This week we have been discussing Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent speech at Northwestern University Law School detailing the claim of President Barack Obama that he has the right to kill American citizens based on his inherent authority and the ongoing war on terror. I previously wrote a blog and a column on the issue. Those pieces noted that Holder limited his remarks by referring to targeted killing “abroad.” However, I noted that the Administration’s past references to this power are not so limited. Indeed, the only limits stated by the Administration have been self-imposed standards and what Holder calls “due process” — expressly excluding “judicial process.” Now, FBI Director Robert Mueller has entered the fray. On Wednesday Mueller was asked in a congressional hearing whether the current policy would allow the killing of citizens in the United States. Mueller said that he simply did not know whether he could order such an assassination. It was the perfect moment to capture the dangerous ambiguity introduced into our system by this claim of inherent authority. I can understand Mueller deferring to the Attorney General on the meaning of his remarks, but the question was whether Mueller understands that the same power exists within the United States. One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
Continue reading “Mueller: I Can’t Say Whether I Now Can Kill Citizens In The United States Under Obama’s Kill Doctrine”
Category: Congress
Below is today’s column in Foreign Policy magazine on Attorney General Eric Holder’s speech at Northwestern University Law School. UPDATE: FBI Director declines to answer whether the new doctrine allows the killing of citizens in the United States.
Attorney General Eric Holder was at Northwestern University Law School yesterday explaining President Barack Obama’s claimed authority to kill any American if he unilaterally determines them to be a threat to the nation. The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated yesterday at Northwestern. The good news is that Holder promised not to hunt citizens for sport.
Continue reading “Holder Promises To Kill Citizens With Care”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
While we have discussed the fairness of the taxes paid and not paid by large corporations in the past, the alleged high corporate tax rate is once again in the news. It seems that after contraception the Right’s most consistent accusation is that the corporate tax rate is way too high for corporations to compete in the world market. The facts seem to differ from those claims however.
“Corporations are lobbying for lower corporate rates and an exemption for profits they shift offshore. McIntyre, however, says “Our study provides proof that too many corporations are already being coddled by our tax system.” Findings in the report include:
The average effective tax rate for all 280 companies in the study over the three year period was 18.5 percent; for the period 2009-2010 it was 17.3 percent, less than half the statutory rate of 35 percent.
78 of the companies enjoyed at least one year in which their federal income tax was zero or less.
30 companies enjoyed a negative income tax rate over the entire three year period on their combined pre-tax profits of $160 billion.
Total tax subsidies given to all 280 profitable corporations amounted to $222.7 billion from 2008-2010.
Wells Fargo tops the list of 280 U.S. corporations receiving the most in tax subsidies, getting nearly $18 billion in tax breaks from the U.S. treasury in the last three years.
Pepco Holdings had the lowest effective tax rate of all the companies in the study, at negative 57.6 percent over the three year period.” Citizens for Tax Justice Continue reading “Corporate Tax Rate and Reality”
Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Coincidentally and often, abuses of civil or human rights in the United States derive from the same source as law made via precedent. That source is vague or overly broad legislation and imprecise use of language. As a matter of good drafting practice, this is why precision language is encouraged – to provide clarity and minimize ambiguity in the letter of the law. When vague laws create issues in court, the court either makes a ruling creating precedent and consequently a plan of action for how to address the issue moving forward although occasionally a law is overturned in toto for vagueness and the legislature can take a fresh swing writing the law.
However, it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing “wiggle room” for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice. The issue of vagueness is at the heart of the NDAA scandal as recently discussed on the blog here, here and here. While the NDAA poses a threat to your 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment rights, the newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347, innocuously titled the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”. As currently worded, it might as well have been called the “Federal We’re Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011” or (as described by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), one of the few Representatives to vote against the bill) the “First Amendment Rights Eradication Act” because it effectively outlaws protests near people who are “authorized” to be protected by the Secret Service. Being that the bill passed on a House vote 388-3 and is currently coming out of committee in the Senate, its progress is something civil libertarians and activists may want to monitor. UPDATE: President Obama signed H.R. 347 into law on March 9, 2012.
