Posts Tagged ‘constitution’

Why are we subverting the Constitution in the name of security?

Sourced from washingtonpost.com

by THOMAS DRAKE  •  AUG. 25, 2011

The Justice Department’s high-profile Espionage Act case against me collapsed on July 15, with all 10 felony charges dropped, when I was sentenced to community service after entering into a plea agreement for a minor misdemeanor. During the sentencing hearing, the judge clearly set the tone for holding the executive branch of our government accountable. He expounded on the judicial branch’s role as final arbiter of the law, while noting that the basis for the American Revolution was British tyranny in the colonial era.

Over more than a year, my case became a disturbing illustration of “off the books,” irresponsible government behavior that is increasingly alien to the Constitution. The government’s penchant since Sept. 11, 2001, for operating in secrecy and hiding behind an executive branch “state secrets” doctrine has damaged our long-term national security and national character. It has, by sacrificing Americans’ general welfare and civil liberties, given rise to a persistent military-industrial-intelligence­con­gressional surveillance complex.

From 2001 through 2008, I was a senior executive at the National Security Agency. Shortly after Sept. 11, I heard more than rumblings about secret electronic eavesdropping and data mining against Americans that bypassed the Fourth Amendment and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the exclusive means in the law for conducting such activity, with severe criminal sanctions when violated. Such shortcuts were not necessary. Lawful alternatives — using the best of Americans’ ingenuity and innovation — existed that would have also vastly improved our intelligence capability against legitimate threats. A highly innovative intelligence data collection, processing and analysis system called ThinThread was operationally ready and had built-in safeguards to comply with the Fourth Amendment. But this revolutionary system was rejected by the NSA while much higher-cost work on the multibillion-dollar flagship Trailblazer program proceeded.

Continue reading »

Tea Party Edits Founders to Suit Its Own Agenda

Sourced from Center for American Progress

Ian Millhiser’s op-ed on the U.S. Constitution: The Tea Party’s Fake Constitution

Date published: 2/27/2011

Spend a week listening to the right, and you’ll think the Founders were all modern-day Tea Partyers. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) thinks the Constitution forbids Pell Grants and federal student loans. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) thinks Social Security and Medicare are forbidden. Justice Clarence Thomas thinks that the minimum wage, child labor laws, and the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters all violate the Constitution. And everyone on the right thinks that health reform is unconstitutional.

It’s enough to make you think they’re just making it up as they go along. It clearly can’t be the case that every single law disfavored by conservatives just happens to be unconstitutional.

The answer, of course, is that the Constitution doesn’t belong to any political ideology. The only way to achieve the right’s goal of remaking our founding document into a Tea Party manifesto is to remove entire passages from the Constitution, to rewrite others, and to flat out ignore the fact that the document has been amended 27 times–often in ways specifically intended to ensure that national leaders are fully empowered to solve national problems.

The most prominent example of this effort to rewrite the Constitution is the ubiquitous lawsuits challenging the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that almost all Americans either carry insurance or pay slightly more in income taxes. Judges Henry E. Hudson of Virginia and Roger Vinson of Florida, the two conservative judges who struck down this requirement, literally wrote an entire provision of the Constitution out of the document. The Constitution does not simply give Congress sweeping authority to regulate the national economy. It gives Congress–in conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s words–”every power needed to make that regulation effective.”

PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS

This is why the Affordable Care Act easily survives constitutional scrutiny. Its provision eliminating one of the insurance industry’s most abusive practices–denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions–cannot function if patients are free to enter and exit the insurance market at will. Patients who can wait until they get sick to buy insurance will drain all the money out of an insurance plan that they have not previously paid into, leaving nothing left for the rest of the plan’s consumers.

Nor is this fear just idle conjecture. Seven states enacted a pre-existing-conditions law without also passing an insurance coverage requirement, and all seven states saw their health-insurance premiums spiral out of control. In some of these states, the individual insurance market collapsed, leaving many people without any insurance options whatsoever. Massachusetts, by contrast, enacted a law that is nearly identical to one President Obama signed last year, and the results were striking and immediate. Massachusetts’ premiums rapidly dropped by 40 percent.

And Hudson and Vinson’s effort to remove a key provision from the Constitution is only the tip of a much larger spear pointed directly at the hearts of American workers, children, and retirees. If conservatives succeed in replacing the Constitution with their own narrow vision, dozens of cherished accomplishments will simply cease to exist overnight.

