I Bought Nothing Today

I take that back. I spent $1.85 on a cup of coffee from Great Harvest Bread Company, but it wasn’t even that good.

The irony of our financial crisis is that we are being asked by our leaders to do the very thing that got us here in the first place: consume. Especially with it being the Christmas season, the time when many retailers get most of their revenue. They need our money in order to stay in business, but we don’t want to give it to them.

And with good reason.

Consumption has been the United States’ mantra for a long time. Today’s sad story about a Wal-Mart employee trampled to death in New York should serve as a poetic reminder that consumption can be deadly. I mean, we already knew it was deadly in the countries where our stuff is made. Working conditions in industrial cities in China are deplorable, equivalent to the turn-of-the-century textile mills and meatpacking plants that we know today only by reading Sister Carrie and The Jungle. It’s worse in African countries where wars are started by diamond companies so that they can get cheap diamonds to sell at huge profits to Western men whom they’ve convinced to spend 25% of their salary on an engagement ring. It’s rare, though, for the pain and suffering caused by American consumerism to occur here on our shores.

Consumers are not so worried now about having the nicest house, the newest car, or the most stuff. They have bills to pay. President Bush’s stimulus idea of last year — to give taxpayers between $300 and $600 in free money — did nothing to help the economy. That’s probably because most people who received such a check didn’t do what they were supposed to with it. President Bush wanted them to go out and buy cars, refrigerators, computers, but consumers wisely decided to save it, or use it to pay their credit card bills. The time is nigh for rampant consumerism, fueled by an advertising industry designed to convince people that they need things that they really don’t. “Black Friday” deals this year were all the more enticing because retailers understand they won’t make that much money this year. Nevertheless, they want to get rid of whatever they can. Which entices consumers to spend, which means they’ll use credit, which means we’ll end up right back where we started.

John Kenneth Gailbraith, in The Affluent Society, bemoaned modern economics’ emphasis on production and output as the sole indicators of a healthy economy. These metrics tell us how well businesses and the wealthy are doing, but not much else. Even Simon Kuznets, the inventor of GDP — that most favored of the statistics that indicate economic health — thought that “the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income.” GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is the total output of all the goods and services produced by an economy. It can be calculated using the income method, or the expenditure method, with the latter preferred due to its simplicity. GDP is consumer spending plus government expenditures plus capital investment, plus net exports (exports minus imports). GDP places an emphasis on making stuff and spending money. Critics of GDP correctly note that it does not take into account volunteer activity, non-spending production (like that of housewives who don’t work), the black market, happiness, recycled goods, or the quality of goods and services being produced. Annual GDP growth in the United States is about 3%, but how much of that is fueled by cheap crap from overseas? The mantra is that any production is good production, but we have seen that not to be always the case.

And unrestrained production is not sustainable. I used to roll my eyes at phrases like “sustainability,” particularly due to the frequency with which I heard the phrase, due to living next to Berkeley. Maybe it’s the stuff they put in the water in Alameda County, but over the last few years, I’ve come to understand what sustainability means. It means growing a rate that can be sustained over a long period of time, not growing so much that resources are exhausted. If you’re wondering what to get this year for the people on your Christmas list who are hard to buy for, here’s two ideas: a DVD of Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, a copy of Ishmael, and a copy of Ecotopia. (Even better, get all this from a used book store.)

Environmentalism, consumerism, national security — they’re all intimately related. They all depend on us changing our habits, buying less, and if we do buy things, buy recycled and re-used things, so that more resources are not needlessly spent. Consumption is the way to get us out of this financial crisis, but it’s also the way to get us right back into it.

A Police Officer’s View on Drugs

For 28 years, I served as a member of the Vancouver Police Department, and spent most of that time at the street level, in and around Vancouver’s poorest area commonly known as “Skid Road.” This area is Canada’s poorest postal code zone. It is an area of cheap fleabag hotels, bars, and drugs. The only people who reside here are those whom society has cast aside because of disability, personality disorders, or sheer bad luck. It has been like this for at least 50 years. Only the faces and preferences of the addicts have changed.

Quite early in my career as a law enforcement officer, it became very obvious to me that the most dangerous drug was a legal drug. That drug is alcohol. Every riot, every disturbance, every assault, every serious late night motor vehicle accident, every homicide, and every sexual assault almost always involved alcohol.

Where were the horrific crimes caused by drug addicts? They were there, but generally speaking they were non-violent property crimes and prostitution. It has been estimated that somewhere between 75-80% of all property crimes are committed by addicts. This begets the question that most policemen in our major cities have asked themselves countless times: why not treat addicts for their addictions, not as criminals, and supply their drugs temporarily until they get help. Apparently, a significant reduction in property crime, reduced jail costs, and lower medical costs is not a sufficient answer.

The biggest question, which really changed my thinking toward the criminalization of drugs was, is why do we persist with laws that guarantee that serious criminals will become immensely rich, powerful, and violent toward any other criminals who stand in their way. If drugs were legally available, there would be no profits for the gangsters. U.S. history teaches us of a parallel situation that occurred during alcohol prohibition in the early twenty century, when gangsters became rich and powerful supplying bootleg alcohol. Al Capone’s South Side Gang and similar gangs murdered whoever stood in their way. The crime rate shot up 200%. Finally, when alcohol prohibition was canceled, most of the gangs disappeared as the profits were gone, the murder rate returned to what it was before prohibition, AND everyone didn’t become an alcoholic overnight!

Let’s ask ourselves a question. If heroin and cocaine were legal, would you use them? Virtually everyone says no, which is really no surprise if you think about it. We also know that up until the 1920s these substances were legal. Laudanum, a mixture of opium and alcohol was the drug of choice to the Victorians. Today the percentage of drug addicts, by which I mean those unable to function in society due to their addictions, remains the same as before there were any drug laws. Hardly a round of applause for the billions of dollars spent on enforcement over the past 80 years. Indeed if drug prohibition were a business that received payment for its results, it would not have lasted a year.

Everyone fears change, and one of the big fears of the general public is the fear of drugs becoming more readily available to our children. Today most of our children can in fact more easily obtain drugs than they can obtain liquor. The gangsters make sure this is the case by ensuring that dealers are present outside most of our schools. These dealers pay no heed to our children’s health, and they often have little knowledge of the substances cut with the drugs or even strength of their products. Drug prohibition causes this situation to persist.

If we look at the history of tobacco, we know education works. Tobacco eventually kills 50% of all regular smokers. Tobacco is legal. Yet through common sense and education, tobacco smoking is down by two thirds from thirty years ago. Education works, but only if honestly given. This spring I was approached by a grandmother whose granddaughter had phoned her in real distress. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been running the D.A.R.E. program in her school, and she was convinced that her parents’ occasional use of Marijuana would cause their deaths. If any of the information given is flawed, kids will reject all information given to them about drugs from parents and other authority figures.

I am a member of LEAP, which is an organization of retired policemen, judges, prison guards, others involved in law enforcement ,and many others. It was founded by a former highly commended U.S. drug enforcement officer, Jack Cole. Today it is worldwide. We all believe that drugs are not good, but it is “the War on Drugs” that is causing most of our problems. This war costs 2.5 billion dollars a year in Canada and 10 times that amount in the United States. WHY?

Response To A Child Of God

Casually browsing YouTube, I came across a video of a young girl talking about GodAndJesus. I put the words “God and Jesus” together because throughout the video she says both names as if they were fused together.

The title of the video is “Wise child explains how dumb evolution is.” Of course, she never actually refutes evolution at all. She just talks about GodAndJesus.

The subtitles of the video say that she is smarter than any atheist.  In terms of her knowledge of how the earth was created? Can she actually explain how scientist date fossils? Her only reference is a single book; how many theories has she tested herself? Here is the video:

The only positive moment in the video is when the girl seems to have a bit of doubt in questioning why hell can be all black yet full of fire. As she rightly questions: “wouldn’t the fire create light?” Answering her own question, she says “Basically I think that means it’s really hot, but it’s really dark too.” In fact, throughout this video she constantly says she’s been told, she thinks she knows, or that it’s only a possibility regarding the facts she mentions. Children can seem like they were truly and divinely touched by a superior being; they’ve been told amazing stories by the people they trust.

