Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
One year ago I wrote about my experience becoming an American citizen. Yesterday, I celebrated my first anniversary as an American. When I became a citizen, I felt that I now "belonged." I felt that I had made a commitment to this country. I felt that I had a responsibility to be a participant in the political process and an active member of my community.
Phelps is in the news today because a Maryland family brought a lawsuit against Phelps, seeking damages for Phelps' actions at their son's funeral, and the U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear the case's appeal. By doing so, they open up the door to refining what is and what is not acceptable speech allowed under the First Amendment to the Constitution. While the Supreme Court may instead rule much more narrowly (on the case itself, without addressing the free speech issue), the question is worth discussing: should what Phelps does be legal?
The first privacy issue comes from an interesting story earlier this week about how some states are considering banning the release of recorded 911 emergency calls to the public (or -- more to the point -- to the press). This is an interesting First Amendment hair to split, because a reasonable case can be made both ways.
Because we celebrate the birthday of George Washington today, I offer up for your reading pleasure the briefest of his speeches. This, in its entirety, was Washington's second inaugural address -- which set a brevity record that has never been touched since. In this spirit (and in the spirit of taking today as a holiday), this will constitute the entirety of today's column, as well. In his own words, here is President George Washington:
But what really worries me about the new rules for corporations and unions is what could happen out of sight of the voting public. I can foresee two ways for such invisible influence to happen, although there may be others I have not thought of as well, I admit.
Welcome back to my annual outright theft of The McLaughlin Group's awards categories for the past year in politics. What's that? We're sorry, but out lawyers insist we instead use the phrase "my annual legally-allowable constitutionally-protected parody" instead. So sorry. For those of you who missed it, Part 1 of this column ran last week, on Christmas.
These days, it takes 60 votes to do just about anything in the United States Senate. That is a fact that galls many, especially since it is a fairly recent development. While the filibuster (or, the more polite modern version, cloture) has been around for a long time, it simply has not been used as such a blunt instrument before in the fashion Republicans are now swinging it around. Which has led to calls to either abolish the filibuster, or scale it back in some way. But proponents of such action should really think long and hard before they do. Because, eventually, the shoe's going to be on the other foot for Democrats in the Senate. This is something which usually gets lost in this debate, or brushed off when mentioned. It really shouldn't, though.
I know I'm supposed to be writing about Afghanistan today, in advance of President Obama's speech tonight, but I am still waiting to hear what the man has to say before analyzing it, so you'll just have to join me as I wait and see.
This column is really a second installment to yesterday's ("How To Not Give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed What He Wants"), where I took a look at two of the criticism's against Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to try the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in federal civilian court rather than in a military tribunal.
Attorney General Eric Holder has caused an uproar in some circles over his announcement that the self-confessed "mastermind" of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City, mere blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood. To be honest, I was surprised this was even controversial, for a number of reasons most people (on either side of the issue) have largely ignored. Today I will examine two of these, and tomorrow I will take on the biggest elephant everyone seems to be missing in this particular room.