‘Under God’ in the Supreme Court

Following up on the “…under God…” controversy from 2002 and last year, tomorrow the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — with Dr. Michael A. Newdow representing himself in the case.

Newdow convinced a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 that the 50-year-old addition to the pledge amounts to government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. But he will face overwhelming opposition at the Supreme Court.

After the appeals court ruling, the Senate voted 99-0 and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to reaffirm their support for “under God.” Other high-power individuals and groups have lined up to oppose Newdow.

As I’ve said in the past, I think 9th Circuit Court was correct the first time, and that the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State should mandate the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, as our current administration seems to consistently disregard that very separation of Church and State, to the point of claiming religious inspiration for Bush’s actions, somehow I’m not terribly optimistic about the likely outcome of this trial.

If we’re lucky, the Supreme Court will use the custody dispute between Dr. Newdow and the mother of his daughter to allow them to dismiss the case out of hand, and the constitutionality of the Pledge will stay in its current somewhat nebulous state. I’d rather have that as an end result than face a Supreme Court ruling affirming the religious language in the Pledge.

More conservative hijinks

Two things pointed out to me in the comments for my last post that, while likely to increase your blood pressure, are worth knowing about:

From Shelley: Human Events Online: Ten Bills to Battle Judicial Activism — a list of ten bills that have been introduced by conservatives in order to gain more control over our judicial system. HR 3920 is only one example of what’s going on.

From Todd: Tenn. County Officials Seek to Ban Gays — Tennessee’s Rhea county, already notorious for annually celebrating the conviction of John T. Snopes for daring to teach evolutionism in school (even though that decision was later overturned by the state’s Supreme Court), is asking for Tennessee’s criminal code to be updated to allow the county to charge homosexuals with “crimes against nature.”

“We need to keep them out of here,” said Commissioner J.C. Fugate, who introduced the motion.

HR 3920 – Good God, no!

This makes me sick to my stomach.

On March 9th, Representative Ron Lewis (KY) introduced bill HR 3920 to Congress (co-sponsored by Reps. Howard Coble [NC], Mac Collins [GA], Jim DeMint [SC], John Doolittle [CA], Terry Everett [AL], Trent Franks [AZ], Virgil Goode, Jr. [VA], Joel Hefley [CO], Jack Kingston [GA], Joseph Pitts [PA], and Richard Pombo [CA]), titled the “Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004”.

The official title gives a better idea of the intent of the bill, though: “To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.”

Excuse me?

No.

No, no, no, a thousand times no.

Make all the laws you want, Congress, but it’s up to the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of those laws, and trying to make an end-run around that process…well, doesn’t that essentially render the checks-and-balances system rather impotent?

Ugh.

Though, as Prairie pointed out while we were talking about this…if Congress passes the bill, then the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional…then Congress overturns their ruling? That’s where my brain starts to hurt.

This better go nowhere, and go nowhere fast.

(via Phil)

iTunes: “Negasonic Teenage Warhead” by Monster Magnet from the album S.F.W. (1994, 4:59).

Go Tony!

Good news from the frozen north — Democratic Senatorial candidate Tony Knowles has issued a statement strongly in favor of gay rights issues.

Tony Knowles was proud this week to receive the endorsement of the Human Right’s Campaign, America’s largest gay organization. Personal freedoms are so important to me, to Alaskans and to the future of American democracy that I consider this to be a fundamental issue of my campaign, along with jobs, education, health care and national security, Knowles said.

…I’m against a federal constitutional amendment on marriage – or any U.S. constitutional amendment that limits rights. Amending our Constitution should be done to grant rights, not take them away.

…I am against government intrusion into our bedrooms; into our reading habits, our medical records and our personal lives. We need judges and politicians who respect our personal liberties, who will protect our freedoms and who will enforce our rights.

(via Atrios and Kos)

Iraq on the Record

This rocks: Iraq on the Record, a report and associated online database presenting the results of an investigation of the misleading statements, falsehoods, and outright lies presented to the American public during the runup to the Iraq war, as comissioned by Representative Henry A. Waxman.

The Iraq on the Record Report, prepared at the request of Rep. Henry A. Waxman, is a comprehensive examination of the statements made by the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq: President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

[The] database identifies 237 specific misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq made by these five officials in 125 public appearances in the time leading up to and after the commencement of hostilities in Iraq.

Have fun, kids.

(via Atrios)

Rove in Seattle

Jackqueline got a chance to “infiltrate” a College Republicans event with Karl Rove as the guest speaker last night. Some very interesting tidbits come out of her notes on the evening, not least that Washington is going to be a prime target for the Republicans in the upcoming elections.

