The Feld-Blog

So Palestinians just voted into power a political party who some think are terrorists, but who also do not recognize the existance of the state of Israel. Now answer me this: how exactly are we supposed to move towards peace between Palestinians and Israelis, if Palestinian leaders won't even sit down at a table with the Israelis because they dont recognize Israeli legitimacy. This seems like a pretty big stumbling block to me.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the top Hamas officials has stated that a long-term truce may be possible if Israel retreats behind its pre-1967 borders and releases all Palestinian prisoners. He wouldn't commit to recognizing Israel or even commit to negotiating with Israel, just that they might be compelled to stop organizing terrorist attacks against Israel if these conditions are met.

To those of you who engage in this debate: I would say go to Israel. Go to the Golan heights, and if you can go to the West Bank. When you see the Golan you will realize exactly why it is that Israel is loathe to give up this prime territory. In the Six-Day War, Syria used the Golan to pepper all of Israel with Artillery. When you stand on the Golan heights you can see almost all of the DMZ and nearly all of Israel. Israel miraculously survived a war without this terrirory once (they took it during the war). To cede this territory back would almost certainly mean to lose any future war. Israel was lucky (or incredibly skilled) once. I don't think they want to run that risk again.

Palestinians also claim that Israel is not truely committed to a two-state solution (this in spite of the fact that Israel has been party to many international agreements including the Road Map for Middle East peace which were solid commitments to this end. It was Arafat who walked away from solid offers time and time again).

Pre-1967 borders didn't work for Israel. Merely lacking a claim to the Golan could easily spell the doom of Israel. I think it's probably understandable then, that Israel might be resistant to ceding such strategically invaluable territory to a terrorist organization whose main platform is the destruction of Israel.

So to anyone out there who thinks the solution is simple, that Israel such merely confine itself to its originally granted borders and more forward in the peace process - it's much much more complicated than that.

I am about to utter a disconcerting statement: “Bush said something intelligent.” That said, he also uttered a series of disturbing statements surrounding that intelligent one. All this confusion surrounds the recent Palestinian legislative elections in which Hamas won a majority of the seats – 72 out of a total of 132. The Israeli and American governments both contend that Hammas is a terrorist organization and as such are understandably reprehensive about the consequences of this election.

Here was Bush’s intelligent statement: he said that no organization party can be a partner in piece if there is an “armed wing” of its party. Good job. If part of the ruling party platform of the Palestinian government includes the military destruction of Israel, this obviously presents a formidable obstacle to the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis.

On the other hand, Bush has staunchly stood by his affirmation that advancing the causes of democracy in the middle East will increase the security in that area and mollify the security threats this area poses to our own country. Well…so far the empirical evidence seems contrary to this point. Iran has elected a president who has openly called for the destruction of both Israel and America. The recent Iraqi elections gave a majority of seats to Shiites who haven’t exactly had positive effects on the internal relations between Sunnis and Shiites. Finally, the Palestinian elections have put a party into power who many think is a terrorist organization. Well Mr. Bush you are 0 for 3 in making me feel safer.

There is one interesting tac that should be discussed here surrounding the election of a Hamas government. Perhaps I am naïve, but their election may serve to temper their extremism. Before the election there was a great deal of chatter that Hamas didn’t want a majority of the seats. As a strong minority they could still set the moral and legislative agenda without also adopting the responsibilities of running a government responsible for the well-being of its citizens. As the ruling party, they must now focus the majority of their efforts on ruling their people rather than moving to destroy Israel and Israeli citizens. Though it may be idealism, I would like to think that this added responsibility could take the edge off of Hamas’ extremism.

In accordance with my theory above, Hamas has mentioned that although it has earned enough seats to rule without a coalition, it may seek to create a coalition government with some of the other parties. Lets see what they do with a coalition. They have stirred up their people for decades now. Now, in ruling them, Hamas will need to find a way to rope them in for fear of losing control and being perceived as a weak and ineffectual government. If they can’t rule effectively, they will lose the confidence of their people both in the civil/political spheres and in the military spheres which some claim are more aligned with terrorism.

There is much more to come on this point as I learn more on this topic and do more research, but these are my preliminary musings.

