Cartoons, Decapitation, Computers And The Constitution

By Walter Moore - February 6, 2006

They riot over a cartoon, but watch televised beheadings the way we watch weather forecasts. That's who we're fighting. Under the circumstances, one can understand the President's desire to use every technological means available to prevent further attacks on our country.

Some argue, however, that the United States Constitution prohibits the President, in a time of war, from using NSA computers to sift through zillions of innocent telephone calls in a hunt for calls involving terrorists. The computers work like those change-sorting machines at the grocery store: you dump all telephone calls into them, and they sort the calls into different piles. The government then focuses on the "maybe trouble" stack of calls. Does the Constitution require the President to get a judge's permission for this process?

Let's start with the wording of the Constitution itself. The document doesn't specifically mention wiretaps or satellites or radio transmissions, because, of course, they weren't around back when. Wars, however, were around back then, and the Constitution does address war: Congress has the power to declare war, while "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...." And, the Third Amendment states, "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." There's nothing stating that, "in time of war," the President needs to consult with the Judiciary at all regarding the conduct of the war.

Next, let's look at whether, historically, anyone in our country has ever believed the Constitution required judicial oversight of military campaigns, and in particular, the interception of enemy communications.

Western Union built its first transcontinental telegraph line in 1861. Did anyone ever claim that Lincoln needed a warrant to tap into Confederate telegrams? No.

When the United States entered World War I, did anyone claim President Wilson needed warrants to monitor radio transmissions in America? No. On the contrary, the federal government didn't just monitor radio transmissions back then. Rather, the government took over all radio stations and made it illegal for private citizens even to possess a transmitter.

In the days leading up to World War II, did anyone claim Roosevelt needed a warrant to monitor communications between Japan and its ambassadors? No. During the war itself, did Eisenhower have to explain to a judge why it would be helpful to try to monitor and decode German transmissions? Of course not.

Our history thus indicates that we as a nation have never deemed the Fourth Amendment to apply to a President's efforts, during war, to intercept enemy communications. Rather, the "practical construction" -- the understanding of the document as exhibited by our conduct as a nation -- is that the Commander in Chief has the power, under the Constitution, to monitor the airwaves during wartime to ensure the survival of our nation.

And here's something you might not know about the Fourth Amendment: when the Supreme Court first addressed the issue of whether police could conduct wiretaps without a warrant, the Supreme Court ruled that no warrant was needed. The Court reasoned that the wiretaps did not constitute a "search" or a "seizure," and therefore did not require a warrant. Only years later did the Court reverse its position.

In any event, even assuming police need a warrant for a wiretap in the course of a criminal prosecution, that does not mean the same standard applies to a President trying to intercept enemy communications during a war. Presidents do lots of things during a war that we would never let police and prosecutors do.

As for any Congressional statute purporting to require the President to seek a court's approval before eavesdropping during war, the President can legitimately argue that any such statute is itself unconstitutional. Insofar as the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief, Congress lacks the Constitutional authority to require the President to share that command with lawyers wearing black robes.

So the President can certainly argue that he has the Constitutional power to have NSA computers intercept all transmissions in order to find those involving terrorists. And if he does not, then we need to amend the Constitution immediately so he does.

If you have any doubts about that, just remember the riots over cartoons and the indifference to beheadings. Remember the stakes.

John Edwards Anti-Alito Screed

We received an advance copy of an email screed former Vice Presidential Candidate John Edwards is going to send out encouraging protest of Supreme Court appointee Samuel Alito.

The hearings in Washington are not going the way the Democrats had hoped and so now, they're desperate.

Here in its entirety is more liberal claptrap:

When President Bush nominated Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court last year, I wrote you to express my strong opposition to his confirmation. His record, both on the bench and as an official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, showed that he is an ideologue whose extreme views would put our fundamental rights at risk.

Now that his hearings in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee are underway, it is becoming even clearer that Samuel Alito is the wrong man for the job. It's time for Democrats to stand up for what we believe in. Join me in opposing Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/opposealito

Alito's careful dodging of the tough questions about his ideology and record can't hide the fact that his views are way outside the mainstream. His failed memory about his own activities — from his membership in a reactionary group at Princeton to his failure to recuse himself from cases in which he had a financial interest — creates a vacuum on ethical issues that is unacceptable in an appointment of this importance.

