Sunday, March 19, 2006

State of the Union...

A large number of my blog posts focus on criticizing the President and his administration. This post follows that trend, but I feel as though I need to preface my opinions to explain why the Executive is such a big target, for me anyway.

I believe strongly in the structure of our Constitutional Government. Much of my criticism of governmental figures focuses on the actions of constitutional officers which serves to debase the values and rights contained within our social contract. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and members of the government who swear an oath to preserve the Constitution and the freedoms therein. This blog, and my opinions, have never been partisan, predominantly because I don't think bipartisanism works. Officers of the government should not act in ways that denigrate our rights. Its obscene to think they have the power to violate the supreme law of the land. From this perspective, comes some interesting political news and opinions on what is currently going on in politics.

The International Herald Tribune is running an opinion article discussing the recent release of the administration's National Security Statement. While I don't agree with the commentator's references to the administration's approach to global politics being Kissengerian in any sense, its interpretation of the administration's pedantic approach to world politics is insightful. While I am not against the administration's policy of diplomacy, this unilateral approach weakens whatever is gained through the process. The Statement rails on about how liberty, free markets, and free trade are of fundamental importance to the securing peace and reinforcing our democracy and other democracies around the world. If this truly is the administration's goal, I would like to see them start by guaranteeing our Constitutional rights here at home first. On the note, I came across another interesting article from

A recent post on details some abominable poll numbers regarding whether Congress should take actions against the President to restrict the NSA domestic spying program. While a Law School Professor from a Miami law school writes Discourse, this post raises some interesting empirical data without any commentary. Reading the comments provides an interesting insight to what the readers actually think about the situation. Basically, the pole numbers provide a partisan look at who really thinks the spying program is worth keeping. The numbers are scary to say the least. We can't forget that information collected under this program can still be used against Americans for situations not related to terrorism. There is plently of law on the books permitting officers to use information obtained through illegal searches as probable cause for further searches. Just because the purpose of the program is to stop "terrorists" (as dangerous as that word is), the information may still be used against Americans that have a constitutional right to judicial review prior to having their person, home, or effects, searched. constitutional Amendment IV.

While the merits of the International Herald Tribune opinion are up for debate, it remains an interesting argument over whether the administration, and other elected officials, are upholding their sword duty to enforce and protect the rights of the Constitution.

Two edits: my grammar is terrible today.

No comments: