Criminalizing Politics....A Followup
Comments

Now, how about "politization of crime"?

Posted by: coturnix on November 7, 2005 at 11:36 PM | PERMALINK

Thank you left-leaning Safire.

Posted by: Mark on November 7, 2005 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

My reaction as always is Fuck Ollie North!

Posted by: R.L. on November 7, 2005 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah. Ok. This is how I remember it back then.

Oliver North gets a safe full of cash from an illegal arms deal with Iran then decides he needs a new security fence for his house and a new set of tires for his car and used his ill-gotten money for the house and car. This was certainly a blantant example of the criminalization of politics.

Posted by: Poncho & Lefty on November 7, 2005 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

When you go and make committing crimes part of policy, don't be so surprised when you get called a criminal!

Posted by: Crissa on November 7, 2005 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Oliver North helped to arm an enemy of the United States or in Iranspeak "The Great Satan". Treason was okay in the 80's and it's apparantly okay today but only if you're Republican.

Posted by: T2005 on November 7, 2005 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of criminals and politics, just saw this at tpm,

(November 07, 2005 -- 09:44 PM EST // link)

A weird and very disturbing story.

The Hill reports that Emilia DiSanto, chief investigator for Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was accosted outside her home last Wednesday evening and beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat. The article says she was later "treated for significant upper-body injuries [and] nine staples were needed to close her head wound."

Investigators seem to believe that the attack was related to her work on the hill.
-- Josh Marshall

Posted by: cld on November 7, 2005 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

"Criminalizing Politics" is now #5 on the "Top 10 GOP Post-Indictment Sound Bites."

Posted by: AvengingAngel on November 7, 2005 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

Well, leave it to Ollie North to invent something new involving criminalization.

Posted by: craigie on November 8, 2005 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

Well, the Boland Amendments WERE unconstitutional encroachments on Executive war powers.

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

I`m sure I am not the first to say this but when you have politicians doing crimes, you have criminalization of politics

Oh and Oliver North is a disgrace to the uniform he wore

*sheesh* talk about criminals...

"Eventually, the truth will emerge. And when it does, this house of cards, built of deceit, will fall." - Robert C. Byrd

Posted by: daCascadian on November 8, 2005 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Larry >"Well, the Boland Amendments WERE unconstitutional encroachments on Executive war powers."

There are NO "Executive war powers" because ONLY Congress has the legal right to declare war; any other blather is a fascist wet dream

"If only they'd spent more time making war on each other in the first place, they might have had less time for making war on Iraq." - Alexander Wolfe

Posted by: daCascadian on November 8, 2005 at 12:08 AM | PERMALINK

Don't get it.

criminalize policy differences != criminalize politics

Not surprised that the actual phrase came from Feulner's garage...

Posted by: adios on November 8, 2005 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

So, the Constitution makes WHOM Commander in Chief where you come from?

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

The Hill reports that Emilia DiSanto, chief investigator for Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was accosted outside her home last Wednesday evening and beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat.

Posted by: cld on November 7, 2005 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Grassley is a Republican. CNN will ignore this and liberals will argue that she was probably a white, Red-state, Jesus-freak anyway and she deserved it.

Any means necessary against who you disagree with. After all, you guys are liberals.

Posted by: McAristotle on November 8, 2005 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

So...you think Ollie North was involved?

I looked up 'OT' in the dictionary...there's a picture of you...

Posted by: adios on November 8, 2005 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

Wrong again McDumbAsstotle, Grassley is investigating White House player Jack Abramoff and this seems like something the shithead would do so of course the 'Merkan hating homosexualists in the MSM will be interested in this story.

Posted by: Amok92 on November 8, 2005 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

Apart from daCascadian's fantasy, the Boland Amendments were indeed attempts to criminalize policy differences between co-equal branches of government and the Executive's conduct of foreign affairs.

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, VDare is a white supremacy site. Why exactly are you in touch with those guys?

Posted by: John G on November 8, 2005 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

From Wikipedia:

VDARE is an editorial collective website which advocates for reduced immigration, including heightened selectivity in legal immigration into the United States. VDARE was created by former Forbes editor Peter Brimelow through his Center for American Unity. The political viewpoints of the collective range from paleoconservative to isolationist, and from immigration reductionist to anti-immigrant. VDARE is widely supported in the immigration-reduction movement through links and reprints of its articles.

The name VDARE and the site's symbol, the head of a white doe, refer to Virginia Dare, the first child born to English immigrants in the New World. Soon after her birth she disappeared with the rest of an early English settlement, and legend has it that she was transformed into a white doe.

The members of VDARE are: Peter Brimelow, Paul Craig Roberts, Steve Sailer, Bryanna Bevens, John Brimelow, Joseph E. Fallon, James Fulford, Joe Guzzardi, D. A. King, Juan Mann, Howard Sutherland, Brenda Walker, Allan Wall, John Wall, and Chilton Williamson.

Notable VDARE guest contributors include: Virginia Abernethy, Sam Francis, Kevin Michael Grace, Kevin B. MacDonald, Michelle Malkin, and Jared Taylor.

Peter Brimelow immigrated to the U.S. from the United Kingdom sometime after receiving an MBA from Stanford University in 1972. He is a paleoconservative but states he regards "many of the neoconservative leaders as personal friends [and] as allies on the immigration issue.

Controversy and criticism

Critics of VDARE charge that it publishes racist or racialist material. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil-rights nonprofit organization, states that VDARE was "once a relatively mainstream anti-immigration page," but by 2003 had "become a meeting place for many on the radical right." The SPLC criticizes VDARE for publishing articles by Jared Taylor, head of American Renaissance, and the late Sam Francis, former editor of the newsletter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, both of whom the SPLC considers to be white supremacist. VDARE is also criticized by the SPLC for publishing articles by authors who deal with race and intelligence. The SPLC lists "VDARE/Center for American Unity" on a list of organizations it calls "hate groups." The SPLC itself has been accused of exaggerating the threat of racism in order to increase fund-raising revenue and of wrongfully criticizing legitimate organizations as "hate groups." In 1994, a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative report of the SPLC found evidence of racial discrimination and financial dishonesty.

VDARE claims to be neutral on all issues save immigration reduction . . .

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Wrong again McDumbAsstotle, Grassley is investigating White House player Jack Abramoff ....

Posted by: Amok92 on November 8, 2005 at 12:22 AM | PERMALINK

He's a Republican. Check the facts.

Probably some 'peace protestor' decided he was justified.

Posted by: McAristotle on November 8, 2005 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

Peter Brimelow runs VDARE. Here's his defense to the charge of white supremacy:


As we have noted before, VDARE.COM is obviously not a "White Supremacist" site, if for no other reason than that it publishes non-whites. We do publish writers who could fairly be described as "white nationalists," in that they explicitly defend the interests of American whites—who, however, made up 90 percent of the populations in 1960, before the disaster of the 1965 Act. And we will continue to do so, because this point of view is at least as legitimate as black nationalism or Hispanic nationalism.

Hispanic nationalism is particularly relevant here... No wonder [immigration supporters] don't want a rational debate on immigration — or, as it should properly be termed, invasion.

...Not for the first time, the driving force in the immigration debate turns out to be, not the immigration reformers’ "racism"—but the immigration enthusiasts’ treason.

.

A bigot? I report. You decide.

Posted by: Carl on November 8, 2005 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

The attack on Mr. Grassleys assistant is abhorent, and just the sort of thing a pacifist would take part in, I'm sure. (That was sarcasm for the half-wit's benefit.)

Senate finance is looking into Bill Frist, whose family still has some version of the Pinkertons busting unions. Then there is Jack "Casino" Abramoff - plenty of "ends justify the means" rethug types to look toward for this.

Posted by: Global Citizen on November 8, 2005 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

And being a Republican has contradicts the "investigating White House player Jack Abramoff" HOW, exactly?

Probably some 'peace protestor' decided he was justified.

I'm hard pressed to decide whether you're delusional, moronic, or a garden-variety troll. Probably all three.

Posted by: Calton Bolick on November 8, 2005 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

cld: The Hill reports that Emilia DiSanto, chief investigator for Finance Committee Chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, was accosted outside her home last Wednesday evening and beaten repeatedly with a baseball bat.

Amok92: ...Grassley is investigating White House player Jack Abramoff and this seems like something the shithead would do...

I wonder if the description of DiSantos' assailant(s) looks similar to or are associates of these guys: Anthony Moscatiello , Anthony Ferrari, 48, and James Fiorillo, 28, arrested in connection with the ambush slaying of Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis.

"Fort Lauderdale police said yesterday that they charged three men in the 2001 gangland-style slaying of a Florida businessman who was gunned down in his car months after selling a casino cruise line to a group that included Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

"Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis was killed on a Fort Lauderdale street on Feb. 6, 2001. Two of the three men charged had been hired as consultants by Adam Kidan, one of Abramoff's partners in the SunCruz Casinos venture. Cite

Posted by: Apollo 13 on November 8, 2005 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

Wacky Wacky Weed!

