The Evergreen Freedom Foundation parked a truck with a rotating billboard outside the entrance to the NEA convention. One of the signs highlights NEA expenditure’s on such things as resorts, casinos and limos, concluding “It pays to be a union boss!” All three signs can be seen here. More information on NEA expenditure’s here.

Compendium File: Education

Hat tip: Cato-at-liberty

At a recent John Locke Foundation event, Newt Gingrich had the following to say:

Here’s my proposition for Sen. Edwards. I did an event with him recently in Los Angeles, and he talked about the passion he has to do something about poverty. And I think it’s very helpful and very noble that he has picked a topic that should matter to every American — both morally and in terms of our competing in the world.

But my proposition is very straight-forward. We know what works on the planet. We know that the work ethic works. We know that private property works. We know that the rule of law and independent judges work. We know that lower taxes — so people have more money in their own pocket, so they have a greater incentive to be creative and to work hard and to be entrepreneurs — works.

. . .

And so I would start by suggesting to Sen. Edwards that I agree with his concern — but that we have a profound difference about how the world works. My solution to poverty in America is simple and will sound like Reagan — which means the Left will ridicule it. And that is, I would like to see everyone who is currently poor become successful so they rose to middle-class standards, so there was nobody left who was poor because everybody was successful. (Applause)

The Left would like to transfer wealth to them in their poverty so they would make poverty more comfortable. That is exactly wrong. It’s morally wrong.

…

I think we’d have a lot of fun if Sen. Edwards would be willing to have a dialogue about whether conservative principles applied to saving the poor work better than liberal bureaucracies that clearly today are failing the poor. And that might be a very creative conversation that moves America a little further down the road toward genuinely helping people who currently can’t pursue happiness very well.

Edwards has been pushing to raise the miminum wage to $7.50. Dean recently declared the economic principles that show raising the minimum wage hurts jobs and hurts low-skilled labor as “mumbo jumbo”. It’s obvious the Democrats want to turn the minimum wage into an election year issue, falling back to their old tactics of class warfare.

Not surprisingly, Edwards wants no part of Gingrich and his reasoned positions.

That was the score of the Congressional baseball game. Congressman Kingston has the roundup on Jack’s Blog.

StopTheACLU has done a great job of showing how the rhetoric of the ACLU, media, and democrats seem to have all come from the same source on Hamdan. Check it out for a good laugh.

A month or so ago USA ran with a story that claimed phone companies were turning information over to the NSA for a data-mining operation. Aside from the fact that the alleged information was not private, they’ve also had to deal with denials from the phone companies involved.

In a note to their readers they admit:

The denial was unexpected. USA TODAY had spoken with BellSouth and Verizon for several weeks about the substance of the report. The day before the article was published, the reporter read the sections of the article concerning BellSouth and Verizon to representatives of the companies and asked for a denial before publication.
At the time, BellSouth did not deny participation in the program, but it issued a statement saying the company “does not provide any confidential customer information to the NSA or any government agency without proper legal authority.” Verizon said that it would not comment on national security matters and that it acts “in full compliance with the law” and with respect for customers’ privacy.

On May 15, BellSouth said it could not categorically deny participation in the program until it had conducted a detailed investigation. BellSouth said that internal review concluded that the company did not contract with the NSA or turn over calling records.

While this does not disprove the existance of such a program, it gives the impression that, if the companies are cooperating, they feel strongly that they are within the law to do so. Unfortunately, if the program does exist, it’s another case of the media informing the terrorists of the methods we are using to catch them.

Hat tip: Wizbang

A popular rallying cry of the more embarassing members of the right as of late has been the claim that “Bush wants to dissolve America and form a North American Union.” Evidence to back such a claim usually consists of little more than governments working together in just a way as one would expect neighboring States to work together. John Hawkins at RightWingNews dissects this ridiculous bit of hysteria.

Jack Balkin believes the Hamdan decision is “democracy forcing.”

What the Court has done is not so much countermajoritarian as democracy forcing. It has limited the President by forcing him to go back to Congress to ask for more authority than he already has, and if Congress gives it to him, then the Court will not stand in his way.