I’m sure there is more I can say, but I’ve lost focus since Rick Astley just bust out of the Foster’s Home for Imaginary Friends Thanksgiving Day Parade float, and began singing “Never Gonna Give You Up.” Wow… what a spectacle!

Sex and the City: Prop K

Memo: Prop K did not pass on Election Day.  For those hoping and praying for victory, San Franciscans, as liberal as they are, voted against decriminalized prostitution.  Prop K, heavily supported by the San Francisco Democratic Party, the National Lawyers Guild, the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, along with many other prominent progressive organizations, would forbid law enforcement agencies to investigate, arrest, or prosecute anyone selling sex, although it would not technically legalize it.  To the keen visitor, San Francisco seems like a city full of prestige, ingenuity, and rich in culture. However, when you venture into the heart of the city, visitors will find that it is teeming with dirty vices.  Brothels posing as massage parlors and nail salons, narcotics being sold on the corner in broad daylight, and strip clubs innocently waiting for the tired traveler.    If you haven’t been to San Francisco for a while, there is much here to suit your pleasure: It is a perfect city for the undiscriminating John.

San Francisco, the flash-forward city of the Pacific Rim, has, for better or worse, become an extremely liberal city.  It has become a home to the Folsom Street Parade that celebrates sadism and masochism, Lovefest–a street festival where neo-hippies gather to share “love,” and a Hollywood mayor who regards his town as a “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants, a haven for those practicing civil disobedience.  Prostitutes, coincidentally, have had a long, famed history in San Francisco, setting up shop on Maiden Lane (a.k.a. Morton Lane) near Union Square during the Gold Rush, then accommodating miners with women of all colors.  Today, Maiden Lane only exists as an alley for delivery vehicles and upscale boutiques. However, the elusive “call girls” have migrated to the online world.  Through this transition, escorts now have access to a more seemingly infinite database than they could ever encounter on the streets and some who they would never imagine soliciting business from.  John’s or “tricks,” one who uses an escort’s service, can now safely view and pick their fantasy in the privacy of their home without the authorities breathing down their neck.  The internet has also given escorts anonymity and has provided them with forums to share their positive experiences, fears, and business information.  Prostitution in the 21st century has become a billion dollar business.

Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.  And there is nothing anyone can do from preventing a women from selling her body.  Unfortunately, in the modern age, many other despicable trades are associated with it such as pimping, pandering, human trafficking, and child prostitution which have slandered the honest working girl.  To which I am happy that Prop. K did not pass.  Though Prop K’s intent was to protect women and to report abuse without fear of prosecution, it allows pimps to operate legally, opening the floodgates to legal organized crime, threatening the humanity of women.  Whether one thinks prostitution should be legalized or not, one cannot deny the fact that prostitution breads a slew of detrimental activities that ultimately harm society.

Whither Reaganomics?

Author’s note: Today’s is the first post in the Blue Economist column on the subject of “Blue-State Economics: Viewing Our Most Important Policy Debate Through Progressive Eyes”

On one level, there’s little shock value to be derived from the near total absence of Republican mischief making in the current, lame-duck session of Congress: They did, after all, just get their watches wound in the national election. However, taking a slightly longer view, it’s not clear that this same measure of electoral defeat has stopped them before. Past democratic transitions have been marred by a bull-headed intransigence on the part of the defeated. This has been born of equal parts denial, ideological certitude, and base whipping. Just ask Bill Clinton.

If all is quiet on the right flank in Washington these days, it may just be that the Republican agenda makers, especially on the domestic side of the ledger, have awakened to the bankruptcy of their ideas. However, it is a far more likely scenario is that the right is lying in wait for the sort of substantive policy shifts that Barack Obama has already promised and was assailed for during the campaign. Once this assault has whipped their own base into a frenzy of disdain, Republicans can renew their time-tested formula of overwhelming the national agenda with catch phrases and vitriol. This will inevitably cast the Democrats in a weak light, despite their power.

It is worth considering how things got this way.

