Both Arlen Specter and John McCain have publicly stated that they thought there were unconstitutional provisions in the Military Commissions Act which they voted for. That’s an admission of acting contrary to their oath of office. Neither of these men is fit to serve. (A previous post on the Military Commissions Act and Arizona Representatives’ votes on it is here.)
From TPM Muckraker: Hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates “raise serious questions about the legality and actions” of those officials, according to a draft bipartisan report prepared by the House Government Reform Committee. The 95-page report, which White House officials reviewed Wednesday evening but has yet to be formally approved by the panel, singled out two of President Bush¹s top lieutenants, Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman, as having been offered expensive meals and exclusive tickets to premier sporting events and concerts by Abramoff and his associates. ...
Today the Senate, following the House, voted to legalize the right for the government to engage in physical interrogation techniques that most people would consider to be torture and to detain individuals permanently without criminal charges by designating them “unlawful enemy combatants,” even if they are U.S. citizens who have never left the country. As Glenn Greenwald puts it, Congress has legalized tyranny. Both of Arizona’s Senators (John McCain and Jon Kyl) voted for the bill, S. 3930. Arizona’s Representatives voted as follows on the detainment bill, H.R. 6166 (the Senate bill is S. 3930): In favor: Jeff Flake (R-District 6) Trent Franks (R-District 2) J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5) Jim Kolbe (R-District 8) Rick Renzi (R-District 1) John Shadegg (R-District 3) Against: Raul Grijalva (D-District 7) Ed Pastor (D-District 4) Once again, a completely partisan vote in which the Republicans demonstrate their disregard for this constitutional republic. You can find the complete House vote results here. UPDATE September 29, 2006: Ed Brayton has more at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. The founders of this country would have found this grounds for revolution. UPDATE October 1, 2006: I fully expect the courts to overturn this, since the U.S. Constitution allows only two conditions for the temporary suspension of habeas corpus in Article I, Section 9 (“when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”). It is also worth noting that there is some simplification, above. The designation of “unlawful enemy combatant” (UEC) in the bill is made by “a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Also see Richard Epstein’s testimony to the Senate (PDF) urging them to kill this bill, which they disregarded.
From a letter to me dated August 11, 2006, in response to a letter I sent him criticizing his vote: Thank you for expressing your views about the issue of flag desecration. I share your concern in this matter. I believe we have an inviolable duty to protect the right of free speech–one of our most precious inalienable rights and the linchpin of a healthy democracy. I do not believe, however, that guaranteeing respect for our national symbol by prohibiting “acts” of desecration impinges on political “speech." As long as citizens are free to speak out on any matter and from whatever point of view they wish, as our forefathers intended, it does not seem burdensome to me that we accord some modicum of respect to the symbol of those precious freedoms for which so many of our countrymen have laid down their lives. Some view these efforts to protect the flag as political demogoguery or empty symbolism, unworthy of the attention it receives. I see the issue differently. The flag represents each and every one of us, regardless of race, religion or political point of view. It is a point of unity in the midst of our great diversity. Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation–the ramifications of which are far more profound than mere symbolism. For these reasons, I have support [sic] a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration. I voted for such language in previous Congresses, but unfortunately, the tally has always fallen short of the 67 affirmative votes necessary for approval. Additionally, I have cosponsored legislation to statutorily provide protection for the flag in a manner that will be upheld by the Supreme Court. Again, thank you for your interest in this important issue. I hope you will continue to share your views with me on this or any other matter of concern to you and our nation. Sincerely, /s/ John McCain United States SenatorSenator McCain states that “Tolerating desecration of the flag is silent acquiescence to the degeneration of the broader values which sustain us as a free and democratic nation.” But this completely ignores the fact that it is not only possible but certain that voices will loudly speak out in criticism of flag desecration–that’s not silent acquiescence, that’s fighting bad speech with good speech, which is the whole point of the First Amendment. McCain explicitly recognizes that the flag is a symbol. It’s a symbol that can be represented in art, language, binary data, and a Penn and Teller illusion. (Penn & Teller’s illusion raises the question of whether the symbolic desecration of a symbol is any different from an actual desecration of a symbol.) To place limits on the contexts that symbol can be placed in or on transformations of that symbol is to place limits on free expression, and to place limits on the principle of freedom of speech that lies behind the First Amendment. By his willingness to make a special exception for this symbol, McCain is doing damage to a constitutional principle. His position on this issue is just as wrong as his position on trying to protect government from the consequences of violating the First Amendment in his vote for the PERA Act, and just as contrary to his oath of office. ...
The U.S. House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 2679, the “Public Expression of Religion Act,” which denies plaintiffs the ability to recover legal costs in a challenge against government violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause. The effect of this bill is to make it more difficult for anyone to fight cases where the government violates the U.S. Constitution by instituting mandatory religious practices, by making those legal cases different from all others. In other words, any Representative voting in favor of this is implicitly advocating that governments be able to engage in unconstitutional religious activity and avoid the consequences and penalties that currently can result when they do. It seems to me that a Congressman who supports a bill to make it easier for government to get away with violations of the Constitution is a Congressman who is acting contrary to their oath of office. Arizona Representatives who voted for reducing penalties and deterrence for unconstitutional theocracy by voting for the PERA Bill: Jeff Flake (R-District 6) Trent Franks (R-District 2) J.D. Hayworth (R-District 5) Jim Kolbe (R-District 8) Rick Renzi (R-District 1) John Shadegg (R-District 3) Those who voted consistently with their oaths of office by voting against the PERA Bill: Raul Grijalva (D-District 7) Ed Pastor (D-District 4) That’s a partisan vote, and the Republicans continue to express their disregard for the U.S. Constitution and religious liberty. You can find the full House roll call here. For further information on this bill, see Ed Brayton’s commentary at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
Proposition 107, the “Protect Marriage Arizona Act,” is billed by supporters as an act designed to protect the institution of marriage in Arizona. The supporters’ website says: This proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution preserves “marriage” as only consisting of the union of one man and one woman, and prohibits creating or recognizing any legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to that of marriage. Arizona statutes already prohibit gay marriage, several times over. ARS 25-101 (C) says “Marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited.” ARS 25-112 says that marriages in other states are valid in Arizona, except for those that violate ARS 25-101–so Arizona refuses to recognize gay marriages from Massachusetts, for example. ARS 25-125 (A) says “A valid marriage is contracted by a male person and a female person with a proper marriage license who participate in a ceremony conducted by and in the presence of a person who is authorized to solemnize marriages and at which at least two witnesses who are at least eighteen years of age participate." Now, I think it’s absurd to argue that gay marriage harms marriage, but let’s leave that claim aside. Look at the latter part of this proposed constitutional amendment–it says that “NO LEGAL STATUS FOR UNMARRIED PERSONS SHALL BE CREATED OR RECOGNIZED BY THIS STATE OR ITS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARRIAGE.” This is a very vague and potentially very broad statement–“similar to” is a comparative, it comes in degrees. But no degree of similarity (even supposing that it came in easily measurable units) is defined here. The advocates of this kind of legislation have already demonstrated elsewhere that they mean to include civil unions and domestic partnerships in this, whether they involve same-sex couples or heterosexual couples. They could also use this wording to fight against benefits for domestic partnerships, custody contracts, wills, guardianship agreements, and so forth, where unmarried couples are involved. And no doubt they will–this amendment is backed by people like nutty theocrat Len Munsil (his organization drafted it), who opposed the 2001 repeal of Arizona’s law that prohibited unmarried couples of the opposite sex from living in the same house or apartment, even if only as roommates. The exact same battle is occurring in Virginia. ...
Len Munsil’s Center for Arizona Policy (you can find their Form 990s on Guidestar under “Arizona Family Research Institute Center for Arizona Policy Inc.”), though a tax-exempt nonprofit, has been personally quite profitable for him (and a few other people). In 2004, the group’s Form 990 shows $1,441,177 in revenue and $1,380,839 in expenses. Of that, Munsil, as president, received $209,250 in salary, $30,430 in benefits, and $7,450 in expenses. Executive VP Gary Paisley received $82,060 in salary and $6,660 (interesting amount!) in benefits. Director of Policy Cathi Herrod received $100,986 in compensation and $1,680 to benefit plans/deferred compensation. Director of Research David B. Frese received $59,380 in compensation and $16,848 to benefit plans/deferred compensation, and Legal Counsel Peter Gentala received $50,000 in compensation and $18,528 to benefit plans/deferred compensation. The Form 990s are only required to list compensation over $50,000, but the above adds up to $583,272, or over 40% of the group’s revenue (and over 42% of expenses) for the year. Munsil alone received over 17% of the group’s revenue (and nearly 18% of its total expenses). In 2003, the Form 990 shows $1,127,825 in revenue and $1,085,812 in expenses. Munsil received $181,925 in salary (which means he got a hefty 15% salary increase from 2003 to 2004), $25,942 in benefits, and $3,817 in expenses. Paisley received $80,486 in salary, $5,988 in benefits. Herrod received $87,448 in compensation and $1,548 in deferred benefits. Frese received $52,250 in compensation and $14,472 in deferred benefits. The total here is $453,876, or just over 40% of revenue (and almost 42% of expenses), with Munsil receiving nearly 19% of the revenue (and over 19% of the expenses). In 2002, it was $1,067,417 in revenue and $1,001,277 in expenses, of which Munsil collected $156,402 in salary (which means he got a 16% raise from 2002 to 2003), $22,708 in benefits, and $4,500 in expenses. Paisley got $77,000 in salary and $5,296 in benefits. Cathi Herrod got $62,090 in compensation and $1,116 in deferred benefits, and “Lit Counsel” Gary McCaleb got $63,083 in compensation and $9,764 in deferred benefits. That’s $401,959, or just over 36% of revenue (40% of expenses), with Munsil taking over 17% (over 18% of expenses). The Len Munsil Facts website points out that in 1997, the group’s first year, Munsil’s salary was more than half of its revenue. I don’t have easy Internet access to the 1997-2001 Form 990s without paying a fee, but I suspect that’s because the group’s revenue was much lower. In any case, it is clear that Munsil has collected a hefty salary and generous annual raises from his nonprofit group. No doubt he now makes more as an attorney at Mueller & Drury, a firm specializing in divorce and personal injury cases, a firm which Munsil worked with to successfully appeal a ruling that permitted state funding for medically necessary abortions in the face of a statute that prohibited it (Munsil’s group and Mueller & Drury were attorneys for members of the state legislature who filed amici curiae briefs in the case, Simat Corp et al. v. AHCCS).
The chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party has admitted that the party gave $100,000 to the “Arizona Values Coalition” which funded the anti-Len Munsil website previously reported here. This comes after a denial by party spokesman Bart Graves on September 18. The site, which cost $1,250, has resulted in a payment of that amount to Munsil’s campaign from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. Look, Democrats–use accurate information about Munsil to discredit him (of the sort that’s on the Len Munsil Facts website), and do so openly, rather than using deceptively-named groups like the “Arizona Conservative Trust.” If Munsil manages to come from far behind and win this election, the Democratic Party’s actions will be partly to blame. The Arizona Conservative Trust also paid for anti-Munsil pre-recorded telemarketing calls before the September 12 primaries.
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano has a petition on her website to send to President Bush to ask him to ask Congress to take legislative action to mandate lower gasoline prices. This makes no sense. The best way to reduce dependence on gasoline and oil is for the prices to go up, not down. We’re taxing imports of Brazilian ethanol from sugar in order to promote corn-based products raised in the U.S., at the behest of companies like corporate welfare pig Archer Daniels Midland–how about stopping that? The Economist has frequently argued (most recently in its issue this month on climate change) that the U.S. should follow Europe’s lead by increasing taxes on gasoline as well as providing incentives to shift to alternative energy. Ellen Simon, a Democratic Party candidate from Sedona running against corrupt politician Rick Renzi in Arizona’s District 1, has “protecting the environment” on her list of issues, but she’s also pushing Napolitano’s “lower gas prices” petition. Why, Ellen? (BTW, thanks for the link to my Renzi/Hayworth post.) ...
The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy has placed anti-drug PSAs on YouTube. You know, those same ads that have been shown to increase drug use? Perhaps they hope that the video replies which YouTube users generate in response will similarly have an effect opposite to their intent? (Via CNN.)