Please join me in calling on Democratic Senators to stand up for the core principals of our party by opposing Alito's nomination. This is not my petition; it is ours, because all of us are threatened by this nomination. Sign our petition calling on Senate Democrats to stand together and block Alito's confirmation with every means at their disposal. We will share the results with Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/opposealito

What would it mean if Alito is confirmed to the Supreme Court? Alito is a conservative activist in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. If he replaces the moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, a consistent swing vote, the court would shift far to the right, endangering our liberties so deeply that it would affect the lives of every single American.

Here are just a few of the positions Alito has staked out that put our fundamental rights in danger.

Abuse of Power. President Bush is now engaging in surveillance of United States citizens that violates federal law. He could have asked Congress to change the law, but he didn't. That overt abuse of power demonstrates the importance of a Supreme Court committed to protecting our basic freedoms. But Alito has consistently expressed support for vesting tremendous power in the hands of the President, with few checks by Congress and the courts. In questioning, he responded that the courts were ill-equipped to determine the limits for interrogations or detentions that the administration or the military deems important for security or to balance the government's needs against basic constitutional protections. The implication that he would take a hands off approach whenever the administration says "national security" is in invitation for governmental abuse.

Eliminating the Right To Choose. When Alito applied to work at the Justice Department in 1985, he expressed his strong belief that, in his own words, "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." As a judge, he took a narrow view of Roe that the Supreme Court, and Justice O'Connor, explicitly rejected. In his hearing, Democratic Senators repeatedly pressed Alito to distance himself from the view he expressed in 1985. He didn't. Instead he focused on the undisputed doctrine of stare decisis, that is, giving weight to existing case law. In the absence of a repudiation of his unequivocal statement in 1985, I am not comforted much. His answers about abortion sounded a lot like Clarence Thomas's. It's clear that given the opportunity, Alito will vote to restrict — and probably eliminate — a woman's right to choose.

Conservative Judicial Activism. Judge Alito has a history of putting his conservative ideology over the rule of law. He has voted to invalidate important laws passed by Congress, including a ban on machine guns and the Family and Medical Leave Act. And he has consistently ruled against victims of discrimination in the workplace. In all these cases, he has proven more conservative than many of his Republican colleagues on the courts of appeals and even more conservative than Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in some cases.
Judge Alito has consistently sided with the most powerful interests, business or government, which concerns me greatly. But I am most concerned about his willingness to overlook executive abuse of power, which has been then hallmark of this administration. This is a judge who is way out of the mainstream, someone who disregards our fundamental rights and endangers our liberties. Join me today in urging Senate Democrats to stand together and use every means they have available to block this dangerous nomination.

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/opposealito

Sign this important petition today. Your support will make an enormous difference to our Democratic Senators as they stand together to fight Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Thank you for all that you do for our party,

John Edwards

Another Anony-Blogger Outed

The "Mayor Sam's Sister City" of the judicial world, Underneath Their Robes, has enchanted many with its dishy distribution of news, gossip and more about the Supereme Court and other parts of the Federal Judiciary. Friday, its author sent an email to his co-workers that he would be leaving his government job to take an unspecified position in Washington.

For some time, it was presumed that the anonymous author of the blog "Article Three Groupie," or A3G was a young, female attorney. Two out of three of those are correct.

A November article in New Yorker revealed the author of the blog (if not A3G her/himself) was David Lat, a 30 year old Assistant US Attorney in New Jersey (pictured above). Following the outing, the blog was taken down, but now it appears that Underneath Their Robes will continue.

In parsing his/her own outing, Lat/A3G seems to want to leave open the possibility that A3G is an actual person. "When I have something to report to A3G, I email her about it..."

Here at the Sister City, we have our own experience at being outed and are prime proof an anony-blog can go on when the writers remove the masks. Still, not sure if Brian and I ever intended to seriously entertain the option that Sam Yorty and Frank Shaw are actually alive and well and writing a blog.

We wish Underneath Their Robes the best of luck and look forward to more of their great work.

SPECIAL ELECTION PROCLAMATION

Mayor Frank happens to live in SD 35 and have been living in electoral hell with one special election after another due to the appointment of Chris Cox to the SEC, the subsequent CD race to replace him, Arnold's Special Election, and now the SD race to replace John Campbell. So, with that being said, I bring you the latest chapter in my saga...

