Earlier in the day, I was introduced as a new contributor here and I’m pretty thrilled about it. I imagine you’re not because you don’t yet know much about me. Presumably. So let me fill in some blanks for you, let you in on my dirty little political secrets and hopefully lay the groundwork for future columns.
As indicated before, my name is Aaron Brazell. I am a technologist and a blogger – notably involved with the new media network, b5media. My corner of the web is at Technosailor where in the past year I have focused quite a bit on the technology of social media. Deeper in the archives are my political soapboxes.
The human psyche is composed of all three areas of the political spectrum. We all have some degree of liberalism. We all have a bit of conservatism. And to varying degrees, we are all somewhere in the middle. We are hybrids but we like to deny that fact. We like to call ourselves democrats or republicans. We like to call ourselves conservatives or liberals. We like labels because labels help us cope with the reality that we really can’t find a container that really fits the bill. We are all products of our environments and rarely do our environments define democrats or republicans, conservatives or liberals.
It’s this human psyche that desires retention in a small box that politicos cater to. We have a two party system and if the average doesn’t pick a side, they are left out of the dialogue. The Legislatures around the country go through an endless cycle of “label tug o’ war”. Will the Democrats take the House? Will the Republicans maintain the Presidency?
Embracing individuality and defining your own parameters as a political activist is a task that is easy to claim, yet difficult to embrace. The system is counter-individuality. It is difficult to make a difference without declaring allegiance. But for those who can do it, and successfully execute, political freedom is at hand.
I am of this brand of political pundits.
I am conservative in that I believe in small government. Sound fiscal policy is the way we run our personal lives and it is the way that government should handle the checkbook. Raising taxes is useless without cutting spending. Spending more and not reining in the proverbial credit card doesn’t serve me well. Why should economic principles change because the government is The Government?
I am conservative in that I believe that strict adherence to law and order is the only way to stem the flow of illegal immigration. Economically, business benefit from illegal labor. Societally, we are hurt.
I am a conservative in that I believe the Judiciary was placed as the third portion of the governmental triumvirate not to make laws – that is the role of the Legislature – or to set policy – that is the role of the Executive – but to strictly interpret law based on the framework of Constitutional law. I do not believe the Constitution is a living document and it is not in place to meet the individual lobbies that might try to use it for their purpose. It is a framework and as a framework, offers the support and foundation for other laws. Therefore, there should be no Gay Marriage amendment. If the issue is really an issue needing tackling, the Amendment in question should offer a framework for other laws. Perhaps an Amendment defining the roles of governmental branches in solving cultural problems.
I am a liberal in that I believe the government exists for the people. That’s not to say that everything the people want or need should be provided by the government. In the immortal words of William Wallace in Braveheart:
You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And, I go to make sure that they have it.
I am a liberal in that my belief is that America should not be at war without just provocation. Afghanistan was justified. Iraq was not.
I am a libertarian in that my belief on governmental intervention into the lives of its people should be kept minimalistic. Constitutional liberties should be preserved and not thwarted via “patriotic” mechanisms such as the USA Patriot Act (and yes I have read it). Wiretaps should be conducted under the auspices of judicial review – especially because such mechanisms have been provided for the protection of the citizens of the United States.
Finally, I have called for the impeachment of the President for one thing – though I highly disagree with him on many things. Impeachment of Bush should be conducted based on intentional and unapologetic usurpation of power from the Congress (abuse of War Powers Act in NSA wiretap investigation) and the intentional and unapologetic usurpation of power from the Judiciary (declaring the FISA restriction on wiretaps irrelevant and unnecessary) – eliminating the Constitutional provided three branch system.
That’s me. More to come. 
Aaron,
Lots of great stuff. I wouldn’t call you conservative or liberal at all but a free thinking independent.
I would add that Bush should be impeached by proclaiming to be above the law and ignore it as he sees fit (after he signs them) with his signing statements. What a cute way to display that “robust” executive authority Cheney loves to drone on about.
Wow. I strongly disagree with both of you. Bush should be impeached because of non-binding signing statements?
