Taxation Without Representation

The White House indicated on Friday its opposition to the D.C. Voting Rights Act (DCVRA), an action that will certainly endanger the bill as it heads to the full Congress. The DCVRA, which would finally provide the residents of Washington D.C. with full representation in the House of Representatives, passed out of the Judiciary Committee late last week and appeared to be building momentum as Democratic leaders vowed to bring it to a vote this week.

The White House opposition, as reported in the Washington Post, is based on Constitutional Concerns; "The Constitution specifies that only 'the people of the several states' elect representatives to the House," said White House spokesman Alex Conant. "And D.C. is not a state." Mr. Conant is referring to Article I Section II which states "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States." No where in the Constitution is full representation for the District in the House prohibited; in fact in Article I Section VIII Congress is granted the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States." Legal scholars, including Republican luminaries Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, have found that:

We conclude that Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact the District of
Columbia Fairness in Representation Act. The District Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17, empowers Congress to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District” and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. This broad legislative authority extends to the granting of Congressional voting rights for District residents—as illustrated by the text, history and structure of the Constitution as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts. Article I, section 2, prescribing that the House be composed of members chosen “by the People of the several States,” does not speak to Congressional authority under the District Clause to afford the District certain rights and status appurtenant to states. Indeed, the courts have consistently validated legislation treating the District as a state, even for constitutional purposes. (The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives)

To take one line from the Constitution and from it deny full representation to American citizens while ignoring other provisions within the Constitution that provide for and allow the enfranchisement of those citizens is wrong. It is akin to declaring that the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination (Leviticus 18:22), while not also selling your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), and advocating the death penalty for all those who work on the sabbath (Exodus 35:2), to name just two examples. When one cites from a historical document, whether in the realm of the law, or as a source of moral code, one must remember the document in its entirety. One cannot have only the parts that he or she likes best while disregarding those that are inconvenient to their argument.

The fact that the Constitution makes no provision for the voting rights of the residents of the District is not surprising considering that the District did not come into formal existence under the control of the federal government until 1800, ten years after the framing of the Constitution. During that ten year window according to the terms of cessation outlined by the States of Maryland and Virginia and as granted by the Congress residents of the District voted for and were thus represented by Congressmen from their former States. In essence, providing for the enfranchisement of the residents of the District was seen as unnecessary by the framers of the Constitution; having just fought for and end to taxation without representation it is illogical to take this oversight as an intent to disenfranchise the residents of the District.

If President Bush and the White House trust Mr. Dinh when it comes to the Constitutionality of the Patriot Act should they not also trust his judgment as to the Constitutionality of fully enfranchising the residents of the District? The only obvious differences lie in the feelings of the Bush Administration towards the two bills. Laws that give wide ranging power to the Administration with little regard to the civil liberties ensconced in the Bill of Rights must surely be Constitutional. Whereas laws that would end an egregious oversight and the relegation of the residents of the nation's capitol city to the status of second class citizens clearly violate the Constitution in that they would likely lead to an additional Democratic seat in Congress.
The DCVRA, in a bipartisan compromise, attempts to assuage Republicans by also creating a new seat in typically Republican Utah, which will be receiving an additional seat based on the 2000 census report.

Today on the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq President Bush held up the democratic elections that have taken place in that war torn country as a sign of progress and as an accomplishment worth the sacrifice of more than 3000 American lives. Mr. Bush is willing to send Americans half way around the world to die so that citizens of a foreign land might have the right to vote, sadly he is unwilling to sign a bill into law that would give the American citizens who are his neighbors that same right.

Bill Broad And The New York Times Can't Handle The Truth

On Tuesday the New York Times published an article by Bill Broad that viciously attacked former Vice President Al Gore and his film An Inconvenient Truth. Mr. Broad and the NY Times allege in the title, From A Rapt Audience, A Call to Cool The Hype, as well as the opening paragraphs that the scientific community is "uneasy" and "that some of Mr. Gore’s central points are exaggerated and erroneous."

Mr. Broad then proceeds to offer complaints and expressions of unease from climate-change deniers with few if any actual scientific credentials. Mr. Broad further fails to indicate any exaggerations or errors in Mr. Gore's presentation.

For a full scale breakdown and proper debunking of this excuse for journalism please see the excellent article Debunking the NYT's sloppy hit piece on Gore by David Roberts.

As Mr. Roberts indicates Mr. Broad and the NY Times have simply regurgitated a tired set of inaccurate and false right wing talking points. Should the American public no longer expect journalists at one of the nations leading newspapers to do any real reporting or investigating?

The main stream media, the NY Times included, must return to actual, investigatory journalism, they have and are failing in their obligation to their readers, the American Public.