Continue reading “Imprecise Language and the Risks of H.R. 347”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
This week Huffpost ran an article titled:“IBM’s Role in the Holocaust — What the New Documents Reveal”, written by Edwin Black. The article was a followup to Mr. Black’s book “IBM and the Holocaust” published in 2001. As Mr. Black puts it justifying this particular article:
“Newly-released documents expose more explicitly the details of IBM‘s pivotal role in the Holocaust — all six phases: identification, expulsion from society, confiscation, ghettoization, deportation, and even extermination. Moreover, the documents portray with crystal clarity the personal involvement and micro-management of IBM president Thomas J. Watson in the company’s co-planning and co-organizing of Hitler’s campaign to destroy the Jews.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edwin-black/ibm-holocaust_b_1301691.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
These are of course pretty serious charges being made about one of the world’s most famous companies and about its founder. While I will present the nature of these charges and the specificity of the author’s alleged proof in the piece, it really is not my focus to condemn IBM one way or another, or even to vouch for the truth of the article. I will provide a link that offers a different perspective on these charges and will leave it to you the reader to decide what you think of them. My real purpose here is to discuss the necessary amorality of Corporations and what effect that amorality has upon nations and people. Continue reading “A Corporate Tale”
A campaign to pressure Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., is well underway, but it is not the usual parade of industry lobbyists that run feral in the halls of Congress. Rather, Camp is facing demands that he pressure his adviser Aharon Friedman to grant a Jewish “get” to his wife who wants to divorce him. Jewish community members are seeking to pressure Friedman by pressuring Camp, but is that an appropriate matter for a Member of Congress or any employer?
Continue reading “Should A House Member Force An Aide To Grant A Jewish “Get”?”
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
With apologies to the famous song of the same title, the State of Georgia has produced some interesting legislation and proposed legislation these days. The latest in that long list of specious legislation is the proposal pushed by five Georgia State Senators that would set up a commission to review Federal laws. Any laws not approved by that commission would be nullified and would not be upheld in their state. If I understand the proposed legislation correctly, the State of Georgia, if this law is passed, would claim supremacy over Federal law. I realize that in some Tea Party view of the Constitution this makes sense, but not in the real world where the Constitution and court precedent makes it very clear that Federal law supersedes any and all conflicting State laws. Continue reading “I’ve Got Georgia on My Mind”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
Do you wonder how American politics has gotten so crazy in the last five decades? As someone who has lived through them as an adult I have often been amazed by our evolving political scene. This week the PBS documentary series “The American Experience” focused on the life and the two terms of Bill Clinton. It was a typical PBS historical documentary in that it made sure to present all sides of the issues and of course it dealt with “Whitewater”, Monica Lewinsky and the Impeachment proceedings. While we all lived through this bizarre political period in the 90’s, time and personal matters no doubt has dimmed its memory for most of us who were not directly involved. What fascinated me about this four hour documentary was that even in its non-partisan fairness, it delved into the massive effort made to discredit Bill Clinton begun from even before the inception of his first term. Though he won his election fairly, Republican’s and Conservatives never accepted his legitimacy as a duly elected President. It was this perceived “illegitimacy” that undermined his efforts as President and was the focus of constant attacks from his enemies. I’m not writing this as someone who felt that Bill Clinton was a great President and there were many concessions he made like “Welfare Reform” and “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” that I still hold against him. My question is that given his legitimate electoral mandate, did he ever get a chance to actually put his programs into effect and be President?
