Category: Politics

Is Bush Violating The Constitution?

A group of American Bar Association lawyers are arguing that President Bush’s use of executive signing statements constitutes a violation of the principle of separation of powers. The Volokh Conspiracy has an example of such a statement in regards to the PATRIOT Act.

Ramesh Ponnuru had some intelligent observations on signining statements in The Corner. I agree with him on the fourth point: if Bush believed that the text of a piece of legislation was blatantly unconstitutional, he should veto the bill. That is where the Founders gave the Executive the ability to shape legislation. The President does have the right to argue that the Executive Branch must carry out the requirements of a piece of legislation in a certain way, but he has no right to argue that a piece of legislation does not apply at all. Some of the President’s signing statements clearly fall under Ponnuru’s fourth category.

As Justice Stevens wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (which struck down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996):

Something that might be known as “Public Law 105—33 as modified by the President” may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may “become a law” pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution.

If there is to be a new procedure in which the President will play a different role in determining the final text of what may “become a law,” such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.

The same basic principle applies here. If the President is doing more than interpreting the statutory requirements of a piece of legislation in the absence of clear direction, he’s violating the Constitution. The President is the head of a unitary Executive Branch as defined in Article II, §1. However, the President’s defense mechanism for preserving and protecting Executive power isn’t contained in signing statements which alter the substance of legislation: they’re found in the President’s veto power and if necessary ajudication by the Supreme Court.

I agree that some of the rules passed by Congress were encroachments on the Executive mandate as Commander in Chief and were harmful to the security of the United States and its citizens. However, the President does not have the right to alter the substance of legislation short of a Constitutional amendment granting him such powers. His sole power to alter legislation is through the use of his Article I, §7 veto powers. President Bush’s use of signing statements may cross that line, in which case those statements are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

However, the use of signing statements themselves are not inherently unconstitutional – and there are precedents for the President to essentially ignore acts of Congress – however, I agree with Jefferson when he wrote that:

[the President’s veto power] is the shield provided by the constitution to protect against the invasions of the legislature [of] 1. the rights of the Executive 2. of the Judiciary 3. of the states and state legislatures.

President Bush has vetoed one bill in his entire term of office. He has signed several bills which he has argued are blatantly unconstitution, such as McCain-Feingold. If the President does not wish to exercise his veto power, then he has to live with the legislation he signs.

UPDATE: Ed Whelan strongly argues against the ABA’s position on signing statements. I agree with him that some of the ABA’s arguments reach to rhetorical excess, but when is it Constitutionally acceptable for the Executive to take an action which directly alters the intent of legislation? We conservatives get rightfully upset when the Judiciary tries to impose their will through the “interpretation” legislation – why should it be any different for the Executive?

The job of the President is to veto unconstitutional legislation. That is the Executive’s recourse to badly-crafted or unconstitutional legislation from Congress. President Bush has tried to make an end-run around the process to avoid making politically risky stands on key issues. Even if the President happens to be right, it’s still not the correct way of going about things.

Now That He’s Broken The Seal…

President Bush has issued his first Presidential veto, vetoing a bill designed to loosen restrictions on stem cell research. While this veto is probably a political loser for Bush (despite the fact that other nations have similar restrictions), perhaps Bush will finally be willing to veto the torrent of pork added into unrelated bills and start get serious about cutting the size of government.

Then again, I haven’t seen any aviating porcines about, so I’m guessing that won’t be happening any time soon…

The GOP Loves Rudy?

Gallup has an interesting poll of Republicans regarding potential 2008 candidates. At the top of the list is Rudy Giuliani with 78% approval. John McCain has a rather large disapproval among Republicans, with 4 in 10 saying that they would not vote for him.

I think that Rudy’s liabilities haven’t really come out, but this does make clear that the Giuliani groundswell that’s appeared among Republicans is real. Despite Rudy’s prior positions on key issues, if Giuliani starts showing his conservative credentials on the issues, he has a good chance of winning the GOP nomination. Giuliani has excellent policy chops, is incredibly engaging on the stump, and can credibly reach out to independents and even Democrats. His biggest challenge will be getting the nomination, but the influence of the religious right on Republican politics is consistantly overrated. John McCain has done far more to alienate the Republican Party because of his unconstitutional stance on political speech than any of Giuliani’s personal foibles.

I still think Rudy will run, and I still think he’ll win. There is no Democrat who would have a chance of beating him, and when it comes right down to it, politics is all about winning. Unless Giuliani does something incredibly stupid, there’s no reason why he can’t make a strong enough appeal to Republican voters to win. All he has to do is state that he will keep the nation strong, keep taxes low, secure the borders, and nominate judges who will follow the Constitution and he will have no problem with the Republican base.

