What Happens to Illegal Border Crossers in OTHER Countries

Click the link to find out.

Share

Presidential Powers and Authority

I didn't intend to post again, so soon.  But, I was reading an interesting interview on Front Page Magazine with John Yoo, a law professor at Boalt, and was fascinated by this excerpt:

"...my job on the panel today is try to put what we’re going to talk about in a historical context, which is to talk about where Obama sits in the course of the history of the presidency.  And my basic theme is that President Obama has brought to office what I think of as an upside-down or an inverted view of the presidency, where his view was that the presidency should be a fairly weak office when it came to foreign affairs and national security, that should defer to the other branches; but that he should be a leader of domestic change, and domestic revolution in terms of the economy and society.  And this is the exact opposite, I think, of not just the framers’ design for the office but what his greatest predecessors have done."

Well!  That certainly caught my attention; I majored in History in college, and even taught it for a while.  One year, I coached a team on the U.S. Constitution that participated in a competition.  As a result, I've spent some time reading the actual document, not just re-phrased parts of it.  I'm quite familiar with it, as well as the Federalist Papers, which I also had to read as a part of a class.

The next part of the interview, I'm not so crazy about.  President Buchanan is one I have a peripheral connection to - an aunt by marriage is a descendant.  Many people know little about him.  This excerpt is long, but I needed it to explain why you need to read, not only this interview, but the books the authors are talking about.

"...that’s the basic message of the book, and the basic context I want to set out, is — why is Buchanan the worst President, by universal acclaim, among scholars?  And why is Lincoln almost tied with Washington for being our greatest President?  It has everything to do with emergency and the power of the office.
Buchanan and Lincoln were both Presidents during the worst emergency that we have faced — the Civil War.  And Buchanan responded to it by saying — many people don’t know this — Buchanan thought that secession was unconstitutional.  He actually thought that the states could not leave the Union.  But he said, As President, I have no constitutional power to stop it from happening.  The presidency is powerless.  And he actually said, I call on Congress to reach a solution.
Those of you who’ve worked with a legislature can guess what Congress did.  They formed a special commission to study the problem.  Lincoln comes into office a few months later.  The period between election and inauguration was much longer then.  Lincoln says, I agree with President Buchanan — secession is unconstitutional.  But I have the power as President to protect the country, to protect its security.  And he took extraordinary measures to do that.  He raised an army and a navy, he took money out of the treasury, without congressional permission.  He started offensive operations against the South.  He suspended the writ of habeas corpus through the country, all with the goal of protecting the United States during period of emergency.  His most famous act, and the one for which we as Republicans remember him the most — the Emancipation Proclamation — was what people today would call a unilateral exercise of executive power.
Does anybody remember what the Supreme Court’s opinion about emancipation was in 1863, at the time of President Lincoln’s order?  Supreme Court’s opinion still was Dred Scott vs. Sandford, which said no federal or state government law could eliminate slavery.  Lincoln brushed that aside.  He said, To win the Civil War, we have to free the slaves, which is actually why the Emancipation Proclamation only applied in the South, but not in the peaceful areas of the North.
So in the time I have remaining let me turn to President Obama.  Because the lesson, I think, that comes from the history of our great Presidents and their time during periods of emergency are twofold .  One is that the framers designed the presidency in the weird way they did.  They designed the executive branch with one person in charge, where all the power and responsibility goes to that one person, so that he could act quickly, swiftly, secretly, decisively, as the Federalist Papers talked about.
When it came to domestic policy, however, the framers thought that the presidency would be a modest office.  They were worried about Congress when it came to domestic policy.  Fact, they specifically gave the President the veto power, so that the presidency would moderate the legislative branch.  The framers were extremely worried about the idea that Congress, which had access to the power of the purse, would take money from one group of citizens and transfer it to another group of citizens.  Where would they have gotten that crazy idea from?  The President’s job was to stop Congress from enacting special-interest legislation and to pursue the national interest.
Just let me close by saying — and now set it up for Marc and Andrew, my good friends — look at what Obama did when he came into office.  Right?  He saw his job as pushing Congress to go farther.  And because of that, he’s undermining the legitimacy and power of the presidency, by combining it too closely with Congress, as we’ve seen with health care.  His job was to restrain Congress from passing health care, not to prod it to going farther.
At the same time, I’d say in national security matters, he has tried to retract the power of the presidency.  That’s the way to understand his decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the guy who thought up the idea of the 9/11 attacks in civilian court in New York City.  There’s a lot of crazy reasons why this is not a good idea, not the least of which is spending $250 million a year on security in downtown New York, when it only costs, I think — I checked — only $108 million to build the Guantanamo Bay base.
But if you think about it, when you transfer the trial of terrorists to civilian courts, you are, as President, giving up the power to set terrorism policy on a lot of matters to another branch of government, something Presidents Washington and Lincoln and FDR never would have done.  Obama doesn’t want the responsibility, he doesn’t want to make the decisions about the war on terrorism.  But at the same time, he’s, I think, damaging the presidency by pulling the powers of the institution back, and hoping someone else will make the hard choices.
Unfortunately, that’s why we have a President.  If these jobs, these decisions, were easy, we wouldn’t need the President to make them.  And I worry that because of his efforts to avoid these hard choices when it comes to the most important function of government, which is protecting the security of its citizens, that President Obama will not use the powers of his office, as his greatest predecessors did, to protect the security of the country."

