was said from the pulpits on Sunday? Did it really violate federal law? Most definitely.
At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain."
It is sad to see that the Republicans have now resorted organized violations of Federal law in order to win this election. Just when you thought the playing field could not get any more dirty the Right pulls this.
So do these pastors have a chance of fulfilling their goals? Not likely with the current lineup of SCOTUS Justices. Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University, said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition. However if McCAin does pull off his perceived Hail Mary play and wins in November the current line-up on the Supreme Court is sure to change.
Not all religious institutions are pleased with the battle lines being drawn. If there is a wholesale revocation of the IRS tax code as it relates to churches many institutions will have to give up programs and services that benefit the community.
Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."
My only hope is that these churches will not succeed and that the organizers will be brought up on Federal conspiracy charges.
Image © Austin Cline; Original Poster: Nazi Propaganda
Bush Goes Back On His Word, Says Hell Spy On You If He Feels Like It
Its like every story about the White House right now should be accompanied by a mental picture of Bush twirling his moustache like Snidely Whiplash with the Imperial March playing in the background. He is truly, truly evil. So when Bush announced this week that he wouldn't honor his agreement to refrain from wiretapping American citizens without a warrant, we cant be surprised. Can we? Its getting so hard to continue being outraged at this bullshit.
As a result of the January agreement, the administration said that the National Security Agencys domestic spying program has been brought under the legal structure laid out in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court-approved warrants for the wiretapping of American citizens and others inside the United States.
But on Tuesday, the senior officials, including Michael McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said they believed that the president still had the authority under Article II of the Constitution to once again order the N.S.A. to conduct surveillance inside the country without warrants.
During a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. McConnell was asked by Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, whether he could promise that the administration would no longer sidestep the court when seeking warrants.
Sir, the presidents authority under Article II is in the Constitution, Mr. McConnell said. So if the president chose to exercise Article II authority, that would be the presidents call.
Well its nice that the president is interested in following the Constitution when its convenient for him to do so. But make no mistake: hell follow it only when its convenient for him. This bullshit about Article II being Article II is an absurd and offensively dangerous legal argument. Nowhere does Article II does it give the president the power to circumvent the protections of the rest of the document if he deems it expedient. Its this type of power that the U.S. Constitution is specifically designed to prevent.
The administrations promise to go back on their word came during hearings in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who are meeting to discuss legislation that will bring the Administrations current surveillance programs back to the realm of the sane and legal. While some of the proposed changes to FISA make sense, such as allowing surveillance of purely international communications that are routed through US servers or satellites, others are less well-intentioned.
While administration officials, citing national security concerns, have declined to discuss publicly what communications gaps they wish to plug, their proposed legislation seems designed to single out so-called transit traffic, purely international telephone calls and e-mail that go from one foreign country to another, but happen to be digitally routed through the United States telecommunications system.
The administrations proposal would also provide legal immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperated with the National Security Agencys surveillance program without warrants before it was brought under the surveillance act in January. It would also provide legal protections for government workers who took part in the N.S.A. program.
In other words, theyre saying that what they were doing was perfectly legal (after all, Article II is Article II), but they just want to make sure that no one is held legally liable for their perfectly legal actions. Classy! Also, totally predictable coming from these clowns.
You know that saying its easier to get forgiveness than permission? I expect to hear that from the IT guy at my office. I dont expect to hear that from the fucking President of the United States. Shameful.
But what else is new?
White House Decides One Branch Of Government Is Best
George Bush is king. It happened yesterday, while we were all going about our business. Tony Snow broke the news to us on almost every news show and even during a White House press conference.
Snow to MSNBC: Theres another principle, which is Congress doesnt have the legislative I mean oversight authority over the White House.
Snow to MSNBC: First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesnt have oversight.
Snow to Fox: Congress doesnt have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House.
Snow to NBC: "Congress doesn't have any legitimate oversight and responsibilities to the White House."
Snow to NBC: "First, the White House is under no compulsion to do anything. The legislative branch doesn't have oversight."
Snow to ABC: "The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability."
MR. SNOW: Congress
does not have constitutional oversight responsibility over the White House, which is why by our reaching out, we're doing something that we're not compelled to do by the Constitution, but we think common sense suggests that we ought to get the whole story out, which is what we're doing.
Um. Okay. Now Im not sure what to do. When someone tells you everything you learned as a child about your government is wrong and that person is IN CHARGE, what do you do? This is quite simply freaky and disturbing.
The president has declared himself above the laws of our country and has said he will not be a part of our system of government. I dont give a shit if you are conservative or liberal or moderate, you should understand we are walking into some very strange territory and anyone who supports this bullshit should be cast into the sea. (Do we do that?)
Oversight is real. The Supreme Court has ruled on it, on more than one occasion.
In affirming Congress' oversight powers, the Supreme Court in McGrain v. Daugherty stated that "the power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function." In Watkins v. United States the Court described Congress' oversight power by stating that the "power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad." The Supreme Court also observed that "a legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change."
Dont sit back and think, wow, this is so out of character. We have been heading toward this for quite some time. Bush lied to get us into a disastrous war, he has been illegally tapping our phones, illegally looking at our internet exchanges, he broke campaign funding laws, he is writing his own little additions on laws passed by Congress, he has violated the anti-torture statute, as well as international torture laws, he has suspended habeas corpus and outed a CIA agent. Representative John Conyers believes Bush has broken 26 laws.
Put aside the fact that this makes the White House seem like it really has something to hide, that they are so guilty and have committed such crimes that they have to defy the Constitution.