Granted, everything can and will change before the 2008 campaign season rolls around, but if I were handicapping this race right now, I’d give Rudy the front-runner status.

The Worst Poll In The Country

Captain Ed notes that once again the Star-Tribune‘s Minnesota poll might as well be a DNC propaganda piece. The Minnesota Poll is consistantly one of the most singularly inaccurate polls in the country, and is a complete and utter waste of time. Every single time the methodology is completely and utterly flawed and the results are skewed so far towards the DFL that it’s ridiculous.

The Minnesota Poll exists solely to be a political tool for the DFL. It’s a partisan push poll, and the fact that it’s given the veneer of being anything else is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

Taking “Opposition Party” To Its Illogical Extreme

At The Weekly Standard, Matthew Continetti takes a look at the reason why Joe Lieberman is getting the Leon Trotsky treatment from the Democrats. As always, the reason has less to do with political sense and logic than it does with an Ahab-like fixation with George W. Bush:

The second, and more convincing, explanation for the furious assault against Lieberman in spite of his longstanding liberalism is that the assault actually has little to do with Lieberman. Its real target is George W. Bush. Each of Lieberman’s alleged errors comes from siding with positions that the Bush administration also has taken. Since the Iraq war is the major project of the Bush administration, and since Lieberman supports that project, it stands to reason that the Iraq war would dominate the primary. For the progressive bloggers, the actual content of Lamont’s positions on the issues is mostly irrelevant. What is most relevant is his willingness to oppose Bush and conservatives in general.

That is why the most popular campaign button among the Nedheads displays a photo of the moment when George W. Bush, after his 2005 State of the Union, embraced Lieberman and planted what appears to have been a kiss squarely on his cheek. It might as well have been a kiss of death, of the sort that Michael Corleone gives his treasonous brother Fredo in The Godfather, Part II. For Lamont supporters, the photo symbolizes all that is wrong with Lieberman’s approach to politics. One volunteer told me that, when it came to Lieberman, “It always seemed that every time he reached across the aisle, he was compromising our side’s principles.” Another said she supported Lamont because “I want to vote for a Democrat.”

In this view, ultimately a Democrat isn’t someone who is pro-choice and for progressive taxation–like Lieberman. A Democrat is someone who opposes Republicans. One can be conservative on some issues and still have friends among the lefty bloggers–witness Moulitsas’s support for former Reagan secretary of the Navy Jim Webb’s campaign to unseat Virginia Republican senator George Allen. All that is necessary is a burning desire to defeat Bush and the Republican agenda. Lamont has that desire. However, in his more than 30 years in politics, Lieberman has demonstrated he favors compromise when he deems it necessary.

Continetti’s point ends up being proven by Jonathan Chait in The Los Angeles Times who is a left-wing critic of the Ned Lamont campaign. At the same time, Chait is one of the first documented victims of Bush Derangement System, and it shows:

Those loony Democrats! But wait, is this really such a crazy view? Even though all but the loopiest Democrat would concede that Bin Laden is more evil than Bush, that doesn’t mean he’s a greater threat. Bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the mountains, has no weapons of mass destruction and apparently very limited numbers of followers capable of striking at the U.S.

Bush, on the other hand, has wreaked enormous damage on the political and social fabric of the country. He has massively mismanaged a major war, with catastrophic consequences; he has strained the fabric of American democracy with his claims of nearly unchecked power and morally corrupt Gilded Age policies. It’s quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more — if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can.

Basically, Chait’s argument boils down to “I’m not saying that Bush is worse than bin Laden, but Bush really is worse than bin Laden.” It’s a silly argument, and demonstrative of just how unhinged the Democrats are when it comes to separating pissant partisan politics from the job of actually governing. The Democrats hate George W. Bush. The term “hate” is, if anything, too small a word to define the absolute loathing that the Democrats have for our President. They hate him less for what he has actually done than who he is: the disrupter of the status quo. Bush, the erstwhile conservative, has been turned into their own personal Emmanuel Goldstein.

The netroots hate Joe Lieberman not because of his record – which is the record of a liberal, to be sure – but because he had the audacity to put country above party. As even Chait notes:

Lieberman recently declared, “I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party.” Markos Moulitsas, the lefty blogger from Daily Kos who has appeared in a Lamont commercial and has made Lieberman’s defeat a personal crusade, posted this quote on his website in the obvious belief that it’s self-evidently absurd. But shouldn’t we all have greater loyalties than the one to our party — say, to our country? Partisanship isn’t nothing, but must it be everything?