The modern discipline of economics is surprisingly neutral on questions of political discourse: Progressive income taxes may be defended on the principal of “diminishing marginal utility,” by which a dollar taken from a wealthy person and given to a poor person has a net-beneficial effect on all of society’s collective happiness, to pick one random but unusually topical example. Another example is where environmental regulations may be defended on the principal of “internalizing social costs,” wherein the non-monetary repercussions of a firm’s activities are converted into monetary ones through fines and regulations. In addition, minimum wage laws may be defended as having negligible effects on the employment of unskilled labor, since the unskilled labor in question is already being used in its smallest possible quantities by the firms employing them.

However, as adaptable as such progressive claims would seem to be to the underlying principles of modern economic thought, the academy is at the same time populated by individuals so ubiquitously and inflexibly conservative as to render them the frequent butt of both merriment and derision at the hands of their would-be colleagues in the other social sciences. “An economist engages someone else’s ideas about the way the world works,” wrote one columnist in a recent edition of The New Yorker, “the way a bulldozer engages a picket fence.”

This phenomenon is largely attributable to the coincidental (and misguided) desire on the part of professional economists to be regarded as objective, physical or “hard” scientists–more like chemists and biologists–and less like their messy-headed brethren down the hall in Psychology and Poly-Sci. If the practitioner has to be clean, then the practice has to be clean too. This in turn means that the rich (progressive) texture of policy debates must melt on contact with the paradigm to prevent it from looking unresolved. The anguish of jobs lost to technological change, the qualitative detriment of polluted air, the elusive tabulation of the spoils of a war on poverty–all of these are matters dismissed with a smug wink and the back of a hand.

As the paradigm has polarized itself to the right, so too has the rhetoric from conservative think tanks been tailored to a world where the cleanliness and simplicity of an answer is its highest virtue. This exists in a perfect synergy with the rank-and-file’s inability to regard any complex idea as anything but a threat. Surely the good people at Americans for Tax Reform don’t really intend for their government to be “drowned in the bathtub”–surely Grover Norquist has been to enough school to know that bridges in the host city of the Republican National Convention will, absent a government that’s just been drowned in someone’s bathtub, fall unceremoniously down. However, with a simple paradigm to claim as their own, the Norquists of the world have all the excuse they need to reduce a messy world to painfully simplistic causes that play perfectly with the low-information voters in swing districts.

It would be tempting to presume a January 20th expiration date on such laments, to believe that some sort of corner has been turned. But the bitter reality of the matter is that Mr. Obama’s performance was at its shakiest when he found himself confronted by a self-appointed Ohio foot soldier so perfect for the slick-sided provincialism of the modern conservative economics that he was drafted by the McCain campaign as its chief spokesman before the sun had set. It won’t get any easier from there.

The Democrats will not win an economics argument in this country on the basis of raw numbers alone; they never do. Now that the electoral battle has been won, the Democrats must take a big-picture approach to winning the larger war. Selling complex, messy ideas like progressive income taxes (to say nothing of the restoration of a modicum of governmental oversight) will require a fresh infusion of street-smart packaging to match such hate-button phrases as “death tax.” To do so will be to fight fire with fire. If the Obama administration dismisses such efforts as quotidian (or, worse, elitist), or if it presumes victory before the fact on the strength of its mandate, they could surely suffer the same fate as wide-eyed Democratic administrations in years past. The good news is that they’re already winning this P.R. battle with cool-headed, pragmatic appointments and centrist views. In other words, they’re winning it the same way they won the election.

The Litigation Begins

I was part of an anti-Proposition 8 demonstration this weekend. Not intentionally, though. As my friend and I walked down Market Street in San Francisco (on our way to find me some fashion), we saw a large crowd marching down the street, shouting slogans like “What do we want? (Equal rights!) Went do we want them? (Now!)” and “Gay, straight, black, white, marriage is a civil right!” So we walked along with the crowd, yelling the slogans, not only because it was an interesting way to get to Union Square, but because we agreed with what the crowd was saying. But then, as we approached Powell Street, my friend and I left the crowd and went to Urban Outfitters where I was to find fashion.

