Category: Politics

The anonymous TPB, Esq. presents this compelling explanation of the proper interpretation of the word “shall” in New Jersey’s election law. It is compelling because he provides examples to support his argument; take careful note, oh pundits of all stripes. This is why I like most lawblogs.

“If New Jersey had better beaches it would almost be Florida.”

Senator Robert Torricelli (D) decided to end his reelection bid on September 29th, because he was in a horrendous hole of his own making; namely, his ethical lapses came to light and he slipped behind in the polls. Certainly you can’t make people run for office. On the other hand, it’s clearly not legal to replace Torricelli with an alternate Democratic candidate; New Jersey law says if someone ends his bid within 51 days of the election, his party can’t put someone else in his slot. (Or her slot.) So in theory the Republican candidate is going to be elected no matter what.

Except that the state Democratic Party petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court to allow a replacement, and won. The decision was unanimous: 7-0, and 6 of those judges were appointed by a Republican, just to get that on the record.

Very sloppy, and the same sort of “we’ll do what’s right regardless of the law” thinking I often condemn. The fact that it benefits the Democrats is immaterial. The fact that it came from Republicans amuses and does not surprise me, but it’s really only an ironic tidbit. If the problems with this are at all unclear, Eugene Volokh makes some excellent points.

Background, just in case: three Democratic congressmen recently spoke out against the President’s policy vis a vis Iraq in an interview with CNN. At the time, they were in Baghdad. Quite a few people have equated this with treason. Today, two of them (McDermott and Bonior) defended their actions.

I don’t want to rehash the definition of treason. What interests me is that today was the first time I’ve seen anyone mention that McDermott and Bonior are Vietnam-era veterans. They didn’t serve in Vietnam, but I’m pretty sure “peacenik” is not a word you should casually apply to someone who was in active military service at the time. Certainly they weren’t fighting to end the war.

This kind of ad hominem attack is very discouraging. Piling on the derogatory verbiage is no way to conduct debate.

Here’s the text of the resolution Bush is sending to Congress regarding Iraq. It looks pretty fair at first glance, although I think bringing up the 1993 assassination attempt on Bush smacks of revenge. I care that Iraq tried to kill Bush Sr., but I do not care more about that than I care about any single attempt to kill a US soldier. I also have not yet seen proof that Iraq is being harbored by al Qaida. However, this is in essence the bill that Congress needs to pass before we invade Iraq. I’m glad he’s acknowledging that Congress gets to decide.

Hey, wait a second. When Bush spoke to the UN, he said “The Security Council resolutions will be enforced.” That implies that there are Security Council resolutions in effect, right? So what’s all this about “We feel the inspectors should not go in until there is a resolution that gives them the authority and instructions of the Security Council”? I mean, if we want new resolutions, that’s good; I’m pretty confident that Saddam would be willing to hide stuff inside his palaces, so I can understand wanting access. But that’s no reason to thwart (the State Department’s word) inspections under the current rules, is it? Let’s be clear on this: that’s a direct threat from the United States State Department to obstruct the work of the authorized and appointed UN weapons inspection teams.

Maybe Bush didn’t want the existing Security Council resolutions enforced after all. Perhaps he should have said so. Alas, he’s now allowed himself to be manuvered into a sticky position — it’s not Iraq standing in the way of the UN any longer, it’s the US who appears to be “a threat to the authority of the United Nations…” Again, Bush’s words.

Yeah, that was just a really, really smart bit of strategy.

Remember that 33 pounds of weapons-grade uranium? Well, turns out it was really only five ounces. The 33 pound figure counted the weight of the container. Except it wasn’t really uranium at all.

And of course, we don’t actually have any evidence it was going to Iraq anyhow.

There is much talk over here in the States of Tony Blair; of how well he gets along with Bush, and of course of his recent speech presenting the case against Iraq. No stauncher ally than the Brits. Yeah.

