Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Why Overturning Roe v. Wade Is a Non-Issue

Oooooookay... The veteran is going to break this one down for you Barney-style (as we say in the Corps). The Supreme Court should not (and WILL not) overturn Roe v. Wade. There are a multitude of very complicated reasons for this, but the ol' vet's going to give you one of the simpler ones: The decision of Roe v. Wade is based heavily (almost entirely) on the premise of an implied right to privacy in the Constitution (this is based partially on Amendments III-V, as well as a few other lines). When Roe v. Wade was decided, it became a major affirmation of that right. The two are intertwined on a high level. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Constitutional constructionists will be able to easily argue that the right to privacy is non-existent, and therefore, need not be observed beyond those instances specifically cited in the Bill of Rights. Let me put this into perspective for you...

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, within the proceeding years we face the possibility of:
-Child Protective Services performing random, unannounced inspections (whether you're home or not)
-Properties other than residences being subject to search or inspection without warrant (yes, you Conservatives, that means your places of business)
-Stronger laws governing how you have sex, when you have sex, and IF you have sex
-and various other possible infringements.

The Supreme Court will not take such possibilities lightly. Yes, the possibility exists that enough of the court is mad enough to take the chance, but it's highly unlikely.

Sunday, January 22, 2006

Housecleaning...

If you're perusing the blogroll, you may find that a few links have vanished. These links were removed according to a variety of very loose criteria ranging from whether I think adding them was one of those 'seemed like a good idea at the time' things to whether they've linked back to me (no, you need not do so to get onto my blogroll, but it helps). If anyone now missing would like to return to the blogroll, shoot me an email (you can find it in my profile) and let me know. Return links are always appreciated, especially if you've been on my roll for a long freakin' time. Also, I'm going to do some other cleaning and organizing in the near future...

Saturday, January 14, 2006

On Alito

The veteran feels the need to weigh in on the paradigm that is Sam Alito (affectionately referred to by my more lefty buddies as 'Scalito'). There are several points that make the veteran distrust this candidate for the Supreme Court. First of all, his record of opinions (which has been analyzed by both Harvard and Annenberg) strongly suggests a pro-business bias detrimental to individual litigants. While the veteran readily acknowledges the need for corporate entities and their vital role in our capitalistic hodge-podge, it seems that Alito may be unfairly taking sides. Don't even get me started on the issue with Vanguard, as the excuse presented seems to change on a fairly frequent basis. His usage of membership in an overtly sexist college organization to obtain a job confounds me, and detracts from his credibility, whether he was an active participant or not. His opinions (official and unofficial) on abortion rights and privacy rights leave little to debate, regardless of whether he claims he never actually held those views. However, the veteran would like to present a theory of his own: Alito isn't a serious threat. Yes, he's going to tip the balance more toward big business, but he's not going to try overturning Roe v. Wade. The simple fact is that to do so would be madness, and may even place him in physical danger. It's not going to happen, short of confirmed nominations to a group of openly zealous fundamentalists. Yes, we should complain openly about this nomination. Yes, we should continue factfinding and analysis of Alito's past exploits. Reality, however, should keep him from making any major changes. Don't fear the Alito, but feel free to dislike the Alito. That is all.

Friday, January 13, 2006

Where Have I Been?

Heeeeeeey... The veteran has been without beautiful internet access for most of a week, but we gots it back on now! There'll be a new post tomorrow.

Saturday, January 07, 2006

The Presidential Standard, As Devised by the Veteran

The veteran would like to present, for your approval and commentary, proposals in the form of campaign speeches for a presidential candidacy. This will be a series of individual speech portions posted as I write them. This first section has been edited for typos, but not for conciseness. It deals with the addition of new checks and balances to all three branches of government, to provide a more equal balance between them.

Part I:

"Some of you are unsure of what to expect from me as a President. This is perfectly understandable... These last few years have been chaotic for those in all quadrants of the political map. I'm here to tell you today that I bring no definite, permanent solution to the table. I guarantee, however, that no other candidate can claim, in good conscience, to do so either.
I do bring, however, a plan that may well help to build our American future and reunite our divided populus. Long has partisan strife prevented effective solutions from being pushed through our august houses of legislature. The President was never meant to lead Congress. He was meant to review their decisions and to provide to them a transparent and realistic view of the situation on the ground, as well as to serve as one of many guides to help them conduct their business effectively and efficiently. The framers of our lauded Constitution saw each branch of government, legislative, judicial, and executive, as equal partners. As President I will seek to bring bipartisan cooperation and action back to our Congress through a program involving three things:
First of all, certain figures on both sides in the past have seen fit to draw voting lines in such a manner as to be overly beneficial to their individual parties. I will seek the support of the American people by direct referendum to tell the Congress that we will not accept unfair, ineffective partisan districting to upset the balance of our legislature. With your help, we can persuade the Congress to produce a nonpartisan independent committee to oversee all districting within the borders of our nation. These men and women will review all plans for redistricting prior to their implementation to ensure the maximum fair result, accurately representing all demographic sections. In this manner, we will ensure that all elected officials share power.