Posted by: Sampson on November 8, 2005 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

Apart from daCascadian's fantasy, the Boland Amendments were indeed attempts to criminalize policy differences between co-equal branches of government and the Executive's conduct of foreign affairs.

Last I checked, Congress passes laws, and the President and his appopintees get to see that they are faithfully executed. Running covert operations around the law because you think it sucks isn't any sort of faithful execution I'm aware of, but I'm guessing you Republicans are willing to give passes on that to any President from the GOP.

So, the Constitution makes WHOM Commander in Chief where you come from?

War powers only count when there's a war on or when the War Powers Act is in effect, dumbass. Feel free to point out any time that occurred in El Salvador or Nicaragua. Hint: that would have been never.

Posted by: eponymous coward on November 8, 2005 at 1:27 AM | PERMALINK

OK. You think Grassley is on your side. Fine. when the Finance committee investigates nothing, does nothing - its bipartistan and fair.

Not Republican. Republican's think. We don't take out oneof our votes on a committee....

Posted by: McAristotle on November 8, 2005 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

I have no idea whether the finance committee is going to produce a hard-hitting investigation, a complete cover-up or a whitewash that puts all the blame for everything they can find on Abramoff and none on any of the Republican politicians he worked with. I also have no idea at this time who was behind the attacks.

However, it may have escaped your notice that the Republicans have been doing their best to pretend in recent months that they never even heard of Abramoff. It is just possible that he isn't happy at the thought that the Republicans his criminal activities helped elect may be preparing to sacrifice him in order to preserve the offices and power he helped them acquire. Or that some of his criminal associates are taking a dim view of the committee's investigations.

As for this quote from McA - "Not Republican. Republican's think. We don't take out oneof our votes on a committee....", I almost bust a gut laughing. Considering the blind regurgitation of talking points and complete absence of critical thinking by the trolls on this board specifically including McA, the suggestion that the assailants couldn't possibly be Republican because "Republican's think" is priceless.

Posted by: tanj on November 8, 2005 at 2:19 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call VDARE racist, although I don't like the tone of their writings one bit. At the very least, "racially inflammatory" applies, and I think the term "racial demagoguery" is also fitting. It's worth pointing out that notable leftists Glenn Reynolds and John Podhoretz have bashed VDARE for all the right reasons; Podhoretz wasn't at all shy about calling it a "white supremacist" site.

I think Steve Sailer is pretty much an out-of-the-closet white supremacist by now, no matter how much he tries to mask it with pseudoscience and cynical pleas for openmindedness. And there's no question that Sam Francis was an outright racist as well. For Brimelow to defend publishing them by blaming the Black Panthers and MeChA is disingenuous at best.

Obvious disclaimer: I think the Black Panthers and MeChA are racists too.

War powers only count when there's a war on or when the War Powers Act is in effect, dumbass. Feel free to point out any time that occurred in El Salvador or Nicaragua.

Congress sets the budget too, even for the CIA, and has always had the power to dictate what happens with discretionary spending. I think Article I Section 8 covers this pretty thoroughly.

Posted by: neoliberal on November 8, 2005 at 3:19 AM | PERMALINK

neoliberal and eponymous coward:

Of course the Executive branch is charged with faithfully executing (Constitutional) laws - see "Take Care Clause" below. Only because this is "on topic" as to Kevin's minor premise about the criminalization of policy differences, here is one argument against Boland and other spending-type restrictions on the Commander in Chief:

http://insct.syr.edu/ProfessorsPublications/Banks/From%20Vietnam%20To%20Deser%20Shield.pdf

EXCERPT:

"The argument for executive nonenforcement shares the same point of departure
as the arguments against it: the Take Care Clause. According to this argument,
the Take Care Clause charges the President with taking care that all the laws
are faithfully executed, including the fundamental and supreme law of the
Constitution. The equal of the legislature, the President has the same
duty and authority as Congress to decide the constitutionality of an
appropriation restriction. When a restriction conflicts with the Constitution,
he can enforce only one of these laws. The Supremacy Clause dictates
the choice: he must enforce the Constitu tion by refusing to enforce or defend
the unconstitutional appropriation restriction. Indeed,
unconstitutional statutory provisions are arguably not laws at all, since
they are not made "in pursuance of" the Constitution, as the Supremacy Clause
contemplates. This textual argument for nonenforcement draws
additional support from the Oath of Office Clause, which requires the
President to swear to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