Well, or at least, none stauncher than Tony Blair. Andrew Sullivan’s article on the friendship between the two men says more than he realizes, I think. “Blair’s second intuition was that with George W. Bush, the most important element is always personal rapport and trust. He sensed almost intuitively that an intimate bond with Bush would give the British prime minister more influence than any other world leader in the post 9/11 world.” Yes, indeed. How much is that influence worth? Is it worth the trust of Blair’s own Labour Party?

53 Labour MPs rejected Blair’s speech on Monday, and 80 more may follow suit. Labour’s been downplaying the problem, but why else would Blair allow Monday’s vote to go through if he wasn’t leery of forcing the issue?

So it’s all very well to blithely wave off China and Russia’s criticism. Germany opposes Bush’s plan, and so does France? Well, at least the British support us. Except that polls show only about half of England thinks Bush is on target, and Blair’s own party is restless.

South Dakota is about to vote on a constitutional amendment permitting jury nullification. This means that juries could vote not guilty on the grounds that the relevant law was unfair or otherwise misguided. The supporters have a site, and the South Dakota State Bar has this to say.

The actual amendment would rewrite Article VI, Section 7 of the South Dakota Constitution as follows. The changes are marked in italics.

In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him; to have a copy thereof; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have compulsory process served for obtaining witnesses in his behalf; and to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the county and district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed; and to argue the merits, validity, and applicability of the law, including the sentencing laws.

The supporters don’t actually do a very good job addressing the arguments against jury nullification; there is, in fact, an existing mechanism for allowing citizens input into the law, and it is reasonable to ask whether or not 12 jurors selected at random should have the ability to override a majority vote of the entire populace. I think the answer may be yes, but I dislike the arrogance of claiming that the question is irrelevant. “Common sense isn’t.”

And the lawyers of South Dakota are not universally evil people who rely on scare tactics. Claiming that “they are insulting your intelligence” is the worst kind of populist rhetoric. Sigh.

So the impression I get is that South Dakotans in favor of jury nullification are not in fact capable of constructing or analyzing legal arguments, or logical arguments of any kind. This does not convince me that it’s a good idea to let South Dakotan juries decide cases based on their opinions of the laws involved. Sorry, guys; if you can’t move beyond populist rhetoric, you shouldn’t be trusted with more complex decisions on a jury.

I haven’t picked on Andrew Sullivan for a while, have I? (And why do I do it? Because he keeps getting held up as an example of modern conservative thought, that’s why.)

Let’s start with this condemnation of Dianne Feinstein (scroll down a bit). I can swing to that rhythm. Feinstein is one of my least favorite Senators. So, she said something dumb… which Andrew inflates into a commentary on all Democrats everywhere. Sure, OK. Dianne’s a prominent Democrat.

But what about this? (Scroll down again; the headline is “Conservatives and Mental Health”.) Sullivan’s OK with extending one Democrat’s remarks to represent the opinion of the entire party, but it’s not OK to notice when a Republican differs from the Republican mainstream? It’s utterly factual to say “Republican House leaders opposed this mental health bill,” and it’s fair to point out that individuals within the Republican Party supported it.

So much for the right to hold opinions as an individual.

Hm. You know, I guess it is illegal to visit the moon without permission. From the 1979 Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies:

Article 14

1. States Parties to this Agreement shall bear international responsibility for national activities on the moon, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non- governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in this Agreement. States Parties shall ensure that non-governmental entities under their jurisdiction shall engage in activities on the moon only under the authority and continuing supervision of the appropriate State Party.

OK, I take back my little rant. I am still not entirely thrilled about the world’s governments extending their control to celestial bodies, but the US is acting in accordance with international law. Mind you, the US hasn’t ratified the 1979 treaty, but we have ratified the 1969 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space. And Article VI in that document is nigh identical to Article 14 above. Oh, and here’s a list of signatories (PDF) to all five UN space law documents. Now I want to go work in Vienna.