Update from the Heartland
No.508
5.9.11 – 11.9.11
Blog version: http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/
To all,As if we needed another example of Big Brother intruding upon private matters . . .
“Frenchman ordered to pay wife damages for lack of sex – A Frenchman has been ordered to pay his ex-wife £8,500 in damages for failing to have enough sex with her during their marriage.
By Our Foreign Staff
The Telegraph [of London]
Posted: 12:41PM BST 05 Sep 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/8741895/Frenchman-ordered-to-pay-wife-damages-for-lack-of-sex.html
As much as the Right and the Left are whining about President Obama’s performance, I suspect his moderation is probably just about right. He is trying to find the middle ground between widely disparate political camps.
“What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama”
by Jonathan Chait
New York Times
Published: September 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/magazine/what-the-left-doesnt-understand-about-obama.html?_r=1
Thursday night, President Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress and the American People. He introduced proposed legislation for a US$447B American Jobs Act, to further stimulate the faltering economy. The President also indicated he would launch a new debt-busting initiative within a couple of weeks, which comes as the 12-member congressional super-committee began working to find US$1.2T in deficit savings by Thanksgiving. I want to be proven wrong, as I suspect we are about to witness more political theater for next year’s election rather than sincere, bona fide solutions to very real national issues.
We bear witness to events that darken the future. I say this not to be ominous or bleak, but rather as a historian immersed in those events. A few days ago, the Government announced the existence of a “specific, credible, but unconfirmed” threat to the United States that might include a “dirty bomb,” as our leaders and the Press recounted the tragic events of ten years ago. The reality cannot be avoided. We are all reminded of that morning. Lost amid the media blitz are others “signs.” The relationship between Israel and Turkey deteriorated to the extent that the Turks have indicated they intend to dispatch ships of the Turkish Navy to escort a convoy of relief ships to Gaza in direct confrontation with the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. Relations between Egypt and Israel also degenerated as Sinai border control vanished, and attacks occurred on a major natural gas pipeline between Egypt and Israel along with a coordinated terrorist attack on the Israeli port city of Eilat; and then, Egyptian “radicals” stormed and pillaged the Israeli embassy in Cairo. The so-called Arab Spring deposed several despotic dictators, replacing those regimes with supposedly more democratic governance, but also allowing the Islamic fundamentalist forces to rise up and exert far more influence on events. Among those fundamentalist elements will be Islamo-fascists who are dedicated to the principles espoused by al-Qa’ida – domination of radical, fundamentalist, Islamic ideology and eradication of Western-style freedom. They do not possess the military prowess or strength to confront Western democracies directly, but they can irritate and provoke us. More ominous from my perspective are the looming confrontations with Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu has not assisted the peace process; in fact, his policies have had quite the opposite effect. I fear the window for peace in Palestine has closed. I also fear we have much more bumpy road ahead with our Islamic brothers.
I enjoy reading judicial renderings as much for the history as I do the law. So it is with my most recent endeavor. In the wake of the Watergate debacle, Richard Milhous Nixon, AKA “Tricky Dick,” sought to keep his presidential papers from public scrutiny. The Supreme Court disagreed – Nixon v. Administrator of General Services [433 U.S. 425 (1977); no. 75-1605]. To understand the significance of the ruling and place the decision in the context of historic events, a brief recounting of surrounding history becomes exceptionally important. For those of my generation who lived these events, please pardon the redundancy; for others, the following chronological table should be helpful.
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The principle issue before the Court was Title I (PRMPA) of the Presidential Recordings Preservation Act [PL 93-526; S.4016; 88 Stat. 1695] that directed the General Services Administration (GSA) to take possession of:
“. . . all original tape recordings of conversations which were recorded or caused to be recorded by any officer or employee of the Federal Government and which –
“(1) involve former President Richard M. Nixon or other individuals who, at the time of the conversation, were employed by the Federal Government;
“(2) were recorded in the White House or in the office of the President in the Executive Office Buildings located in Washington, District of Columbia; Camp David, Maryland; Key Biscayne, Florida; or San Clemente, California; and
“(3) were recorded during the period beginning January 20, 1969, and ending August 9, 1974.”
“Tricky Dick” Nixon argued that he was being singled out among all former Presidents for unique, punitive treatment, which he contended was a Bill of Attainder and thus a constitutional violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3 – “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” Given the unprecedented and extraordinary misconduct of Nixon, his direct staff, cabinet officers, and many others inside and outside the Federal government, I am absolutely amazed Congress was as restrained as they were. The Supremes affirmed the law as appropriate for a “class of one.” Only Chief Justice Burger and then Associate Justice Rehnquist dissented predominately on the basis of separation of powers. El Jefe added more objections on privacy, and First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments grounds. Not that it really matters, but I disagree with the Chief Justice. The PRMPA does not intrude upon the Office of the President, but rather focuses solely on the one culprit who demonstrated repeatedly that he could not be trusted. Nixon sought to hide his felonious activities behind the cloak of dignity proffered all of his predecessors. Congress so carefully crafted the extent of PRMPA, at the risk of intense scrutiny for a violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 3, to expressly avoid broader application to the Executive. They had to solve one very real, immediate, and vital problem. I repeatedly found myself contrasting the 4th Amendment protections for a common citizen versus the 4th Amendment Chief Justice Burger suggested to protect POTUS, who in fact commands all of the law enforcement apparatus. What is wrong with that picture? Further, I ask, are presidential papers like those working papers for an employer? Who does the President work for? Who owns those official papers? According to Chief Justice Burger, presidential papers belong solely and privately to the man alone, thus he implies that Nixon should have been free to destroy those papers and recordings as he alone chose. An important provision of the Nixon-Sampson Agreement was the destruction of the tape recordings upon Nixon’s death, which could have occurred at any moment. While the PRMPA applied only to “Tricky Dick” Nixon and his cronies, this ruling says POTUS cannot hide his criminal conduct behind the history and precedent of the White House or the Office of the President.
BTW, there is no doubt in my little pea-brain that someone [probably one of the Plumbers] intentionally, and with malice of forethought, erased the 18 minutes on Nixon Tape no.342, and left Rose Mary Woods holding the bag.
Comments and contributions from Update no.507:
Comment to the Blog:
“I thank you very much for the link to the ‘Purists Gone Wild’ article by Timothy Egan. While I have long been aware of the criminal and alcoholic aspects of Prohibition, I had not realized the political background. This article is downright scary in its parallels to our current political situation. If other readers of your blog skipped that article, I recommend they go back and read it. We may extend that comparison a bit as well. During Prohibition, Wall Street ran up a risky market until it crashed, which is our current situation. Perhaps our distractions with other people's morals had something to do with that. Prohibition ended in intense national pain over the pervasive corruption and the loss of many lives. What will it take to end this insane drive to cripple government until Grover Norquist’s followers can ‘drown it in the bathtub?’
“On top of everything else, this parallel can extend into the moral prohibition of prostitution in the USA, because one moral crusade is very like another. We can certainly discuss what level of regulation is appropriate to prevent or lessen damage from prostitution (I agree with you), but at least Germany and the Netherlands have ended their denial and begun trying to deal with the issues realistically. The license dispensers that the linked article discusses are an attempt to collect taxes on prostitution. Here in the USA we have no legitimate means of doing that because of our prohibition on prostitution, which is proven ineffective 24/7 in my neighborhood. Germany’s solution is imperfect, but at least Germany is making progress. So long as moral crusaders can make decisions for the USA, we will not make progress dealing with these issues or in reclaiming our personal freedoms.”