SPECIAL ELECTION PROCLAMATION
BY THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I, ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor of the State of California, do hereby proclaim and order that a special election shall be held on the 6th day of June, 2006 within the 50th Congressional District of the State to fill the vacancy in the office of Member of Congress from said district arising from the resignation of office by Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

I also hereby proclaim and order that a special election shall be held on the 6th day of June, 2006 within the 35th Senate District of the State to fill the vacancy in the office of California State Senator from said district arising from the resignation of office by John Campbell.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have here unto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this the fifteenth day of December 2005.

/s/ Arnold Schwarzenegger

Governor of California

Let Arnold Do His Thing

Rusty Hammer, writing in the Business Perspective on the LA Chamber of Commerce's website makes an excellent case why the business community should support Governor Schwarzenegger's choice of Lesbian Democrat Susan Kennedy as his new Chief of Staff. Hammer notes her past experience on the California Public Utilities Commission and her ability to help the Governor bridge partisan waters in Sacramento as being ultimately good for business. We agree. Still, the blue-hair, gay chasing, caveman sect of Republicans is up in arms over the appointment and seemingly unwilling to support the Governor's move. The California Republican Assembly (CRA), better known as the Taliban wing of the GOP in the Golden State, has gone to the extreme to call on the state party to reconsider its endorsement of Arnold in the 2006 GOP Primary. Please.

Arnold's the best thing to happen to our party in years. Do they want to blow it now? Sure lets yet again put up another Bill Jones-Bill Simon whatever and hand the Governor's seat to Phil Angelides. And while you're at it, lets give Cruz Bustamante a blank check at the buffet. Cause that's what will happen without Arnold. The Republican's only chance to succeed in California is to go back to the party's roots of smaller government, less taxes, personal freedom & responsibility and a strong national defense. Can we forgot about the gay marriage and stem cell crap?

Eugene McCarthy, 89

WASHINGTON (AP) - Former Minnesota Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy, whose insurgent campaign toppled a sitting president in 1968 and forced the Democratic Party to take seriously his message against the Vietnam War, died Saturday. He was 89.

McCarthy died in his sleep at assisted living home in the Georgetown neighborhood where he had lived for the past few years, said his son, Michael.

Minuteman Loss Or Victory?

by Walter Moore

Minuteman Jim Gilchrist will not be rushing to catch a plane to Washington, D.C., today, to start serving as Orange County's newest Congressman. You can, however, nonetheless conclude that Gilchrist won a huge victory -- even if you don't smoke crack.

Gilchrist scored a victory by moving us much closer to the day when a majority of voters have the guts to vote for the best candidate, rather than settling for the proverbial "lesser of two evils." Unfortunately, voters consistently outsmart themselves by voting for candidates they hate. They vote for the less horrible of the two "front-runners," thereby reinforcing the self-fulfilling prophesy that an independent can't possibly win. This vicious cycle encourages the two main political parties to take their members for granted, and discourages anyone but party hacks from running for office. Thanks to Jim Gilchrist, however, we may actually live to see the day where a majority of people in a California election are "stupid" enough to "throw away" their votes by voting for the best candidate.

Consider the numbers. Gilchrist got 25% of the vote (i.e., 23,237 votes), even though his American Independent party constitutes just 2% of the registered voters in his district. So where did he get the rest? Assuming that voter turn-out was essentially the same regardless of party affiliation, the answer is as follows:

Republicans provided 5.3% of Gilchrist's 25%: the Republican candidate got just 44.7% of the vote, even though the party constitutes 50% of the registered voters. In other words, over 10% of the Republicans voting were willing to cross party lines to vote for the candidate they deemed best. Independents provided the remaining 17.7% of Gilchrist's 25%; they constitute 19.1% of the district's registered voters. Democrats, however, did Gilchrist no favors: they constitute 27.1% of the registered voters, and their candidate got 27.96% of the vote -- not much more than Gilchrist.

So what should you make of the numbers?