The Tea Party draws its inspiration from a brief, 50-year period in the late-19th and early-20th centuries when the Supreme Court declared that our national leaders’ power must be small enough that it can be drowned in a bathtub. Child labor laws were tossed out as an affront to the 10th Amendment. Basic federal protections for adult workers were deemed beyond the nation’s power. A single company obtained a stranglehold on the nation’s sugar market, but the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional to make this company follow antitrust laws.

If America were ever to return to this abomination of the Constitution, the results would be felt by nearly every American. All federal laws protecting workers’ right to organize, or to be free from discrimination, or to seek equal pay for equal work, would disappear. Hundreds of basic laws ensuring corporate responsibility would also vanish. Even whites-only lunch counters would cease to be illegal.

Despite the fact that the Constitution gives national leaders a broad power to raise money and to “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” the Tea Party’s constitution imposes secret and unwritten limits on how the United States can spend money. Health-care programs, such as Medicare or Medicaid, are both off the table. Education is not allowed, so no Pell Grants or federal student loans. Forget about retirement programs like Social Security. Sen. Lee has even claimed that it was unconstitutional to provide relief to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

IGNORING THE PAST

What’s so fundamentally dangerous about all these claims–from the lawsuits challenging health reform to the assaults on Social Security, Medicare, and child-labor laws–is that they ignore the very reason why America forbids the exploitation of children and ensures that the elderly do not wallow in poverty.

No king declared that whites-only lunch counters are hereby forbidden. Nor did some Stalinist dictator decree that Americans should not be laid low by preventable diseases. Rather, America provides a safe and respectful workplace, a dignified retirement, and–soon–affordable health care for all because these decisions reflect our fundamental values. Democratically elected leaders gave us Social Security, child labor laws, and the Affordable Care Act, and the right is wrong to believe that our Constitution must be rewritten to eliminate these programs by fiat.

The far right has to understand that Americans will not stand for an agenda that would kill all of the progress of the last century–which is why their fake constitution is ultimately an authoritarian assault on democracy itself. Tea Party radicals are unlikely to succeed in repealing Social Security, Pell Grants, or the Affordable Care Act. But if they can get them all declared unconstitutional, they won’t have to.

This article was originally published in Fredericksburg.com.

Exposing the Republicans’ 3-Part Strategy to Tear the Middle Class Apart

by Robert B. Reich

Exposing the Republicans’ 3-Part Strategy to Tear the Middle Class Apart — Let’s Stop Them in Wisconsin

The Republican strategy is to split the vast middle and working class – pitting unionized workers against non-unionized, public-sector workers against non-public, older workers within sight of Medicare and Social Security against younger workers who don’t believe these programs will be there for them, and the poor against the working middle class.

By splitting working America along these lines, Republicans want Americans to believe that we can no longer afford to do what we need to do as a nation. They hope to deflect attention from the increasing share of total income and wealth going to the richest 1 percent while the jobs and wages of everyone else languish.

Republicans would rather no one notice their campaign to shrink the pie even further with additional tax cuts for the rich – making the Bush tax cuts permanent, further reducing the estate tax, and allowing the wealthy to shift ever more of their income into capital gains taxed at 15 percent.

The strategy has three parts:

1. The Battle over the Federal Budget

The first is being played out in the budget battle in Washington. As they raise the alarm over deficit spending and simultaneously squeeze popular middle-class programs, Republicans want the majority of the American public to view it all as a giant zero-sum game among average Americans that some will have to lose.

The President has already fallen into the trap by calling for budget cuts in programs the poor and working class depend on – assistance with home heating, community services, college loans, and the like.

In the coming showdown over Medicare and Social Security, House budget chair Paul Ryan will push a voucher system for Medicare and a partly-privatized plan for Social Security – both designed to attract younger middle-class voters.

2. The Assault on Public Employees

The second part of the Republican strategy is being played out on the state level where public employees are being blamed for state budget crises. Unions didn’t cause these budget crises — state revenues dropped because of the Great Recession — but Republicans view them as opportunities to gut public employee unions, starting with teachers.

Wisconsin’s Republican governor Scott Walker and his GOP legislature are seeking to end almost all union rights for teachers. Ohio’s Republican governor John Kasich is pushing a similar plan in Ohio through a Republican-dominated legislature. New Jersey’s Republican governor Chris Christie is attempting the same, telling a conservative conference Wednesday, “I’m attacking the leadership of the union because they’re greedy, and they’re selfish and they’re self-interested.”

