An attorney by the name of Adam J. White had an article in yesterday’s Weekly Standard where he explained how the Military Commissions Act passed by Congress last week affected the right to petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. Here’s the outline of his explanation…
- The Constitution establishes the right of American citizens to petition the courts for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, i.e. the right of American citizens to have the courts determine if they have been unlawfully imprisoned.
- Congress has the power to extend Habeus Corpus rights to a wider population than American citizens by statute, which it has done at various times in its history.
- In the 1950 case Johnson v. Eisentrager, the Supreme Court ruled that statutory extensions to Habeas Corpus “did not extend habeas relief to alien military personnel held overseas” (Mr. White’s description).
- In the 2004 case Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ignored its own Eisentrager precedent and ruled that statutory extensions of the Writ of Habeas Corpus did extend habeas relief to foreign combatants being held at Guantanamo Bay.
- Part of Congress’ purpose in passing the Military Commissions Act was to restore the scope of Habeas Corpus to what had been established by the Supreme Court in Eisentrager.
In case you were wondering, all four of Rhode Island’s Congressional Representatives; Senators Jack Reed and Lincoln Chafee, and Congressmen James Langevin and Patrick Kennedy, voted against the Military Commissions Act. [Open full post]
Timothy C. Barmann of the Projo has been reporting that Verizon is trying to enter the Rhode Island cable TV market. This is from yesterday’s paper…
Verizon Communications has cleared a significant hurdle in its plans to offer cable television service in Rhode Island by reaching an agreement with the state that lifts the requirement that Verizon build its own public-access studios, as other cable providers must do….Here’s the strategy I think Cox should follow to fend off the Verizon threat. Cox should propose amending the state constitution so that the rights to operate a cable TV company in Rhode Island are limited to one and only one comapny, a company that must be based in Atlanta, Georgia.
Cox Communications, which has the most to lose by Verizon’s entry in the cable business, did not raise any objections to the waiver agreement.
This strategy makes as much sense as amending the state constitution to allow the state to grant the right to operate one and only one destination casino that must be located in West Warwick, RI. [Open full post]
Anchor Rising completes our interview with Andrew Lyon, Republican Candidate for the office of Rhode Island General Treasurer. Mr. Lyon wants to make sure people know what the General Treasurer’s job is not?I think a lot of people think that the General Treasurer just goes down to the bank, puts some money in, and gets a deposit slip. It’s really a lot more involved than that. The General Treasurer is very important to the fiscal well-being of the state of Rhode Island.
Mr. Lyon continues his answer to the previous question about the role of the General Treasurer really does, and the power that the Treasurer?s office has to affect all of Rhode Island?
Andrew Lyon: The General Treasurer sits on the state investment commission. One of the problems with the current boards is there are too many politicians sitting on them. Politicians sitting on investment boards, acting as financial advisors, is not a good thing. That’s one thing I would change. We don’t need people who are owed political favors sitting on our investment boards or advisory commissions. What we need to do is something like Governor Carcieri did four years ago with the big audit; come in, review the operation of the treasurer’s office, check all of the investment advisors, review everything. And we have to change our investment asset allocation.
As the next General Treasurer, I can cure two problems at the same time. If we can identify companies that want to come into Rhode Island, companies that are fiscally sound and are run with good management, we might be able to invest in them, if they come to Rhode Island, through the state pension fund. By helping new companies get a foothold in Rhode Island, we’ll add jobs, we’ll have more wages being paid, and the people receiving wages will pay state taxes. That additional revenue will help reduce the tax-burden, whether its property tax, income tax, or sales tax — maybe we can even get rid of the excise tax as promised year after year — while providing enough money to pay for our social programs.
The problem in Rhode Island right now is the high tax burden and mismanagement of the state offices, excluding the Governor. In the state of Rhode Island, our government is controlled by the General Assembly. It’s a one-party system. Now, you’ve got the wealthy leaving the state with their money because of the high taxes. People graduating from our fine universities and colleges are unable to find a well-paying job and unable to afford a home, so they’re leaving.
The welfare rolls are growing. Rhode Island is one of the most generous states with welfare in the country. We’re ranked either fifth or sixth. Meanwhile, the middle class gets squeezed with taxes to pay for the benefits. Now we’re going to ask the middle class to make up the unfunded liabilities. The bill has come due and we have to face how we plan to pay it.