At the time, I thought, “This is an interesting diversion.” I was also aware, though, that for many, if not all, of the people in the chanting crowd, these demonstrations are not a diversion. This is their lives they’re fighting for. I can live comfortably in the assurance that I will never need to fight the government for the right to marry someone (if I even choose to marry anyone at all!).

But there are people whose lives have now been relegated to second-class status under the law.

The California Supreme Court has agreed to take up the issue. It will accept arguments for and against the constitutionality of Proposition 8 until January. At issue is whether or not Proposition 8 is merely an “amendment” or a “revision” of the state constitution. If the former, Prop. 8 stands, and same-sex couples can’t marry. If the latter, Prop. 8 is unconstitutional on its face, and same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land once again, since a 2/3 vote of both the state legislature and the voters is required to pass a constitutional “revision.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 argue that taking away the rights of a minority is so contrary to the spirit of the California Constitution and the U.S. Constitution that a simple majority cannot do it. Alexis de Tocqueville, during his sojourn through the United States in the very early years of the Republic, warned that the majority could conceivably strip a minority group of its rights by virtue of nothing more than majority’s size. This tyranny of the majority, he wrote, was a danger inherent in democracy and something that needed to be guarded against.

De Tocqueville would be disappointed to learn that his warning went unheeded.

The California Supeme Court has only twice overturned voter-approved constitutional amendments: in 1948 and again in 1991. In 1978, the Court said that “revision” referred to “substantial alteration of the entire constitution, rather than to a less extensive change in one or more of its provisions.” So, is removing a right of an entire group of people a “substantial alteration of the entire constitution”? That is what the court will be deciding.

Preliminary indications are not good. Last week, the court voted 6-1 merely to hear the challenge to Prop. 8’s constitutionality. The lone dissenter was Justice Joyce L. Kennard, one of four judges who sided with the majority in the May case that legalized same-sex marriage. Her vote will undoubtedly be crucial, but since she doesn’t think that the petitioners even have the ability to file their case before the court, it’s unlikely she would find in favor of the Prop. 8 opponents.

What’s next for Prop. 8? Opponents could place an initiative on the ballot to repeal the amendment. It’s up in the air as to whether or not that would pass. The Mormons, energized by their win this time, could certainly muster up enough money to defeat a repeal amendment.

Shame on Californians who voted for this. They now have the dubious honor of being the first people to amend a constitution so as to take away extant rights.

11/24 Roundup: Recounts, Bailouts, and Lizard People

• The Minnesota Senate race is still up for grabs.  Norm Coleman’s lead has ranged from anywhere between 100 and 200 votes over the past few days. However, the actual vote total is misleading since it does not count ballots that were challenged by either side.  Since we have no clue if one side or the other is challenging more questionable ballots than the other side, we don’t know all that much. People like Nate Silver are trying to speculate on the outcome based upon challenged ballots, but I think his methods are questionable at best. You’d be better off flipping a coin. Read more about some of the questionable ballots, including double votes for “Lizard People” here.

• Obama’s financial team is now in place. More about that here. In other cabinet news, Hillary Clinton looks to be a safe bet for Secretary of State. Although with the Clintons, never say never.  I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw more drama before this was final.

• The Treasury Department will inject at least $ 20 billion of capital into Citigroup. In addition, the federal government will in essence be providing catastrophic insurance to Citi on any losses in excess of 40 billion dollars. However, any bailout of the Big 3 automakers is looking very unlikely in the near future. My response to that? Good. The executives and the UAW have much blame to share in this disaster. If they’re not willing to make some real sacrifices and lay out a real plan for turning things around, then nothing should be done for them in my opinion. There needs to be some accountability. No more free rides. The hypocrisy by many labor-files who opposed the financial sector bailout is striking.

Obama’s New Economic Team

The leaders of President-elect Obama’s all-important economic team are now in place. He’s actually found a place for two of the Treasury Secretary candidates that we mentioned earlier this month.  In addition, there was one surprise name. Here’s a look at four of the main players:

Treasury Secretary–Tim Geithner, 48

Geithner was the safe pick here. Geithner is currently the head of the New York Fed and was an instrumental player in the recent financial bailout.  Geithner lived abroad for much of his childhood and later attained degrees in international economics and East Asian studies. Prior to joining the New York Fed, Geithner had 14 years of experience working in the Treasury Department, including a stint as Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs.  Geithner is also a long-time mentee of Larry Summers.