So someone has had the guts to stand up, but is that really a good idea at this stage? Since I will go ahead and presume that you already knew that Kerry called for a filibuster, I will use this time to analyze two ideas – the political effectiveness of calling for a filibuster at this time and the rationale for democrats to oppose Alito’s nomination.

So how smart was it for Kerry to call for a filibuster now? Frist has already threatened to end the institution of the filibuster if democrats attempt to use it to oppose Alito. There is the distinct possibility, then, that pulling that trigger will come with dire political consequences which may actually change the entire political landscape of congress if not our entire federal government. Would trying to filibuster Alito have sufficiently positive effects to justify provoking Frists’ wrath? Probably not.

There are only 45 democrats in the Senate. Three of these have already pledged to vote for Alito’s confirmation – Senators Nelson, Johnson and Byrd. This brings potential supporters of a filibuster down to 42 (I am assuming whether or not any republicans will vote against Alito, none would support a filibuster). Democratic Senators Landrieu and Salazar have already stated their opposition to a filibuster bringing the number down to 40. 41 Senators are needed to sustain a filibuster and even if the Dems could rally 1 or two republicans (very unlikely to filibuster) Senator Feinstein has already said she is unsure about the appropriateness of a filibuster. Mr. Kerry – it seems you don’t really have the support. I applaud you for your efforts, but it seems for naught.

At this point the filibuster would likely only be a profound, but ineffectual statement of disapproval by about a third of the senate. This is a fairly impotent political move for the retribution it will likely invoke. If you read back through my posts you may see that I supported a filibuster at some point, but its too late in the game and too dangerous to try it now. Sorry guys – I think we lost this one.

But lets talk abstractly for a moment. There has been a lot of talk as to whether Senators can feel justified in opposing a candidate not on the basis of qualifications, but on the basis of issue stances. I say yes. The Senate is vested with the powers of “advice and consent” for many federal appointments (as well as treaties and other executive powers). Yet as elected legislators, they have a constitutional responsibility to control the legislative agenda of the United States federal government.

Whether or not you are willing to admit it the court affects the legislative agenda for the government as well as for the several states. People often complain of judicial activism and “legislating from the bench” but the fact remains that through the doctrine of judicial review – the power of the court to invalidate state and federal laws if they are unconstitutional – directly affects the legislative agenda. I know of very few people – scholars or citizens – who think judicial review is not a legitimate exercise of the courts power.

If the Supreme Court can affect legislation and Senators are charged with responsibility for advice and consent of these justices, it seems to me wholly justified for a Senator to oppose a judicial nominee based on ideology or issue stances. It is just as reasonable a justification as opposing a justice based on insufficient qualifications.

Now you might say that opposing a judicial nominee is different from opposing a piece of legislation with which a Senator disagrees, but let’s look closely. Often times a Member of Congress will oppose a bill, not because of what it says outright, but because of the likely effects it will have when put into practice. This maps surprisingly well to opposing a judicial nominee. Whether or not a nominee states outright how he or she will vote in certain cases, aggregating evidence from past decisions and position papers, it is often a simple task to deduce the likely effects of confirming that nominee just as it would be a simple task to surmise the unwritten but still very real effects of a piece of legislation.

So for all you Senators who are too afraid to oppose Alito solely because you disagree with his ideology, get it together and realize that you, as a Senator of the United States, are charged with a responsibility for the federal government’s legislative agenda. You cannot just let this sail by. For all you Senators who are hiding behind the excuse that you shouldn’t oppose Alito based on his ideology stop hiding and say what you really think. The voters have a right to know who and what they are voting for.

For all the exasperated rhetoric I spew onto this Blog about how simple some choices seem to be and how unimaginably off-base some politicians and judge's reactions are, there are times when the decisions are difficult. Sometimes it actually is good that we have smart people sitting on the bench for the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court just heard a case involving free speech, campaign finance and lobbying that I truely am not sure I could decide with much confidence.

The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law restricts the ways in which interest groups and unions etc. can spend their money on behalf of a candidate. It says that if they wish to create and air an add in support or opposition of a candidate in proximity to an election, the money cannot come out of a general fund, but must come from a political action committee fund which has significantly more restrictions attached to it.