Anchor Rising: We’ve had an initial start to pension reform passed in Rhode Island in the last year or two. A good start, or not enough?
Andrew Lyon: You have a good plan proposed by the Governor and some members of the General Assembly, but you have other members of the General Assembly, backed by the unions, who don’t like the plan. The union members put a nix on it, so the plan didn’t go through in its original form. It’s a good start, but we need to do more. I commend the Governor and, giving kudos where they belong, praise the current General Treasurer for going along with the Governor in realizing that pension reform was necessary. But we need to do more.
AR: In what other areas would you make changes in what the General Treasurer’s office is doing?
AL: I think we need to make the victims unit a little more accessible. We also need more timely reports from the General Tresurer’s office. The General Treasurer’s is mandated by law to produce reports within six months year of the fiscal year ending. Mr. Tavares’ 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all 18 months late. As far as I know, The 2004 report probably just came out. 2005? Forget it. Who knows where it is. His excuse was that they were updating all of the computer systems. The reports have to be done on time, so the people of Rhode Island have some transparency and know where their money is being invested.
I would change the discount rate. The discount rate in Rhode Island is 8.25%. The national average is 8.05%. In layman’s terms, the discount rate is the expected rate of return on investments. What experts say is that a discount rate that is higher than 8.05% indicates someone trying to downplay their unfunded liabilities — so we might be in worse shape than fourth, though you can’t go much lower. The unfunded liability are equivalent to 96% of the state budget. That spells disaster.
I think Mr. Tavares could have done a better job of picking investment advisors. And I think he should have taken my advice, and changed his asset allocation as market conditions changed. Any good investment advisor will change his asset allocation as conditions change. If the market is going down, you get more conservative. If the market is going up, you get more aggressive. Mr. Tavares hasn’t done that over the last eight years. That’s the reason why our unfunded liability is fourth worst. I don’t blame the current Treasurer for our liabilities being greater than our assets, that is happening to a lot of state and private pensions. But we don’t have to be near the bottom.
We have an older workforce in Rhode Island. They?re going to be retiring soon. As more people start taking their benefits, we’ll have fewer people paying in. What’s being done about this? Has the Treasurer informed the public about this? Do we need to consider having the workers paying into the pension system pay more? Do we need to shut off the current system and change over into a new pension plan, perhaps a defined contribution plan?
We have some very generous benefits for our state workers, and we don’t have a huge tax base in the state of Rhode Island to pay for them. Maybe things would be different if our taxes were low, we had more people that wanted to live here and we had more people paying into the state coffers, but we don’t. People are leaving Rhode Island, because of the excessive tax burden and it’s a recipe for disaster.
AR: What are your qualifications for the General Treasurer’s office?
AL: I am hoping that the people of Rhode Island will take a look at my seventeen-plus years of experience, compared to that of my opponent, and see that they have someone in Andrew Lyon with the right experience for the job. I’ve worked in Chicago, Boston, and New York. Currently I am an assistant vice president at a major bank here in Rhode Island. I am used to analyzing investments. I’m used to making decisions based on analysis and financial data. I’ve been making sound judgments for banks and financial institutions for seventeen years. I want to apply that experience for the benefit of state of Rhode Island. I love it here. My wife loves it here. My family loves it here. We need to make sure Rhode Island is sailing in the right direction, and I want to be a part of that.
AR: Your opponent (State Senator Frank Caprio) got on TV early, but has been running mostly a feel-good campaign that?s light on issues. What would you like to say about your opponent?
AL: From what I know of Mr. Caprio, he is a good person and a good family man. But he?s been in the General Assembly — the same General Assembly that has created our problems with high taxes and political corruption — for fifteen years. His brother is a State Rep.
Mr. Caprio, I believe, is a family attorney. He’s been running ads since last November or December. I look forward to meeting him, debating him, shaking his hand and getting to know him a little bit. It’s always good to have a friendly rapport with your opponent. I expect a good, clean campaign.
What I’m going to focus on my experience, my ideas, and why I’m more qualified than my opponent. My opponent is not the current Treasurer, so he can’t be blamed for the current deficiencies. But my goal is to make sure that the people of Rhode Island have a clear choice between a political insider without any financial or banking experience and myself.
I’m not a political insider and I have the right qualifications to be General Treasurer. Rhode Islanders need to make a decision about who they trust more. Hopefully, they will look at me and see that I have the experience that Rhode Island can trust. We’ll see what happens on November 7.