Alberto Gonzales Can't Handle The Truth

The latest member of the Bush Administration to demonstrate a complete disregard for honesty, fact or truth is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Surprising? Hardly, when you consider the lengthy record of lies and distortions proffered by the Bush Administration throughout its tenure but particularly in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.

The irony in the fact that the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice has been lying to Congress and the American people is too poetical to escape mention.

Mr Gonzales' lies and distortions were laid bare by Senator Charles Schumer at a press conference Tuesday morning

Here are some of the falsehoods we've been told that are now unraveling.

First, we were told that the seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons.

It now turns out this was a falsehood, as the glowing performance evaluations attest.

Second, we were told by the attorney general that he would, quote, "never, ever make a change for political reasons."

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as all the evidence makes clear that this purge was based purely on politics, to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.

Third, we were told by the attorney general that this was just an overblown personnel matter.

It now turns out that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or to make political pay-offs.

Fourth, we were told that the White House was not really involved in the plan to fire U.S. attorneys. This, too, turns out to be false.

Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about the firings of the U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts across the country.

Fifth, we were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas.

In fact, here is a letter from the Department of Justice. Quote: "The department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin."

It now turns out that this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's own e-mail. Quote: "Getting him, Griffin, appointed was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.

Sixth, we were told to change the Patriot Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance.

It was Senator Feinstein who discovered that issue. She'll talk more about it.

So there has been misleading statement after misleading statement -- deliberate misleading statements. And we haven't gotten to the bottom of this yet, but believe me, we will pursue it.

Mr. Gonzales is not simply a pundit or journalist who has misled the public, he is a public servant who has lied to and betrayed the trust of the American People, his employers. Mr. Gonzales should not be allowed to maintain his position as the head of the Department of Justice in light of his blatant disregard for the truth, without which there can be no justice.

Andrea Mitchell Can't Handle The Truth

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell became the latest talking head parading as a legitimate reporter of the news to pass off patently false statements as fact. As Atrios, Think Progress, and Crooks and Liars have reported on Monday night's edition of Hardball Ms. Mitchell said:

They're going to try to really tamp this down and appeal to the polling which indicates that most people think, in fact, that he should be pardoned. Scooter Libby should be pardoned.

Ms. Mitchell may believe that Mr. Libby should be pardoned, this is her opinion which she may freely state as such. Recent polling by CNN shows that only 18% of Americans think Mr. Libby should be pardoned while fully 69% opposed a pardon. It would seem that the only way Ms. Mitchell could make the above statement was to wholly fabricate it.

The larger problem is that such statements are allowed to pass unchallenged and unreported and as such enter the mainstream media as truths. These blatant falsehoods are then bandied about by right wing pundits, politicians, and so-called news sources and peddled as the truth.

The American people deserve better, they can handle the truth.

Washington DC and Guns

Washington D.C. enjoys a terrible reputation when it comes to violent crime, particularly in regards to its homicide rate. In recent years, however, the District has seen a steady and promising decrease in its homicide rate. In 2005 (most current year for which complete statistics are available) Washington D.C. was not in the top ten cities for homicide rates per capita.

This week has seen a major blow to safety and sanity struck by the District's Federal Appeals Court in its decision to overturn D.C.'s long standing ban on hand guns. In its ruling the court went against nearly 70 years of Supreme Court precedent in determining that the Second Amendment can be applied to individuals as opposed to its intent to protect 'well regulated militias.'

Gun enthusiasts will argue that if guns are illegal than only criminals have guns, whereas law-abiding citizens will now be able to defend themselves. It boggles the reasonable mind to see how making guns, especially hand guns, easier to obtain and thereby increasing the number of weapons on the street could possibly stand to make anyone safer. Additionally studies have shown that guns kept in the home only serve to increase the likelihood that members of said home will be shot, and that guns are almost never used to deter home invasion scenarios.

Regulating guns, particularly hand guns, makes sense. The fewer guns available and the more difficult those guns are to obtain the less often guns will be used in the commission of criminal acts or, for that matter, in the accidental shootings that also plague our nation. Only criminals run stop signs; should we therefore eliminate stop signs? As D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty told NPR's Steve Inskeep "if you had less stop signs then there'd be more accidents you don't stop regulating something just because you haven't completely eliminated the problem." Incidentally Mr. Inskeep could have been more pro gun and pro violence in the conduction of that interview but he would have had to start calling Mr. Fenty names to accomplish that feat (see below for a letter to NPR in regard).

Hopefully on further appeal this unfortunate and out of step ruling of the Appeals Court will be overturned and hand guns will not proliferate in the District. Sadly sanity and common sense when it comes to gun control have a much harder road to hoe. Most Americans believe falsely that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own and keep guns in their homes. They believe this because the pro gun lobby has so artfully misconstrued the Second Amendment, as former Chief Justice Warren Burger said, "[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."