Most interestingly, they are planning to really compete in Washington this year. He said in 2000 they only lost this state by 138,000 votes, and that there were 118,000 Republican supporters living in King County alone who did NOT vote in 2000. (How do they figure that out?) So they think they have a shot at winning this state, if they can get out the Republican vote.

He also said Bush doesn’t want a “lonely victory” — so they’re concentrating their resources in states where they think they can help get a few more people elected down ticket as well. Here that would be our Governor and Senate races, as well as a couple of House races.

They also want to “leave something behind.” They want Bush’s campaign this year to inspire a generation of young Republican activists like Reagan did. They’re really working on mobilizing grassroots volunteers, especially college students, to recruit people and get out the vote.

Maybe not terribly surprising, but interesting to hear it “from the horse’s mouth”, so to speak (okay, secondhand, but still…).

Rove also talked about the Bush campaign’s plans to do their best to rake Kerry over the coals in the upcoming months.

He said the past year, especially the past three months, have been bad for them. He said as everyone in the room knew, the national media were not on their side. So they had to put off launching their campaign until the Democrats had a nominee, but they’ve been planning it, and a race against Kerry, for a long time. He kept emphasizing how much they’ve studied Kerry, what a wealth of material they have to use against him, and how many stupid things Kerry has said that they’ve gotten on tape. He mentioned how the National Journal recently rated Kerry as the “most liberal” Senator, amazingly making Ted Kennedy the more conservative Senator from Massachusetts. The ads they’ve rolled out over the past two weeks are just the beginning, and they’re planning to hit Kerry and have him howling every week. He said they’re very carefully testing these ads with focus groups before they run them to make sure they’re effective.

2004 is going to be a long, rough, nasty campaign. Bush needs to go, but I’m still very unconvinced that Kerry had the best chances of ousting him, and Nader’s egotistical grandstanding isn’t going to help things in the least.

As far as I’m concerned, there is no excuse for anyone to remain oblivious. If you care at all about where our country is headed, you really need to pay attention. Keep your eyes and ears open — and don’t just stick with the echo chambers of the people you agree with. Watch what the other camps are doing, whether or not you agree with them (or to what extent — Jacqueline runs far more to the Libertarian camp than I do, and I know I don’t agree with her wholeheartedly on many of her positions, but I’ve been enjoying reading her posts, as even if I don’t always agree with someone, I can always respect someone who seems to put some thought into what they believe). No matter what, don’t just bury your head in the sand.

iTunes: “What is Love?” by Jones, Howard from the album Pop and Wave Vol. 2 (1983, 3:38).

The Pig War of San Juan Island

In the early 1800’s, as settlers moved westward across America, a dispute arose between the Americans and the British over ownership of the Oregon Country, land covering much of today’s Pacific Northwest, stretching from Oregon through Washington and up into British Columbia and parts of Idaho and Wyoming. While the territory had been declared to be in joint possession of the two governments, as more and more settlers moved in, the British claimed that land ceded to them in previous treaties and through the work of the Hudson’s Bay Company was being encroached upon.

After a few years of slightly strained tensions, in 1846 the Oregon Treaty peacefully resolved the dispute, setting the 49th parallel as the upper boundary of the United States. As the 49th parallel cuts directly through Vancouver Island when extended westward, it was determined that the boundary line would extend “to the middle of the channel which separates the continent from Vancouver’s Island; and thence southerly through the middle of the said channel, and of Fuca’s straits to the Pacific Ocean.” Unfortunately, that wording proved to be unclear enough to set the stage for another conflict.

Map of the disputed boundary

The difficulty lay in that there were two straits running southward through the islands — Haro Strait and Rosario Strait. As each country wanted the most advantageous boundary line, each claimed that the boundary ran through whichever strait would grant them the islands, with the British running the boundary line through Rosario Strait and the Americans, Haro Strait.

Over the next few years, both the British and the Americans started utilizing San Juan Island, with each group assuming that the other group was there illegally. By 1859, the British Hudson’s Bay Company had both a salmon-curing station and a sheep ranch operating on the island, and the Americans had about eighteen settlers living there also. Tempers were short, but things didn’t come to a head until June of 1859.

