Right Side of the Rainbow

The federal agency making that statement is in … Canada, which is deporting its illegals by the plane load. What’s more, the Canadians want the world to know they do not take policy cues from the United States:

Immigration Canada said there will not be an amnesty.

ADDED —

I don’t mean to suggest here that we should deport the millions of illegals living in this country. But there is a subset of illegals whom we should deport en masse: criminal aliens. And there are lots of them. Did you for know, for example, that in California “up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens”? Or that “17 percent of all inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants”?

Except for those being held for life or for capital crimes, what are we doing with these hoodlums when their sentences are up? I know what we should be doing: deporting them to the richest neighborhoods in Mexico or the other countries of origin. For at bottom, the crisis of illegal immigration in this country is fueled by the refusal of wealthy elites in Mexico and elsewhere to reform their corrupt, opportunity-squelching societies.* Let’s put some heat on them.

We often hear it said that illegal aliens have come to America in search of a better life. If so, isn’t it fair to ask, “Why can’t they have a better life in their own country? What’s wrong there?” Or do we believe a vibrant economy is possible only where white people rule? Hmmm?

(*To be fair, I should note that while wealthy Mexicans push the working poor out, lest they face revolution, wealthy Americans beckon them in, lest they face decent wages. The rich everywhere have an angle — and middle class stooges like you and me get to pay for it.

ADDED II —

David Frum:

Mexico desperately needs foreign investment in its energy industry, a rationalization of its tax system, and free-market reform of its labor laws. Vicente Fox has done none of these things, and has in fact barely tried. He has instead pinned all his country’s hopes on the export of its population to the United States.

Today, almost one-fifth of all living Mexican-born people now make their homes in the United States. You have to go back to the Irish potato famine to find a parallel. But Mexico is not suffering famine: It is suffering from a comprehensive failure of political and economic leadership.

[…]

One good place to start would be the energy industry, which could contribute much more to Mexican wealth if Mexico abandoned its 75-year-old protectionist policies. Of course, Mexicans will say that such changes are politically impossible for them. Then they turn around and ask George Bush to lay waste to Republican political prospects to save them from a fate from which they will not save themselves.

Posted by Paul at 5:06 PM | Permalink

For those of you interested in only the electoral calculus of the immigration debate, does this sound like the behavior of would-be Republicans?

People who rage at America have a political preference, and it isn’t the GOP.

Posted by Paul at 11:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In the fight to control our Nation’s borders, conservatives may have some new friends:

New economic research that pits native-born workers against low-skilled immigrants in a struggle for jobs and wages has fueled a rift between some of Washington’s most liberal lawmakers and their allies in economics and labor, who fear that the Democratic Party is pushing an immigration policy that forsakes the party’s working-class mainstay.

The quarrel comes as the Senate debates a proposal to bring millions of immigrants into the legal workforce. A growing body of economic research contends that the recent surge of foreign workers has depressed wages for low-skilled workers, especially for high school dropouts, and has even begun displacing native-born workers. That benefits employers, higher-income consumers and the economy at large, but it may exacerbate the problems of the working class.

“What immigration really does is redistribute wealth away from workers toward employers,” said George J. Borjas, an economist at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government.

[…]

… the work of Borjas and other economists is becoming a wedge in the Democratic Party. Citing Borjas’s work, Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) denounced the Senate immigration bill yesterday, saying: “This is clearly a corporate strategy to keep wages low. It clearly will replace the jobs of American workers.”

Posted by Paul at 7:48 AM | Permalink

Unbelievable:

The greater threat to our nation’s security comes not from Dubai and its pro-Western government, but from Venezuela, where software engineers with links to the leftist, anti-American regime of Hugo Chávez are programming electronic voting machines that will soon power U.S. elections.

Congress spent two weeks overreacting to news that Dubai Ports World would operate several American ports, including Miami’s, but a better target for their hysteria would be the acquisition by Smartmatic International of California-based Sequoia Voting Systems, whose machines serve millions of U.S. voters. That Smartmatic — which has been accused by Venezuela’s opposition of helping Chávez rig elections in his favor — now controls a major U.S. e-voting firm should give pause to anybody who thinks that replacing our antiquated butterfly ballots and hanging chads will restore Americans’ faith in our electoral process.

