89 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/18/08 2:28am)
The issue has largely been drowned out of this election, but every once in a while, in between all the diatribes about lowering taxes and curbing illegal immigration, Republican candidates will remind voters that they support the kind of strict constructionist judges supposedly needed to preserve the Constitution.\nI am usually not very impressed when I hear a Republican crusading against “liberal activism” in our high courts, mostly because, even if the logic of some of these liberal judges seems occasionally fuzzy, I usually agree with the spirit of their decisions.\nThe question of whether strict constructionist judges are more objective and reasonable than their liberal counterparts is hardly a trivial one – if their narrow interpretation is applied selectively and for political reasons, then surely we don’t need any more conservative judges to join the Supreme Court’s already right-leaning majority. \nCurrently, a case on voter ID laws brought before the court seems to indicate that these conservative judges can be both partisan and shallow. \nThe case originated right here in Indiana, where a law was recently passed requiring anyone voting to show a government-issued photo ID. Supporters of the measure say it would rapidly deter voter fraud, but the purpose behind the law seems purely partisan.\nThe law would work to prevent minorities, the elderly and the poor from voting because they might not have the time or transportation to get themselves an ID. Ironically, some counties in Indiana require government ID to get a birth certificate, which is itself a requirement for obtaining ID cards! \nThe voters hurt the most by the new restriction – minorities and the poor – are the ones who tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat, so it is no surprise that not a single Democrat in the Indiana State Legislature supported the bill, nor that not a single Republican opposed it. Even Judge Richard A. Posner, who wrote the majority opinion upholding this law for the U.S. Court of Appeals, admitted the law would fall more heavily on the Democrats.\nNo case of impersonating a voter has ever been brought in Indiana. Granted, this kind of fraud is probably hard to catch, but it hardly seems logical to limit voting rights based on the suspicion of fraud. The fact that Republicans in some states have loosened the restrictions on absentee ballots when plenty of cases of absentee voter fraud have actually been brought deepens my skepticism. \nConservative Judges like Antonin Scalia seem focused on the issue of “facial challenge,” basically arguing that because the current case wasn’t brought by a discriminated Hoosier, the court doesn’t have the right to strike down the law as unconstitutional. Apparently they want to wait until elections are already thrown before admitting what is obvious now. \nIf I see a 5-4 decision along ideological lines affirming the Indiana ID law, I will know that five conservative judges on the Supreme Court are more than enough for me.
(01/11/08 12:56am)
I must be honest. Despite considering myself slightly left-of-center and usually favoring the Democratic Party, I have been much more engrossed by the race for the Republican presidential nomination.\nIn a race still lacking a clear frontrunner, I have often wondered if there was a candidate up to the task of saving the party after it had failed at all the important tasks of governing. John McCain has continued to catch my eye. \nPart of his appeal to me goes back to his reputation as a maverick statesman, as well as a feeling that he was horribly wronged in the South Carolina primary in 2000. The man was, in my opinion, quite frank about the influence of people like Jerry Farwell on the Republican Party. If blaming 9/11 on gays and lesbians doesn’t qualify you as an “agent of intolerance,” I’m not sure what does. \nMcCain was one of the few Republican critics to speak out about the current administration when it mattered. He questioned the logic of the Bush tax cuts because he was skeptical about whether spending would be reined in. Not only was spending not reduced, it was in fact increased, which led to huge deficits. \nHe also spoke out against torture, the growing corruption of lobbyists and the logic of trying to secure Iraq without enough troops on the ground. He was right across the board. He was even one of the few Republicans to acknowledge that global warming is a real threat.\nThat isn’t to say McCain is perfect. In my more nostalgic moments, I wish I could root for the John McCain of 2000. In an effort to secure the 2008 nomination, the “Straight Talk Express” has moved to appease many of the groups he previously offended. \nHe spoke to many radical evangelical moralist groups and offered them his sympathy. He never really got the Bush administration to clearly define what torture is and isn’t, making it impossible to ban. He’s even become a believer in voodoo economics by subscribing to the (incorrect) notion that Bush’s tax cuts actually raised more revenue.\nI am also not thrilled about his foreign policy. I am glad he called for more troops in Iraq initially. After all, while I was against the war, if it had to happen it should have been done right. But now hardly seems like the time to massively increase our troop presence. He is certainly less apocalyptic than Rudy Giuliani, but, much to my dismay, the compliments McCain offers “America’s Mayor” lead me to wonder if Giuliani is McCain’s likely choice for vice president. \nThis is not an endorsement of McCain for president. When the general election comes around, it’s more than likely I will send my liberal vote toward the Democrats. This is, however, an affirmation that the man deserved to win New Hampshire, that he best represents the individualistic and free-enterprising part of his party and that he deserves the Republican nomination for President of the United States.