When one brushes away the rhetoric, one finds the contradictions beneath.
In one post, RIFuture notes Charlie Fogarty’s new healthcare plan, which, I discovered after wading through the usual political policy mire, will be funded in part as follows:
Rather than spending state tax dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy few, high-priced consultants and lawyers, and tax breaks for out-of-state corporations, I will set state spending priorities that focus on reforming our health care system.
Yet in another post, RIFuture crows about Inc.com magazine’s poor rating of Governor Carcieri’s performance, which rating comes with the following explanation:
After years of haggling, Carcieri and the Democratic-led general assembly agreed in 2006 on a set of tax reforms that, while not exactly comprehensive, are a good start—including an alternative flat tax that will lower the effective top income tax bracket to 5.5 percent from 9.9 percent over five years.
Presumably RIFuture’s Matt Jerzyk wouldn’t agree with Inc.com that Fogarty’s healthcare plan would undo a “good start” of Carcieri’s. Be that as it may, according to Inc.com, businesses “in the Ocean State face some of the highest [tax] rates and most complicated requirements in the country.” According to Fogarty’s plan description, he would make “large corporations who do not provide health insurance pay their fair share.”
As is all too common in this state, Fogarty is attempting to sell voters some charitable-sounding rhetoric that, if actuated into policy would drive businesses — and jobs and tax revenue — out, increase the burden on those who remain, and, on top of it all, force more people onto the publicly funded segment of his healthcare plan. As for where those funds will come from, we’ll just have see whom politicians promise to “just make” pick up the tab.
We’d be better off if the average citizens of Rhode Island would at long last make politicians provide us our fair share of representation.
The Associated Press is reporting that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted a lower court stay on the National Security Agency’s “warrantless wiretapping program”, formally called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. This circuit court ruling allows the program to operate while the appeal of the original stay is being considered…
The Bush administration can continue its warrantless surveillance program while it appeals a judge’s ruling that the program is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday….
The program monitors international phone calls and e-mails to or from the United States involving people the government suspects have terrorist links. A secret court has been set up to grant warrants for such surveillance, but the government says it can’t always wait for a court to take action.
This is one of the easier-to-comprehend issues associated with civil liberties and the War on Terror. It is purely a matter of definition. Should electronic communication crossing the border be treated according to the rules that govern the executive branch’s domestic powers or the rules that govern its international powers? Or, as Mark Steyn wrote a few weeks ago…
[Open full post]If the U.S. government intercepts a call from Islamabad to London about a plot to blow up Big Ben, it can alert the Brits. But, if the U.S. government intercepts a call from Islamabad to New York about a plot to blow up the Chrysler Building, [should that be] entirely unconstitutional?
This week, “Kos” (Markos Moulitsas), uber-blogger of the left-blogosphere, argued in a Cato Institute’s monthly electronic journal that the Democratic party is the natural home for voters who believe in individual liberty…
It was my fealty to the notion of personal liberty that made me a Republican when I came of age in the 1980s. It is my continued fealty to personal liberty that makes me a Democrat today.Of course, Kos is wrong. Consider some of the America’s biggest domestic challenges, and the potential solutions that maximize personal liberty…
The case against the libertarian Republican is so easy to make that I almost feel compelled to stipulate it and move on.
- Improving the Quality of Education: Public School choice, charters, and vouchers
- Retirement Security: Inidividual retirement accounts
- Healthcare: Health-Savings Accounts, Decoupling health insurance from the workplace
- Political Participation: Repeal campaign finance limits on free speech.
As many commenters to the original article have noted, the centerpiece of Kos’ “libertarianism” is increased government regulation of private business, which is not libertarian at all, with some paeans to issues like flag-burning added on. (Combining attitudes on flag burning with campaign finance reform is as enlightening an illustration of mainstream Democratic thinking on individual liberty as there is: the government should leave individuals free to engage in symbolic, isolated acts, but as soon as individuals want to take actions that might influence the larger society, then it’s regulate-to-the-max!)
However, Kos’ attempt to redefine a political phiosophy as its opposite is not the point. He freely admits he is an activist, not an intellectual. The more interesting point is that as an activist, if he thinks libertarians are worth courting, he must believe there’s substantial voting bloc of them out there.
However, a Wall Street Journal editorial that appeared the day after Kos’ article hinted (unintentionally) at the opposite. The Journal suggests that the Republican leaders don’t believe that there are enough voters in the electorate who believe in individual freedom to make liberty-maximizing solutions to domestic problems political winners…
Social Security reform was never going to be easy, and Mr. Bush’s war-driven decline in job approval meant he couldn’t move any Democrats. But that still doesn’t excuse such prominent Republicans as Tom Davis (Virginia) and Roy Blunt (Missouri) for resisting their President’s reform effort behind the scenes. So frightened were they that they never even brought the subject up for a vote.Add to the Journal’s despair the fact that President Bush allowed the No-Child-Left-Behind act to be turned from a potentially-meaningful school choice plan ito an increased layer of centralized regulation and that he signed of campaign finance reform act of 2002, and it’s hard to make the case that the Republicans have done their part in advancing an agenda of individual liberty.
Perhaps the most puzzling abdication was the GOP failure to do anything at all on health care. The window for saving private health care from government encroachment is closing, and both business and workers are feeling the pinch from rising costs. Yet Republicans failed to make health-care savings accounts more attractive, failed to let business associations offer their own health plans, and failed even to bring to a vote Arizona Congressman John Shadegg’s bill to avoid costly state mandates by letting health insurance be marketed across state boundaries.
Accepting that the WSJ and the KOS are reliable windows into their respective sides? political thought, it seems that an agenda of individual liberty doesn’t have a home in either political party right now. America has one party (the Democrats) so committed to an agenda of centralizing government power, it has talked itself into believing that government regulation is freedom! We have the other side (the Republicans) that doesn’t believe that many Americans really support individual liberty, and has resigned itself to the inevitable adoption of a collectivist agenda. How will liberty prevail in this environment? [Open full post]
They sure teach the kids to string their thoughts together at the University of Rhode Island. Consider Gabriel Lugo’s letter to the URI student paper, The Good 5¢ Cigar, apologizing for mistakenly “paint[ing] the author’s person with the same irrational beliefs” as some fundamentalist Christians whom that other student had, in a limited way, defended. Writes Lugo:
In a world presided upon by the monopoly of evidence, rational thought and logical honesty, it is our duty to challenge these messengers of hatred, misinformation and intolerance.
Let us not forget the power wielded by some of the fundamentalist religious groups in this nation. Belief in invisible alpha males, flying deities, talking snakes and magical apples of knowledge has a profound effect on political landscape of the United States of America. Forty-four percent of the electorate share the conviction that an omni-benevolent Superman will return to Earth in our lifetime and bring forth the Endtime. One need not be a prophet of doom to see the effects that this herd mentality will have on the only remaining Superpower.
Inadvertently, to be sure, Lugo has fleshed out in language the reason that many a rational and honest person is justified in fearing the palpable effects of disbelief in that venerable “omni-benevolent Superman” who presides over us all. He may not believe in “talking snakes and magical apples of knowledge,” but Lugo’s passive voice raises equally troubling questions: With what species of judgment and enforcement does his tripartite monopoly preside upon the world? How much tolerance is due those whom Mr. Lugo apparently hates?
I fear for Gabriel that he may, someday, depart from academia only to discover, among the variegated masses of his fellow citizens, that some exist who are respectable, even admirable, and intelligent, and yet who ascribe to the “herd mentality” that his pack has taught him to hunt. What will be his reaction when he finds that the easy prey abounding is not so simple a matter to devour and, worse, that the herd stubbornly insists that it has a right to shape its society and government?
The University of Rhode Island would offer such as Gabriel an incalculable service for his money by throwing in his path some selections from the vast library of Christian thought that are not so plainly dismissable. Whether a secular American university is still capable of challenging its students to such an unthinkable degree is another troubling question.
Via a predictably political RI Future post, I came across this even more predictably political DailyKos post:
You do not abuse the trust of children. If you find out about the possible abuse of children, you have a duty to stop it. A duty. An imperative. An oath. All those words that men say, and seldom, apparently, mean.
Because sexual abuse ruins lives forever. What happened to Foley came full circle, from molested victim to predator himself. And now new children are involved, and new lives have been affected, forever.
That is why you do not abuse the trust of children. That is why it was so very important, when the red flags were raised, from 2001 onwards, from 2003 onwards, from 2005 onwards; you have a duty to do more than the most minimally possible nothing.
