Very cool.

Speaking of originalism, did you read Scalia’s Heller opinion? Brilliant.

You don’t remember an abortion amendment being discussed? It’s been in the Republican Party platform since at least 1980, possibly longer. It seldom gets very far, but it’s been national party policy for nearly thirty years now … though, yes, you would be pardoned for not knowing it for how little attention most GOP leaders pay to the issue. (Yes, I’m a pro-lifer.)

Anyway …

Vivian, brilliant point. Far too many people who call themselves supporters of the original intent of the Constitution have rolled over and let warrantless searches happen, argued in favor of Bush’s demand that he be allowed to detain anyone for any length of time (the Moussaoui case — thankfully he was beaten back), and so on. True believers in original intent have to come out against the USAPATRIOT Act, but too many won’t because they don’t really want to fight the Republican President. Sure, there were a few things that were just too much (the Miers nomination, for example), but they put up with a lot of other garbage (just about anything Donald Rumsfeld did, for example).

It happens a lot, but I think that the Democrats right now are doing a better job of keeping their leaders’ feet to the fire. Although some of the Mouse’s examples are good counter-examples, on the overall execution of policy, far too many on the Right have given a pass to the Bush administration and ignored their own beliefs.

Amen to that!

There is no easy answer, but I like neither holding people without a trial with the excuse that the evidence is classified, nor letting people go because we cannot hold a trial without revealing “sources and methods.”

I agree. That’s a large part of why I’m so friggin’ furious that we’re still basically making this up as we go along–if we’d planned ahead and done our best to utilize as much precendent as possible in advance, we wouldn’t have nearly so many problems. But by creating a novel system of justice and then seeking novel arguments to distance ourselves from precedent, we’ve gridlocked ourselves into a situation that’s frustrating and a little bit alarming.

I think the lesson to learn here is that the rights of the accused don’t only protect the defendant, they also protect the system itself. If the government had planned on being accountable for observing those rights instead of dismissing them out of hand, Gitmo wouldn’t be nearly the legal embarrassment that it is today; we’d have already held our trials and convicted or exonerated the detainees in accordance with the rule of law.

The biggest issue in classification is the revelation of sources and methods. It is not, generally, that the data is so sensitive, but that we have the data at all. The classic example is, “The premier had Eggs Benedict, Canadian bacon, orange juice, and black decaf with two sugars for breakfast this morning.” Who cares? No one. However, the fact that we have that information reveals that we have someone close to the premier, and that our source can get the data out to us promptly. If it becomes know that we have this information, our source is compromised and is put at risk of capture, torture, and death. Thus, such information would be classified at the highest levels to protect its source.

2) An excellent question. Routinely seeing revisions of data as questionable intelligence is updated by equally questionable intelligence would naturally make one skeptical. However, if the data one normally works with is routinely verified, one would be less skeptical.

There is no easy answer, but I like neither holding people without a trial with the excuse that the evidence is classified, nor letting people go because we cannot hold a trial without revealing “sources and methods.”

1.) How could such a jury be reasonably expected to restrain the scope of their deliberations to the facts entered into evidence? Assuming that jury member obtained a security clearance for work-related purposes (which seems logical to me) then it would be more likely that the panel would have access to facts or opinions outside the scope of the case that might influence the outcome in a way that wouldn’t happen with a normal jury of one’s peers.

2.) How would the juror’s routine handling of classified information influence his skepticism of that information? Might he be less likely to challenge the validity and veracity of information of dubious quality from a questionable source?

There aren’t any easy answers but I wish more people in the administration were like you insofar as their willingness to think outside the box.

If a court trial would require divulging classified data, why can we not just have a jury made up of those who hold security clearances?

I was responding to “these folks [in the Republican Party] are more likely to follow authoritarian leaders.” More likely than whom?

I was responding to your final comment: “If Democrats refuse to hold our ‘leaders’ accountable, how does that make us different from Republicans?” I took that to be an offhand attack, and I responded.

——————————

Dang, MB, it seems we agree again. Dodd’s speech is dead on. Anyone who says waterboarding is not torture should be required to endure it, and then give their opinion.

I’m going to ask wp.com for a whitelist.

You miss the point, Mouse, as usual. First of all, you are not a Democrat. Your complaints about what Ds do or don’t do is expected. This conversation is about what Democrats are doing or should be doing when it comes to our “leaders.” It’s not an “us versus them” conversation. It’s an “us versus us.” And since you aren’t one of us, I don’t know how you can weigh in on the subject matter at all.

(Is there any way to put a PREVIEW button on here? I think I asked before, but I’m not sure.)

1) Marriage — Putting into the Constitution the definition of “marriage” that every society has used for 5000 years, rather than having it redefined by judicial fiat (that authoritarianism again). Since the state amendments have all required a popular (as in populi, the People) vote, they cannot be authoritarian, can they?

2) Abortion — Don’t remember a Constitutional Amendment proposed, but if you say so…. Still, I thought liberals wanted to protect the helpless?

3) Flag-burning — Yes, I have come to the conclusion that the “intellectual proletariat,” such as MB, are incapable of verbalization, and must resort to mindless displays of “protest” instead.

Chris Dodd gave an excellent speech yesterday, which I’d advise everyone to read – it’s an incredible (and dead-on) indictment of our government as a whole. But this part really stood out for me:

I cannot speak for my colleagues—but I would never take “trust me” for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a President on Mount Rushmore.

I can’t put it better than this:

“Trust me” government is government that asks that we concentrate our hopes and dreams on one man; that we trust him to do what’s best for us. My view of government places trust not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.

Who wants to amend the constitution to define who can and cannot marry?
Who wants to legislate an individual’s personal choice on abortion?
Who wants to blame activists judges for insisting that habeas corpus is still a constitutional right within our legal system?

Incidentally, while I agree with a few points you made (I’m just as strong a supporter of 2nd Amendment rights as I am of 1st Amendment Rights) you have to wonder, with a little bit more oversight of subprime lenders and a little bit more effort to reduce our demand for gasoline, what shape would our economy be in today? And the Federal government involvement in schools to create some standards for education? That was in large part the United States Army’s idea.

Meanwhile….

Who wants the government to control our health care? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control our schools? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control our retirement money? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control campaign contributions? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control what kind of cars are produced? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control what goes into gasoline? Liberals.
Who wants the government to control how much an employer can pay? Liberals.
Who wants the government to have the only firearms? Liberals.

Who favors totalitarianism?

“Yes We Can!” doesn’t stop on November 5. It requires us to take an active part in the formulation and execution of policy throughout the coming progressive era of American politics.

Voting is no longer enough. The right of free speech has now become a requirement.