Chair of National Economic Council–Larry Summers, 53

In this role,  Summers, the former Treasury Secretary under President Clinton, will serve as the chief economic policy adviser to the President.  Summers brings a wide depth of experience to this crucial position and is considered by many people to be the smartest man in rooms filled with geniuses. Summers, unfortunately brings some baggage to the room as well, which likely explains why he wasn’t named Treasury Secretary.  Obama seemed to play his cards right on this one. By his team first leaking that Geithner had been named Secretary of the Treasury, Summers’s appointment didn’t get much press.  The fact that Summers and Geithner will be both working together again in the Obama administration is a brilliant play.

Secretary of Commerce–Bill Richardson, 61

Reported runner up for Secretary of State and current governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson becomes President-elect Obama’s first high profile Latino cabinet selection. Granted, this probably isn’t what Richardson had in mind at first, having already served in mid level cabinet positions in the Clinton administration. However, it is believed that in light of the current economic crisis, President-elect Obama will elevate the roles and responsibilities of the commerce secretary. Richardson brings a wealth of government experience and should have a real grasp on how Washington works.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director–Peter Orszag, 39

Anyone who works on any government grants is probably all too familiar with the OMB approval process (ugh). However, the OMB does much more than this. The OMB is the largest office within the Executive Office of the President and serves a role in overseeing all federal agencies. Does that seem like a lot? It is. The OMB has over 500 employees. Orszag is well prepared for this position, previously having served as the director of the legislative branch’s equivalent of the OMB, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). With the federal deficit and likely expansion of government programs over the next four years, Orszag will have his work cut out for him.

The Attorney General and the Unitary Executive

The attorney general’s is a strange office. On the one hand, the AG is appointed by the president (with the advice and consent of the Senate, of course). On the other hand, the AG may be required to defy the president, investigate him, or even indict him for criminal acts. It is this duality of the AG role that has put President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales into hot water over the past four years. As attorney general, it was Gonzales’ job to investigate wrongdoing; however, as a loyal member of the Bush cadre, investigating the boss would have been a capital no-no. So how does the president get away with such obvious nepotism?

Unitary executive.

The phrase has been bandied about for eight years by liberals who have something of an understanding of what it means. “The president has total power” is what they think it means. And that’s the conclusion that the unitary executive theory results in, but it is not the premise.

The unitary executive begins with the president as the head of the executive branch of government. The executive branch encompasses the president, the vice-president (despite what the current vice-president says), the cabinet departments (like the Department of Homeland Security), and the various agencies within those departments (like the Transportation Safety Administration or Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to use the example of Homeland Security). There are also other myriad agencies like the Office of Management and Budget that live under what is called the Executive Office of the President. So far, so good. We’re not entering unknown waters. Of course this is the structure of the executive branch. It makes sense.

The theory of the unitary executive has always been with us, but it was taken to extremes by lawyers from the ultra-conservative Federalist Society. Some of America’s most conservative jurists, including Justice Antonin Scalia, Almost-Justice Robert Bork, and Chief Justice John Roberts, are or were members of the Federalist Society. This is the group responsible for the bogus interpretive theory called “originalism,” which holds that we can divine the intent of the Founding Fathers from the text of the Constitution, and oh, by the way, the Constitution never changes, except and exclusively through the amendment process. (Originalism’s counterpart is the living Constitution or active liberty, which says that the Constitution’s meanings must necessarily change as society changes, otherwise, the Constitution will find itself irrelevant and unenforceable.)

Under the unitary executive theory, the president has complete and total control over every office of the executive branch. The president should be free to fire whomever he wants, for any reason (or no reason at all), at any time. Furthermore, no executive agency should ever defy the president’s wishes, since all executive agencies are, reducto ad absurdum, the president. The president is the Justice Department. The president is the State Department. The president cannot be in conflict with himself; therefore, cabinet departments and agencies cannot be in conflict with the president’s wishes. This theory has been taken to court by the Justice Department, which held that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot sue the U.S. military, since the president would ultimately be the party on both sides, and the president certainly cannot sue himself!

