We keep stumbling towards reaching the ideals of the Constitution, sometimes slipping back and sometimes not making any progress. Even though a draft does not exist today to be protested against, it is a comforting thought that nobody arrested this weekend was arrested for what they were saying. And I do not fear in the slightest that I will be hauled into court for blogging on this subject. So we have made some small progress, Guantanamo and warrantless wiretapping notwithstanding.

So celebrate Constitution Day with me by reviewing the First Amendment. Someday we'll actually achieve the ideal it enshrines.

Read Complete Article »

This upcoming week is going to be perhaps the most important week of the 110th Congress. General Petraeus will give his report, Ambassador Crocker will likewise report; and the debate on what to do next in Iraq will begin in earnest.

So why are Democrats seemingly admitting defeat -- before the argument has even begun? Why are you essentially taking what should be a position of strength, and (by buying into the White House's spin) turning it into a position of weakness? Do you really think this is the best way to end the Iraq war, or (for that matter) the best way to convince voters to vote for Democrats in 2008?

Read Complete Article »

. . . Starting with the good news, the ACLU has won a legal victory (again) with a ruling by a judge who has actually read the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution. The ruling bans the federal government from issuing "National Security Letters" (NSLs) which are, in essence, a power usually reserved for royalty (I've actually written about this many times in the past). The FBI issued NSLs to avoid the pesky process of actually getting a warrant before searching or seizing evidence. The judge threw this mockery of the Constitution on the ashheap of history. Of course, the Bush Administration will probably appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, so stay tuned.

Read Complete Article »

. . . The military, meanwhile, is apparently beginning to plan for a withdrawal from Iraq. Yes, that's right -- beginning to plan. From the AP article: "The military has not yet developed a plan for a substantial withdrawal of forces next year."

Hmm... that's strange, considering Hillary Clinton's war of letters with the Pentagon not too long ago. She politely asked, you will recall, to see the Pentagon's withdrawal plans for Iraq. The Pentagon responded that she was aiding the enemy by even asking for such a thing. Then the new Secretary of Defense apologized to her and told her that of course the Pentagon had plans for withdrawal, since they plan for every contingency (ignoring the fact that we're still stuck in Iraq precisely because they failed to plan for such a contingency as an insurgency).

But now the Pentagon admits that they haven't yet developed a plan for withdrawal? So which is it? And did the Secretary of Defense lie to Senator Clinton?

Read Complete Article »

There are a number of other cases pending which also deal with dissenting opinions being expressed at presidential appearances, and the fact that the Bush Administration has settled one of these for $80,000 is certainly good news for these cases, and for the First Amendment. I have written before about the ACLU's evidence in one of these cases, a heavily-redacted copy of the "Presidential Advance Manual," which shows a clear White House policy of unconstitutional disdain for such opposing viewpoints.

Read Complete Article »