connecting*the*dots

(originally uploaded by noonespillow)

By Jason Lefkowitz, in a comment thread on Joho the Blog:

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution says:

“The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

One Congressman for every 30,000 citizens was the rule until the early 1900s, when Congress simply fixed the size of the House at 435 members. I’m no lawyer, but I’m not sure how they could square that with the language of Article I; anyway, that’s been the rule ever since.

The result is that today each Congressman represents roughly 700,000 people — an order of magnitude more than the Founders intended them to. The result is that House campaigns are just as media — and image — driven as campaigns for greater offices, which is a shame.

An interesting thought experiment: if we went back to the Article I rules, we’d have something like 10,000 House members today. How would the operations of government have to be modified to accommodate them? A Virtual Congress? Regional Congresses?

What’s interesting to note is the actual intent of this detail in Article 1, Section 2:

The total number of Representatives is set by statute, not in the Constitution. The detail concerning 30,000 means that the ratio would never be lower than 1:30,000 (like 1:20,000). This was done to prevent the House from getting too large and to prevent larger states from having an overwhelming number of representatives. The average ratio today is about 1:640,000.

So, legally speaking, we’re actually guarding the concerns of our forefathers with such numbers — they wanted a decent sized House in order for business to get accomplished.

But our forefathers couldn’t have imagined the information age.

I left a comment in the thread that might sound radical, but I think it would be a great way to up the degree of transparent discourse in government.

What do you think?

All that we the people ask is that warrants are issued before tapping phone lines. That’s all the law asks as well.

Read Judge Anna Diggs Taylor’s ruling for yourself.

If the Democrats win back the house this November, they’d better apply some accountability to this executive branch.

ABC News: Judge orders halt to NSA wiretap program
Hammer of Truth: Freedom Wins a Round
Salon: The Bush doctrine under surveillance
The Discerning Texan: Runaway Judge attempts Coup d’Etat over Bush Wirtetaps

Another milestone in Iraq has come and gone. As of yesterday, America’s occupation in Iraq has officially eclipsed the length of time America spent in World War II.

No matter your personal view on the potential of terrorist tactics, we’re not at war to stop an advancing fascist or an existing genocide dead in its tracks (such as modern-day fascist Kim Jong-il of North Korea or the current genocide in Darfur).

There’s only one similarity between WWII and the occupation of Iraq; in both cases, it took an attack on US soil to rally and motivate the American public to back entering an armed conflict. Of course, the attack on Pearl Harbor directly emanated from the ongoing conflict of WWII, whereas the emotional ties between the events of 9/11 and the perception of Iraqi leadership remain simply that — emotional.

Iraq has never been an immediate threat to our nation; no weapons of mass destruction ever threatened our safety from afar. Could that situation have changed for the worse over time? Sure, but so could any number of scenarios in the world, which is exactly why the tactic of preventive war is considered state-sponsored terrorism in many people’s eyes.

Fact: The combined death toll from all major, classically defined terrorist activities over the past twenty years pales in comparison to the loss of life at the hands of the Nazi fascist state.

This administration twisted false stories of Iraq hunting for yellow cake in Niger into a narrative that fit our administration’s desire to go to war in Iraq and delivered this false case to Congress to justify an invasion.

In a post-9/11 America still freshly licking its wounds, we all should have known what would happen within our political arena:

Who Lied To Whom?: …”Two days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell, appearing before a closed hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also cited Iraq’s attempt to obtain uranium from Niger as evidence of its persistent nuclear ambitions. The testimony from Tenet and Powell helped to mollify the Democrats, and two weeks later the resolution passed overwhelmingly, giving the President a congressional mandate for a military assault on Iraq.”…

When that cover was blown by, well, reality, our government simply began to whisper false ties to 9/11 to go after a client-state that refused to play nice anymore, all beginning with its 1991 invasion of Kuwait.

What we have “accomplished” in Iraq since the occupation began in 2003 is quite amazing, actually. A Shi’ite majority has now been voted into power — something that no US planner would have hoped for, but constitutes a perfect example of what democracy at the end of the barrel of a M-16 will get you.

Essentially, we’ve backed the formation of a government and a constitution that leans in the opposite direction from modernity and strengthened the potential for a collaborative, radical mid-east region, at the cost of more than 2 billion dollars per week, while losing close to 3,000 US patriots and killing at least 50,000 Iraqi civilians.

One can only imagine how that loss of life is going to be avenged.

Brilliant editing.

I’m sorry, but if you represent the 32% backwash that continues to support this administration with blind eyes, deaf ears and a covered mouth, you need to seriously re-evaluate your understanding of our Constitution.

Don’t like being called unpatriotic? Then do something about it.

Period.

You simply cannot make this shit up.

