Selected Blogs
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In every war that the U.S. has fought in, from the Korean conflict to today, these wars were never declared by the institution called Congress. They were declared, instead, by the presidency, both in Democratic and Republican hands. Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the power to declare war is the sole responsibility of Congress and no other. Yet, as with most issues, Congress has been diverting more and more power to the executive branch. Even the War Powers Act of 1973 allows for the President to commit troops to battle provided that Congress is notified 60 to 90 days of deployment. This act is nothing more than a poor and faulty attempt at compromise. The question of whether it is the president or Congress that has the power to declare war has never been decided by the Federal Courts, let alone the U.S. Supreme Court.
If I had the standing, I would challenge the authority of the executive not only to wage war, but to also commit troops overseas. I would file the papers in court if I were allowed to do so. I am surprised that a member of Congress, who would have more of a standing than I, has never filed with the courts on such an important issue such as war, peace, life and death. It is high time that the question be answered once and for all. Can one person decide to send young men and women to face gun fire? Or is that the duty of 535 persons? Can the executive commit troops to battle? Or is that the right of the legislative? These and other questions must be resolved and must be answered for the sake of the future and the sake of the American people.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
For over 40 years, this nation has spent $40 Billion a year to fight a war that is not winnable. This war is not against a hostile or enemy nation, nor is it against an enemy organization such as Al-Qaeda. This war is none other than the war on drugs. It is a war on the American populace itself; it is war that breeds law enforcement corruption; it is a war that breeds violence in the street of every metropolitan city; it is war that makes criminality and criminal conduct sound appealing; it is war where profits are earned in the black market; and it treats those who abuse and use drugs like criminals and the dreads of society at large.
A War on the American Populace: There are individuals whom believe that the war on drugs targets only those who are considered “Kingpins” and members of organized crime. This may be true in some aspects, but it is not the whole picture. Often times, innocent civilians and regular folks are targeted. These people may or may not use drugs, but acting on tips from informants and others, police officers use their S.W.A.T teams to break into homes without a search warrant and search the dwelling. This has happened in states like Louisiana, Georgia, Florida and elsewhere. If the person is arrested, he or she is subject to asset forfeiture laws, child authorities are notified, his or her children are seized and the person’s life is turned into a living nightmare.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
On K Street in Washington, D.C., there are many offices that are occupied by special interest groups. Everyday, those offices send a lobbyist for the purposes of attempting to make some members of Capital Hill and The White House to support their causes and their endeavors. About 95% of the time, what these lobbyists request is tax monies to fund their projects as well as lobby for other spending legislation and monetary support. It is these special interest groups and their political supporters whom are an impediment to reducing the size and scope of government, and an impediment to reducing this nation’s $14 Trillion dollar and counting national debt.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
There are many progressive and so-called “moderate” politicians like Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) that always claim that they are “pro-choice.’ However, when you look at their records and what they support, you will see that they are only “pro-choice” when it comes to the issue of abortion and nothing more. They are not “pro-choice” when it involves the right of an individual to own and purchase a firearm; they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of parents to decide whether to send their children to private or parochial schools; they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of an individual to smoke in public or private places; and they are not “pro-choice” when it comes to the right of individual to not join a Labor Union or opt out of government programs like Social Security.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
When people talk about blindness, it is usually meant with regards to an individual losing one’s own eyesight; however, truthfully, there are other ways that an individual could become blinded. A man or woman could be blinded due to one’s own ego and pride. A man or woman could be blinded by living in denial and being oblivious to it all. A man or woman could be blinded by a cause or an endeavor. Finally, there are the men and women that become blind due to ideology.
To me, this can be all too dangerous.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Whenever there is an argument about cutting spending and cutting the deficit, often times there will be those voices that will claim that the supporters are hurting a segment of the population, hurting children, hurting workers, etc, or engage in the fine art of denial. Recently, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) claimed that by cutting spending for things like public television, supporters wanted to hurt Elmo and Big Bird. In Wisconsin, there are protesters that are saying that by cutting spending deeply, it is tantamount to Nazism. Some people, like propagandist filmmaker Michael Moore, are even claiming that there is no budget crisis and that states and the federal government have tons of money available. All in all, when you hear the opponents of debt reduction and spending restraints talk, it is not only comical but tragic as well. It is as if they are alcoholics and drug addicts who do not want to admit that they have a problem.