The answer is, of course, yes, it is. Partisanship is everything to the “netroots” activists who have hijacked the Democratic Party. There is nothing else. The “netroots” exist solely in opposition to George W. Bush. Without him, they would be nothing. The “progressive” movement is ultimately self-destructive because its entire existence is predicated on the basis of opposing one man. By January 2009 (and quite possibly before that), the “netroots” will be a historical footnote at best.

I’ve describe the “netroots” in ideological terms, and while that’s largely true, their real motivation isn’t ideological unless opposition to Bush can be described as an ideology. Why is it that Joe Lieberman, with an 80% liberal rating is a bête noir with the “netroots” while Jack Murtha, whose liberal rating is nearly that of some liberal Republicans is treated like a hero? Why is it that a group of left-wing activists are hawking a former Reagan Administration figure in James Webb?

The answer is clear: the only qualification one has to be a member of their little club is an abject hatred of Bush. Nothing else matters. Lieberman is a traitor not because his voting record shows him to no longer be a liberal, but because he didn’t toe the Bush-hating line. He committed heresy, and now the radical left is trying to throw him under a bus for it. Regardless of whether Lamont wins in the primary or not, the “netroots” have shown that they can control the Democratic Party, and that’s not good at all for the Democrats.

When this country remains at war with a dangerous and devastating ideology, some feel that the only real enemy is their political opposition. It is for that reason that the Democrats do not have the requisite level of maturity and perspective to lead – and despite the many flaws of the Bush Administration, at least they seem more interested in defending the nation than it playing pissant partisan politics.

UPDATE: Jim Geraghty puts it quite succinctly:

How could I entrust a Democratic lawmaker to stand up to al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or some other angry extremist, if he or she won’t stand up to Daily Kos?

The short answer: you can’t.

UPDATE: It’s James Webb, not Jack Webb… my bad.

Surprising? Not Hardly!

The New York Times finds what they call a “surprising” increase in tax revenues this year. And where is this revenue coming from?:

An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.

On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year’s levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.

Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.

The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.

Since 2003 they say? I wonder what might have kicked that off…

Of course, the Times can’t help but try to give everything an anti-Administration spin, as John Hinderaker astutely observes:

Note, first, that the partisan divide is acknowledged, but resolved on the side of the Democrats: “many independent budget analysts” agree with the Democrats, none, apparently, with the Republicans. Who are they? Who knows? But note the claim that the Times attributes to the Democrats and their “independent analysts”: overall revenues have “barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000.” This assertion is ridiculous.

Hinderaker points to this chart which makes it clear that revenues are well above their 2000 levels. The Times has a pathological need to ensure that no good economic news gets reported straight – they can’t help but inject their own partisan spin into the matter. The fact is that it is not mere coincidence that tax revenues are booming, especially in sectors that benefitted from the 2003 tax cuts. Tax cuts are not revenue negative – they encourage economic growth with raise revenue. This just illustrates that we were on the wrong side of the Laffer Curve prior to the 2003 marginal rate reductions.

The Times laments that tax revenues haven’t increased at the rate of economic growth, which is natural since the rate of economic growth has been a strong 11.4% in constant 2000 dollars during the Bush term. Tax revenues tend to be a lagging indicator – this surge in revenue comes from the economic advancements made in the prior year, the groundwork for which was laid prior to that. So long as the economic growth of the US economy remains steady, and there’s no reason to believe that it will not, the rise in tax receipts could continue. Then again, if Americans do something harmful – like electing Democrats in the next round of elections – that rate of strong growth could evaporate.

The biggest challenge we face is not raising revenue, it’s lowering spending. The Bush Administration needs to reform the fiscal timebombs of Social Security and Medicare, reduce wasteful spending on earmarks, and reduce the rate of growth for government. We may be seeing the deficit slowly play down, but that won’t last so long as Congress has an unending appetite for pork and the Administration isn’t willing to put them on a diet. Bush’s tax plans may be creating a more positive economic future for this country, but his record on spending is abysmal. Ultimately the gains made by one can be undone by another if both are not kept in check.

Rassmussen On Minnesota Senate Race

Rassmussen has released its latest poll on the Minnesota Senate race, showing Mark Kennedy and Amy Klobuchar still within the margin of error, but with Klobuchar leading by 3%. The poll shows some trouble for Kennedy:

Klobuchar is viewed favorably by 57% of likely voters, unfavorably by 29%; 14% are “not sure” what to think of her. Kennedy is viewed favorably by 46%, unfavorably by 41%, with 12% “not sure.”