". . . When Congress enacts a bill that encroaches upon the President's
constitutional authority (as we have assumed arguendo that the Vietnam era
area-limitation and the 1984 Boland Amendment did), the veto is an
insufficient defense because it can be overridden or diluted by veto- proof
legislation. Judicial review of the statute is therefore a necessary
additional defense against legislative aggrandizement. But this check
presupposes access to the courts. A third-party challenge to the statute is
not a complete answer, because third parties may lack standing to challenge
congressional encroachments on the President's constitutional domain.
Moreover, the President should not have to wait for the fortuity that a third
party will mount such a challenge. Indeed, in some cases, only the
President's refusal to enforce an encroaching statute causes third parties to
suffer the injury necessary for standing to challenge the refusal and thus to
bring the constitutional issue to court.

According to this narrower argument for nonenforcement, therefore, the
President must have at least the right to shield his own constitutional powers
from legislative encroachment by refusing to enforce the encroaching statutory
provision. As Rappaport summarizes the argument, "(t)he President's
need for self-protection indicates that the Constitution did not intend laws
that abridge executive power and are not readily subject to judicial review to
be exclusively subject to judicial supervi sion." Nowhere is the
President's need for self-protection greater than against national security
appropriation restrictions, because they are intended to "abridge executive
power."

Justice Scalia, in an opinion joined by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and
Souter, recently endorsed, in dictum, this limited version of the
nonenforcement argument. Concurring in part in Freytag v. C.I.R., a
case challenging the appointment of special trial judges by the Chief Judge of
the United States Tax Court, Scalia wrote:

(I)t was not enough simply to repose the power to execute the laws (or to
appoint) in the President; it was also necessary to provide him with the
means to resist legislative encroachment upon that power. The means selected
were various, including a separate political constituency, to which he alone
was responsible, and the power to veto encroaching laws, see Art. I, S 7, or
even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."

I would assume you both, at the very least, agree that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws" such as Boland, but further, I would agree with Scalia, "even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." I understand this is not settled law yet, but let's just say that NEITHER side wanted to chance making it settled at the time.

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

P.S. Poncho & Lefty - the President of the United States and his family also get taxpayer paid protection - are you suggesting we drop that if specific and credible information comes to light that terrorists are after them too?

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 10:05 AM | PERMALINK

I would have liked to seen the constitutionality of the Boland amendments decided by the Supreme Court, since its their opinion that holds more water than one law professor somewhere.

But we were denied that opportunity by the untimely pardons, weren't we?

Posted by: Doctor Jay on November 8, 2005 at 10:25 AM | PERMALINK

Not at all (and last time I checked, Justice Scalia was not just any ol' law professor somewhere). Boland, or the Patriot Act, or a hundred different laws could be used as the test case - as both sides have seemingly reached a mutual standoff, I assume we will not see that challenge until the uneasy balance changes further. Until then, both the Congress and Executive have the duty and obligation to preserve, protect, and defend their respective Constitutional roles - criminalizing THAT effort is wrong.

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 10:32 AM | PERMALINK

Doctor Jay?

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 11:10 AM | PERMALINK

"Not Republican. Republican's think." McAssbackward

Hilarious! Right down to the solecistic apostrophe! As Fat White Fart would say, I love it!

Posted by: Ace Franze on November 8, 2005 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

solecistic apostrophe

Great name for a blog...

Posted by: Pale Rider on November 8, 2005 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Oliver North may have invented the phrase "criminalization of policy differences", but the right-wing noise machine spread it far and wide in the late 1980s, especially when Elliot Abrams was being prosecuted (successfully) for lying to Congress. I have a distinct memory of hearing that phrase every week or two on MacNeill-Lehrer during that time period. I could swear I heard Willam Kristol say it on television during the Iran-Contra investigation.

Posted by: nemo on November 8, 2005 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Justice Scalia was not just any ol' law professor somewhere"

Nah, just a partisan hack, and apologist for illegal GOP behavior. No wonder he doean't like Boland. Prevents his party's Presidents from engaging in "dirty little wars" all over the planet.

What is undecided about "The Congress shall have power...to declare war?"

Posted by: David on November 8, 2005 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK
So, the Constitution makes WHOM Commander in Chief where you come from?

The designation of the President as Commander-in-Chief is a limitation on Congress' power to regulate the military, specifically, it prevents them from making the military entirely independent of the office of the Presidency; it does not, however, limit the Presidents express Constitutional duty to see that the laws are faithfully executed, whether those laws be the Constitutional reservation to Congress of the power to declare war or Congress exercise of lawmaking power to set conditions on the use of military force.