A Wisconsin Right to Life Group designed and aired an add that painted Russ Feingold in a negative light during his campaign for re-election to the Senate. Although the add focused on Feingolds proclivity for obstructionism in the Senate and not abortion (which is the groups main focus), the Right to Life group claims the add was not meant to be campaigning, but merely to lobby senators to confirm Bush's judicial nominees. Becuase it is lobbying and not campaigning, they say, the add should not be subject to the provisions of the campaign finance laws.

But exactly who is right? I am not sure. Though I think it is likely the Right to Life group is streatching the facts to claim their add is solely issue based and 0% campaigning, should we as a country rule for or against a groups intentions? or are the effects more important? Shouldn't Wisconsin's Right to Life be entitled to their free speech? On the other hand, shouldn't they be required to comply with campaign finance rules when they make a TV add and air it at a time when it will clearly affect an upcoming election? Sometimes the decision seems clear. Sometimes I am comforted that some of the most brilliant legal minds sit on that bench to do the hard work for us. Other times I am concerned that the process for getting people to that bench is becoming so politicized, I soon won't actually trust those sitting in judgement to be impartial enough to effectively decide such difficult cases.

According to Dick Durbin, 45 Senators currently oppose Alito's nomination. Good. Only 41 are needed to sustain a fillibuster. Let's see if they can actually muster that kind of courage. They would also only need 6 more senators to defeat Alito in a strict up or down vote (though that is incredibly unlikely).

See the full story here.

When was the last time Bush read the Constitution? The Presidential oath is the one and only oath for public office that is written in the US Constitution. It is also the shortest and most succinct of any oaths for public office. You'd think, then, that even Bush could actually remember to uphold it. Instead, he has continued on his path of destruction. Having seen that no one can stop him from wiretapping whomever he wants (another instance of illegal search and seizure), his administration is now trying to subpoena Google for its search results without just cause for suspecting them of anything.

This action is even more insidious when you peel back further layers. Not only does the government not have a warrant against Google, Google is not even a party to the lawsuit in question. What's more, the government doesn't have just cause to suspect anyone of any related violations.

Ok, so what is this really about? Well first of all the government passed a law to attempt to prevent children from seeing pornography on the internet. However, in a case called Ashcroft vs. ACLU The Supreme Court told the Bush administration it wasn't allowed to enforce this law. Now, not only is the government looking for ways to enforce the law, they are subpoenaing Google to release documents, not because they have reasonable cause to suspect anyone of infringing the invalid law, but because they are trying to build a case to prove that.

So lets recap: Bush passed a law that the already incredibly conservative Supreme Court has told him is unconstitutional. Now he is infringing on the constitution again - this time in the form of illegal search and seizure - in an attempt to build a case in support of a law we already know is unconstitutional. What is wrong with this picture?

The Originalism or Strict Constructionism touted by Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas seems appealing in theory. Whether or not you agree with their conclusions, it seems logical that, in order to faithfully interpret specific clauses of the constitution, we must think of the language the same way the authors would have thought of it. Still, when analyzed empirically strict constructionism may be as prone to whimsy as the doctrine of a "living constitution" often attributed to more liberal judges.

In reading some of Scalia's or Thomas' opinions, it seems they claim to hold the definitive answers to what the framers intended when they wrote certain clauses of the constitution. This argument is weak on many levels however. First of all, the historical information we have about how the framer's would have interpreted the constitution is sparse and perhaps biased since it is almost exclusively written by James Madison.

Furthermore, to claim that the original interpretation of this document hold the sole authority on contemporary decisions is an appeal to the idea that Americans ratified the constitution, thus legitimizing its authority through the idea of popular sovereignty. On this assumption, the popular understanding of the meaning of these clauses should hold the sole authority rather than the intentions of the framers. This information is even sparser and dramatically more biased since most of the documents we have which speak to this understanding were published in the midst of a campaign for and against constitutional ratification. Thus is carries with it a not-so-subtle undercurrent of propaganda. Though much of this information helps put constitutional decisions and understandings in context, it certainly isn't sufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion as to the "correct" interpretation of any part of the constitution.