Democrats are somewhat more enthusiastic about Klobuchar than Republicans are about Kennedy. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Democrats view Klobuchar favorably; 50% view her “very” favorably. By contrast, Kennedy gets thumbs up from 72% of Republicans, only one half of whom (36% of all GOP voters) view him “very” favorably.

That isn’t too surprising – the Democrats are motivated this year. The campaign hasn’t really begun, but it’s clear Kennedy is the one who needs to work the hardest to gain momentum. Some of the shine around Klobuchar will likely come off once the campaign begins – she’s not a particularly effective campaigner and she has the benefit of not carrying around much political baggage at this point. All of that gives Klobuchar an initial advantage, but when the campaign begins in earnest anything could change.

Right now Kennedy’s numbers are likely depressed. There is a significant fraction of the Republican voting bloc that is angry at the GOP Congress for failing to enact significant spending and immigration reforms – and that means that while the Democrats are motivated to support their candidates, the Republicans are not.

With only 7% undecided, the Kennedy campaign needs to concentrate on securing their base. Kennedy needs to come out strongly on fiscal transparency and immigration enforcement. With a deficit of only 3% and weak numbers with his own party, Kennedy can easily close the gap if he can motivate GOP voters to support him. Klobuchar will be a difficult candidate to beat, but with only 7% undecided, she’s going to have a tough time building her numbers – while Kennedy still has some room to both improve his own standing and potentially steal some support for Klobuchar. That’s a tall political order, and Kennedy is certainly down, but he’s far from out.

Lieberman’s Independence Day?

Dick Morris makes the argument that Joe Lieberman should drop out of the Democratic primary in Connecticut and run as an independent:

By insisting on running in Connecticut’s Democratic primary against anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, he is in a fight he won’t win and, in the process, destroying his chances in the general election, which he can win.

As my populist and liberal friend Bill Curry discovered when he defeated the Democratic Party establishment’s candidate for governor, Rep. John Larson, in the primary of 1994, primaries in Connecticut are notoriously polarized. The right dominates the GOP nominating process just as surely as the left controls that of the Democrats. This is no place for a centrist to thrive.

If Lieberman simply skips the primary and runs as an independent, forcing a three-way race, he will win overwhelmingly. The larger Connecticut electorate adores him and will happily desert either party to vote for his reelection.

But in an August Democratic primary, with its low turnout and ideologically skewed voters, he faces decapitation. As surely as an American soldier on patrol in Iraq, his very presence in the Democratic primary provides a tempting target for those who want to vent their frustration at American foreign policy.

Those who back Lieberman will stay home in a primary. Those who shine with passionate intensity against him will surely vote.

I’m thinking that Morris might be right on this one. The fact is that the radical leftists in the Democratic Party has sold Joe Lieberman out. Despite the fact that Senator Lieberman has a liberal rating of 90 from the ADA (while left-wing idol Jack Murtha scores significantly less), the radical netroots have turned him into a traitor – because he had the audacity to declare that putting partisan politics above the national interest was beyond the pale. For his heresy, the left hates Lieberman almost as much as they hate Bush, even arguing (falsely) that Liberman is the ideological match of the President.

If Lieberman ran as an independent, he’d win. If he stays in the Democratic primary, the anti-war empty suit Ned Lamont could suck enough air from his campaign to make the race wide open – even opening the possibility of the Republicans taking the seat. It would certainly make the race competitive, and the DSCC would have to decide whether or not to honor the results of the primary and back Lamont. The Democrats, once again, are finding themselves in a civil war between the radical “netroots” and the party establishment.

Lieberman won’t leave the Democratic Party, but it’s clear that the Democratic Party has left him. There’s no longer much room in the party for someone who argues that getting rid of the Butchers of Baghdad was a good thing, even if they think that the war was incompetently waged. The term “liberal” has been spun into meaning “anti-war”, and not much else. Lieberman is a patriot before a partisan, and his kind no longer seem welcome in the Democratic Party.

The Netroots And Religion

Instapundit notes Barack Obama’s stance on the Democrats and religion and how it infuriates the “netroots”:

BARACK OBAMA thinks that Democrats should engage evangelicals. This gets him a Bronx cheer from Firedoglake: “[T]his bullshit from Barack Obama is Bill Clinton’s fault. The greatest victory of the radical right wing has been to train Democratic politicians to disrespect, mischaracterize and run against their base in the progressive movement. And that is Bill Clinton’s fault.”