Ask yourself this: What does happen when a sitting president decides hes not going to play by the rules set forth by our Constitution? What happens when a President just says, Im not going to do that? Not follow laws, just going to do what he wants to do. Welcome to scary territory.
Attorney General Doesn't Believe Habeas Corpus is a Right
During his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Commitee last week, attorney general Alberto Gonzales spoke on a variety of subjects, including the Bush administration's role in wiretap authorization for suspected terrorists and the FISA courts that oversee granting warrants for wiretapping. One choice comment that he made that has thus far been widely overlooked my major media outlets, however, was when he directly asserted that the constitution does not grant the right of habeas corpus to individuals being tried for crimes.
Alberto Gonzales: There is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; theres a prohibition against taking it away."
Arlen Specter: Wait a minute. The Constitution says you cant take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesnt that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless theres a rebellion or invasion?
Alberto Gonzales: The Constitution doesnt say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesnt say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.
Arlen Specter: You may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense."
So, while there is an explicit prohibition against the government violating habeas corpus, that doesn't necessarily imply a similar right to it? Lincoln explicitly suspended habeas corpus several times during the civil war, and while his assassination may have cut short any attempt to impeach him over it its constitutionality remains dubious, and the necessity for authorizing its suspension depends on "rebellion or invasion." The Supreme Court has upheld its status as a fundamental right, citing it as "one of the centerpieces of our liberties." That it would be so casually cast aside by the man who is supposed to be safeguarding constitutional liberties as his primary job is bordering on absurdity.
Senate Rejects Flag Burning Amendment
There are plenty of problems with the modern incarnation of the political protest. The typical protest is overweighed by a veritable rainbow of different groups clamoring for different causes, many of them so outlandish and fringe that it's difficult to believe they take themselves seriously. There's the inevitable man-on-stilts in the crowd, the people wearing papier mache caricatures of political figures, the people who don't really realize what the protest is about, the Mumia Abu-Jamal and Leonard Peltier supporters (regardless of the topic at hand) who couldn't tell you a thing about the people they seek to liberate. All in all, political protests are often a motley crew of progressives looking to change the world all at once, and unfortunately without a whole lot of success lately. What isn't found at modern political protests much any more, however, is people burning the American flag. This form of protest fell out of fashion about thirty years ago, likely when protesters realized that it was a quick and effective way to make sure that no one gave a second thought to the topic you were attempting to address because they were so irritated by you burning their flag. Regardless, flag burning is yet again on top of the GOP agenda for this summer's legislative session, and what's even more odd is that the often discussed and wholly irrelevant consitutional amendment banning came one vote away from passing this time around.
The U.S. Senate rejected a proposed constitutional amendment to empower Congress to outlaw flag burning, falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority required to send the measure to the states for ratification.
The vote was 66-34 in favor of the amendment. Sixty-seven votes are required to approve a constitutional amendment.
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must also be ratified by 38 state legislatures. Republicans argued that 48 states had outlawed flag desecration before a Supreme Court decision in 1989 invalidated a Texas law. They noted that all 50 state legislatures have passed resolutions urging Congress to approve a constitutional amendment.
Democrats accused the Republicans of ignoring more pressing issues, such as spiraling health-care costs, to score election- year points over flag burning. Democrats made the same charge earlier this month when Senate Republicans unsuccessfully sought a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
``Why are we here? Because the White House and the congressional Republican leadership are nervous about the upcoming election,'' Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, said during today's debate in Washington. ``We are not setting out to protect Old Glory. We are setting out to protect old politicians.''
Republicans said the issue is above politics, citing bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, which has passed a flag-burning amendment six times in the last 12 years.
``Bringing it up at this time is certainly not an election- year ploy,'' said Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, the measure's prime sponsor. ``We have Democrats and Republicans who feel deeply about this.''
The "debate" is standard fare in what has come to pass for modern political discourse; the farcical discussions that constantly go back and forth in Washington these days. Republicans loudly and brashly trumpet their newest law or constitutional amendment, declaring themselves patriotic in the process, all the while claiming that anyone (ie. Democrats) who opposes their latest brainchild is somehow unamerican or unpatriotic or wants to make out with Osama bin Laden. And then Democrats are shocked, shocked that anyone would be so crass as to challenge their patriotism, and then proceed to vote for whatever the Republicans are trying to pass because they're afraid people might challenge their patriotism. If it weren't so depressing it would be boring. What's especially unfortunate this time, however, is the open support that some Democrats gave it.
The House, meanwhile, has already passed the flag amendment, under the unlikely leadership of Jack Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat, and Duke Cunningham, a now-convicted California Republican.
And Harry Reid, along with 13 other Democratic Senators voted for it. So even senior Democrats are jumping on the bandwagon. What's surprising is who lead the charge against it.
Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, the deputy Republican leader, voted against the amendment. McConnell has said he favors upholding First Amendment values. Two other Republicans, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Robert Bennett of Utah, also opposed the amendment.
I'm no fan of Mitch McConnell, but it's nice to see him take a principled stand for something, even if there is some devious plan for personal political gain underlying it.
At issue here is the politicization of a mode of free expression that many undoubtedly find distasteful. I'm not personally all that offended by seeing an American flag burn, but neither would I choose to do so. Regardless, my personal preferences, and the preferences of people like Bill Frist and Orrin Hatch are irrelevant when it comes to determining a constitutional basis for expression. When people like them try to desecrate a document like the constitution by writing in idiocy like the flag burning amendment it's far more offensive than burning a simple flag ever could be. Fortunately the Senate, by the tiniest margin possible, agreed.