The unitary executive then goes one step further: it declares that the president’s constitutional requirement to “take Care that the Laws [passed by Congress] be faithfully executed” means that the president’s powers cannot be constrained by Congress, since the president has a duty to execute the laws, and any Congressional hindrance of that duty, in the form of statutory limitations on the president’s power, is unconstitutional.

This is where President Bush’s signing statements come into play. Presidents have always issued signing statements, which are little interpretive blurbs written by the president when he signs a bill into law. The signing statements have, until now, been used to set down guidelines indicating how the president will enforce the particular law.

I say “until now” because Bush has used more signing statements than all other presidents combined, and he has used them most often to indicate that he will selectively ignore the parts of laws that restrict his power. Take this example from the Detainee Treatment Act, which Congress thought was going to be used to reign in Bush’s use of torture:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

In these signing statements, the president has reserved for himself the right to interpret what his constitutional powers are, and in so doing, reserved for himself the right to ignore provisions of laws passed by Congress that he feels are inconsistent with his interpretation of his own powers. This is the unitary executive theory in action (also inaction): whenever Congress attempts to place a check on the president’s power, the president sidesteps Congress, claiming that Congress cannot place any checks on the president’s constitutional duty to enforce the law.

I hope I don’t have to say that this is all highly questionable in terms of constitutionality. The president most certainly does not have the authority, constitutionally or otherwise, to interpret the law. That is the sole responsibility of the judicial branch of government. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison, put it simply and elegantly 205 years ago: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” No signing statement has ever been taken to federal court, but were that to happen, I can only hope that the court (which would be the D.C. Circuit Court) would refuse to grant the president judicial powers just like it refused to grant President Clinton legislative powers when he tried to use the line-item veto.

Back now to the attorney general. The next attorney general, who may very well be former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, knows what his role as AG would be. We know that he’s independent, meaning that, unlike Alberto Gonzales, he does not owe his entire career to the president. We know that he acknowledges that the AG is a unique office that, at times, requires “a closeness at the same time there needs to be distance.”

As Glenn Greenwald reports, though, Holder made some comments after the September 11, 2001 attacks that people who voted for Change should find disturbing. Of the inmates at the Guantanamo Bay prison, he said, “It seems to me that given the way in which they have conducted themselves, however, that they are not, in fact, people entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. They are not prisoners of war.” Even the U.S. Supreme Court eventually recognized that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

Is there no one out there who has a more progressive view of indefinite detentions? The Constitution is quite clear: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” And yet there are still people out there — lots of them, apparently, all in positions of power — who believe that there’s nothing wrong with a little indefinite detention among friends.

Is this the change we voted for?

11/21 Electoral Update

• Missouri was officially called for Senator McCain yesterday. He won the state by only around 3,000 votes. I guess this can finally put an end to pundits chirping about how Missouri always goes with the winner. By the way, those of you who voted for Missouri to be the closest state in the Demockracy poll of battleground states deserve a pat on the back. (I know what you’re thinking, but Nebraska’s second congressional district does NOT count as a state!)  In fact, a majority of our readers picked The Show Me State in this poll.

• As for real prizes, now that all states are finally accounted for in the Presidential race, Demockracy would like to announce the winners our of 2008 Electoral Votes Contest:

Paul G. of Illinois finished in first place and will receive his choice of the first or seventh season of The West Wing. Greg G. finished second and will receive a copy of the most recent National Lampoon book donated by author Adam Winer. Greg also got the popular vote exactly right. Here’s a look at how Paul and Greg’s guesses fared with the actual result and my own prediction:

	Obama Electoral Votes	McCain Electoral Votes	Obama Popular Vote	McCain Popular Vote
Actual	365	173	53%	46%
Paul G.	353	185	55%	45%
Kevin V.	349	189	52%	46%
Greg G.	338	200	53%	46%

Congratulations guys!

Next Page »