Those who are coming to this story today have jumped into the middle of quite a tale. I put myself in a tough position last time by promising to link a British "garden of lust", Benjamin Franklin, and 18th Century bloggers into a narrative that concludes with the nascent United States of America and its shiny new Fourth Amendment.

So far, amazingly enough, I’m pulling it off.
If you need to catch up, here’s what’s been going on:

When last we met...it was in a world of scandal and intrigue; with King George III and the Earl of Bute (and of course, their assorted minions) very upset with John Entick, author, and John Wilkes, author and world-class raconteur (and drinking buddy to Franklin), because they had the temerity to...well, blog.

The Earl of Bute had taken so much abuse from the Johns that he had been forced to resign from his position as Prime Minister...leaving the minions under his control, many said, only now from behind the scenes.

Something needed to be done...and when you have minions, you put them to use.

This may be one of the strangest tales I have ever brought to the table, Gentle Reader, and yet one of the most fundamental in describing the birth of our Bill of Rights...and most especially the Fourth Amendment.

As many of you know, the new FISA compromise may or may not allow warrantless wiretapping of American citizens on a wholesale scale.

Something you may not know is that a similar debate raged in England (centered around the right of Government to seize the papers of whomever they chose, and use the papers as evidence against those persons) during the reign of King George III—or that it involved scandalous sexual behavior, Benjamin Franklin, the 18th Century version of blogging, and two men who decided to take on the corruption of the Crown...and won.

And because of all that, we have a Fourth Amendment today.

Ready for a tale of liberty and ribaldry?
Then let’s plunge right in, shall we?

I've been away from Kos for a while for a lot of reasons.  What spare writing time I've had has been devoted to a contribution I'm making to a book on sustainability.  My piece looks at the way John Locke's theory of rights (and hence property, and hence government) depends on an infinite planet.  Since Locke's political philosophy was pretty crucial to the structure of our own gov't, when we go looking for the roots of the un-ecological aspects to our system, his writing, especially his writing on property, is a good place to start.  And there are definitely some things that will have to change as we face up to the fact that we live  on a finite planet.  Like, Fifth Amendment Takings law....

You have no Constitutional Rights.  No constitutional right to free speech.  No constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizures.  No constitutional right against self incrimination.

Not even a constitutional right to privacy or to keep and bear arms.

There are simply no Constitutional Rights and for good reason.

Intellectuals have been around since the beginning of civilization. If you’re not one you might not understand this diary. If you’re not sure whether you’re an intellectual, then please use this diary to test your mental abilities. You might find you're a bigger intellectual than you thought.

The most exciting thing about intellectuals is when they get into an argument over the truth. What does it mean to be exposed suddenly to an objective truth which rocks your world to its core? It means you’ve arrived at a point where character and integrity are tested, and if you fail, you lose credibility.

Seneca Doane, a ranking intellectual within the Daily Kos community, recently posted a diary about the Constitution.

There is a lot of debate in the public space this week over the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling that gives detainees in a "holding pattern" at Guantanamo Bay access to the United States Courts for the purpose of presenting petitions of habeas corpus.

It is a generally accepted misunderstanding that the Court’s ruling gave new rights to the detainees, which seems to be the issue that is the most controversial.

The purpose of today’s discussion is to explain why that view of the ruling is dead wrong...and to offer some thoughts on why this ruling might actually be one of the most important "restraint of government" rulings to have come down the pike in some time.

So off we go, eh?

For seven years, the GOP has ignored the law, the rules of the house, the senate, the DOJ, the White House, and pretty much every administrative regulation, statute, rule, opinion letter, and procedure.

For seven years, the GOP has gotten away with it.

For seven years, the GOP has ignored the rules for DOMESTIC surveillance, spying on Americans without a warrant, even before the House of Saud allowed 16 of its citizens to join with their friend and ally's son, Osama, and attack the US.

For seven years, the GOP has stopped investigations of fraud, covered up their own wrong doing, and hidden behind baseless  claims of executive privilege.

For seven years, the GOP has supported the most illegal, unconstitutional, immoral activities by the Office of the Vice President.

For seven years, the GOP has authorized, supported, and pressed political lawsuits and prosecutions, attacking their political opponents and putting them behind bars or threatening them in other ways.