States like New Jersey, Wisconsin, Florida, New York and others are facing big budget and state deficits; the federal government’s national debt is at $14 trillion and counting. Painful choices will have to be made and the days where we lived in blindness are very much over. This nation has to face reality, and while reality is not pretty, it is better than living in denial.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
For over 40 years, every presidential administration has promised that by a certain date, the U.S. would be energy sufficient and would very much lower its dependence upon foreign oil. The administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Barack Obama have all stated by a certain date and time in the future, the U.S. would be independent when it came to energy. All these statements and all these promises have turned out to be untrue.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
There are many individuals that have this belief that politicians are a “smart lot.” That they know the law and what is just and unjust according to it. Over a period of five months now, I have heard, read and watched interviews and speeches that have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that when it comes to law, particularly U.S. Constitutional Law, politicians are ignorant. It does not matter if these politicians reside in local or state government, nor does it matter if they are at the federal level. The fact that these people have this belief that there are no limits to their power and that they can do anything to force their will upon people and individuals is not only frightening but also disgusting.
- There are politicians that believe that they have a right to restrict political speech using campaign finance laws and other legislation and force.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In every human life, there are times when one must make tough and painful choices in order to move forward. These choices may come in matters concerning one’s health and welfare, one’s emotional and psychological well being, with regards to one’s family or regarding one’s financial, moral or economic well being. These choices are very difficult and are very tough to make. Nevertheless, these choices are made everyday to secure a better tomorrow and are done bravely with great consultation. When it comes to politicians, however, it is a very different story. Often times, politicians would like to take the easy way out or make no decision whatsoever in terms of issues, policy and when it comes to deficits and spending. These are people who not only want to have their cake and eat it too, but also want to keep what they have in terms of access, money, prestige and power, not to mention control of the purse strings.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 2003, President George W. Bush stated the following: “When somebody hurts, government has got to move.” It was President Bush that believed that every solution required government intervention. He was not alone. This has been the belief of a majority of Americans since the 1900s. Americans since that time have believed that government was the instrument that could provide for all, that could make people moral and virtuous and can right any wrong in human activity and human life. After examining the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, after looking at our national debt, our unfunded liabilities and the intrusions by government in all aspects of human life, the report card is in: this belief and philosophy is bankrupt.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
Whenever I hear critics of a non-interventionist foreign policy speak, they always attack those who hold this view as “isolationists.” They claim that non-interventionists want to isolate themselves from the globe, that they want to create a bubble between them and the outside world, not engaging in any interaction with the foreign world. That characterization is false and very-very-dishonest.
A non-interventionist foreign policy is the belief in “peace, commerce, honest friendship will all nations,” and “entangling alliances with none,” to use the bold words of Thomas Jefferson. It is the belief that all nations have the right to engage of freedom of trade and freedom of exchange, that all nations should be friendly to one another, but that no nation should involve itself in the quarrels of other nations or in another nation’s political and social disputes. This was the foreign policy position of the U.S. for 100 years. It was rejected in 1898 when President William McKinley and Congress decided to go to war with the nation of Spain over Cuba. Since then, the U.S. has been following an interventionist path and has caused the U.S. to become the world’s busybody, not to mention the world’s policeman. This interventionist policy has also caused the U.S to get entangled in alliances with dictators and despots not only in places like the Middle East but elsewhere. It has caused populations in other nations to hate the U.S. because of these alliances.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The assassination attempt on Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and the death of six other people, including a federal district court judge, was a heinous act. What was even more despicable was the fact that there were members of the mainstream press that wanted to assign blame not to a mentally ill gunman, but to others.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1964, at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco, Republican Presidential Candidate Barry Goldwater stated in his acceptance speech that “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no Vice” and that “Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” When it comes to defending freedom, liberty and supporting the causes that I believe in, I must confess that I am an extremist. However, one thing that I am not, nor will I ever be, is a fanatic. There is a big difference.
- Details
- Written by: Bob Ingle
- Category: Selected Blogs
New Jersey has unusually strong — some say stupid — gun laws, and while it's debatable how much safer it makes us, in the case of one young man the way the law was applied is a disgrace to the legal system and the state.
Brian Aitken, a native New Jerseyan and Rutgers grad, moved to Colorado, where he purchased two handguns legally. When his marriage broke up, his ex-wife and son moved to Toms River. To be closer to his boy, Aitken sold his house and returned to the Garden State.