Loyalty Day, 2006
A Proclamation by the President of the United States of America

[…]

Loyalty Day is also a time for us to reflect on our responsibilities to our country as we work to show the world the meaning and promise of liberty. The right to vote is one of our most cherished rights and voting is one of our most fundamental duties. By making a commitment to be good citizens, flying the American flag, or taking the time to learn about our Nation’s history, we show our gratitude for the blessings of freedom.

[…]

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as “Loyalty Day.” I ask all Americans to join me in this day of celebration and in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2006, as Loyalty Day. I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-eighth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtieth.

GEORGE W. BUSH

Well, in the spirit of corporate culture, let me kick off Loyalty Day, 2006 with my own proclamation:

I HEREBY SWEAR to continue to question the motives of a government that refuses to listen to the will of its own people, while killing innocent civilians around the world in the false name of freedom and democracy.

I’ll wave an American flag to that promise.

FURTHERMORE, I DO HEREBY PROCLAIM that I will not trust any political leader who is not a devout supporter of transparent systems of government and information, nor a passionate defender of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they are currently written.

I’m already a loyal scholar of American history.

I PROCLAIM MY LOYALTY to my neighbors, whether they are local, domestic or foreign, regardless of their class and ethnicity. Yes, that’s right, I said it. I’m a citizen of the world. My loyalty is to humanity, not your hijacked version of my homeland… Mister President.

Spam Daily News
EFF: AT&T forwards all Internet traffic into NSA

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on Wednesday filed the legal briefs and evidence supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction in its class-action lawsuit against AT&T.

After asking EFF to hold back the documents so that it could review them, the Department of Justice consented to EFF’s filing them under seal — a well-established procedure that prohibits public access and permits only the judge and the litigants to see the evidence.

While not a party to the case, the government was concerned that even this procedure would not provide sufficient security and has represented to the Court that it is “presently considering whether and, if so, how it will participate in this case.”

“The evidence that we are filing supports our claim that AT&T is diverting Internet traffic into the hands of the NSA wholesale, in violation of federal wiretapping laws and the Fourth Amendment,” said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

“More than just threatening individuals’ privacy, AT&T’s apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans’ Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now,” said Bankston.

EFF’s evidence regarding AT&T’s dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Technical Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005.

The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public.

“The public deserves to know about AT&T’s illegal program,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure.”

The NSA program came to light in December, when the New York Times reported that the President had authorized the agency to intercept telephone and Internet communications inside the United States without the authorization of any court.

“Mark Klein is a true American hero,” said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. “He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T’s involvement with the government’s invasive surveillance program.”

In the lawsuit, EFF is representing the class of all AT&T residential customers nationwide. Working with EFF in the lawsuit are the law firms Traber & Voorhees, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and the Law Office of Richard R. Wiebe.

Does anyone actually choose to use AT&T anymore? If EFF is right, they’ve gone beyond clueless and entered the territory of dangerous. This is a perfect example of fat cat, old money corporations having control of major aspects of web infrastructure. Business as usual has no regard for the US Constitution unless it’s to protect their own collective asses.

IMHO of course.

I’ll play the broken record once again; go join EFF and donate as much as you can.

Bloomberg.com
Senate Panel Rejects Proposal to Probe Eavesdropping

March 7 (Bloomberg) — The U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee rejected a proposal to investigate the Bush administration’s program of conducting electronic eavesdropping without warrants, while agreeing to create new congressional panels to increase oversight.

Lawmakers from both parties have been pressing for more information on the wiretapping without court orders since it was disclosed by the New York Times in December.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the panel, proposed the probe of the Bush administration’s wiretapping of communications between the U.S. and other countries without court approval. President George W. Bush has said he authorized the eavesdropping of communications linked to terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks.

“This committee is basically under control of the White House,” Rockefeller told reporters after the two-hour meeting today in Washington. “It’s an unprecedented bout of political pressure from the White House.”

Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts said any inquiry would be detrimental to national security.

“We should fight the enemy, not fight each other,” Roberts, a Kansas Republican said. “The program is extremely important.”

After negotiations with the Bush administration, the panel voted to create a new subcommittee whose seven members, out of the committee’s 15 total lawmakers, would receive full briefings on the program. Those briefings had been limited to just Rockefeller and Roberts.

“What we need is oversight,” Republican Mike DeWine of Ohio, one of the new subcommittee members said. “What we need is to get into this program.”

I hate to break the news to Pat Roberts, but if Congressional inquiries become the equivalent of shit shooting through a duck, in the end, we the people are straight up fucked.

For those of you out there that think that checks and balances are still in order, well, it’s time to wake up. There’s apparently no such thing as a moderate Republican, or to use another phrase, one that gives a shit about our Constitutional rights.