​ "Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the president cannot pardon himself," the Department of Justice declared in 1974. The DOJ spelled it out just four days before Nixon resigned, explaining that the president's pardoning power "does not extend to the president himself." 

Even those too lazy to vote feel it their birthright to blast our elected representatives from every direction.  We complain bitterly when we do not get all we want as if it were possible to have more services with lower taxes, broader health care coverage with no federal involvement, a cleaner environment without regulations, security from terrorists with no infringement on privacy, and cheaper consumer goods made locally by workers with higher wages.  In short, we crave all the benefits of change without the costs.  When we are disappointed, our response is to retreat into cynicism, then start thinking about whether there might be a quicker, easier, and less democratic way to satisfy our wants.

--Madeline Albright on page 116 of Fascism, A Warning.  This quote comes on the heels of a section about globalism and about the manipulation of public opinion using the internet.  The first part of this book was the best short history of Europe I have ever read--for once it made sense.  Excellent read: recommend.

This documentary is well worth seeing.  It explains how the 13th Amendment did more than free the slaves, because it had an exception that said criminals could be imprisoned.  A massive cultural effort ensued to criminalize blacks, and our so-called "criminal justice" system was not sufficient to protect them from powerful white men determined to keep them down.

A Netflix documentary (called 13TH) shows us is just how easy it is to criminalize a previously enslaved population.  This history is ugly, and the present is not pretty either.  The percentage of our populace that is behind bars far exceeds that of any other nation, and the percentage of that imprisoned mass that is black or brown in skin color is also ridiculous.  There is definitely something wrong.

13TH was directed by Ana DuVernay who has quite a resume.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ava_DuVernay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13TH_(film)
( What I learned so far (we haven't finished watching the documentary)Collapse )

He spoke at O'Connor's on June 27 for the FFRF.  Overall what I learned from this retired polysci professor is that the framers of the US constitution intended to create a principle-based document that allows enough structure to prevent chaos, and enough freedom to allow evolution of our society and laws over time.  He never said anything like that, it is purely my restatement of what I walked away with.  Brudley is a good speaker and clearly has taught this subject matter in many different ways over the years.  When faced with a mature atheist audience in liberal Portland, he was able to skim over a lot of topis that he belabors for undergraduates.  One thing I liked about his speaking style (and will borrow): he said that questions for the purpose of clarification or elaboration are welcome during the presentation, all others had to wait until the end.  This prevents diversions from the topic and keeps it all moving along.

He started out saying that the independent judiciary is detailed in Article 1, and that it was clearly a priority for the framers of the constitution.  I also learned that Article 2 is the Executive article, and it is under this article that the constitution says that the president nominates supreme court justices and with the senates advice and consent these nominations can be confirmed.  The president is instructed to choose based on fitness and qualifications, and not on nepotism or cronyism.  The president is selected for this job because he is thought to be more insulated from the "passions and prejudices of the people".

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the senate, or the people, should have any part in nominating judges.  The Federalist Papers have an article by Hamilton that specifically says there shall be "no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate".   Nowhere does it say that no SCOTUS judges may be nominated in the last year.  To his knowledge our current VP Biden was the first to say that a lame duck president should not nominate--which was an easy gotcha for the Republicans.  Brudney said that our system of checks and balances, and the separation of powers, is sometimes unproductive.  You could say that.  Stalemate potential is necessary in a principle-driven constitution that provides us with freedoms, and protects us from rash decisions by any branch of our government.

The use of combat drones overseas divides Congress, but not in the usual partisan way.

Supporters of the “war on terror” in both parties tend to support the use of unmanned aircraft that often try to assassinate terrorism suspects. But libertarian Republicans have teamed up with civil liberties-backing Democrats to oppose the drones.

Now, the partisan trenches have been crossed by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D – Ohio, and Rep. Ron Paul, R – Texas, in order to force the administration to release its legal justification.

The two mavericks who are leaving Congress at year’s end have introduced a resolution of inquiry — legislation that is used to compel specific documents from the administration, and must be considered by the committee of jurisdiction, or on the House floor, within 14 legislative days.

Since the legislation was introduced on November 28, it could come before the House this year, which means that the administration will be forced to turn over the legal justification it uses for the strikes, including any memos from the Office of Legal Counsel.

SOURCE
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=159916

Here's the actual text of the EO. It looks kind of totalitarian on its surface, and the conservative blogosphere is screaming stuff like Obama seizes control over all food, farms, livestock, farm equipment, fertilizer and food production across America!!! But the Hot Air blog breaks it down relative to the old law, and it appears that the changes are really quite minimal. In the name of National Defense Resources Preparedness an assortment of agencies are authorized to do whatever they need to take over the means of production and supply the military. Which they already were.

"Don't be a pussy, vote Ron Paul!"

NYT/CBS poll on mood of Americans: we're cranky, displeased
( notesCollapse )

NEW FEDERAL ACTION
US feds began emergency action Weds 11/24/10 (takes 30 days)
to outlaw 5 chems used to make synthetic marijuana
will be schedule 1 along with cocaine, heroin, etc
emergency ban-->illegal for 1 year while DEA and DHS study them
may not kill industry, will create new black market
15+ states and some Euro nations have already banned them
manufacturers already reformulating to circumvent bans, are in touch with distributors

came to DEA attention in 11/08 when US Customs analyzed "spice"
in 2010 customs seized a 110lb load
law enforcement will use chemical tests
will focus on distributors, not users
( notesCollapse )