The demonizing of public employees is not only based on the lie that they’ve caused these budget crises, but it’s also premised on a second lie: that public employees earn more than private-sector workers. They don’t, when you take account of their education. In fact over the last fifteen years the pay of public-sector workers, including teachers, has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education – even including health and retirement benefits. Moreover, most public employees don’t have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year.

Bargaining rights for public employees haven’t caused state deficits to explode. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights, such as Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, are running big deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many states that give employees bargaining rights — Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana — have small deficits of less than 10 percent.

Republicans would rather go after teachers and other public employees than have us look at the pay of Wall Street traders, private-equity managers, and heads of hedge funds – many of whom wouldn’t have their jobs today were it not for the giant taxpayer-supported bailout, and most of whose lending and investing practices were the proximate cause of the Great Depression to begin with.

Last year, America’s top thirteen hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion each. One of them took home $5 billion. Much of their income is taxed as capital gains – at 15 percent – due to a tax loophole that Republican members of Congress have steadfastly guarded.

If the earnings of those thirteen hedge-fund managers were taxed as ordinary income, the revenues generated would pay the salaries and benefits of 300,000 teachers. Who is more valuable to our society – thirteen hedge-fund managers or 300,000 teachers? Let’s make the question even simpler. Who is more valuable: One hedge fund manager or one teacher?

3. The Distortion of the Constitution

The third part of the Republican strategy is being played out in the Supreme Court. It has politicized the Court more than at any time in recent memory.

Last year a majority of the justices determined that corporations have a right under the First Amendment to provide unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission is among the most patently political and legally grotesque decisions of our highest court – ranking right up there with Bush vs. Gore and Dred Scott.

Among those who voted in the affirmative were Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Both have become active strategists in the Republican party.

A month ago, for example, Antonin Scalia met in a closed-door session with Michele Bachman’s Tea Party caucus – something no justice concerned about maintaining the appearance of impartiality would ever have done.

Both Thomas and Scalia have participated in political retreats organized and hosted by multi-billionaire financier Charles Koch, a major contributor to the Tea Party and other conservative organizations, and a crusader for ending all limits on money in politics. (Not incidentally, Thomas’s wife is the founder of Liberty Central, a Tea Party organization that has been receiving unlimited corporate contributions due to the Citizens United decision. On his obligatory financial disclosure filings, Thomas has repeatedly failed to list her sources of income over the last twenty years, nor even to include his own four-day retreats courtesy of Charles Koch.)

Some time this year or next, the Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether the nation’s new healthcare law is constitutional. Watch your wallets.

The strategy as a whole

These three aspects of the Republican strategy – a federal budget battle to shrink government, focused on programs the vast middle class depends on; state efforts to undermine public employees, whom the middle class depends on; and a Supreme Court dedicated to bending the Constitution to enlarge and entrench the political power of the wealthy – fit perfectly together.

They pit average working Americans against one another, distract attention from the almost unprecedented concentration of wealth and power at the top, and conceal Republican plans to further enlarge and entrench that wealth and power.

What is the Democratic strategy to counter this and reclaim America for the rest of us?

Robert B. Reich has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. He also served on President Obama’s transition advisory board. His latest book is Supercapitalism.

Progressive Dissent Is In The Fbi’s Crosshairs

AlterNet.com

Lydia Howell / Catalyst

After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes across the nation, it appears that free speech depends on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.

October 6, 2010 |

Is free speech worth the constitutional paper it’s written on?

After the September 26 FBI raids on peace activists’ homes in Minneapolis, Chicago and North Carolina, it appears to depend on who’s speaking and what they’re saying.

The pretext for the raids was investigating “material aide to terrorists”, resulting in grand jury subpoenas and confiscation of computers, books, music CDs and from one home, a Martin Luther King poster. The targeted Minneapolis activists have openly protested US military policy since the 1980s. The FBI certainly knows they have nothing to do with terrorism. These activists simply have the audacity to challenge bi-partisan US invasions, occupations and support for dictatorships and human rights abusers. Dissent on the left has long been seen as ‘criminal behavior’. Where once “the communist threat” was the argument for such repression, now, “terrorism” is.

When it comes to war, US government sees three roles for the American people: 1. Pay hundreds of billions for the largest military on Earth 2. Kill and possibly die or be maimed for US military and corporate dominance of other countries 3. Cheerlead war. The US government — bought and paid for by weapons-makers and mercenaries (‘contractors’) — does not think that We The People have the right to even question, much less challenge and resist permanent war, which is bankrupting our country and civilian deaths ignite more violence.

