US Constitution

Originally Posted on Citizen Orange

I was excited to find out over the weekend that David Neiwart, through his own blog and a cross-post on Firedoglake linked to me and others in the pro-migrant blogosphere in the last post of his three-part series on immigration:

The blogosphere can have a role in this change as well. There is a wealth of blogs out there dealing with immigration and Latino issues on a regular basis, and many of them feature not just important perspectives that need to be part of the conversation, but compelling and powerful writing as well.

A sampling: Migra Matters, Latina Lista, Matt Ortega,Immigration Prof Blog, The Silence of our Friends, Citizen Orange, The Unapologetic Mexican ... well, the list is long, and this one is certainly incomplete. But you get the idea. [ Source :David Neiwart]

I encourage you to use my blogroll on the right to complete that list, but now that he's finished his series I thought I'd use it as an opportunity to insert my own commentary, and hopefully build or hone on what was a massive and ambitious undertaking for Neiwart. Neiwart wrote three posts. One introducing his series, a second debunking a lot of the anti-migrant myths that exist, and a third with proposals about how to move forward.

While the first two posts were informative, I'm going to spend my time on Dave's third post, "Immigration: Looking Forward". This post is the second major migrant manifesto to emerge out of the blogosphere, coming after Duke's post that garnered a front-page spot on Daily Kos. In his post, Neiwart outlines what a "liberal program for comprehensive immigration reform" would contain:

The title of this post is a comment I found at MetaFilter. It's so perfect at describing the congressional haggling and backroom political smackdowns I've been privvy to in online and offline discussions about the current congressional session, that I just had to have it.

It was a comment that perfectly described Barney Frank's "thoughtful compromise" on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). That bill would have prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation AND gender identity; making it not only a crime to dismiss a worker for being a lesbian but also for firing a woman for looking like man (or vice versa).

People in the GLBT community are up in arms because, and rightly so, Barney Frank, (the second openly gay congressman to serve in this country) has gone out of his way to say that it is important for this bill to pass without transgender protection. And he has done so with the help of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization that had promised to make a better effort at focusing more on the issues affecting the transgender communities they purport to serve.

The unfortunate reality of this trans-exclusionary ENDA legislation is that it will not only deny equal rights to a minority within an already minority community, but it will have a larger and more punitive effect on anybody who does not conform to any definition of "heteronormalcy" their employer may want to impose. Meaning that it may bring a much welcomed loophole for employers dying to get rid of butch looking women or fey looking men in their payrolls.

The refrain from both Barney and the HRC is that leaving the "T" out of GLBT is anyhow for the greater good.

Which brings me to Hillary Clinton and her throwing of documented and legal resident children and pregnant women under the Democrats political bus.

[Nota Bene : Revised and promoted by liza]

On the Friday before July 4 Republican Senator Arlen Specter showed his respect for the U.S. Constitution and his anger about President Bush’s repeated pissing on it by introducing the "Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007". What happens to this crucial bill will test both congressional integrity and courage.

Specter had the honesty to call President Bush's abuse of signing statements an "unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority." "The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can he use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," said Specter.

“Presidential signing statements can render the legislative process a virtual nullity, making it completely unpredictable how certain laws will be enforced. This legislation reinforces the system of checks and balances and separation of powers set out in our Constitution,” said Specter.

Commenting on the legislative process, Specter noted: “This is a finely structured constitutional procedure that goes straight to the heart of our system of check and balances. Any action by the president that circumvents this finely structured procedure is an unconstitutional attempt to usurp legislative authority. If the president is permitted to rewrite the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process designed by our framers.” Subversion of our Constitution – pissing on it: that’s what Bush has gotten away with. Bush-the-ruler has made a mockery of our sacred rule of law.

UPDATE 23 MAY 2007:
Click here to listen to the podcast

Last saturday I facilitated a session at the Personal Democracy Unconference, which took place at Pace University's downtown NYC campus.

To those who don't know what means unconference, the concept is an interesting take on the old formula. People come in with a topic or set of topics they'd like to talk about. All the topics are placed written on a piece of paper and placed on the wall, next to an empty schedule grid. Once the organizers give it a go, facilitators place on their preferred time slot and/or negotiate with other facilitators the timing of their session.

The session I facilitated was titled, Reframing Net Neutrality as a Civil Rights Issues. I honestly wasn't expecting more than a few people but was amazed when about a dozen strong came to the corner where I was set up. Nancy Scola, Aldon Hines, Cheryl Contee, Ruby Sinreich, Ed Cone, Heather Holdridge and so many other amazing people came to discuss this important issue that has been amazingly bogged down by too much geek speak.

What's at the core of Net Neutrality? There's people who can put this better than me, but at the heart of the debate is the issue that internet providers should have the right to distinguish all sorts of bandwidth usage in order to better manage their resources and provide better service. The concern is that companies like YouTube may literally clog the internets and it's tubes.

Saddam Hussein was hanged just one crime against humanity, and not for the scores of crimes he committed during his decades long dictatorship.

How come, then, can't we impeach George Bush on the following 10 crimes?

1. Violating the United Nations Charter by launching an illegal war of aggression against Iraq without cause, using fraud to sell the war to Congress and the public, and misusing government funds to begin bombing without Congressional authorization.
2. Violating U.S. and international law by authorizing the torture of thousands of captives, resulting in dozens of deaths, and keeping prisoners hidden from the International Committee of the Red Cross.
3. Violating the Constitution by arbitrarily detaining Americans, legal residents, and non-Americans, without due process, without charge, and without access to counsel.
4. Violating the Geneva Conventions by targeting civilians, journalists, hospitals, and ambulances, and using illegal weapons, including white phosphorous, depleted uranium, and a new type of napalm.
5. Violating U.S. law and the Constitution through widespread wiretapping of the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.