(Thanks to Little Green Footballs.)

Posted by Paul at 10:23 PM | Permalink

Rep. Steve King, R-IA:

The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they’ve made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn …

The gladiators have entered the coliseum.

Over the last ten years, with a congressional majority to defend, Republicans have learned to hone their political attack skills. And now, in the debate over immigration reform, they’re going to turn those skills on one another.

Given that each side in this intramural battle knows just exactly where to cut the other, it’s going to be a bloody mess.

ADDED —

Republicans aren’t the only ones for whom this is a base-splitting issue. Tom Maguire:

So, Dems are bucking the polls, their labor base, and impoverished native-born Americans (some of whom are black). Can they continue this lonely heroism through November? Or will a nervpus John Kerry, to pick a name out of a hat, suddenly realize that, like the French, the Mexicans don’t vote in our elections?

Posted by Paul at 9:32 PM | Permalink

*Italian. Reportedly, it means “go and take it in your ass.” The gesture that accompanies this admonition — fingers of the right hand fanning out from under the chin — is demonstrated at left by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

For the sake of argument, let us, as the lawyers say, stipulate to the facts: Justice Scalia said, “To my critics, I say, ‘Vaffanculo,’” and that he “punctuat[ed] the comment by flicking his right hand out from under his chin.” And let us further stipulate that the gesture is obscene. (Justice Scalia says otherwise.)

If so, the gesture is the Italian equivalent of the American middle finger, isn’t it? And giving people the finger is as American as apple pie. In fact, if you can show me an adult American male who claims he’s never given anyone the bird, I can show you a liar or a candy ass pansy. (Even when made by an American member of the gentler sex, such a claim should be examined with skepticism.)

In its original report, the Boston Herald described Justice Scalia as an “Italian jurist.” Scalia shot back: “I am … an American jurist.”

Now admittedly, offering the middle finger salute isn’t the classiest thing that a justice of the Supreme Court might do — especially in the house of the Lord. But the Herald’s assertion that this gesture of justice is producing a “growing national controversy” is risible. In fact, there’s only one thing to say to the Herald: vaffanculo!

ADDED —

Ronald Cass, dean emeritus of Boston University School of Law, explains what’s really going on with this and other supposed “controversies” involving Justice Scalia.

Posted by Paul at 7:15 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

Congressional Democrats promise to “eliminate” Osama bin Laden and ensure a “responsible redeployment of U.S. forces” from Iraq in 2006 in an election-year national security policy statement.

Well, hoorah! But contrary to what the AP’s lede suggests, congressional Democrats don’t plan to do the wet work themselves:

In the position paper to be announced Wednesday, Democrats say they will double the number of special forces and add more spies, which they suggest will increase the chances of finding al-Qaida’s elusive leader.

Would more spies help us to track down bin Laden? I doubt it, but who knows? Killing him, however, does not require a doubling of the special forces. Today, right now, if you can provide the Government with bin Laden’s exact physical whereabouts, he can be to Allah within the hour. No special forces required.

Posted by Paul at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Umm, hmm:

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

“If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now,” said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. “I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute.”

Posted by Paul at 6:59 PM | Permalink

Tsk, tsk:

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a U.S. Capitol Police officer today after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.

Members are not required to pass through metal detectors and the officer, manning a position at Longworth House Office Building, apparently did not recognize McKinney and didn’t see her Member pin.

The officer called out “Ma’am, Ma’am,” in an attempt to stop her.

When the officer caught up to McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

McKinney pulled her arm away, swung around, cell phone in hand, and punched the officer square in the chest, according to the witness.

Won’t it be interesting to see what, if anything, happens to Rep. McKinney? I know what would happen to you or me if we punched a cop.

(Thanks to Right Wing News.)