The branches are only "coequal" in that they each of roles spelled out in the Constitution on which the other cannot encroach. For instance, Congress cannot name, on its own, Federal judges. However, the President has no Constitutional powers which make him independent of the laws passed by Congress in the conduct of foreign affairs, whether militarily or otherwise.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 8, 2005 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK
I would assume you both, at the very least, agree that the President has "the power to veto encroaching laws" such as Boland, but further, I would agree with Scalia, "even to disregard them when they are unconstitutional."

An act of Congress outside of its Constitutional authority is no law, and thus clearly the President may disregard it without consequence; however, neither the Boland Amendments nor the War Power Act are unconstitutional, except insofar as the latter may be an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority rather than an unconstitutional limit on executive authority.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 8, 2005 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, McFuckwad, what part of the world is "bipartistan" in?

Posted by: solar on November 8, 2005 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

I also like to point out that the constitutional limitation on the President is greater than nearly anyone admits to today. The actual wording of the constitution is

Article II, section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; emphasis added.

Also note that in Federalist 69 Hamilton writes

The President will have only the occasional command
of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union.

This would seem to suggest that, constitutionally, the President is commander-in-chief only when a declaration of war is in effect. I realize that no one interprets the wording this way today, but strictly speaking this would seem to be the meaning of our constitution.

Posted by: MSR on November 8, 2005 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK
This would seem to suggest that, constitutionally, the President is commander-in-chief only when a declaration of war is in effect.

No, it only means that he is commander-in-chief of the militia only when they are called into federal service. He is always commander-in-chief of the federal military. The militia, in regular course, is under the authority of the various states, except when, in exceptional circusmtances, it is called into federal service.

Posted by: cmdicely on November 8, 2005 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

Larry,

You seem to disregard the parts of the paper that point out that the framers of the constitution had intended the Appropriations Clause to be a check on the executive's war making power.

"May the financially-strapped Commander in Chief then spend anyway to carry out a constitutionally-prescribed national security function? The Appropriations Clause stands as an insurmountable barrier to such spending, and the Attorney General who claimed otherwise is wrong. The plain text of the Clause and its history utterly refute any claim of "inherent" constitutional spending authority by the Commander in Chief." and, "few national security appropriations are likely to be unconstitutional under proper separation-of-powers analysis and appropriately narrow statutory construction".

In fact, the article did not agree with the argument against Boland. I doubt that even a Roberts supreme court would find Boland unconstitutional, given the rather clear intent of the framers to have the military appropriation power of the congress serve as a check on the executive.

Posted by: bob on November 8, 2005 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

It was the famous Mafia boss, Antonio Spaghetti, who first used the phrase "Criminalization of Kneecapping" - indignant at the federal government's intrusion into his US Liquor Import business in the 1930's.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on November 8, 2005 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely and bob:

You can doubt that a Roberts supreme court would find Boland unconstitutional all you want - all I presented was one argument and the very real ways a Commander-in-Chief has, in fact, bypassed Congress in this regard - maybe we will get to see which prediction is correct.

Posted by: Larry on November 8, 2005 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Larry: Well, the Boland Amendments WERE unconstitutional encroachments on Executive war powers.

Please cite to the Supreme Court (or even appellate or district court) ruling that shows this to be true.

Can't?

Didn't think so.

Your opinion is worth less than squat, as well as being wrong.

Shorter Larry: The President gets to violate any spending law he (and Larry) disagrees with.

E.g., Larry is a Nixon protege.

Wonder how Larry would have reacted had Clinton bypassed congressional laws prohibiting the dispensing of foreign aid for abortions?

McAnustotleGrassley is a Republican. CNN will ignore this and liberals will argue that she was probably a white, Red-state, Jesus-freak anyway and she deserved it.

You assume a fact not in evidence, that Grassley's chief investigator is also a Republican.

But, then, you are always assuming facts not in evidence.

Any means necessary against who you disagree with.

This statement describes conservatives like you, who are for torture, bombing of innocent civilians, mass imprisonment of a populace without evidence of guilt, the outing of covert agents, libel, slander, election fraud, voter intimidation, and deceit (in other words, any means necessary), not liberals.

Typical lie from you, McAnus.

Posted by: conspiracy is nuts on November 8, 2005 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

上海伦敦机票
上海哥本哈根机票
上海巴黎机票
上海维也纳机票
上海巴塞罗那机票
上海马德里机票
上海国际机票
北京特价机票

Posted by: avcc on November 9, 2005 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK