Will It Be Perpetual War?

IN the beginning war could only be declared by act of Congress and then along came the attacks of 9/11 and the Congress gave their powers up to the president to declare war whenever the mood struck him.

The Authorization for the Use Of Military Force (AUMF) gave the president unlimited power to decide what was a war and when to go fight…..the Congress took a backseat….

In 2018 a bi-partisan bill has taken a new step forward…..

In the near future, Congress will debate a new Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). I use the word “debate” lightly. So far, no hearings have been scheduled, and no testimony is likely to be heard unless something changes. That’s a shame, because this is a serious matter, and this is a deeply flawed AUMF.

For some time now, Congress has abdicated its responsibility to declare war. The status quo is that we are at war anywhere and anytime the president says so.

So Congress—in a very Congress way of doing things—has a “solution.” Instead of reclaiming its constitutional authority, it instead intends to codify the unacceptable, unconstitutional status quo.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/rand-paul-congress-moves-to-give-the-president-unlimited-war-powers/

Yes I wrote that this was a bi-partisan bill……so how do the Dems fit into this bill?

If there is any surprise that Senate Democrats, most of whom are virtually indistinguishable from pro-war Republicans, are about to coalesce in support of the newest version of the Authority for the Use of Military Force of 2018 (AUMF), then you have seriously not been paying attention.

The proposed AUMF of 2018 would replace AUMF 2001 and  repeal AUMF 2002 while it will codify an “uninterrupted authority to use all necessary and appropriate force in armed conflict” against  the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS and as yet unidentified “designated associated forces” who might “pose a grave threat to the US” in whatever country they occupy.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/04/25/democratic-partys-war-history-and-aumf-2018

There is a provision in the new AUMF that has a disturbing consequence…..

……..a bipartisan group of six lawmakers, led by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., is proposing a new AUMF that would greatly expand who the president can place in indefinite military detention, allin the name of restricting presidential power. If the Corker-Kaine bill becomes law as currently written, any president, including Donald Trump, could plausibly claim extraordinarily broad power to order the military to imprison any U.S. citizen, captured in America or not, and hold them without charges essentially forever.

https://theintercept.com/2018/05/01/ndaa-2018-aumf-detention/

I smell a challenge to this new attempt…..does not seem to be in the spirit of the Constitution…..

But we will see……it looks like more of the same or in other words….perpetual war.

Advertisements

Feminism In Review

Last week news came out that another state has ratified the ERA (Equal Right Amendment) making it so that only one more state needs to ratify and it will become the law of the land (I am sure there are a few that will cringe at the thought of women being equal)…..

I wrote about the last vote in a Closing Thought post…..

https://lobotero.com/2018/06/01/closing-thought-01jun18/

Step into the “Way Back” machine and set the dial for the 1970’s USA……Jimmy Carter is president and women started burning bras to get attention from the media……..this gave rise to feminism….and women have been fighting ever since……as of today can we decide what version of feminism we are in?

If one thing’s for sure, it’s that the second-wave feminists are at war with the third-wave feminists.

No, wait, the second-wavers are at war with the fourth-wave feminists.

No, it’s not the second-wavers, it’s the Gen X-ers.

Are we still cool with the first-wavers? Are they all racists now?

Is there actually intergenerational fighting about feminist waves? Is that a real thing?

Do we even use the wave metaphor anymore?

As the #MeToo movement barrels forward, as record numbers of women seek office, and as the Women’s March drives the resistance against the Trump administration, feminism is reaching a level of cultural relevance it hasn’t enjoyed in years. It’s now a major object of cultural discourse — which has led to some very confusing conversations because not everyone is familiar with or agrees on the basic terminology of feminism. And one of the most basic and most confusing terms has to do with waves of feminism.

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth

I tried to do what I could to help women fight for their rights and their place in this society….a place beyond bare foot and pregnant and tied to the bed scenario….

They are getting close so now would be a good time for the old style feminism to be resurrected and work for that last state to ratify.

As soon as the dullards on the Right realize how close the ERA is they will double their efforts to see that it does not see the light of day in that last state.

Closing Thought–01Jun18

I would like to leave my readers today with a bit of history that almost everyone has forgotten but is not dead in the least.

That little slice of history is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)……can you remember the fight back in the 70’s…….no?

The proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) states that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution apply equally to all persons regardless of their sex. After the 19th Amendment affirming women’s right to vote was ratified in 1920, suffragist leader Alice Paul introduced the ERA in 1923 as the next step in bringing “equal justice under law” to all citizens.

In 1972, the ERA was finally passed by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. The original seven-year time limit was extended by Congress to June 30, 1982, but at that deadline, the ERA had been ratified by only 35 states, three states short of the 38 required to put it into the Constitution. The ERA has been introduced into every Congress since the deadline, and beginning in 1994, ERA advocates have been pursuing two different routes to ratification:

  • the traditional process described in Article V of the Constitution (passage by a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states), and
  • the innovative “three-state strategy” (ratification in three more of the 15 state legislatures that did not ratify the ERA in 1972-82, based on legal analysis that when three more states vote yes, this process could withstand legal challenge and accomplish ratification of the ERA)

I drag this out of the dust bin of history because the ratification process is NOT dead and after a recent vote there is only one state short of ratification…..

Illinois has ratified the Equal Rights Amendment a mere 36 years after the deadline for ratification, 46 years after it passed Congress, and 97 years after it was introduced. The amendment, which calls for men and women to have equal rights under state and federal law, was approved by 35 of the necessary 38 states when the deadline passed in 1982, CNN reports. Nevada finally approved it in 2017 and advocates hope it will finally be added to the Constitution if one more state ratifies it, though five states have rescinded their original ratifications, meaning there could be a legal battle even if the magic number of 38 is reached, Reuters reports. The amendment failed in Virginia’s legislature earlier this year.

The measure passed the Illinois House with a single vote to spare in a victory that NPR calls a “stark turnaround” for the home state of conservative Phyllis Schlafly, an anti-feminist activist who campaigned against the ERA in the ’70s. “Years in the making, yesterday’s vote in Illinois brings us one step closer,” says Lenora Lapidus, director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “We look forward to more progress being made, and ensuring that women are explicitly protected against discrimination.” With calls to revive the amendment growing stronger amid the #MeToo movement, Democratic Rep. Carolyn Maloney plans to hold a congressional hearing on the ERA next week. It will be the first since 1984.

Which state will be the history maker….which state will bring about the ratification of the ERA?

That’s it for me guys…..peace out…..chuq

Closing Thought–28Mar18

Let the debate begin!

I read an op-ed today that fits with a debate that we have been having here on IST and thought I would let it continue……

I thought I would enclose this post as my “Closing Thought” because more people seem to go here and not the body of the day.

An ex-Supreme Court justice appointed by Gerald Ford has offerd up his opinion on the gun debate (not gonna make too many happy)…..

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

With that call then ask how hard would it be to repeal the second?

Repealing the amendment, Stevens said, would effectively overturn the controversial 2008 Supreme Court ruling D.C. v. Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protected “an individual right to possess a firearm” for the purpose of self-defense.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-difficult-would-it-be-to-repeal-the-second-amendment

Because I like being fair to all sides of a debate I want to include another op-ed that disagrees with Stevens………(written several years ago…..)

THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.

So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.

This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of “stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage.” Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.

http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-wilson20apr20-story.html

One more op-ed for you to consider……

FOR more than 80 years, the United States has enforced a tough and effective gun control law that most Americans have never heard of. It’s a 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby and provides a model we should build on.

Leaders of the National Rifle Association rarely talk about the firearms act, and that’s probably because it imposes precisely the kinds of practical — and constitutional — limits on gun ownership, such as registration and background checks, that the N.R.A. regularly insists will lead to the demise of the Second Amendment.

In CLOSING:  I am NOT advocating the repealing of the 2nd….I enjoy a spirited debate and included below in case you want to voice your opinion then I suggest you check out this site…..

http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-the-2nd-amendment-be-repealed

Time to go and see what the rest of the internet is  up to today…..TTFN…..chuq

The Right To Bear Arms

After the latest attack in Vegas we are having the usual conversation about gun control and/or gun rights.  It is inevitable that this issue be addressed after every attack…especially those with multiple victims.

I chose today to post all my thoughts on the 2nd….instead of like so many othersa drag it out for days….even weeks…..

An interesting point of view from the UK’s The Guardian…..

Its words have fueled centuries of debate – and not until 2008 did the supreme court clearly back an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.

The second amendment has become a badge and bumper sticker, a shield for gun activists and scripture for much of the American right. But like other cherished texts, it is not as clear as many make it out to be.

The amendment reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

For most of the republic’s lifespan, from 1791 to 2008, those commas and clauses were debated by attorneys and senators, slave owners and freedmen, judges, Black Panthers, governors and lobbyists. For some, the militia was key; for others the right that shall not be infringed; for yet others, the question of states versus the federal government. For the most part, the supreme court stayed out it.

Source: The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean? | US news | The Guardian

I offer up my thoughts on why the 2nd was put into the Constitution…..my next post will be those thoughts….

Then We Have “Executive Privilege”

WE heard the term many many times during Watergate and now with this hearing thing in full swing we are hearing it again……but what is “executive privilege”?  What do they mean?

Let’s go to the definition….

The Constitution does not specifically enumerate the president’s right to executive privilege; rather, the concept has evolved over the years as presidents have claimed it. As the courts have ruled on these claims, their decisions have refined the notion of executive privilege and have clarified the instances in which it can be invoked. The courts have ruled that it is implicit in the constitutional Separation of Powers, which assigns discrete powers and rights to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. In reality, however, the three branches enjoy not separate but shared powers, and thus are occasionally in conflict. When the president’s wish to keep certain information confidential causes such a conflict, the president might claim the right of executive privilege.

The term executive privilege emerged in the 1950s, but presidents since George Washington have claimed the right to withhold information from Congress and the courts. The issue first arose in 1792, when a congressional committee requested information from Washington regarding a disastrous expedition of General Arthur St. Clair against American Indian tribes along the Ohio River, which resulted in the loss of an entire division of the U.S. Army. Washington, concerned about how to respond to this request and about the legal precedent his actions would set, called a cabinet meeting. Although no official record was kept of the proceedings, Thomas Jefferson described the deliberations in his diary. The participants, Jefferson wrote, concluded that Congress had the right to request information from the president and that the president “ought to communicate such papers as the public good would permit & ought to refuse those the disclosure of which would injure the public.” In the case at hand, they agreed that “there was not a paper which might not be properly produced,” so Washington provided all the documents that Congress had requested. This event, though notable as the first recorded deliberation concerning executive privilege, did not carry precedential value until after 1957, when Jefferson’s notes were discovered. In 1958, Attorney General William P. Rogers cited Jefferson’s remarks as precedent for an absolute presidential privilege. Legal scholar Raoul Berger declaimed Rogers’s arguments as “at best self serving assertions by one of the claimants in a constitutional boundary dispute.” Instead, Berger argued, Washington’s willingness to turn over the requested documents shows his recognition of Congress’s right to such materials.

In subsequent incidents, however, Washington and his successors did choose to withhold requested information from Congress, citing various reasons. In 1794, for example, the Senate requested from Washington the correspondence of Gouverneur Morris, the U.S. ambassador to France, who was suspected of aiding the French aristocrats against the revolutionaries despite the United States’ official stance of neutrality. Washington provided the letters, but he censored them first, acting on the advice of officials such as Attorney General William Bradford, who said that the president should “communicate to the Senate such parts of the said correspondence as upon examination he shall deem safe and proper to disclose: withholding all such, as any circumstances, may render improper to be communicated.” The following year, Washington refused to provide the House with information relating to Ambassador John Jay’s negotiation of a treaty with Great Britain, arguing that the House had no constitutional right to participate in the treaty making process and so had no right to request materials associated with it.

A short history of the situation and its use and legality……

You now more than you did before you read this piece……you are welcome!

Believe me we will be hearing this term a lot in the coming months and now you can write on the phenom with a bit more knowledge….

Closing Thought–21Mar17

“There’s battle lines being drawn
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound
Everybody look what’s going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

 We all have seen the massive protests in the last couple of months….of course the “Ignorati” would have us believe that all these protesters are being paid and that they all are violent…..silly but what can you expect from people with shoe size and IQ the same?
Now that the Right has a new puppet master all this protesting will come to an end……right?

A new report from the Department of Homeland Security’s intelligence wing has likened certain types of political protests to “domestic terrorism,” and specifically outlined anger at President Donald Trump’s election as a driving force.

The document, obtained by the Intercept, was prepared by the North Carolina Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAAC) and DHS’s Office of Intelligence & Analysis (I&A) with a particular focus on North Carolina. The document comes as Republicans in at least 18 different states have proposed anti-protest bills that seek to criminalize protesters engaging in property destruction and blocking highways, among other forms of protest.

Source: Homeland Security report likens anti-Trump protests to ‘domestic terrorist violence’

This should come as NO surprise after all the Tweets and lip service the Master has given on this subject that his DHS would label this as “terrorism”….

Source: Anti-Trump Riots are Domestic Terrorism | MediaBent

I was wondering how long it would take for the state GOPs to flex their little brains….when they would start trying to ban ALL protests….did not have to wait too long…….

Georgia has become the latest state to take up legislation seemingly designed to have a chilling effect on First Amendment rights. Georgia’s State Senate passed SB1 earlier this month and the bill is now before the lower house of the state’s General Assembly. It goes further than many of the other so-called ‘anti-protest bills’ introduced in other states, by expanding the legal definition of domestic terrorism and creating a state-level Department of Homeland Security with surveillance and intelligence sharing capabilities.
This from the party that wraps itself in the Constitution every chance that get…..I believe that is a part of that document that says protests are okay…..but that never stopped the GOP from ignoring it when it suits their aims.
 For your musical enjoyment…Buffalo Springfield