Fool’s News

Though not now amusing for the participants, as an outsider, I find this amusing.

I upgraded my 2.0.3 installation of WordPress to verson 2.0.5 and the “enable referrers” error has seemed to go away.  Let’s hope it stays gone for good…

This past Tuesday the Supreme Court of Israel ruled 6-1 that same-sex couples who had married in Canada were entitled to register their marriages with the Registration Clerk in the Interior Ministry.  The ruling in Ben-Ari v. The Director of the Population Administration in the Ministry of the Interior (HCJ 3045/05) treats the issue before the court rather narrowly as whether the registration clerks, in performing their ministerial function, can refuse to register a foreign marriage evidence by a valid marriage certificate, and NOT whether the State must formally “recognize” the marriage.

It’s been a while since I posted about legal matters. This article really got to me. So, here comes a constitutional discussion.

President Bush, VP Cheney and now Attorney General Gonzales are vigorously defending the White House’s warrantless surveillance program. These responses are a result of an August 2006 decision by Detroit U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor holding the program unconstitutional saying it violated the rights to free speech and privacy and the constitutional separation of powers. This is the first decision concerning the constitutionality of the program.

On Friday VP Cheney called the decision “an indefensible act of judicial overreaching.” Of course, such a statement completely ignores the strong sentiment that the program itself is a huge act of executive overreaching. George Bush has made similar statements about those who oppose the program. But the most recent statements come from Gonzales so we’ll deal primarily with those one for now. In his prepared remarks, Gonzales said that some see the program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country. “But this view is shortsighted,” he said. “Its definition of freedom — one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people.”

Let’s address the “program as on the verge of stifling freedom rather than protecting the country.” Such a statement is symptomatic how how this administration presents issues to the public. It is always an all or nothing proposition. The administration does not allow for any grey area. This world view is short-sighted and untenable. It presumes that “stifling freedom” and “protecting the country” are mutually exclusive. In other words, Gonzales wants us to believe that so long as the White House’s actions are protecting the country, we should ignore any effects is may have on our freedom. That is not how the Constitution works. The duty to protect the country does not trump the Constitution; that duty must be carried out within the limits of the Constitution. Gonzales’s comments create a dichotomy between safety and freedom: To be for one means you must be against the other. That is not the case. You can be for safety within the limits imposed by the Constitution.

In addition to helping the administration sell its program to the public, it also helps the administration politically. When members of the public and, say, democrats criticize the program, Republicans can campaign against them claiming that democrats do not care about security. Of course, no politician is against national security. Some are simply prepared to provide national security within the limits of the Constitution. By contrast, the Republicans want power under the guise of national security. Bush and other administration officials sharply criticized the ruling, which the government appealed. They argued that the program is legal under the president’s constitutional powers and saved lives by helping to disrupt terrorist plots.

Cheney, in an address Friday to the Federalist Society, said Taylor’s order was troubling because it was “tying the hands of the president of the United States in the conduct of a war.” He added: “And this is a matter entirely outside the competence of the judiciary.” Well, let’s look at the President’s constitutional powers. Article II of the Constitution reads:

Article II

Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

That’s it. The Constitution is a document of enumerated powers. That is, unless it specifically vests some power in a branch of government, that power does not exist. I am not sure under which section Bush, Cheney and Gonzales believe that warrantless searches fall. I don’t see it. Rather than simply state that they believe it is constitutional, why not explain why they believe it is constitutional? Pretend you’re writing a law school paper or a court brief. Give us your justification for its constitutionality – not just your conclusion that it is constitutional. Given the level of education these people have as well as the number of legal advisors, you ought to be able to provide legal reasons for your conclusion…unless, of course, you know the program is not constitutional and, therefore, cannot provide any meaningful justification.

Of course, this is particularly difficult to justify given the Fourth Amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There are no exceptions in the Constitution in this regard. The security of the people shall not be violated. The sole exception is with a warrant issued upon probable cause. There is no exception for terrorism. There is not exception for the convenience of the President. Likewise, there is no exception to save lives.