Perhaps it’s my scandal fatigue again that hears tones of disgustingly cynical political posturing in Kos’s post, but it’s rich, nonetheless, to hear preaching about abusing the trust of children from the representatives of the party of easy divorce and easier abortion.
[Open full post]For more than a year, now, I’ve been directing conversations with my politically-interested friends toward an issue that has concerned me as one who has found (very) modest success as a socio-political writer: my growing disinterest in the political debate du jour.
A prominent experiential example: I used to check the Corner two to five times per hour. Now, although I don’t believe that the quality of the writers or the written has gone down, I find myself increasingly surprised at the topics that the punditentia is discussing. At this moment, two-and-a-half hours and roughly 3,000 words worth of Corner posts are about Mark Foley.
Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan, another must-read during the days of the Bronze Age of blogging, who once lanced from his chariot the idea that the Catholic Church’s pedophilia scandals had anything whatsoever to do with homosexuality (what’s the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia, again?) is casting about such rhetoric as this:
But closeted gay men are particularly vulnerable to this kind of thing. Your psyche is so split by decades of lies and deceptions and euphemisms that integrity and mental health suffer. No one should excuse Foley’s creepy interactions; they are inexcusable, as is the alleged cover-up (although we shouldn’t jump to conclusions yet about who knew what when). But there’s a reason gay men in homophobic institutions behave in self-destructive ways.
Or think of it another way: what do the Vatican and the RNC have in common? Here’s one potential list: entrenched homophobia, psychologically damaged closet cases, inappropriate behavior toward teens and minors … and cover-ups designed entirely to retain power.
Here’s the thing about politics — at least for me: when it begins to feel like a game, it also begins to feel like callous and even malicious manipulation. Maybe I’m just suffering from scandal fatigue… do we really need two or three per primetime season?
[Open full post]I haven’t posted much lately, mostly because of real world “busy-ness” with work and family. One result of all of this activity is that ideas and thoughts flitter across the mind only to leave again, half-resolved. However, the benefit of a blog is that these things don’t have to remain that way. So, if you’ll indulge me, here are a few random thoughts.
The GOP is walking a fine line in the whole Foley affair. If you run along the moral high ground, the fall is farther and faster. By this point, I’ve come to expect the worse from any Congressional majority. The GOP has blown many opportunities to implement an overall, conservative program of government. They have offered a few scraps here and there, but only when pushed (Border fence, PorkBusters). Instead, it seems as if keeping power for its own sake has become more important to the GOP leadership. Now, that’s a very cynical view….especially because….what exactly do Democrats offer for an alternative? Elect them because they want the power so that they can, well…what exactly? Have the power themselves?
By the way, Patrick Kennedy should really refrain from commenting on the moral failure of anyone, shouldn’t he? For that matter, Democrats lecturing anyone on covering up the pecidillo’s of politicians should check the mirror. Sheesh.
It’s almost election time and Bob Woodward has a new book out. Whoda thunk?
On principle, I’m opposed to gambling for mostly moral reasons and good ol’ fashioned Yankee thriftiness. I’ve also said (ad naseum) that the biggest addicts to casino gambling are the legislators who get addicted to the revenue generated by it. Thus, I hope that if we deny the General Assembly revenue, they won’t find new ways to spend it. Therefore, maybe I’m on the wrong side of this casino issue. If it is true that the state will lose revenue if a new casino is approved, wouldn’t that mean that the legislature would have less money at their discretion (especially with slippage)? If that’s the case, shouldn’t I support the casino in the belief that the legislature will “starve”? In an ideal world, probably. But if there’s one thing we can count on, the General Assembly will never hesitate to raise “revenue” via increased taxation.
And there’s also no doubt that very few of us will experience “property tax relief” thanks to a casino. Somehow, I don’t think the General Assembly will allow such a “trickle down affect” to occur.
I don’t think anyone, other than possibly the Derderian’s, is happy with the outcome of the Station non-trial. What a complete tragedy.
A couple lighter notes:
If you’ve ever worked in one, you’ll appreciate The Office. I wonder what Joseph Campbell would say about some of those archetypes? (By the way, Dwight makes the show, for me).
Why did people ever put linoleum (or carpets) over hard wood floors? A quest for modernity, I suppose….but now I’ve gotta pay for the more aesthetically pleasing “hardwoods throughout the house” look with both $ and sore muscles.
No Red Sox in October: kinda weird. And I don’t think it’s going to get better next year.