Posted by Paul at 4:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The gesture of justice:

Famously feisty Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia yesterday denied that he made an obscene gesture Sunday inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross, accusing the Herald staff of “watching too many Sopranos episodes.”

In a letter to the editor, an almost unheard-of step for a Supreme Court justice, Scalia said a reporter misinterpreted the gesture he made when she asked whether his participation in Sunday’s special Mass for lawyers might cause some people to question his impartiality in matters of church and state.

In answer to the reporter’s question, Justice Scalia gave an “I don’t care” gesture, not a “f— you” gesture, as he himself explains here.

Posted by Paul at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Raise the lights and cue the music:

As if the debates over immigration and the Iraq war weren’t contentious enough, Congress is about to embark on some really hot-button issues: flag burning, same-sex marriage and censuring the president.

A good time will be had by all.

Posted by Paul at 5:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

If I understand correctly the import of this, we will not see immigration reform this year:

The panel’s bill would allow an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants to apply for a work visa after paying back taxes and a penalty. The first three-year visa could be renewed for three more years. After four years, visa holders could apply for green cards and begin moving toward citizenship. An additional 400,000 such visas would be offered each year to workers seeking to enter the country.

Senators also accepted a proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would offer 1.5 million illegal farmworkers a “blue card” visa that would legalize their status.

Assuming the full Senate accepts the work of its Judiciary Committee, we’ll be at an impasse, for the House will not accept it.

Posted by Paul at 9:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

If you don’t have an RSS reader, you’re missing the boat. And if you’re going to have an RSS reader, you might as well have the best.

For the last few weeks, I’ve been using beta versions and release candidates of FeedDemon 2.0, which made its debut today. And I’m telling you: it will change the way you use the Web.

You can try FeedDemon 2.0 for free. If you think I’m full of it, delete it. But if you’ve never used an RSS reader, or never used a high quality RSS reader, I think you’ll be blown away.

P.S. Yes, this endorsement is uncompensated. I just like things that work.

P.P.S. Don’t know the first thing about RSS or RSS readers? It ain’t hard. You can learn.

P.P.P.S. Once you’ve downloaded FeedDemon, you can subscribe to my feed. Within FeedDemon, set your browser to www.rightrainbow.com. In the task bar, you’ll see this icon:

Click it. The rest is self-explanatory. You’ll follow the same, simple steps for subscribing to other RSS feeds.

Posted by Paul at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Let freedom ring:

The Federal Election Commission decided Monday that the nation’s new campaign finance law will not apply to most political activity on the Internet.

In a 6-0 vote, the commission decided to regulate only paid political ads placed on another person’s Web site.

The decision means that bloggers and online publications will not be covered by provisions of the new election law. Internet bloggers and individuals will therefore be able to use the Internet to attack or support federal candidates without running afoul of campaign spending and contribution limits.

Posted by Paul at 3:58 PM | Permalink

David Frum on the trouble ahead:

Immigration truly is emerging as an issue that can shatter the Republican party. The president is determined to thrust upon the party an amnesty/guestworker approach that is opposed by the overwhelming majority of the Republican rank-and-file. He has come to believe - and tells visitors to the White House - that party opposition to him is based on irrational fear, ignorance, and prejudice. (Just like Dubai! Or for that matter, Harriet Miers.)

If anything were calculated to solidify the perception that this administration scorns the values and concerns of the ordinary Republican - if anything were designed to discourage ordinary Republican from turning out in November 2006 - it is what this administration is doing now. At a moment when the president needs his maximum strength to see his foreign policy through to success, he is gambling everything on a wager he cannot win. His version of immigration reform can only pass Congress with Democratic votes, and there is zero possibiilty that the Democrats will help him - but every likelihood that they will egg him on to incite a Republican civil war on the issue that most bitterly divides the president’s party.

Posted by Paul at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Oakland Tribune:

Less than a year after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against her, Oakland medical marijuana patient and advocate Angel Raich will go back before a federal appeals court Monday with a different legal argument.

Her lawyers will try to persuade a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting in Pasadena, that keeping her from using marijuana as medicine unduly burdens her fundamental rights to life and freedom from pain, as protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Ninth Amendment.