Bill Clinton entered his Presidency at the end of the first Iraq War. His inaugural speech talked of healing and bi-partisanship, as he would work together with Republicans to create a bridge to the Twenty First Century. The country was in a recession, partly caused by the excesses of military overspending by Reagan and G.H.W. Bush and by their tax cuts for the wealthy. There was a shrinking middle class due to the outsourcing of our manufacturing base and also because the Reagan Social Security “Reform” was actually a massive, regressive tax raise on those of middle income. The Reagan and G.H.W. Bush years burdened the Country with massive budget deficits and in Clinton’s first years the clamoring of the Republicans, Wall Street and the “Chattering Classes” for “Deficit Reduction” was at a fever pitch. We had also seen an illegal involvement in trying to topple the government of Nicaragua, despite a strong Congressional ban and its’ direct perpetrators falling on their swords to protect President Reagan and Vice President Bush. The din of budget deficits was so loud, with predictions so dire, that this newly elected President, with no Washington experience, was forced to accept the specious merits of this argument. Forgotten of course was that it was these selfsame groups, had blithely ignored rising deficits during the twelve years past of Republican governance. Perhaps, in my re-visiting what you already probably knew, a sense of Deja’ Vu might be occurring when thinking of American politics and political issues today? Continue reading “Hypocrisy Democracy: What’s Going On?”
We have seen in the Republican primary how candidates have engaged in a type of race to the bottom in embracing torture and suggesting that they would launch attacks against Iran and other countries. In this debate, the law and the Constitution are often dismissed as weak considerations for a strong president. Not to be outdone in such macho posturing, the Obama campaign has mocked Mitt Romney for even suggesting that he would consult with lawyers before launching attacks or taking critical actions. Stephanie Cutter, President Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager, delivered the message on MSNBC that Obama was strong because he didn’t need no stinkin’ lawyers.
Continue reading “Obama Aide: A Strong President Doesn’t Check With Lawyers”
Below is my column today in the Washington Post (Sunday) Outlook Section. The column concerns the Alvarez case to be heard on Wednesday before the Supreme Court. I have been a long critic of the Stolen Valor Act — not because I am not highly sympathetic to its purpose but because I am concerned about the means of achieving that purpose. I share the anger over people who falsely claim to be war heroes. However, the government often selects popular causes for expanding its power over speech or conduct of its citizens. The question before the Court is really not about this specific form of lying, but the legal basis for criminalizing lies generally. The Act is different in that it seeks to criminalize lies simply because they are lies as opposed to lies that are used to commit a specific crime like larceny or fraud or perjury. I also spoke to NPR on Talk To The Nation on this subject.
Continue reading “The Better Part of Valor: Should Lying About Medals Be A Crime?”
Below is today’s column, which concerns the subject upon which I will be testifying this morning before the full House Judiciary Committee: recess appointments.
Continue reading “Abuse Of Power: Obama’s Recess Appointments And The Constitution”
Below is my testimony this morning before the full House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of the recent recess appointments by President Obama. I also wrote a column this morning on that same subject.
Continue reading “Turley Testimony on the Constitutionality of Recess Appointments”
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Since the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has rejected Obama’s contraception compromise, and since House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called the mandate unconstitutional, it’s a good time to look at what the Supreme Court has decided. A critical case is Employment Division v. Smith (1990) in which J. Scalia wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority. Although there has been a torrent of invective regarding the Smith decision, I find it well-argued and compelling.
Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
It appears that the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Republicans are not happy with the change that President Obama made to the health care contraceptive coverage requirement for religious employers. The President’s announcement about the change yesterday initially met with a “reserved response” from the bishops who said it was a 
“first step in the right direction.” Hours later, however, the bishops issued a statement “blasting the plan.” Along with others, the bishops are calling for Congressional legislation that would reverse the contraceptive policy.
In a blog post earlier today, Judy Waxman, who is Vice President for Health and Reproductive Right at the National Women’s Law Center, expressed her concern about some of the proposed legislation. Waxman wrote that “opponents of birth control in Congress are still focused on taking away access to contraception introducing extreme legislation that threatens health across the board. The pieces of legislation range from allowing any employer, regardless of whether it is a religious entity, to deny coverage of contraception to giving employers the right to refuse coverage of any health care service they find religiously or morally objectionable.”
Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress echoed Waxman’s concern. He reported that Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, is expected to introduce an amendment next week “that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.