Thanks to Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian Jack Rakove whose class I am taking and whose copious background in early American history has helped me find evidence for the nagging hunch I have had all along that Originalism is not quite as perfect as its proponents would have us believe. The debate over intention rages on, but still this should not be the be-all, end-all of constitutional interpretation. Finally, I would like to think that the framers, conscious as they were of the consequences their actions would have on all representative government to come, would have left some clauses intentionally vague to accommodate the changing culture-in-flux that they knew the Constitution would have to continue to govern for many years to come.

A Constitution that creates functional governmental structures to solve the problems and dilemmas of the day, but also articulates generalizable ideals and ideas to cope with the issues of the future would be the most effective governing document. I think the framers tried to do exactly that. Maybe we should give them that much credit. They spent a long time just discussing political philosophy. Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt that they did a good job. It seems to me that to subscribe to originalism means to subscribe to the idea that the framers were only concerned with their present and not our future. I think they were smarter than that. Don’t you?

No I am not talking about Governor Dean's famous speech. I am talking about my own frustrated primal pent-up scream that I am dying to unleash everytime I watch Democrats fumble political opportunities.

The Republicans are hemoraging political capital. With Abramoff singing like a canary, a full blown fight raging for the new Majority Leader of the House, serious doubts about Bush's respect for the constitutional separation of powers, and dozens of other scandals freckling the face of the Republican party, you might be tempted to think the republican party is vulnerable. You might be tempted to think that the Democrats might choose this time to strike and take decisive action either through legislature or in the Media. But it seems you can never underestimate the current Democratic party's ability to allow these opportunities to fly by.

Some people are trying to do something. Dean is making as big a fuss as he can about Frist's hypocricy in threatening to eliminate the fillibuster and minority whip Steny Hoyer is quickly moving to illuminate the true ideological differences between the two parties, but it's not enough.

Come on people. Republican interest groups have it together and Republican leadership has been incredibly effective, even from jail and incarceration. Can we really not rise to meet their leadership and productivity without sinking to such a low ethical level?

Clinton was great at fighting back. He wasnt afraid to throw a few political punches. Who is going to step up to the plate and be that person for the Dems. We need a strong Presidential candidate and someone who could hold his or her own in a media battle stands a good chance to be elected. Who's it going to be?

Do you watch the Daily Show? If not, then you should. Besides being hilarious and an incredible platform from which to call politicians on their often ridiculous maneuverings, every once in a while, they dig up a story that is so bizarre you'd think it had to be faked. This week Ed Helms reported that the city of Clark, Texas has taken marketing and product placement to a new level of absurdity. In exchange for providing satellite TV to every person in the city, Clark Texas has changed its name to DISH, Texas.

This town of 125 residents is so new, its founder and namesake, L.E. Clark, is still alive and well living in the town. Though he is outraged that Mayor Burgoff has resorted to such crass marketing, he loves his new Satellite TV. He hasn’t refused it.

I wholeheartedly recommend you watch the Daily Show report which you can find here. Enjoy.

It’s the American dream - becoming so subservient to our capitalists market forces that such sentimentalities as naming a city or state after its founder fall by the way side. I think I might just have teared up a little bit just then… ok, maybe not.

The Congressional Culture of Corruption has had a few casualities recently. Abramoff plead guilty to a variety of charges and Tom Delay has decided not to try to reclaim his former position of Majority Leader. Will this be a fundamental and critical blow against the Culture or is it just a superficial wound -- something we citizens can obsess about for a few days, but that doesn't truely reflect substantive change in government?

Either way Blund and Boehner, the two House Republicans vieing for the position of Majority Leader will roll out their platforms in the comming weeks. Republicans are expected to elect a new leader before the month is out.

Both candidates will look to stop to stop the corruption, or at least mop up the mess it has made. Both want to rekindle the Republican vision to outshine the recent setbacks the GOP has felt. Well... Good luck with that.

Democrats can't let this pitch slide by. They have missed a few opportunities. THe last few elections have been huge body blows to the Democratic image and yet they are still too fragmented to put together a coherent platform. Come on guys. The GOP is handing this to you on a silver platter this time. If they can put together some kind of interesting platform and make sure America thinks of Republican and scandal as synonymous terms (this shouldnt actually be that difficult a task), Dems might be able to hit back rather than merely being a Republican punching bag.