On June 15 of that year, American settler Lyman Cutlar discovered a pig rutting through his garden. He shot and killed the pig — which belonged to his neighbor, an Irishman employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company. When Cutlar offered to pay for the pig, his neighbor claimed that the pig was a champion breeder and demanded $100 for the loss. Considering this high price to be unreasonable, Cutlar refused to pay. British authorities, already considering Cutlar and the rest of the settlers to be illegal squatters, threatened to arrest him. The American settlers, none to happy about these British who refused to leave their island, petitioned for U.S. military protection. On July 27th, a 66-man company of the 9th U.S. infantry, commanded by Cpt. George E. Pickett, landed on the southern tip of the island and set up camp.

The British governor of British Columbia’s Crown Colony, angered by the arrival of U.S. troops. answered by sending in his own forces — three British warships commanded by Cpt. Geoffrey Hornby — with instructions to remove Pickett from San Juan Island, but to avoid any actual hostilities if at all possible.

Over the next few months, each side continued to send in reinforcements, until by the end of August, “461 Americans, protected by 14 cannons and an earthen redoubt, were opposed by three British warships mounting 70 guns and carrying 2,140 men, including bluejackets (sailors), Royal Marines, artillerymen and sappers.”

Henry Martyn Robert

Incidentally, the construction of the redoubt at the top of a hill in the American camp to let the cannon oversee the water approaches to the island was supervised by engineer Henry Martyn Robert. Later in his military career, Robert discovered a fascination with parliamentary procedure, and went on to author Robert’s Rules of Order.

Thankfully, throughout all of this territorial saber-rattling, saner heads prevailed, refusing to “involve two great nations in a war over a squabble about a pig,” in the words of British Rear Admiral Robert L. Baynes. Eventually, U.S. President James Buchanan dispatched General Winfield Scott to resolve the affair. Scott was able to broker a treaty, with each country reducing their forces — a single company of U.S. troops, and a single British warship — allowing the island to continue under joint occupation until a more formal resolution could be reached.

This situation continued for the next twelve years, making the Pig War the longest single military conflict on U.S. soil — even if the only casualty was a hungry pig. Eventually, during the signing of the Treaty of Washington between Britain and the United States, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany was asked to arbitrate in the matter of the San Juan Islands. He referred the matter to a commission, and after a year of deliberation, the commission ruled in favor of the United States on October 21st, 1872. British troops withdrew from San Juan Island within the month, and the last of the U.S. troops left by mid-1874.

Sources:

99 percent failsafe

I got a good laugh when Kirsten posted this, and I finally remembered to mention it here.

Laura Bush recently expressed her “shock” over the gay marriage issue. In this Salon article she goes on to talk about sex education, mentioning that abstinence is “100 percent fail-safe.”

This raised Kirsten’s eyebrows, apparently…

And it suddenly occurred to me that this was just a little off…I mean – the Bushes are hardcore christians, right?

That abstinence bit worked REAL well for Mary and Joseph, didn’t it? It’s 100% fail-safe, after all.

iTunes: “Perfect Tan (Bikini Atoll)” by Machines of Loving Grace from the album Concentration (1993, 3:21).

Brain Drain

There’s an excellent (as in must-read) article in the Washington Monthly looking at how the Bush administrations policies are driving creative talent away from America.

As other nations become more attractive to mobile immigrant talent, America is becoming less so. A recent study by the National Science Board found that the U.S. government issued 74,000 visas for immigrants to work in science and technology in 2002, down from 166,000 in 2001–an astonishing drop of 55 percent. This is matched by similar, though smaller-scale, declines in other categories of talented immigrants, from finance experts to entertainers. Part of this contraction is derived from what we hope are short-term security concerns–as federal agencies have restricted visas from certain countries after September 11. More disturbingly, we find indications that fewer educated foreigners are choosing to come to the United States. For instance, most of the decline in science and technology immigrants in the National Science Board study was due to a drop in applications.

[…]

…I’m convinced that the biggest reason has to do with the changed political and policy landscape in Washington. In the 1990s, the federal government focused on expanding America’s human capital and interconnectedness to the world–crafting international trade agreements, investing in cutting edge R&D, subsidizing higher education and public access to the Internet, and encouraging immigration. But in the last three years, the government’s attention and resources have shifted to older sectors of the economy, with tariff protection and subsidies to extractive industries. Meanwhile, Washington has stunned scientists across the world with its disregard for consensus scientific views when those views conflict with the interests of favored sectors (as has been the case with the issue of global climate change). Most of all, in the wake of 9/11, Washington has inspired the fury of the world, especially of its educated classes, with its my-way-or-the-highway foreign policy. In effect, for the first time in our history, we’re saying to highly mobile and very finicky global talent, “You don’t belong here.”

(via Tom Negrino)