 Well!   You really have to read the rest.

Share

Back in the Saddle Again

Now that the major focus of the national government is not on:

• Screwing up the economy
• Screwing up the health system

They are free to continue screwing up immigration policy - which is my greater interest, and an area that I have some expertise in.

Over the next few weeks, I'll be looking at how the AZ border law changes/doesn't change things, pending legislation (including that proposal to make Puerto Rico a state - by bringing in a large population all at one time, it sort of falls under this area), and the upcoming Congressional elections, and how they will impact the immigration issue.

Share

Tattoos in the Popular Culture

I've been thinking about the place of tattoos in modern-day America lately.  Dr. D. has got me thinking:

I don't like tats, so why do I put pictures on my site?

For me, it's two-fold.

1. Those of us who don't ink themselves need to understand the phenomenon - WHY do the under-40 crowd covet them?  Is it: tribal, crowd-following, a form of self-mutilation?  SOME of these tats are connected with gangs - no difficulty understanding that motivation.  Others, particularly with women, seem to reflect a desire to seem sexy and edgy, without having to necessarily follow through on the implied promise.  I've seen tats commemorating children's birth, the death of a loved one - often far too soon, and other special rememberances.
2. I really do want the pro-tat crowd to think about the long-term issues involved.  The skin will sag, the colors will fade, both weight gain and loss will affect the look of the tat.  As the previous post points out, heavy metal contamination is a risk factor, as is hepatitis.  I do find it hard to fathom why the rush to tattoo before the age of majority, as those of us past that age know that a strong passion - either for a person or for a philosophy - is very likely to change.  Why have a permanent reminder of that earlier attachment?

Share

Rounding Third

Against all odds, I've survived the year, and will be done with school in just about another month.  Due to financial concerns, many schools are either NOT hiring, or will be hedging their bets until later in the spring.  So, my future is still up in the air.

Fortunately, other facets of my life are going well.

• DH and I are getting along better - he has accepted that we have to spend some getting-to-know-each-other time-again this summer, and we're both looking forward to finding out what lies ahead (did I do that correctly?  I'm never sure about lie and lay).
• The kids are doing well, healthy (reasonably) and, if not rolling in money, at least making the rent.
• I'm healthy.  Sister is better, although not out of the woods.  One brother is looking VERY well, and, well, haven't heard about any new disasters with the other.
• Bills situation is OK - we've gotten to the point of having only housing, utilities, and cars to pay.  Mind, those are ridiculously high.

Politically, the nation is experiencing some needed push-back on the part of the citizens.  Whatever you think about the Tea Party activity, it certainly seems to have given the average citizens motivation to interest them in affairs of state.

Share

What's in Your Tattoo Ink?

Full Disclosure:

I don't like tattoos - perhaps it's the inordinate time spent (in class, no less) to applying vasoline to the new tat (apparently it helps it heal faster), or the money that's spent by students who also get the free lunch, or the fact that so many of the most eager-to-be-tatted already have children at home, who (presumably) could use that money - and attention - spent on THEM.

But, what I've been reading about the use of heavy metals in tattoo ink really does concern me.

What's in your tattoo ink?

Specific problems with the pigments:

Although the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate tattoo pigments, tattoo pigments have not yet been approved by FDA for injection into the skin, as is done when a tattoo is made.
Heavy metals are used to give tattoo pigments their permanent color. The specific ingredients that are used in the pigments differ by color and by brand, but may include not only lead and arsenic, but also antimony, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, and nickel -- metals that have also been linked to bad outcomes in people. The amount of these metals in a tattoo may be substantial. For example, AESI states that the ink used for an index card sized (3” by 5”) tattoo contains 1.23 micrograms of lead, which is more than double the amount permitted per day under California’s Proposition 65.
Certain tattoo colors may present greater health risks than others. For example, green and blue pigments produced from copper salts (Copper Pthalocyanine) are thought to be safe, as they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in contact lenses, surgical implants, and infant furniture paint. Similarly, black pigments made from carbon black or india ink, white pigments made from zinc or titanium white, purple pigments made from dioxazine/carbazole, and brown pigments made from iron oxides are thought to be have minimal (if any) health risks. Of the colors, red pigments, especially those that contain cadmium, iron oxides or mercury (cinnabar), are generally the most worrisome. Mercury in tattoo pigments, for example, has caused allergic reactions and scarring in people and has sensitized people to mercury from other sources, such as fish or dental fillings.