I find it funny that Cheney says, “And this is a matter entirely outside the competence of the judiciary.” While national security may be a matter outside the competence of the judiciary, constitutional law falls squarely within its expertise. Given the conduct of this administration, it seems that constitutional law is entirely outside the competence of this administration.

It was with a little bit of sadness that I noticed yesterday that Law Dork is no longer available.  It appears that Chris ceased maintaining the blog as of November 16, 2006.

It makes me sad since Chris’s was one of the first blogs (if not the first) blog I stumbled across in 2002.  Having read it frequently, I was taken by the ability to express your ideas online in your own way.  Thus, I have Chris to thank for getting into blogging.

While I have not had as much time to blog and peruse others’ blogs of late, I could find nothing forewarning of the shutting down of Law Dork.

 Best wishes.

A lesbian couple married in Massachusetts has filed for divorce in Rhode Island, setting up a legal conundrum for judges in a state where the laws are silent on the legality of same-sex marriage.Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston of Providence were married after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized gay marriage starting in 2004.

They filed for divorce in Rhode Island on October 23, citing irreconcilable differences, Chambers’ attorney, Louis Pulner, said Wednesday. Ormiston declined to comment.

Rhode Island Family Court Chief Judge Jeremiah Jeremiah Jr. has yet to decide whether his court has jurisdiction and said he believes it is the first filing for a same-sex divorce in the state. A preliminary hearing was scheduled for December 5.

Until recently, though, it was up in the air whether out-of-state couples could marry in Massachusetts. In September, a Massachusetts judge decided that nothing in Rhode Island law specifically banned gay marriage and said Rhode Island couples could legally marry there.”Now the ultimate question is whether the state will recognize or determine whether it has jurisdiction to handle an out-of-state divorce when we don’t have any case law that accepts or rejects same-sex marriage,” Pulner said.

Nearly 4 in 10.

The University of Oslo’s Natural History Museum in Norway opened the first-ever museum display featuring animals exhibiting homosexuality.   The exhibit, “Against Nature?,” features 51 species of animals exhibiting homosexuality, though the project coordinator indicates that homosexulaity has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them.

“You can make up all kinds of stories: Oh it’s for dominance, it’s for this, it’s for that, but when it comes down to the bottom I think it’s just for sexual pleasure,” Wolfe told LiveScience.

Conversely, some argue that homosexual sex could have a bigger natural cause than just pure pleasure: namely evolutionary benefits.

Copulation could be used for alliance and protection among animals of the same sex. In situations when a species is mostly bisexual, homosexual relationships allow an animal to join a pack.

“In bonobos for instance, strict heterosexual individuals would not be able to make friends in the flock and thus never be able to breed,” Bockman told LiveScience. “In some bird species that bond for life, homosexual pairs raise young. If they are females, a male may fertilize their eggs. If they are males, a solitary female may mate with them and deposit her eggs in their nest.”

Also, almost a quarter of black swan families are parented by homosexual couples. Male couples sometimes mate with a female just to have a baby. Once she lays the egg, they chase her away, hatch the egg, and raise a family on their own.

Interesting stuff.

In Germany, an appeals court upheld the judgment of a lower court which ordered a gynecologist to pay child support for up to 18 years as compensation for botching a contraceptive implant.  The Karlsruhe-based federal appeals court ruled on Tuesday that the doctor must pay his former patient, now a mother of a 3-year-old boy, 600 euros ($769) a month because she became pregnant after he implanted her with a contraceptive device.

Nice to be that child, huh?  Mommy didn’t want you so much that she sued the doctor to pay for you.  America’s values just keep spreading.

PC World Magazine has published its Top 13 Most Embarrassing Web Moments. Some of them are hilarious; others are so-so.  Have a read.  Enjoy.