Well, if you're pessimistic, you can say they prove that only candidates from the two major parties can win. But when is the last time you heard of a third-party candidate getting 25% of the vote in a California election? That's huge. That 25% may encourage, say, another 10% in the next election to vote for the best candidate, rather than the lesser of two evils. Think "snowball effect:" 25% turns into 35% , which emboldens another 10%, and, after a few elections, you could get over 50% of the people actually voting for the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. You never know till you try. And there will be plenty of opportunities, because there's an election in California every 73 days or so.

The Minuteman did his part. He fought the battle hard, captured some serious political real estate, and survived to fight again. The American Revolution wasn't won in a single battle. And the odds were overwhelmingly against us. Plus, we didn't have snazzy uniforms like the Brits. But we won anyway. Let's remember that when the next election rolls around, and the one after that.

It's A Christmas Tree

Speaker of the House Denny Hastert is standing firm and urging that the Christmas tree in front of the US Capitol be called, well, a Christmas tree.

That's what it is right?

"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," said Hastert.

In the last few years, bureaucrats at the Capitol building started calling the tree a "holiday tree." What the hell is a holiday tree? What holiday?

Its like calling a menorah a "seasonal candleabra. " Very silly.

Go Denny Hastert!

BOB WOODWARD DEFENDS HIS SOURCES: VIDEO DEBATE

Full Disclosure unleashes it's newest video entitled "BOB WOODWARD DEFENDS HIS SOURCES: VIDEO DEBATE." In the new video blog featuring Bob Woodward and Ed Meese, the two debate the use of unnamed sources.

Enjoy the video!

Ben Franklin & The True Story of Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving has not always been a but-gusting, stuffing eating soiree of football and food. In the early days, our forefathers sought to appease God and highlight the suffering of early colonial life by fasting and being miserable.

Ben Franklin comes along years later and tells the story of how one farmer stood out from among the orthdoxy of the day and suggested we celebrate the blessings and bounty we have through a joyous feast.

Mrs. Cubbison, the Butterball folks and the planners of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade remain forever grateful.

The Real Story of the First Thanksgiving
By Benjamin Franklin (1785)

“There is a tradition that in the planting of New England, the first settlers met with many difficulties and hardships, as is generally the case when a civiliz’d people attempt to establish themselves in a wilderness country. Being so piously dispos’d, they sought relief from heaven by laying their wants and distresses before the Lord in frequent set days of fasting and prayer. Constant meditation and discourse on these subjects kept their minds gloomy and discontented, and like the children of Israel there were many dispos’d to return to the Egypt which persecution had induc’d them to abandon.

“At length, when it was proposed in the Assembly to proclaim another fast, a farmer of plain sense rose and remark’d that the inconveniences they suffer’d, and concerning which they had so often weary’d heaven with their complaints, were not so great as they might have expected, and were diminishing every day as the colony strengthen’d; that the earth began to reward their labour and furnish liberally for their subsistence; that their seas and rivers were full of fish, the air sweet, the climate healthy, and above all, they were in the full enjoyment of liberty, civil and religious.

“He therefore thought that reflecting and conversing on these subjects would be more comfortable and lead more to make them contented with their situation; and that it would be more becoming the gratitude they ow’d to the divine being, if instead of a fast they should proclaim a thanksgiving. His advice was taken, and from that day to this, they have in every year observ’d circumstances of public felicity sufficient to furnish employment for a Thanksgiving Day, which is therefore constantly ordered and religiously observed.”

---

Ben Franklin wanted the turkey, not the bald eagle to be our national symbol. Read why in Ben's own words at MS2.

Races Called, Arnold's Measures Mostly Failing

Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure, Proposition 77 appears to be losing with 43% of the vote in, going down 57% to 43%.

Another measure supported by the Governor, Proposition 76 which sought to reduce the rate of state spending is also likely to be defeated, 60% to 40%.

Two other Schwarzenegger measures, Prop 74 which extends the probationary period for public school teachers and Prop 75 which would restrict the use of union member dues for political activities are currently too close to call.

In other measures on the ballot not directly tied to Schwarzenegger's reform measures - competing prescription drug plans 78 and 79 are also going down to defeat, and we've already called Proposition 80 - a measure dealing with electric service providers - as losing.

A measure to restrict abortion by minors without parental consent, Proposition 73, is also too close to call.