Second, I will work to provide appropriate criteria to ensure that members of Congress are fairly and accurately screened on a term basis for links to corrupt activity. I will NOT do so in a way that intrudes unduly into the private lives of these citizens, but rest assured, I will fight to see that all documentation detailing possible public-arena corruption are brought to light, and that these members are replaced by the good voters of their state. No state of our union should suffer the shame of a corrupt congressman pulling the wool over their eyes for years at a time. Again, I call upon you for your help in this matter. This will only be possible with the overwhelming support of the great American public, from which all our government power is born.

Last, I will seek fair and moderate term limits for the legislature. It is my feeling, and I hope you share it, that long-term members of Congress are tempted on a frequent basis to abandon the principles of good government for personal gain. No, lobbyists and large business contributors are not going to vanish, and to seek that would be a disservice to those groups and businesses that DO have the best interest of the public at heart. I propose, therefore, a stricter election standard for members who are completing their fifth term in the Congress. I propose that a congressman or senator who has maintained the trust and respect of his constituents will be able to claim a significant advantage in any term election. Therefore, I propose that members of the Congress that are seeking incumbent reelection to a sixth or further term must successfully procure a sixty percent share of the vote in a two-way election, and at least forty percent in a three way election. In the rare case of a higher split, this trend shall continue as the situation suggests. It is my sincere belief that this will keep our congressmen rotated in such a way to reduce corruption and overbearing seniority issues that cause unfair conflict in the hallowed halls of the Capitol.

As your President, I shall also seek to provide to you a fair and impartial judiciary. An overly partisan executive currently, either through proper appointments or recess appointments, can stack the judiciary in such a manner as to provide an overly biased view of our Constitution. Therefore, I propose that the Senate shall choose, by means of seniority, a committee evenly apportioned among all parties in the Senate, to provide a truly equal and fair consent for these appointments. In short, if the Senate is composed of three parties, the committee should be composed of two representatives from each party. If a party is only represented by one member, then that member shall have the authority to choose a second as his partner, with no restrictions on his choice. Thusly, we may be assured of the most impartial advice and consent possible for our judiciary nominees. In this way I feel that we can keep our Supreme Court fair and balanced, with no overwhelming majority ideology. Secondly, I propose that stricter standards are put in place for the legislature and the President to check corruption through a transparent account, on a case-by-case basis, of whether judiciary members may create a conflict of interest through opinions on certain cases.

None of this would make a true difference unless the executive branch were also appropriately and equally checked. I propose, therefore, that both the legislative and judiciary branches provide concise, accurate reports on all candidates, to be presented in an open manner to the populus at least one month prior to Presidential elections. These reports should take into account all criminal acts since the age of full majority, twenty-one. They shall also provide any evidence of corrupt activities in the political arena, as well as the private arena. Religious preferences, other personal beliefs, and other matters deemed appropriately private by the investigating committees shall not be part of the reports, as these matters are, in essence, part and parcel of these citizens' private lives and should only be discussed at the initiative of the candidates themselves. The reports should provide evidence directly, with no further analysis save for that which is deemed to need clarification, to prevent an overly biased presentation. These reports should also be revised and presented mid-term, to account for any further information the public should be privy to."

-J. Bradley Emery, Democratic Candidate

NOTE: The numbers I threw out for congressional terms are just that: numbers. Someone pointed out to me that they might be setting the bar overly high, and if I ever actually run, I'll get a research team on it so I can make them a bit more.... realistic.

Thursday, January 05, 2006

My Democratic Mantra...

I'm reprinting these comments to provide a better understanding of the driving force behind this site, and my ambitions. Reprinted from the comment annals of the Neo Con Blogger:

Poldark Maximus said...

To observe that Mr. Mountjoy occassionally shares turf held by our leftist bretheren would be the same as to suggest your boy Mark Warner could run as a Republican.
Potentially not a bad idea -- what possible turf does Warner share with Howard Dean? Turn a new leaf, Mod Vet, and power up with the True (Republican) Believers. Bring Warner with you. Poldark Maximus.

Brad said...

To some degree, I agree with you, PM. I think my reasoning may be slightly different, though... So correct me if you agree with what I say.
Mark Warner could fit the idealist Republican mold as a bastion of fiscal accountability. As a Democrat, he emphasizes the most sane and effective face of the party of the left, while still appealing to the honest sensibilities of the mainstream right. However, one must face the fact that the current section of the right wing in power doesn't so much comply with traditional Republican or conservative ideology. I'll refer you, for one point, to this:
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4626
It's a better explanation by far than my meager skills could forge without many hours of cramming and research. While Warner might work well as a Republican, to do so would equate him in the eyes of many with the current administration, which is to some degree born of broken liberalism. 'Tis sad, I think, as I'd be more than satisfied voting for him no matter which party he aligned himself with. As far as Howard Dean goes, he has let down his brethren to a nauseating degree. We thought we were getting a warrior; we thought we were choosing a master and commander of liberal thought, willing to challenge the hard right with steadfast resolve. Instead, we got a wimp. I would also like to clarify for you this: That I support the true right even as a Democrat, regardless of whether I agree with some of their ideology. This is what makes me a moderate. I cannot however, in good conscience, willingly support the travesty that composes the sect of the right that currently holds power... Also, I'm still by a significant degree more a liberal than a conservative on most issues. My greatest ambition is to create policies that fall in line with my slightly-left ideology but are also built to draw the broad support of both liberals and conservatives. To achieve true bipartisan policy is my goal, my passion, and my driving force.

-Mod

*Edited for typos*