Part of why I objected to the Clinton impeachment circus was that it would lower the bar on impeachable offenses; we appear to now be at the point where sitting presidents can be forced to defend themselves against completely imaginary charges.
Nixon ordered a burglary (probably) and was not quite impeached for it. Clinton committed perjury, was impeached for it and stripped of his license to practice law.
What has Bush done again? Specifically?
He hasn’t started a blacklist of Hollywood actors who are suspected of being terrorist sympathizers — although there are days I wish he would. He hasn’t rounded up Arabs or Muslims into camps, although that’s been done and nobody was impeached over that. He hasn’t gone around arresting anyone who objects to US foreign policy, though that was done also during WWI.
So I ask, quite seriously, what he has done that is so awful that he should be impeached — aside from having a 30% approval rating during a period of national hyperventilation.
It’s not that the statements are unbinding. The laws that the Congress passed, that he has a right to veto, are effectively executed by his signature. He is trying to have it both ways and it weakens the checks and balances and separation of powers inherent in our system of government.
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard this brought up, always by a critic of the President. I don’t really understand what the problem with it is.
Wikipedia has this to say: “No United States Constitution provision, federal statute or common-law principle explicitly permits or prohibits signing statements. Article I, Section 7 (in the Presentment Clause) empowers the president to veto a law in its entirety, or to sign it. Article II, Section 3 requires that the executive “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”.
Signing statements do not appear to have legal force by themselves. As a practical matter, they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.”
There was also this:
“The upswing in reliance on signing statements during the Reagan administration coincides with the writing by Justice Samuel A. Alito – then a staff attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel – of a 1986 memorandum making the case for “interpretive signing statements” as a tool to “increase the power of the Executive to shape the law.” Alito proposed adding signing statements to a “reasonable number of bills” as a pilot project, but warned that “Congress is likely to resent the fact that the President will get in the last word on questions of interpretation.”
1986 was during the Reagan administration. Reagan, of the Iran-Contra scandal, who was not impeached for that either.
Come on guys, you’re grasping at straws. You don’t like Bush and you want to see him out — that’s fine. There’s an election coming up in 2008.
And I thought you were just passionate about the Baltimore Ravens!
Nice case of smoke and mirrors there, Jay.
I don’t like Bush but like I said, there is one and only reason that I see that is cause for impeachment and your legal quotings do not debunk that theory one bit.
The President does not have the legal right to interpret laws. He can try, but he is subject to the same courts as everyone else and if the courts say that policies that he has are unconstitutional – guess what? He can’t do them.
Specifically in the instance of the NSA wiretapping and FISA, the courts have said there is one prescribed way to wiretap without violating Constitutional “Search and Seizure” provisions – that is to obtain a warrant.
Recognizing that there might be a case where time was of the essence in a National Security investigation, they made lenient provisions for retroactive warrants.
What the President has admittededly done was say, “fuck the courts. Even though they’ve made it amazingly easy to lawfully do what we want to do, we still don’t need or want them.”
Jay, what legal grounds does the President have in his defense here?
“…they may give notice of the way that the Executive intends to implement a law, which may make them more significant than the text of the law itself.â€?
I thought Bush believed in the strict interpretation of the law and would only nominate judges that shared this jurisprudential philosophy? If that is true, he would place the emphasis on the Congressionally enacted legisation, the first branch of government that is duly authorized to write laws, not the executive branch.
By issuing these signing statements, he is usurping the legislative function from the Congress. This can only work with one-party rule which is why the divided government we have in place today after the 2006 midterms is the least dangerous in a two-party system. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock in Washington is a very good thing.
I’ve always supported this myself.
As an extension of your belief in this philosophy, does this mean that, by default, you will automatically support the GOP presidential candidate? I really do not foresee myself able to vote for Rudy, Romney, nor McCain. Are there any Republicans you could live with occupying the White House after Bush?
There is no default here.
“By issuing these signing statements, he is usurping the legislative function from the Congress. This can only work with one-party rule which is why the divided government we have in place today after the 2006 midterms is the least dangerous in a two-party system. Contrary to popular belief, gridlock in Washington is a very good thing.”