I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Raich, who suffers from a brain tumor. And I have no sympathy at all for the war on drugs or for the Federal Government’s trampling of states’ rights. But if Ms. Raich could not win with the perfectly sensible argument she advanced here, she cannot win with a novel exposition of the Due Process Clause.

Posted by Paul at 8:00 PM | Permalink

I see I’m not the only one unimpressed by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission’s practice of preemptively arresting people.

While I think terms like “Nazi” and “Taliban” are trivialized when used wantonly — no, guys, the TABC is not the “Gestapo;” were it the Gestapo, you’d be dead already — I can still share the disgust with boneheaded law enforcement tactics.

Posted by Paul at 5:29 PM | Permalink

[Grrr. Video not working. Click here for a link to it.]

*Moonbat First Class

(Thanks to Michelle.)

Posted by Paul at 4:45 PM | Permalink

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, speaking in Switzerland, on claims that Guantánamo detainees have rights under the American Constitution:

“War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts,” he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by Newsweek. “Give me a break.” Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don’t have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: “If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I’m not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it’s crazy.” Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq.

Relatedly, the Supreme Court will hear argument Tuesday in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The case presents these questions: 1) whether the military tribunal established by the president to try Gitmo detainees is authorized either by statute or by the inherent powers of the president; 2) whether Gitmo detainees may rely on the 1949 Geneva Convention to seek relief in U.S. federal courts from their detention by the president; and 3) whether the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 divests the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over actions brought by Gitmo detainees.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who ruled on this case as an appeals court judge, has recused himself. The appeals court ruled for the Government.

Posted by Paul at 4:07 PM | Permalink

Posted by Paul at 1:49 PM | Permalink

I have a few objections to this test, one of which is that it conflates political labels with ideological disposition. You can be a conservative and a Democrat; you can be a liberal and a Republican; you can be a libertarian and a Democrat or a Republican.

Now I suppose if you’re a Libertarian, you have to be a libertarian. But if you’re a libertarian, you don’t have to be a Libertarian, and I’m not.

Anyway, here are my results:

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an… Economic Conservative (70% permissive) You are best described as a: Libertarian Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Posted by Paul at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Sometimes the worst thing you can do to the Democrats is to give them what they want.

Posted by Paul at 2:35 AM | Permalink

It appears that the political speech of bloggers will escape regulation under federal campaign finance law.

Of course, one might have thought that this would have precluded the possibility of such regulation in the first place. But one would have been wrong.

Posted by Paul at 2:25 AM | Permalink

Or, how deference to legislative bodies evolved into judicial supremacy. Christopher Wolfe has the story.

Posted by Paul at 12:37 AM | Permalink

The liberals are already making stuff up. So read carefully:

The National Security Agency would not have been barred from capturing communications between doctors and patients or attorneys and their clients during its controversial warrantless surveillance program, the Justice Department told Congress Friday.

Such communications normally receive special legal protections.

“Although the program does not specifically target the communications of attorneys or physicians, calls involving such persons would not be categorically excluded from interception,” the department said in responses to questions from lawmakers.

The department said the same general criteria for the surveillance program would also apply to doctors’ and lawyers’ calls: one party must be outside the United States and there must be reason to believe one party is linked to al-Qaida. The department’s written response also said that these communications aren’t specifically targeted and safeguards are in place to protect privacy rights.

• As reported by the AP, the Justice Department did not say that the NSA had intercepted any communications between doctors or lawyers and their clients. It said, in answer to a hypothetical from Congress, that such communications “would not be categorically excluded from interception.” So we do not know from this report whether any such communications have in fact ever been intercepted. We know only that they could have been intercepted.

• As reported by the AP, the Justice Department said such communications are not specifically targeted for interception.

• As reported by the AP, the Justice Department said the criteria for interception are that “one party must be outside the United States and there must be reason to believe one party is linked to al-Qaida.”