While the court may have, in fact, instigated what one could consider a democratic process, it had to override other democratic processes in order to justify such an order. The majority blithely swept aside the stripping of it’s jurisdiction by the DTA, using a puzzling justification that relied in part on cherry-picked floor statements made by members of Congress during the bill’s debate, and in part on the legislative history of the act. Scalia, however, notes that, “We have repeatedly held that such reliance is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous.”

In addition, a court that susbstitutes its, albeit reasonable, interpretation of a treaty in place of the admittedly reasonable interpretation of the Executive is, as Justice Thomas points out, committing “an unprecedented departure from the traditionally limited role of the courts with respect to war and an unwarranted intrusion on executive authority.”

Justice Thomas was so angry he did something he hasn’t done in 15 years in reading his dissent from the bench. He has reason to be angry as this seems like more democracy-destroying judicial activism to me.

I’m not the only one saying the ruling will have little practical effect. Echoing my earlier statements on the ruling, Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation offers this analysis:

I?d be surprised if any of the holdings in today?s Hamdan decision end up having large practical significance. The one exception is the Court?s rather cavalier treatment of the Detainee Treatment Act; the Court?s counter-textual interpretation of the DTA means that all Guantanamo detainees who filed suit before last December challenging their confinement will be permitted to go forward in the D.C. Circuit. But other than that, the importance of today?s decision is much more symbolic ? it signals (assuming we needed any additional signals following Rasul) that the Court has abandoned traditional notions of deference when it comes to second-guessing the conduct of foreign and military affairs by the President and (to a lesser extent) by Congress.

In terms of the decision?s practical significance, I disagree with those who suggest that the decision will significantly alter the way Geneva Convention claims are treated in the federal courts. Both the Stevens and Kennedy opinions make clear that they are not holding that the Geneva Conventions are judicially enforceable by aggrieved individuals. Rather, the Court merely held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires war crimes trials held before a military tribunal to be conducted in accordance with the law of war, and that the Geneva Conventions are part of the law of war. So, the Guantanamo detainees will not be able to use the Geneva Conventions offensively unless and until the courts hold that the Conventions were intended to be privately enforceable.

Hat tip: SCOTUSblog

Some notable quotes from Justice Thomas’ dissent:

- “The plurality?s willingness to second-guess the Executive?s judgments in this context, based upon little more than its unsupported assertions, constitutes an unprecedented departure from the traditionally limited role of the courts with respect to war and an unwarranted intrusion on executive authority.”

- “This judgment starkly confirms that the plurality has appointed itself the ultimate arbiter of what is quintessentially a policy and military judgment, namely, the appropriate military measures to take against those who ?aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.?”

- “We are not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state, but with a worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the shadows conspiring to reproduce the atrocities of September 11, 2001, and who has boasted of sending suicide bombers into civilian gatherings, has proudly distributed videotapes of beheadings of civilian workers, and has tortured and dismembered captured American soldiers. But according to the plurality, when our Armed Forces capture those who are plotting terrorist atrocities like the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of the U. S. S. Cole, and the attacks of September 11?even if their plots are advanced to the very brink of fulfillment?our military cannot charge those criminals with any offense against the laws of war. Instead, our troops must catch the terrorists ?redhanded,? ante, at 48, in the midst of the attack itself, in order to bring them to justice. Not only is this conclusion fundamentally inconsistent with the cardinal principal of the law of war, namely protecting non-combatants, but it would sorely hamper the President?s ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.”

- “The President?s interpretation of Common Article 3 is reasonable and should be sustained. The conflict with al Qaeda is international in character in the sense that it is occurring in various nations around the globe. Thus, it is also ?occurring in the territory of? more than ?one of the High Contracting Parties.? The Court does not dispute the President?s judgments respecting the nature of our conflict with al Qaeda, nor does it suggest that the President?s interpretation of Common Article 3 is implausible or foreclosed by the text of the treaty. Indeed, the Court concedes that Common Article 3 is principally concerned with ?furnish[ing] minimal protection to rebels involved in U a civil war,? ante, at 68, precisely the type of conflict the President?s interpretation envisions to be subject to Common Article 3. Instead, the Court, without acknowledging its duty to defer to the President, adopts its own, admittedly plausible, reading of Common Article 3. But where, as here, an ambiguous treaty provision (?not of an international character?) is susceptible of two plausible, and reasonable, interpretations, our precedents require us to defer to the Executive?s interpretation.”