Toxicology of Tattoos?   From a medical research site.  Since it's possible that lead is involved, I think that pregnant or planning to be pregnant girls should be wary about tattoos.


What about Black Ink?

Iron oxide is a heavy metal used in some black tattoo inks. This ingredient is commonly found in older inks and is becoming increasingly less common. Certain states, such as California, have introduced legislation that bars the use of heavy metals in tattoo inks. This type of tattoo ink may react during medical procedures such as MRI scans due to its content. As a result, it's important to know whether this type of ink was used in your tattoo before undergoing these types of medical procedures.

I dunno, guys.  It seems to be just another reason that tats aren't a really good idea.

Share

I'm Tired

I've been lounging all weekend.   It hasn't helped.  I'm tired (physically and mentally), SO ready for the summer break, and finding it difficult to concentrate on doing the things I need to do.

Don't quite know what to do to break out of this rut.

Share

More Obama As Nixon

Again, Obama shows his Nixonian qualities, as he is heckled by gays  outraged by his forgetfulness about gay military service promises.

I wrote about this before.  Obama always seemed, to me, to have difficulty dealing with people, outside of carefully constructed situations (as, in fact, did Nixon).  Outside of his comfort zone, he is suspicious, stand-offish, and disinclined to enjoy the give and take of normal interactions.

Share

Will the Tea Parties Succeed?

Well, yes,..., and no.

I don't believe that they will succeed in repealing the Obamacare bill.  Sorry, I'd love for them to do  so, but think it's quite unlikely.  However, the widespread displeasure with the bill may, in the end, lead to a call for free enterprise in the matter.  We may, after Americans have had an opportunity to experience socialized health care, see privatized health care plans again, yet.

So, are the Tea Parties a failure?

No.  Remember, the first actions of the original patriots weren't wildly successful.  They labored for years, without persuading very many beyond the core group.  They persevered.  They continued staying on top of the issues.  They continued talking to other colonists, not to scream at them, but to point out where their self-interest lay.

And, eventually, they began to see their numbers swell.  Finally, they were able to gather together a group of like-minded individuals, and  declare their independence.

If you want to see the likely trajectory of the movement, read a history of Samuel Adams.  He's the one that prodded, wheedled, and promoted the issues, until he patiently cobbled together the core leadership of the American Revolution.  He spent a lot of nights away from home.  He wrote, both letters and public papers.  It was a life's work, getting the revolution to happen.

It takes writers.  It takes talkers,  It takes those guys that can relate to the neighborhood, and work their magic over the kitchen table.  It takes strategists.

The open-air rallies aren't the answer.  They are, however, a part of the strategy.  It's going to take people skills, media savvy, and political awareness, as well as the ability to keep the movement focused on the main ideas.

And it's going to take a lot of time.  This isn't a quick solution.  It needs time to mature, to let the leadership develop.  We can't just impose that leadership by fiat (or Romney might already be in charge), or let the most media-telegenic take over.  It has to be a team effort.

Share

He's Amused? How - Kingly of Him!

Well, he thinks it's - terribly cute - that we might protest, given that tax burdens have fallen lately.

And, he's right - tax refunds are up this year.

But, that doesn't take into account the hidden kicker: recent analyses showing that the tax burden on Americans is likely to rise in coming years.
What's more, tea party protesters aren't just worried about taxes, but the rising federal debt and creeping entitlement programs they say threaten individual liberty as defined by the Constitution.
"Obama mocks tea party protests … while feverishly working fast and furious to do everything they are forthrightly protesting, which is a government driving the nation into greater deficit spending and unsustainable taxation. That is funny, Mr. President," writes Tara Lynn Thompson at Right Pundits.

It's not the immediate amount out of our pockets, it's the amount owed - and what that means about the eventual cost of paying for the "free ride".  Adults understand that.  We get it, that even though the auto salesman waives the low monthly payment in front of our face, it's still only a lease - and one that will leave us with nothing to show for all that money paid during the lease.

That's why responsible home owners don't fall over themselves in a rush to sign an interest-only home loan.  We get it that we will owe a gigunda amount in a balloon payment.  Well, the many recent legislative actions will carry their own balloon payment due, as the Social Security program already does.

Share

Home, Recovering

I've an unanticipated day off, due to a flare-up of an old back injury.  I tried working through the pain, but found that I'd added a new symptom - a shooting pain down my left leg.  Apparently, it's sciatica, an unbelievably painful irritation of a major nerve, caused by spinal problems.

So, I visited the chiropractor, rested, did the whirlpool thing (one of the few good things about this rental), and prepared for another day out.  I'll be moving around slightly, in between cautious stretching and LOTS of rest.

Maybe, even, time to post.

Share