Now I suppose a U.S. resident might eschew the local doctors and instead call overseas to his al-Qaeda-linked physician for advice on treating, say, hemorroids. And if so, I can appreciate the embarrassment the resident might feel if ever he should learn that his call was intercepted by agents of the Government. After all, most of us would just as soon discuss our hemorroids in private.

But the point of the AP’s report is, I suspect, to convey the impression that but for the warrantless nature of the surveillance, no confidential communication would ever be intercepted. If so, that’s utter nonsense. The “special legal protections” to which the AP refers do not include a privacy interest in the plotting of terrorist acts, which is what the NSA’s surveillance program is designed to stop.

Every communication between a patient and his doctor is not protected by our law. In fact, if you tell your doctor you’ve tired of your lover’s flouting of Islamic teachings and plan to decapitate him with a rusty scythe, the doctor has a duty to warn and protect the would-be victim. And even with a warrant, the Government might intercept lawful communications incidential to its compelling interest in preventing terrorism.

Posted by Paul at 9:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

French youth continue their protests against a new law that allows employers to fire anyone under 26 during the first two years of employment. The youths say the law will make them “Kleenex” — i.e., disposable — workers, and so they’ve put on a demonstration of their indispensable skills:

… rampaging youths torched cars, looted shops and robbed student demonstrators …

In all, 630 people were arrested and 90 officers were injured in the clashes, police said. In Paris, riot police fired tear gas as they moved to quell violence that left one student in hospital with a serious head injury.

Sweet kids. Don’t they sound just like the sort of unfireable people you’d want working in your office?

Posted by Paul at 8:46 AM | Permalink

From Hugh Hewitt’s radio interview of the redoubtable military historian Victor Davis Hanson:

VDH: We haven’t had another 9/11, we freed 50 million people, we’ve set up democracies in the most unlikely places following the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and I don’t see anything incompetent about that. And to use the words dangerously incompetent, and then to have the exact same words mimicked, it’s almost as if we’ve got some kind of group speak going on. And it doesn’t match reality.

HH: And to refer to the action of the NSA to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda contacting their agents in the United States as criminal behavior, it’s reckless political behavior. It’s over the edge political behavior.

VDH: It is.

HH: The sort that marked the end of the Roman Republic. Now I’m not…

VDH: It is, and it’s ahistorical, Hugh, because … not just the Roman Republic, but this is a country where Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. Andrew Johnson did it in the entire state of Tennessee. We intured people in World War I and World War II. Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy used things, all things that we regretted later, and we haven’t even approached that, even though in this particular war, unlike those in the past, we’ve lost 20 acres in downtown Manhattan from stealthy attacks, which are more likely to be the exact things we have to watch for, than a conventional, transparent enemy. And we haven’t done any of that, and yet this country has almost become unhinged in a way that our ancestors, getting back to this house, were not unhinged about.

HH: Now when you say unhinged, are you speaking of the elite media? Or are you speaking of the hard left, or both, or something broader?

VDH: I think I’m talking about a tripartite nexus of the people in the Senate like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, the rhetoric they use, and talking about people in the elite media, and I’m talking about the fringe, the Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan left that uses language like Bush is the greatest terrorist. The Harry Belafonte people that have no constituency, but they seem to have the ear of the media, and their views resonate, and we hear about them, even though they’re unhinged. They’re not credible or serious thinkers at all.

I just love Professor Hanson. Alas, there’s only one of him.

Read the rest.

Posted by Paul at 8:08 AM | Permalink

Associated Press:

The state House on Thursday overrode Gov. Kathleen Sebelius’ veto of a concealed weapons bill, allowing it to become law this summer.

The vote was 91-33, giving supporters seven votes more than the required two-thirds majority. The Senate voted 30-10 for the override Wednesday night, three votes more than needed.

The new law, taking effect July 1, will permit Kansans who are U.S. citizens to apply for concealed-carry permits at their local sheriffs’ offices.

As a resident of the largest city in the United States with concealed carry — a city where, according to the FBI, one in three cars has a gun in it — I can promise the nervous nellies, including Gov. Sebelius, that none of their fears will be realized. Houston is the proof.