Never mind the fact that 60 million Americans are part of evangelical churches. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of Americans are religious. One can’t be part of the “progressive” movement and still respect people of faith. That apparently disrepects the “base”. Never mind that the progressive “base” seems to be secular, white, urban liberals who make up a small percentage of even the Democratic fold. The author of the Firedoglake piece has the audacity to argue that Democrats aren’t really hostile to religion, when it is clear from the results of recent elections that voters concerned with faith find the Democratic Party indifferent or even hostile to religion and values.

This is just more evidence of how the “netroots” are strangling the Democratic Party – I totally disagree with most everything Barack Obama says, but he’s right on the need for the Democrats to be taken seriously by people of faith and speak convincingly on matters of faith and values. And when he has to face down people who want to argue that there’s no problem, and anyone who says otherwise is a traitor to the cause, it makes it all the much harder.

When the Democrats accuse anyone who argues against abortion on a moral level of a theocrat, when evangelicals are accused of being radical “Christianists” and religious faith is frequently looked upon as a sign of ignorance, one can be pretty damned sure that the Democrats have a problem with being seen as hostile to faith. Given the fact that the “netroots” are trying to wrest an increasing amount of control in the Democratic Party, that problem is only going to get worse.

 

The Morality Of Taxation

Recently, a group of wealthy Minnesotans wrote an open letter demanding that they pay more taxes. The incomparable Katherine Kersten asks some tough questions of them – undoubtedly to remain unanswered. Ironically enough, one of the signers was Jim Pohlad who’s family is responsible for the creation of a new Twins Stadium – apparently they’re willing to pay more taxes, but not pay for their own damn ballpark.

Kersten does an excellent job of piercing the sanctimony behind this statement. Exactly what is preventing these people from cutting a check to the Minnesota state government right now? The fact is that they want others to be forced to meet their ideals. This isn’t about some noble guesture, this is about shoving their worldview down the throats of others.

Compare that to the recent announcement by Warren Buffett that he intends to give away nearly his entire fortune to charity: specifically the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The essential difference between Buffett’s actions and the Gang of 200 is that Buffett is trying to lead by example, while the Gang of 200 are reveling in their own hypocrisy. Buffett’s choice is his own: and while certainly I don’t agree with everything he says, his generosity is self-evident.

And therin lies the essential moral difference between demanding higher taxation and giving to charity. There is nothing generous about taxation: the government can imprison you if you don’t pay your taxes. Agitating for them to take more is demanding that the government force others to pay for what you find to be the public good. There is no real personal sacrifice to higher taxes, and as Kersten so astutely notes, those demanding higher taxes can easily afford to pay – many others cannot.

In the article on Warren Buffett, another key argument comes to light:

Mellody Hobson, “Good Morning America’s” financial contributor and president of Ariel Capital Management, said Buffett’s act of generosity was a defining moment in the history of business and philanthropy.

“Fortune magazine ran a cover story after Hurricane Katrina about the failure of government and how business did a better job after the hurricane,” she said. “There are some really smart people in government, but business leaders are often in a better position to help because they are not encumbered by the status quo and can more easily think out of the box.”

Not only is it not all that charitable to demand higher taxes, it’s not particularly efficient either.

If the Gang of 200 wants to really improve the quality of life in Minnesota, they have the power to do so now without resorting to petulant demands for more taxation. Want to improve education? Start a foundation to give loan forgiveness for quality teachers who choose to teach in inner-city or underserved schools. Want to improve health care? Start a foundation to provide low-cost or no-cost drugs to those in need. Start a program that would pay for the education of doctors who agreed to serve in under-served areas. Want to improve transportation? How about allocating the money that would create another ballpark for the Twins and give it to a road-construction fund?

There are plenty of ways rich Minnesotans with burning senses of noblesse oblige can give back to society without compelling others. There are plenty of agencies which provide valuable services to Minnesotans and do it with a greater efficiency and less cost than government does. If the goal here is to maximize the amount of public good done per dollar, putting more into the coffers of state government is the last way of going about it. Governments are not generally known for their fiscal rectitude nor their efficiency. When you’re spending other people’s money on other people, one is generally less inclined to care about how much money is spend or where it goes.

Make no mistake, this isn’t about true morality or true charity. This is about compelling Minnesotans who make $45,000/year or more (which in the Twin Cities Metro is hardly an extravagant sum to live on) to pay more for someone else’s idea of the public good. That isn’t charity, it’s arrogance and sanctimony.

Those who want to pose and preen about “paying for a better Minnesota” should put their money where their mouths are: if they want to pay more, then they can pay more. The second they demand that others follow suit – under penalty of the law – they drop any pretense of anything other than arrogant sanctimony.