Letter to NPR:

to: Morning Edition

subject: Mayor Fenty Interview and Coverage of DC Gun Ban Case

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in regards to this mornings interview of Washington DC Mayor Adrian Fenty and the coverage afforded to the DC gun ban case.

While I am nearly always impressed with your coverage of a wide range of stories and the presentation of both multiple sides to a story as well as multiple questions that many stories raise, your coverage of the DC gun ban case fell woefully short in both cases.

All of Mr. Inskeep's questions were posed from a pro-gun standpoint and he perseverated in forcing Mr. Fenty to defend his city's long standing and publicly popular ban on hand guns. A more balanced and neutral tone would have been more appropriate.

More importantly the interview and coverage missed one of the major tenets of this story. DC's ban on guns is not new, it has existed with degrees of success since 1976 and was just struck down by an Appeals Court ruling that flies in the face of nearly 70 years of precedent. Dating to the 1939 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller which declared 'that the Second Amendment was adopted "with obvious purpose" of protecting the ability of states to organize militias and "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."'(wording borrowed from Washington Post Editorial Dangerous Ruling).

This story is very arguably about this dangerous ruling that is drastically out of step with all other American courts. To fail to cover that aspect of the story was inexcusable. To adopt a tone for the interview that suggested there is nothing wrong with keeping a gun in your house was just distasteful.

Sincerely
Henry Coppola

Army Ordering Injured Troops To Iraq

So this is what support means. Republican Legislators, the Bush Administration and their pundit lap-dogs continue to hound anyone who might dare to question the manner in which they are conducting the war in Iraq, let alone suggest that it is well past time to remove American forces from the quagmire that the Administration has created. The primary claim is that anyone suggesting the war is not going well is unpatriotic and is not supporting the troops.

Meanwhile this administration has created a horrible situation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and throughout the Veterans Administration in their 'support' of not only troops but severely wounded ones, both physically and mentally, at that.

As if that alone did not fully demonstrate where the Administration stands in 'support' of the troops, on Sunday Salon.com reported on the doctoring of medical records as the Army orders injured troops to return to Iraq. 75 soldiers at Fort Benning, GA had their physical profiles downgraded without medical exams and are being returned to active duty in Iraq despite being physically unfit to do so. Many of these soldiers suffer from injuries that prevent them from wearing their protective gear. According to one of the soldiers these moves are being made in an effort to get more bodies into Iraq.

The 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade is now leaving for Iraq for a third time in a steady stream. In fact, some of the troops with medical conditions interviewed by Salon last week are already gone. Others are slated to fly out within a week, but are fighting against their chain of command, holding out hope that because of their ills they will ultimately not be forced to go. Jenkins, who is still in Georgia, thinks doctors are helping to send hurt soldiers like him to Iraq to make units going there appear to be at full strength. "This is about the numbers," he said flatly.

This is certainly not the only recent instance in which the Administration has put increased pressure on troops in an effort to meet the numbers for their new 'surge.' The AP has reported several times on the lack of properly rested and trained troops and on the continuing use of stop loss orders and the general extension of tours in Iraq.

If liberal thinkers and elected officials, both Democrat and Republican, who advocate the removal of US troops from Iraq are to be accused of failing to support the troops, what are we to make of the record of failure that the Administration and its supporters now have in service to American soldiers?

Such baseless claims from the Bush Administration should not be allowed to go unquestioned. The complete disregard for the well-being of American soldiers that has been shown by this Administration and its supporters should be reported alongside any of their claims that anti-war advocates are failing to support the troops.

If elected officials are to be accused of not supporting the troops when they talk of removing them from Iraq then the American military and the American public should also be attacked. In recent polls an increasing percentage of the military disaproves of President Bush's handling of the war and a majority of Americans favor bringing US soldiers home from Iraq.

So who really supports the troops?

Democrats Join Edwards, Stand Up To Fox

On Friday Nevada Democrats and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joined former Sen. John Edwards in dismissing a debate that was to be hosted by Fox News.

According to The Huffington Post, the decision was finally reached after the president of Fox News, Roger Ailes, compared Sen. Barack Obama to Osama bin Laden Mr. Edwards had previously decided against attending the debate in question.

The decision to cancel the Fox News debate was unquestionably the proper one, it does however, beg the question; Why would Fox News ever be allowed to parade itself as a legitimate news organization by hosting and moderating a debate among Democratic Presidential Candidates?

Fox News has long since been uncovered as a bed of vile hatred and rhetoric and baseless propaganda of the worst kind. Perhaps more than any other organization Fox News bears responsibility for the depths to which mainstream American journalism has sunk. Open disqualification of Fox News as a legitimate news source is an important step that should be taken by Democratic leaders as well as anyone who would like to see their nation returned to a fair and balanced state.

MoveOn has more.