What the gun restrictionists don’t seem to understand is that while the law can punish people after the fact, it cannot prevent them from doing wrong. A conscience is what prevents people from doing wrong. And fortunately, most people have one. Those who don’t aren’t going to be stopped by statute. (For more, see the crime beat of your local paper.)

The Orwellian rhetoric of the politicians notwithstanding, the law cannot protect you from a violent thug. A handgun can.

Posted by Paul at 7:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Heh:

President Jacques Chirac of France stormed out of a European Union summit last night after a French employers’ leader said that English was “the language of European business.”

The walk-out, seen by Tony Blair, prompted a sheepish exit by the French foreign, finance and Europe ministers and threatened to derail the summit before it had begun.

The meeting had been called to try to fight a wave of “economic nationalism” sweeping the Continent, as France, Spain and other nations seek to erect barriers to cross-border competition.

Mr Chirac’s behaviour, in front of two dozen European leaders, was seen as a sign that he and his team were in an intensely nationalistic mood.

Meanwhile …

Hundreds of thousands of people across France protested labor legislation on Saturday, prompting violent clashes between demonstrators and police.

Amid scattered bonfires, bottle-throwing and smoke filled barricaded streets, the clashes resulted in four injured police officers and 12 hurt protesters, Paris police told The Associated Press. Police in the capital said they arrested 156 people.

The French are protesting pro-growth change.

As the leader of a backward-looking nation in decline, I suppose Chirac has reason to be testy.

ADDED —

I hate when I find that something I posted was already up at Instapundit — complete, in this case, with the “heh.” Leave something for the rest of us, will you, Glenn? :)

Posted by Paul at 6:57 PM | Permalink

President Bush is in the habit now of issuing a “signing statement” — a directive to the “unitary executive” on how to interpret the law — with every bill he signs. I love these statements. Among other things, they drive the Left bananas.

Boston Globe:

WASHINGTON — When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act’s expanded police powers.

The bill contained several oversight provisions intended to make sure the FBI did not abuse the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize papers. The provisions require Justice Department officials to keep closer track of how often the FBI uses the new powers and in what type of situations. Under the law, the administration would have to provide the information to Congress by certain dates.

Bush signed the bill with fanfare at a White House ceremony March 9, calling it “a piece of legislation that’s vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people.” But after the reporters and guests had left, the White House quietly issued a “signing statement,” an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law.

In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law’s requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would “impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive’s constitutional duties.”

[…]

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, inserted a statement into the record of the Senate Judiciary Committee objecting to Bush’s interpretation of the Patriot Act, but neither the signing statement nor Leahy’s objection received coverage from in the mainstream news media, Leahy’s office said.

Yesterday, Leahy said Bush’s assertion that he could ignore the new provisions of the Patriot Act — provisions that were the subject of intense negotiations in Congress — represented “nothing short of a radical effort to manipulate the constitutional separation of powers and evade accountability and responsibility for following the law.”

But here’s the best part. These signing statements are making textualists out of Democrats:

“The president’s signing statements are not the law, and Congress should not allow them to be the last word,” Leahy said in a prepared statement. “The president’s constitutional duty is to faithfully execute the laws as written by the Congress, not cherry-pick the laws he decides he wants to follow. It is our duty to ensure, by means of congressional oversight, that he does so.” [Emphasis added.]

I look forward to reading a similar admonition from Sen. Leahy to the courts.

Here’s the full text of the president’s signing statement on H.R. 3199, which reauthorized the Patriot Act:

Today, I have signed into law H.R. 3199, the “USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005,” and then S. 2271, the “USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.” The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive’s constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

The third chief justice of the United States, John Marshall, is remembered for bringing us the doctrine of judicial review. Might the forty-third president of the United States be remembered for bringing us the doctrine of executive re … oh, never mind. George Bush isn’t that bold.

Posted by Paul at 5:33 PM | Permalink

Apparently, my state government doesn’t have enough to do.

I especially like the example of the drunken college student who jumped to his death from a second story hotel room. What does that have to do with being tanked in a bar?