Justice Scalia on the majority’s decision to ignore the stripping of its jurisdiction by DTA:

- “[T]he Court. . .cannot cite a single case in the history of Anglo-American law (before today) in which a jurisdiction-stripping provision was denied immediate effect in pending cases, absent an explicit statutory reservation. By contrast, the cases granting such immediate effect are legion, and they repeatedly rely on the plain language of the jurisdictional repeal as an ?inflexible trump,?. . . by requiring an express reservation to save pending cases.”

- “Worst of all is the Court?s reliance on the legislative history of the DTA to buttress its implausible reading of ?1005(e)(1). We have repeatedly held that such reliance is impermissible where, as here, the statutory language is unambiguous. But the Court nevertheless relies both on floor statements from the Senate and (quite heavily) on the drafting history of the DTA. To begin with floor statements: The Court urges that some ?statements made by Senators preceding passage of the Act lend further support to? the Court?s interpretation, citing excerpts from the floor debate that support its view, ante, 15?16, n. 10. The Court immediately goes on to discount numerous floor statements by the DTA?s sponsors that flatly contradict its view, because ?those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional Record after the Senate debate.? Ibid. Of course this observation, even if true, makes no difference unless one indulges the fantasy that Senate floor speeches are attended (like the Philippics of Demosthenes) by throngs of eager listeners, instead of being delivered (like Demosthenes? practice sessions on the beach) alone into a vast emptiness. Whether the floor statements are spoken where no Senator hears, or written where no Senator reads, they represent at most the views of a single Senator. In any event, the Court greatly exaggerates the one-sidedness of the portions of the floor debate that clearly occurred before the DTA?s enactment. Some of the statements of Senator Graham, a sponsor of the bill, only make sense on the assumption that pending cases are covered”

The other day I reported on Congressman Jeff Flake’s amendments proposed to eliminate pork from the Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations bill. The outcome was disappointing, to say the least, as only 42 members voted YES on all 5 of the amendments that were voted on. Another 44 voted YES on between on less than 5 of the amendments, leaving 344 who didn’t vote or voted NO on all 5 amendments to eliminate pork spending.

My congressman, the Honorable Jeff Miller, voted YES on all 5 amendments, did yours?

Alright, that last bit hasn’t happened yet. But it might if Republicans can’t get their act together before November.

In it’s third-quarter report card for Congress, Heritage found “improvement needed.”

As the 109th Congress draws closer to its conclu?sion, there is growing disappointment among many Members and voters over how little has been accom?plished since the 109th convened in February 2005. Federal budgets for fiscal years 2005 and 2006 were not completed until several months into the next fiscal year, the earmark epidemic has been linked to corrup?tion, the much-maligned highway bill was enacted two years late (and gained nothing in quality from the delay), the new Medicare drug benefit plan will add more than $1 trillion to the federal budget over the next 10 years, and the financially shaky Social Security system remains untouched and unreformed.

The report offered the following grades:

Senate Spending: D
House Spending: D+
Senate Budget Process Reform: F
House Budget Process Reform: D
Senate Property Rights: D-
House Property Rights: A+
Senate Earmark Reform: C-
House Earmark Reform: D
Senate Social Security Reform: D-
House Social Security Reform: F
Senate Pension Reform: D
House Pendion Reform: B-
Senate Energy: F
House Energy: D
Senate Tax Rates: C-
House Tax Rates: B
Senate Tax Reform: C-
House Tax Reform: B
Senate Medicare: F
House Medicare: F
Senate Medicaid: C
House Medicaid: B-
Senate Health Care Reform: D
House Health Care Reform: F

Overall a miserable performance, check out the report for more details.