In January 2009, when he was visiting his parents' house, his mom became concerned about Aitken's mental state after he had been denied a visit with his son three times in two weeks. His mom, Sue, told Dennis Malloy of 101.5 FM radio she had been trained to call police in such cases. She hung up after dialing 911 without talking to anyone but the cops showed up anyway. She told them her concerns and the police called Brian en route to his Hoboken apartment and asked that he return to his parents' house. He did.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
In 1920, the U.S. was facing an economic depression. It came in the aftermath of World War I and after the progressive administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson. Republican Warren G. Harding replaced Wilson in the Oval Office.
To fight the depression, Harding and members of Congress supported a policy that would usher in the Roaring 1920s. The policy was to cut taxes by 50% and cut spending by the same amount. The policy brought about more revenues to the government and brought about 10 years of economic prosperity.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
After September 11, 2001, there has been this argument put forth by political pundits, politicians, attorneys and others that claim that in order to win the War on Terror, the rethinking of civil liberties must be done. That Americans, in order to win, must give up some freedoms in order to obtain protections. Even some civil-libertarians such as Alan Dershowitz agree with this argument. I personally find it faulty.
Let’s say for argument’s sake that this is done. When the war is over, will our liberties be restored? The answer is “no.” When government obtains a power it rarely relinquishes it. Not without a fight. Therefore, when anyone says that Americans must surrender some liberties to get the protection of the government, I get very weary.
Ben Franklin had it right when he stated that those who give up essential liberty in order to obtain security deserve neither.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
The forrth amendment to the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person to be seized.”
Since 2001, with the passage of laws like the Patriot Act and with new and intrusive technologies like body scanners at airports making its way in to the light, one must wonder if the forth amendment is still applicable today. Sadly, there are many politicians, judges and political pundits (Progressives, “moderates,” liberals and conservatives) that are saying that it does not. These people, all of them, state because of the war on terror, because of safety and because of the need of government to generate revenue, all this trumps the Bill Of Rights. I find this to be very much wrong.
If the Constitution is the law of the land, then it must be treated as such. There can be no digression, no cutting of corners and no setting aside of the law for any purpose, noble or evil. Therefore, the choice is clear to me: follow the law or be ruled by fiat. I choose to follow the Constitution which is and always will be law.
- Details
- Written by: Alex Pugliese
- Category: Selected Blogs
I am a strong supporter of the Tea Party movement. I believe the movement is correct when it says that the federal deficit and the astronomical spending done by the government are both unsustainable. I agree with the movement when it calls for cutting government down to constitutional size. Where I part company with the Tea Party movement, is when the movement says that entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid should be left alone. Considering that these programs are facing financial difficulties and are unsustainable under their present forms, and the fact that these programs are 39% of the U.S. Budget, to not reform them and ignore the problems that these programs face would be wrong and dangerous to the fiscal health of this republic.
Cutting the deficit and cutting spending will require tough and painful choices. It will require the United States to make tough decisions to get back on the road to solvency. These decisions cannot be put off for another day or for another generation. To do that, would be nothing more than passing the buck and taking the easy way out. No man, woman and no politician likes to make tough choices, but if it is for the better, it must be done to ensure better futures.
- Details
- Written by: Jay Edgar
- Category: Selected Blogs
|
|
|
Marjorie Cohn blogs at http://www.marjoriecohn.com. She is the immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild and a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law. She is the author of Rules of Disengagement, and the editor of The United States and Torture. |
In their Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert effectively demonstrated how the media hypes fear. They brought out Kareem Abdul Jabbar to show that not all Muslims are terrorists. A couple of musical numbers dealt with the wars we are fighting. But neither Stewart nor Colbert mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan and how those wars are allowed to continue by the hyping of fear.
Like his predecessor, President Obama also hypes fear - by connecting his war in Afghanistan to keeping us safe, even though CIA director Leon Panetta recently admitted that only 50 to 100 al Qaeda fighters are there. Hoping to put the unpopular Iraq war behind him, Obama declared combat operations over, although 50,000 U.S. troops and some 100,000 mercenaries remain.
Tragically, both wars have largely disappeared from the national discourse. On October 22, Wikileaks released nearly 400,000 previously classified U.S. military documents about the Iraq war. They contain startling evidence of more than 1,300 incidents of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi security forces while the U.S. government looked the other way. During this time the Bush administration issued a “fragmentary order” called “Frago 242” not to investigate detainee abuse unless coalition troops were directly involved. U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of torture, rape, abuse and murder by Iraqi soldiers and police. Manfred Nowak, the United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on Torture, called on Obama to order a complete investigation of U.S. forces’ involvement in human rights abuses.