Posted by Paul at 10:42 PM | Permalink

In a 5-3 decision — Justice Alito took no part in resolution of the case — the U.S. Supreme Court held today that police violate the Fourth Amendment if they warrantless enter a home with the consent of one occupant but over the express objection of another; however, if the would-be objector is in the back yard or asleep or otherwise not present, the police may enter on authority of the consenting occupant.

The moral of the story seems to be: if you don’t want your home searched and fear that your spouse or roomate would consent to a search, you should answer the door, or at least be at the door when it’s answered. (I should emphasize that the rule announced by the Court today applies only to warrantless searches. If the police arrive with a warrant, your objection is, as always, neither here nor there.)

Having read the opinion of the Court as well the three dissents, the case of Georgia v. Randolph strikes me as a close call. You can decide for yourself how it strikes you. Justice Souter’s opinion for the Court is here. The dissent by Chief Justice Roberts is here. The dissent by Justice Scalia is here. And finally, the dissent by Justice Thomas is here.

The Washington Post has this report.

A few observations:

• Although Justice Alito took no part in the decision of the case, I suspect he would have joined the dissenters, making the decision 5-4. As many of us surmised, Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, is the new center of the Court in the post-O’Connor era. Expect 5-4 decisions in which Justice Kennedy is the swing vote.

• The exchange between the justices was unusually tart. Is there tension among them?

• Justice Scalia’s dissent reminded me of the challenges inherent to originalism. Most originalists would agree, I think, that the first task of the judge when construing constitutional commands is to ask: what principle does this command advance? Having answered that question, the judge is then confronted with deciding the scope of the principle’s application. For example, although the Internet was unknown to the Framers, originalists would still say that the principle of the First Amendment’s free speech clause — the protection of political exchange against Government censorship — applies to communications over the Web. But it does not apply, originalists would say, to pornographic images.

The principle advanced by the Fourth Amendment is clear: the Government may not undertake an “unreasonable” search. But the application of that principle is not as clear. Is it unreasonable for the Government to search a home when one occupant consents but another does not? As I said, the case strikes me as a close call.

Posted by Paul at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Fascinating:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - The FBI agent who arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August 2001 testified Monday he spent almost four weeks trying to warn U.S. officials about the radical Islamic student pilot but “criminal negligence” by superiors in Washington thwarted a chance to stop the 9/11 attacks.

FBI agent Harry Samit of Minneapolis originally testified as a government witness, on March 9, but his daylong cross examination by defense attorney Edward MacMahon was the strongest moment so far for the court-appointed lawyers defending Moussaoui. The 37-year-old Frenchman of Moroccan descent is the only person charged in this country in connection with al-Qaida’s Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

MacMahon displayed a communication addressed to Samit and FBI headquarters agent Mike Maltbie from a bureau agent in Paris relaying word from French intelligence that Moussaoui was “very dangerous,” had been indoctrinated in radical Islamic Fundamentalism at London’s Finnsbury Park mosque, was “completely devoted” to a variety of radical fundamentalism that Osama bin Laden espoused, and had been to Afghanistan.

Based on what he already knew, Samit suspected that meant Moussaoui had been to training camps there, although the communication did not say that.

The communication arrived Aug. 30, 2001. The Sept. 11 Commission reported that British intelligence told U.S. officials on Sept 13, 2001, that Moussaoui had attended an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. “Had this information been available in late August 2001, the Moussaoui case would almost certainly have received intense, high-level attention,” the commission concluded.

To learn more about Moussaoui’s associates, Agent Samit wanted a warrant to search Moussaoui’s computer and personal belongings. His superiors would not allow him to seek one.

The Government’s death penalty case against Moussaoui, rooted as it is in a novel theory of the law, was always a stretch. But Agent Samit’s testimony should sink it:

The FBI’s actions between Moussaoui’s arrest, in Minnesota on immigration violations on Aug. 16, 2001, and Sept. 11, 2001, are crucial to his trial because prosecutors allege that Moussaoui’s lies prevented the FBI from discovering the identities of 9/11 hijackers and the Federal Aviation Administration from taking airport security steps.