Hey remember that Alito guy? President Bush is trying to get him a seat on the Supreme Court. And Refreshingly enough, the hearings seem to be focusing on something other than abortion. Charles Schumer and Edward Kennedy are concerned with the seemingly unchecked nature of Presidential power and they are pressing the issue with Alito.

Doesn’t it seem recently as if Bush can just do whatever he wants and get away with it? I really feel pretty helpless as an ordinary citizen. He can hold American and foreign citizens indefinitely without charging them with crimes or affording them the rights of POWs. He pushed to leave torture an option for extracting information from suspects. He has bypassed the national security courts to institute roaming wiretaps on American citizens without a warrant. It seems he can’t take a step in any direction without leaping his bounds. For a Republican who claims the federal government is too powerful, he has certainly made some ridiculous power grabs.

Congress always have a difficult time checking the power of the president. There are simply too many of them. There are simply too many hoops to jump through before they can do anything to hold the President truly accountable. The Supreme Court stands the best chance of knocking the President back into reality, but Alito is certainly not the one to do it. He has often written about the importance of Presidential autonomy and the expansiveness of Presidential power. With the current trends in Bush’s actions, Presidential power needs to be addressed now! We can’t afford to have someone like Alito on the Court.

Please don’t forget we aren’t through this whole Supreme Court nominee process. Remember it, we still have some important work to do. This is a lifetime appointment for someone who will likely condone the wanton disregard for civil rights transgressed by the Bush administration. Someone needs to stand up and stop Bush from steamrolling the rest of our government. I don’t think we can trust Alito to do it.

Why War?

In Introduction to International Relations we studied theories of why war happens. There’s the powder keg theory, the spiral model and bargaining theory, but maybe this is the problem. Maybe Economists and Political Scientists only see the numbers. Maybe they can’t see the human component. Is experimentation all its cracked up to be when it comes to social science or can intuition sometimes win out?

Thomas Hobbes said countries go to war for competition, diffidence or glory. But exactly how rational are countries? Do they really go to war when they calculate the potential gain with and without war? Or is it a bit simpler than that?

Walking down the street the other day, a little boy, no more than 9 years old ran to the top of a little pile of snow and shouted “I am the king!” scuttling away to follow his family. I thought it was adorable, but bubble burst quickly. I overheard the statement “attitudes like that are what lead to war.” It was a bit jarring to have the mood ruined, but not inaccurate.

When you push past the tremendous volume of ink spilled in an attempt to explain war and look at the psychology, it might all comes down to an attitude we cultivate in our earliest years. If we weren’t competitive we would never achieve. If we didn’t have leaders who wanted to be in charge, we would never progress. This same instinct for competition – this same proclivity to seize power which can so readily provoke war – is the same quality that sparks movement towards peace and progress.

Thieves used to have their hands chopped off, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t common practice anymore. In fact, there is a constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment.” The recent torture ban says that the US won’t degrade anyone, or treat them inhumanely as a form of punishment or to extract information. This means the United States fines criminals or throws them in jail. Sometimes we now subject transgressors of some more minor crimes to community service, but as a country we officially retain the idealistic view is that criminals can be reformed or at least deterred from committing crimes. Then why has Tennessee passed a law intended to humiliate certain criminals?

Tennessee just passed a law outlining punishment for convicted drunk drivers whereby they are required to clean up trash off the side of the road while wearing a reflective orange jersey that says “I am a drunk driver.” What? Do they seriously think this is going to be more of a deterrent? I mean don’t get me wrong, drunk driving really sucks and I am sure people caught drunk driving would hate to be subjected to that, but that’s just the problem: I don’t think criminals should ever be ‘subjected’ to something like that. The word subjected has this connotation that they are purposely being embarrassed and degraded. Is this really the way to reform someone? Aren’t they just going to be angry about it? That doesn’t seem like a very good idea to me.

Maybe more jail time would be a better idea. Maybe heavy fines – people don’t like to lose their money. But merely officially humiliating people probably isn’t the best plan. Drunk driving is a problem and addressing it, trying to come up with a good way to stymie drunk driving is a very good idea, but I don’t think this is the way to do it.