Bloomberg Re-Elected

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Republican New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was re-elected to a second term by a large margin on Tuesday after what is believed to be the most costly race in the city's history.

With some 95 percent of the votes counted, Bloomberg had 58 percent and Democratic challenger Fernando Ferrer trailed with 39 percent, according to unofficial election results.

Polls have shown New Yorkers giving Bloomberg, a political novice when he first ran four years ago, high marks for leading the city in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, steering the economy and keeping New York alert to security threats.

Proposition 80 Fails

Here at Sam Yorty's America, we're calling Proposition 80 as having failed to pass. With 27% of the vote in statewide, its currently losing 65% to 35%.

The measure would, among other things, restrict consumers' ability to switch power providers. Prop 80 was supported by consumer groups such as the Utility Reform Network and opposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and the energy industry.

Statewide Numbers on the Props

CA Secretary of State - Statewide Special - State Ballot Measures - Statewide

The Propositions

Once the polls close at 8:00 p.m., we'll be live blogging information here regarding the state ballot measures here. Feel free to add your own comments.

Proposition 73. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)

Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated, pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on the minor?

Proposition 74. Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal -- State of California (Initiative Statute)

Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?

Proposition 75. Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement -- State of California (Initiative Statute)

Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity?

Proposition 76. State Spending and School Funding Limits -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)

Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?

Proposition 77. Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)

Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California's State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?

Proposition 78. Discounts on Prescription Drugs -- State of California (Initiative Statute)

Should the state adopt a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Californians at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level?

Proposition 79. Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates -- State of California (Initiative Statute)

Should the state of California create a new prescription drug discount program for residents at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and change state law to make it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs?

Proposition 80. Electric Service Providers. Regulation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)

Should the state expand its regulation of the electric industry?

Tune Into Mayor Sam For Election Coverage

Tuesday, November 8th is election day and here at the Mayor Sam Network, we'll be covering all the angles.

Starting tomorrow evening, we'll be live blogging election news and information on all three of our sites.

For information, news and commentary relating to the Council races in CD10 and CD14, LAUSD's Proposition Y bond measure, and other local races throughout LA County, tune into the Sister City at http://mayorsam.blogspot.com.

We'll live blog the results and news surrounding Governor Schwarzenegger's special election and the state ballot measures over at Sam Yorty's America at http://samyortysamerica.blogspot.com.

And for stats, results of select races, hotlinks, graphics, photos and more, browse on over to MS2 at http://mayorsam2.blogspot.com.

Please do feel free to forward any tips, news, gossip, and other items to us. If you have a camera phone and want to send us pictures, we'll take those too. Be a roving correspondent for Mayor Sam! Email all items to mayorsamyorty@aol.com.

Clinton Still Trying To Score With Young Chicks In DC?

Dubya wants the dad for the Supreme Court, Bubba has his eye (or hand?) on the daughter.


The Alito Family in the Capitol following the nomination of patriarch Samuel to the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor.

Alito Nomination: Liberal Activist Full Employment Act

President Bush has nominated a red meat conservative to the Superme Court (and one who at least has been a judge and been one for more than a couple of weeks). Let the liberal cash machine go into high gear!

All the usual suspects are shouting out and are ready for more of Babs' checks. Miers was a big wet blanket for the leftists, this guy is a very early Christmas present to the left wing special interest groups looking to balance their books before the year end.

Expect a fight and neither side to give up easy. My prediction is however that barring some proof that Alito has been found with a "dead girl or a live boy" or he's a registered Nazi, he will be confirmed.

It's Alito

President Bush has nominated conservative judge Samuel Alito to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Who Set Him Up This Time?

Former Washington, D.C. Mayor and current Councilman Marion Barry has once again run into trouble with the law. On Friday, he plead guilty Friday to two misdemeanor counts stemming from his failure to file tax returns in 2000.

Barry served four terms as mayor. In his third term, he was videotaped in 1990 in a hotel room smoking crack cocaine in an FBI sting. You might remember Barry's eloquent description of the woman seen in the videotape with him in the room, "The goddamn bitch set me up!" The following year, he served a six-month prison sentence.

Amazingly, in 1994, he regained the mayor's office for another four-year term. Voters then sent him to a Council seat last year.

What's the problem with Washington, D.C. voters that they keep re-electing this loser? Are they blind or do they just not care?