But MacMahon made clear the Moussaoui’s lies never fooled Samit. The agent sent a memo to FBI headquarters on Aug. 18 accusing Moussaoui of plotting international terrorism and air piracy over the United States, two of the six crimes he pleaded guilty to in 2005.

In trying to get someone’s attention, Agent Samit wasn’t alone:

Samit’s complaints echoed those raised in 2002 by Coleen Rowley, the bureau’s agent-lawyer in the Minneapolis office, who tried to help get a warrant. Rowley went public with her frustrations, was named a Time magazine person of the year for whistleblowing and is now running for Congress.

Samit revealed far more than Rowley of the details of the investigation.

MacMahon walked Samit through e-mails and letters the agent sent seeking help from the FBI’s London, Paris and Oklahoma City offices, FBI headquarters files, the CIA’s counterterrorism center, the Secret Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, an intelligence agency not identified publicly by name in court (possibly the National Security Agency), and the FBI’s Iran, Osama bin Laden, radical fundamentalist, and national security law units at headquarters.

Samit described useful information from French intelligence and the CIA before 9/11 but said he was not told that CIA Director George Tenet was briefed on the Moussaoui threat on Aug. 23 and never saw until after 9/11 a memo from an FBI agent in Phoenix about radical Islamists taking flight training there.

For each nugget of information, MacMahon asked Samit if Washington officials called to assess the implications. Time after time, Samit said no.

Posted by Paul at 7:51 PM | Permalink

The pirates are now dead or wounded.

It is — how to put this? oh, yes — “unwise” to fire on U.S. naval vessels.

Posted by Paul at 4:00 PM | Permalink

See the banned Scientology episode of South Park in its entirety. (Note: you’ll need a high speed Internet connection. And even with that, it’ll take a few minutes to download.)

Backstory here.

ADDED —

If you prefer, you can just watch the episode here rather than download it. (Thanks to The Volokh Conspiracy.)

Posted by Paul at 3:43 PM | Permalink

Larry Kudlow:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told me in an interview last night on CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” that he agreed that busting the budget could cost the GOP both houses of Congress. But apparently the leadership is powerless to stop the budget busting activity.

Here’s the question for which I do not know the answer: have rank and file Republicans become as corrupt as their party’s leadership? In other words, do average Republicans now care more for money and power than they do for principle? If the answer to that question is “yes,” the GOP is well-positioned to retain control of Congress come November. If the answer is the “no,” the GOP is screwed.

As I said, I don’t know the answer, but here’s a clue: Tom DeLay won the GOP primary. He should have lost, and not because of his indictment for campaign finance violations, which is bogus. He should have lost because he instructed his Republican constituents, risibly, that the Federal budget contained no fat to cut. In bygone days, that statement alone — shocking in its mendacity — would have summarily disqualified a candidate for nomination by Texas Republicans. Mr. DeLay took roughly 66% of the vote. And he did it against Tom Campbell, a fiscally conservative, small government, Reagan Republican. In other words, GOP voters in Texas 22 had a choice.

Now we might well wonder: what will the 1 in 3 Republicans who voted against Mr. DeLay do in November? Will they stay home? Will they defect? Even in the solidly Republican 22nd congressional district of Texas, the GOP nominee cannot win if a third of the base fails to show or, worse, bolts.

I take special note of Mr. DeLay’s prospects for this reason: if a big spending Republican is not in trouble deep in the heart of Texas, then big spending Republicans are not in trouble anywhere.

Tell me: if you’re a Republican, what are you going to do in November? Are you fed up? Are you not fed up? Are you fed up but terrified at the thought of Democrats in control of Congress? Do you not yet know what you’re going to do? Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by Paul at 1:43 PM | Permalink

And you thought they just didn’t care. In fact, they’re, uh, busy:

They are the young faces and polite voices of India’s economic boom but the country’s growing number of call centre staff handling British and American customer inquiries have a guilty secret.

According to senior police officers and pollsters they are also leading a social revoluti