A few points: the signing statements are non-binding. Meaning the courts are free to ignore them. So what is he usurping, exactly? His right to comment on laws that are passed? Maybe I’m dense, but I just don’t feel very oppressed by that.
I disagree that Congressional gridlock is desirable during time of war — but I suspect you and I might disagree strongly on the nature of that war and whether a wider conflict even exists.
Regarding the earlier comments on NSA wiretapping and FISA, I expect that decision to be overturned. There is quite a bit of precedent for warrantless searches — Power Line did (at least) two pieces on this that are fairly definitive. I can find links but you’ve probably seen them.
As for McCain/Giuliani, both of them have baggage. Giuliani is currently polling better.
Who would I vote for? Hard to say. I supported McCain in the 2000 primary. He’s done some things that annoy me since. Rudy is a strong candidate but he’s got some skeletons in his closet that will be dragged out and paraded around, and his Catholicism will be an issue for some. (Sad to say that in 2006, but there it is.)
As far from perfect as those two are though, I don’t see any Democrat that would make me consider voting for them over either of those two.
C’mon Jay…you’re much too bright to fall into the right-wing trap that claims Bush hasn’t done anything wrong.
Let me count the ways:
* He squandered the budget surplus inherited from Bill Clinton.
* He squandered the international good will we enjoyed after 9/11.
* He gave us the Bush Doctrine — preemptive invasion of other nations because they might someday pose a threat.
* He lied about why we had to go to war in Iraq.
* He let Osama Bin Laden, our avowed enemy, escape.
* He withdrew the United States from international treaties, including the International Criminal Court, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and, most notably, the Geneva Conventions, which he said don’t
apply to us.
* He jettisoned the Kyoto Protocol to avoid addressing global warming.
* He put himself above the U.S. Constitution, choosing which laws to obey, which to ignore.
* Domestically, he stole from programs for the poor and middle class to give mega-buck tax breaks to his mega-wealthy friends.
* He eviscerated programs that help poor families heat their homes, feed their kids, and prepare those kids for school.
* He dismantled longstanding protections against foul air, foul water, feces-laced meat, and corrupt
business practices.
* He invited Enron, Exxon and other energy giants to write the laws that regulate them.
* He kept energy regulators from stepping in as Enron engineered a crisis that made Californians’
electricity bills soar 800 percent.
* He stood by applauding as natural gas and oil companies plundered the Rockies, rangeland, Indian reservations, national parks and refuges, and coastal waters.
* He handed insurance and pharmaceutical corporations the gift that keeps on giving – the
Medicare drug benefit program.
* He tried (thankfully without success) to hand Wall Street another mega-gift – privatized Social
Security.
* He mismanaged the response to Hurricane Katrina.
* He attacked critics with disinformation, slander, even outright lies.
* He named inept political cronies to key positions from the CIA, FDA and FEMA to (again thankfully without success) the Supreme Court.
* He let politics trump science on everything from drug approval and stem cell research to global warming
and evolution.
* He authorized wiretapping of U.S. citizens without court-issued warrants, and arrests, imprisonment and torture without due process.
In short, he reversed decades of progress on virtually every front, sank us deep into debt, made us “the
enemy” to most of the rest of the world, and turned our nation’s bounty over to the most obscenely wealthy
few.
These offenses may not rise to the level of the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein, but they certainly raise questions about Bush’s performance of his most solemn duty– to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution
I would say that if the U.S. Constitution is so flexible that it could interpreted by a previous incarnation of the Supreme Court to allow slavery, it is a living document, no matter what we call it.
The electorate ought to be holding the Congress accountable for not overriding bills that are vetoed. What’s the use of representative government if the people don’t care enough to come back and say…”sorry Dude, we want this, that’s why it was passed!”
Hi, I have just looked through your site and find it quite enlightening. As I declared bankruptcy I had to learn as much as I can about credit rebuilding methods. So I found a site which asked my burning questions and gave me precise tips on how to improve my credit and how to use credit cards
zero percent intrest on transfers