Hypocrisy rarely crystallizes this purely, so be sure to savor it:

Before the House override vote [on the farm bill] Wednesday night, lawmakers discovered that the version sent to the White House last week was missing a part. The discovery raises questions about whether that section of the bill, which dealt with authorized trade and food aid, would become law.

The discovery of the missing section, "Title III," prompted concerns from House Republicans that the override vote was improper.

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner immediately began sobbing:

"What's happened here raises serious constitutional questions -- very serious," said Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "I don't see how we can proceed with the override as it occurred."

Where were the Bronzed Boehner's famed crocodile tears in 2005, when a $2 billion "clerical error" cropped up in the so-called "Deficit Reduction Act?"

I don't recall any rending of garments over those serious constitutional questions by Captain Suntan. Do you?

By the way, if you're wondering what happened with that situation in 2005, John Conyers, then the Judiciary Committee's Ranking Member, filed suit to challenge the law's validity. The case (Conyers v. Bush) was decided in favor of the president by federal judge John D. Bates.

Does Bates' name ring a bell? I mentioned him yesterday. He's the judge (and former Whitewater prosecutor) who dismissed Valerie Plame's lawsuit, dismissed the Cheney Energy Task Force suit, dismissed the DNC's suit seeking to force the FEC to rule on McCain's public financing flip-flop, and yes, he's the judge assigned to Conyers' latest suit against the Bush "administration," seeking to enforce contempt of Congress citations against Harrier Miers and Josh Bolten.

Move along, citizens. And do not stare directly at the "subpoena power."

This is really a diary to start a discussion on a subject that I think hasn't been debated much in the blogosphere. Do we need to amend the constitution to prevent another unitary executive president? Before people react negatively to the politically difficult idea of amending the constitution consider this. A number of amendments were added to the US constitution after presidents pushed "current" (then) accepted constitutional boundaries, or constitutionaly elected official created chaos.

Perhaps there is no more critical issue that affects the people of this country than the rule of law.  We have seen an administration rewrite laws themselves through memos and signing statements to suit their desired whims..Committing Fraud on the Congress, Engaging in Propagands, Engaging in a War of Aggression, Enhanced Interrogation, Torture, Water Boarding, violations of human rights laws, violations of the Geneva Conventions, Kidnapping innocent citizens, unlawful detention, depriving prisoners of the rights to legal counsel and the courts, illegal wiretapping, conspiring with publicly traded corporations to spy on the citizens of this country, engaging in economic warfare against the people of the United States of America and others....ALL OF THIS IS REPUGNENT TO OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE RULE OF LAW IN OUR COUNTRY AND IN INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Barack Obama stated recently that he would have his Department of Justice review and determine if laws have been violated by the Bush Administration and to take action where necessary.  Hillary Clinton has made no such promise as far as I can see.  In fact, her silence on the subject leads me to believe that she is running and attempting to destroy Obama's candidacy to prevent such an inquiry from taking place..more after the jump..

Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago for 10 years.  Here is an essay from a fellow law professor who knows him well.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

Excerpts:

"The Obama I know:  Terrific listener goes wherever reason takes him

By Cass R. Sunstein, Professor of Law, University of Chicago

March 14, 2008

Not so long ago, the phone rang in my office. It was Barack Obama... he had an important topic to discuss: the controversy over President Bush's warrantless surveillance of international telephone calls between Americans and suspected terrorists...Before taking a public position, Obama wanted to talk the problem through... he and I investigated the legal details. He asked me to explore all sorts of issues: the president's power as commander in chief, the Constitution's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Authorization for Use of Military Force and more."

We have an especially good story to discuss today, and it has all the elements of a Hollywood movie: an oppressive State which demands national unity from school kids on pain of imprisoning their parents, children who resist on religious grounds, a court system which than rejects the entreaties of those children at its highest levels—and angry mobs who insult, attack, and even kill those associated with the children’s cause.

And that’s just the midpoint of the tale.

Every bit of what you’ll hear today is absolutely true...it all took place in the United States during the 20th Century...and the central subject of the story, believe it or not, is the Pledge of Allegiance.