My reply to the Blog:
Well said, all the way around. My point precisely! I have faith that one day we will mature as a freedom-loving society and recognize that freedom belongs to all of us or none of us. I think you struck resonance with your observation. The lessons of Prohibition apply to all those moral projectionist condemnations – prostitution, gambling, drugs, death with dignity, alcohol, abortion, non-heterosexual marriage, et cetera ad infinitum. We have SO MUCH yet to learn about Liberty. We need to let people lead the lives they chose to live in their “pursuit of Happiness.”
Another contribution:
“Just read Issue No. 507. Thanks for the interesting updates on Aslan Soobzokov's continuing quest for justice for his Father.
“I was wondering if he would appeal the District Court's decision?
“Looks like he's going all the way. Best of luck to him on the appeal and the defamation law suit!
“Thanks for your informative Blog and keep up the good work.”
My response:
Yes, Aslan is appealing the district court decision in Soobzokov v. Holder [USDC NJ case 2:10-cv-06260-DRD (2011)] [496]. As noted in 507, he has also initiated a defamation case against The Record of North New Jersey (his local newspaper) that published terrible, unsubstantiated, false accusations. Aslan and the Soobzokov family can use all the support they can get.
My very best wishes to all. Take care of yourselves and each other.
Cheers,
Cap :-)
2 comments:
I read your linked article by Jonathan Chait, “What the Left Doesn’t Understand About Obama.” Nonsense. The article is really what Chait doesn’t understand about either the Left or about Obama. Let’s face it; Obama would rather not fight for anything. Obama did indeed get a larger stimulus than the Democrats had originally asked, but he gave far too much of it to Wall Street, creating bonuses for the people who crashed the economy, not jobs for their victims. Liberals did indeed call Pelosi timid; what you see is what you get, and you don’t see much. And I’ll support the statement that the Bush 2 administration got things done by bulldozing Congress. Obama could indeed have let the Bush tax cuts expire. Contrary to far-right dogma, taxation has not harmed the economy in the past. Check out the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations for details. Democrats are a majority in the Senate, and the Republican majority in the House depends on a number of Republicans who never wanted to go along with the Teabagger crazies. Obama has not made use of them. Now he comes up with a jobs bill that is still another tax cut deal. Too little, too late, and it still leaves government starving. Someone has made an entire cable TV series about the crumbling infrastructure of this country. How ‘bout we put some people to work fixing that stuff?
I decided a long time ago that history going back 3500 years (since the Canaanites came back from Egypt) offers no hope of peace in the Middle East. On top of that, the typical American assumption that others want nothing more than democratic government is merely an assumption, persisting despite repeated failed US interventions around the world.
Your Watergate piece was an interesting bit of legal history. I could have used a more familiar date format in the chart, though.
Calvin,
As always, thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your opinions to this forum.
I appreciate that the Left wants President Obama to be their man in the White House just as the Right pushed Bush 43 to be their man. Bush 43 had a distinct advantage in that his political party (Republican) controlled both Houses of Congress – not one veto in six years with all those bloody earmark-laden spending bills. Obama has neither. The small Democratic majority in the Senate is insufficient to override a Republican filibuster – the threat of which they use with regularity. Thus, he has no choice but to seek compromise with Congress. Unfortunately, the Republicans have performed well with their intransigence. Let it suffice to say, I think congressional Republicans are far more interested in not agreeing with or being seen as supporting President Obama than they are in finding good, moderate, compromise solutions to the very real problems of this Grand Republic. So, I suppose we shall respectfully disagree regarding President Obama’s performance. He gets credit in my book for attempting civilized compromise with a recalcitrant opposition.
Re: democracy. You are not alone in that opinion. As the Founders so eloquently observed, “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.” The balancing act in international relations is never easy, and We are certainly not without blame.
I am sure this is not the first you have noticed my usage of day-month-year notation, or my insistence of a 24-hour clock. The entire rest of the world marks time in logical order, so I subscribe. Hopefully, my peculiar idiosyncrasies do not adversely distract from the content utility.
Take care and enjoy.
Cheers,
Cap
Post a Comment