Continue reading »

10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics

YES! Magazine / By Fran Korten

COMMENTS: 17

It’s not too late to limit or reverse the impact of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Here’s how.

January 28, 2010 |

storyimages_picture12_1264806561_310x207-p5zfqfbwumts.jpg

The recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited corporate spending in politics just may be the straw that breaks the plutocracy’s back.

Pro-democracy groups, business leaders, and elected representatives are proposing mechanisms to prevent or counter the millions of dollars that corporations can now draw from their treasuries to push for government action favorable to their bottom line. The outrage ignited by the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission extends to President Obama, who has promised that repairing the damage will be a priority for his administration.

But what can be done to limit or reverse the effect of the Court’s decision? Here are 10 ideas:

  1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of human beings. Since the First Amendment case for corporate spending as a free speech right rests on corporations being considered “persons,” the proposed amendment would strike at the core of the ruling’s justification. The push for the 28th Amendment is coming from the grassroots, where a prairie fire is catching on from groups such as Public Citizen, Voter Action, and the Campaign to Legalize Democracy.
  2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations. Public Citizen and the Brennan Center for Justice are among the groups advocating this measure, and some members of Congress appear interested. Britain has required such shareholder approval since 2000.
  3. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which provides federal financing for Congressional elections. This measure has the backing of organizations representing millions of Americans, including Moveon.org, the NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, and the League of Young Voters. Interestingly, the heads of a number of major corporations have also signed on, including those of Ben & Jerry’s, Hasbro, Crate & Barrel, and the former head of Delta Airlines.
  4. Give qualified candidates equal amounts of free broadcast air time for political messages. This would limit the advantages of paid advertisements in reaching the public through television where most political spending goes.
  5. Ban political advertising by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists, or collect most of their revenue abroad. A fear that many observers have noted is that the Court’s ruling will allow foreign corporations to influence U.S. elections. According to The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) are exploring this option.
  6. Impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) proposes this, calling it “The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act.”
  7. Prohibit companies from trading their stock on national exchanges if they make political contributions and expenditures. Another one from Grayson, which he calls “The Public Company Responsibility Act.”
  8. Require publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products. Grayson calls this “The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act.”
  9. Require the corporate CEO to appear as sponsor of commercials that his or her company pays for, another possibility from the Schumer-Van Hollen team, according to The New York Times
  10. Publicize the reform options, inform the public of who is making contributions to whom, and activate the citizenry. If we are to safeguard our democracy, media must inform and citizens must act.

The measures listed above—and others that seek to reverse the dominance of money in our political system—will not be easy. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high. History shows that when the public is sufficiently aroused, actions that once seemed impossible can, in hindsight, seem inevitable.

Fran Korten wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Fran is publisher of YES! Magazine.

In The Public Interest: Restoring the Constitution

Published on AfterDowningStreet.org (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org)

By Chip

Created 2008-11-15 06:38

In The Public Interest: Restoring the Constitution [1]
by Ralph Nader | In the Public Interest [2]

impeachmentadmissionticket0115200911152008.jpg

Barack Obama is receiving lots of advice from many people these days about the collapse of Wall Street, the sinking economy and the quagmire wars he will inherit from the Bush regime. However, there is one important matter that he alone can address with his legal training and the sworn oath he will take on January 20 to uphold the Constitution. That phenomenon is the systemic, chronic lawlessness and criminality of the Bush/Cheney regime which he must unravel and stop.

To handle this immense responsibility as President, he needs to bring together a volunteer task force of very knowledgeable persons plus wise, retired civil servants to inventory the outlaw workings of this rogue regime. Continue reading »

Palin Claims Vice President ‘In Charge of the U.S. Senate’

Posted by Ryan Powers, Think Progress at 12:03 PM on October 21, 2008.

Governor, there’s this great document called the Constitution that you should really take a look at.

Steve Benen Washington Monthly

 

Yesterday, Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) sat for an interview with KUSA, an NBC affiliate in Colorado. In response to a question sent to the network by a third grader at a local elementary school about what the Vice President does, Palin erroneously argued that the Vice President is “in charge of the United States Senate“:

Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, “What does the Vice President do?”

PALIN: That’s something that Piper would ask me! … [T]hey’re in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom.

Watch it:

Continue reading »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.