A story like this requires context, so let’s first set the stage: during the 1930s, as Hitler was growing into power...as the first stages of World War II were falling into place...many communities in the United States felt the need to inculcate patriotism into the population; and one way to do this, it was felt, was to require students to say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning.

(Bumped by Susan)

That veto George W. Bush threatened of the Defense authorization bill? The one with the troops' pay raise in it?

He hasn't even got the stones to put his signature to it:

The adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of H.R. 1585 within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Accordingly, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to "pocket veto" bills during an adjournment of the Congress, I am also sending H.R. 1585 to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, along with this memorandum setting forth my objections, to avoid unnecessary litigation about the non-enactment of the bill that results from my withholding approval and to leave no doubt that the bill is being vetoed.

That's right, civics fans: Bush is claiming this is a "pocket veto," as defined in Article I, section 7 of the Constitution:

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large  in their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case  it shall not be a law.

Because the bill has so much in it for veterans and active members of the Armed Forces, Bush apparently doesn't dare sign an affirmative veto. Instead, he'll pretend it... just went away on its own.

But this bill was presented to the president for his signature on December 19th. It's been eight days since then, not counting Sundays as the Constitution outlines. Seven if you give an extra day for Christmas. Hasn't been ten days yet.

Not only that, but you may recall that the Senate has remained in session all this time explicitly to prevent trickery like this. The most oft-cited reason was to prevent recess appointments, but the pro forma sessions -- the most recent of which was held today, yes, the very day Bush claimed there was no session -- also serve to avoid adjournment, and therefore the pocket veto.

But not in Bushworld. In Bushworld, these sessions don't count. Because he says so.

And if Bush thinks the Senate's sessions don't count, what's stopping him from making recess appointments?

How much more abuse can this Congress stand?

At a time when our constitution is in such crisis, the symptoms of which can be seen in every aspect of our politics and our government, there is one quote that sticks out to me above all others:

"I don't know if we have had a president that knows as much about the founding document as he does." - Professor Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago

http://www.suntimes.com/...

Kind of looks like the thinking man to me.

More thoughts below...

Yes, our good friend, Jim Hightower has written a piece picked up by Alternet about the Bush/Cheney coup. You'll find it here http://www.alternet.org/... Yup, if YOU are disillusioned with the cabal in DC, READ THIS!!

I do not know how to link to a former diary but I posted one last night about how the sippy cup is a test on the willingness of the American public to be bullied.

In the diary I found out that the mother involved was a secret service agent.  That has yet to be revealed on the MSM I have been watching.  The MSM yesterday constantly replayed the tapes from the airport asking the public to decide is she was harrassed or was harrassing.

Today, she is personally interviewed.  When they told her she would have to give up the sippy cup because of the water in it.  She offered and attempted to drink it.  They refused to allow her to drink it and told her they were going to confiscate the sippy cup.  It was the only one she had and the only the thing the baby had to drink out of  and so she refused.  They followed her with three different employees in order to confiscate her sippy cup.

My question would be is a sippy cup, particularly an empty one, a dangerous weapon?

Is Governor Freudenthal (D-WY) actually required to pick a Republican to replace Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY)?

State law says so, but it may violate the U.S. Constitution.

Update: The opinions expressed in this diary have been backed up independently by University of California law professor Vikram David Amar writing for findlaw.com.  Professor Amar is also a former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun.

The Seventeenth Amendment states, "the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

The U.S. Constitution thus gives the power to appoint exclusively to the "executive" of the state.  It is unconstitutional for state law to restrict the governor's choice.  The legislature cannot do the appointing itself, nor can it designate another party to make the choice for the governor.  The legislature can only choose to grant this power or not; they cannot restrict the power to appoint.

Continue reading to see a suggested letter to Governor Freudenthal.

So I just finished reading the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.  In that decision, in case you're living under a rock while you surf SP, the Court upheld a Congressional Act banning "intact dilation and evacuation," an abortion procedure that is, quite frankly, too gruesome for me to describe.  Now, don't get me wrong - it's a disaster of a decision for those who think that reproductive rights are important.  And today, for you and me, it's a terrible result.

But I think in the long run, it'll all be all right.  Let me explain why.