(12/07/07 1:51am)
While a ruling will probably not be issued until late June 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments Wednesday for what could turn out to be one of its most controversial decisions in decades. The U.S. Supreme Court is going to consider whether Guantanamo Bay prisoners have a Constitutional right to challenge their detentions in civil courts.\nThe Supreme Court has taken up the issue before, ruling in both 2004 and 2006 that detainees had a statutory, legal right (meaning the right was enshrined in normal laws passed by Congress) but not a constitutional right to contest their detainment before an independent judge. However, legislation forbidding detainees from seeking justice in a federal court without first going through a military tribunal was successfully passed, and these challenges to the new law are now forcing the Supreme Court to rule on a much more fundamental question: Do enemy combatants have rights under the U.S. Constitution?\nThe impact of the case will obviously be far-reaching. Guantanamo Bay has not been the only place in which detainees have been held “indefinitely,” nor has denying detainees the right to challenge their detainment been the only questionable practice committed by the administration. \nIt’s probably true that the United States treats its detainees a lot better now. Guantanamo detainees are housed in air-conditioned, metal and cement blocks. Many have single cells with individual lavatories, and the Joint Task Force in charge of the camp likes to brag that many of the detainees have gained weight. \nDespite this, it is still clear that many believe Sept. 11 has created circumstances that call for a fundamentally different way of viewing the rights of enemy combatants and suspected terrorists. Judge Michael B. Mukasey, recently confirmed as the United States Attorney General, refused to condemn waterboarding as torture, and presidential candidate Fred Thompson has called for a “judicial system that deals with the realities of terrorists and unlawful enemy combatants,” which sounds like a euphemism for a judicial system that stays out of the way. \nIf the Supreme Court rules that the “indefinite” detention of prisoners at Guantonomo Bay is anything less than completely unconstitutional, it will not be doing its job. The Constitution clearly states that the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended “unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion,” and it doesn’t specify that this right is reserved only to U.S. citizens. Guantanamo Bay, while not part of U.S. proper, is still leased by the United States, so the Constitution surely still applies there. \nSome would claim such a reading is far too simple and ignores the realities of national security in the 21st century, but the argument that national security should trump the rule of law, no matter how well- intentioned, is not terribly impressive. \nIt is in fact quite ironic that some conservatives, who lambaste judicial activism as well as the rights that have been inferred from the Constitution, such as the right to enter into a gay marriage or have an abortion, are now so eager to invent exceptions to long-held limitations on governmental power that are explicitly stated in the document.
(11/16/07 2:14am)
Thank God Election Day 2007 is finally behind us. Now we can forget about all the city council members and mayors we just elected and return our focus to national politics. \nPresident Bush gave a speech in New Albany, Ind., on Tuesday, probably about as close as national politics will get to Bloomington unless we snag that presidential debate for next year. He decided to use that venue to espouse his newly discovered obsession with fiscal discipline.\nBush passed plenty of entitlement programs of his own, including the Medicare Act of 2003, and he failed to reform any of the previously-existing programs that gobble up increasing amounts of the federal budget. Despite all this, he recently vetoed a proposal to expand a highly popular scheme that subsidized health insurance for poor children, and another of his vetoes was overridden for the first time when he attempted to block a $23 billion water-projects authorization. So far, Bush has busted out the veto pen five times this year – incredibly often for his presidency. \nHis sudden change of heart is not difficult to explain. Although he is certainly concerned about his own legacy, he is also trying to deal with the fact that with some polls predicting a Democratic sweep of the 2008 House, Senate and White House, the smart money is flowing to the Democrats. A recent Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 37 percent of professionals and managers identify themselves as Republicans or leaning that way and a YouGov/Polimetrix poll found that only 44 percent of those earning more than $150,000 a year plan to vote Republican in the next election. What is the world coming to?\nIt might be coming to its senses. Despite their appetite for expanding certain programs, Democrats instituted “pay-go” rules, which mean that any new spending must be fully funded and for the most part, stuck to. One of Clinton’s most popular accomplishments during his presidency was turning our budget deficit into a surplus, something he accomplished partially through welfare cuts. \nThe truth of the matter is that we shouldn’t get sucked into the current president’s hype when he talks about his spending conflicts with Congress. In his speech on Tuesday he talked about his rejection of a $606 billion bill to pay for education, health and labor programs, but he was also greeted with applause when he announced that he signed a defense spending bill. \nThe ideology of a weak central government that doesn’t disturb the status quo is strongly entrenched in both parties; neither is likely to spend our government into oblivion anytime soon. Both parties usually attack each other’s spending habits for political reasons – Democrats want you to believe all that money spent in Iraq could have somehow saved an inner-city school, and Republicans would have you think a stronger surge could turn Iraq into a stable, full-fledged democracy by the time the game starts tomorrow. Both are fantasies. \nDon’t believe this president or any other politicians when they say they are only trying to protect your wallet.
(11/07/07 7:01pm)
Who is Ron Paul?” That’s a question I hear almost daily.\nFortunately, the same people who chalked that question decided to chalk the answer just about everywhere. You can barely walk five steps without running into a “Stop the War: Ron Paul.”\nThe sidewalk seems to constantly be asking me if I love freedom while implying that if I don’t support Ron Paul, I am more comfortable with tyranny.\nI feel that the time has come to be frank about this candidate and the movement he seems to be generating. It would be nice if we all stopped pretending to love Ron Paul or if those who do love him took the time to learn a little bit more about him.\nWho is Ron Paul? Yes, he is against the war. Yes, he opposes the Patriot Act, he has shown a continued commitment to balanced budgets, he supports Social Security reform and he has a voting record to prove his support of the Constitution.\nThis is what you usually hear about Ron Paul, and for good reason; if some of his other ideas were better known, many probably wouldn’t give him a second thought. \nRon Paul wants to abolish the IRS and the Federal Reserve; he believes welfare programs are one of the greatest threats to liberty, that guns prevent tyranny and that abolishing the Department of Education while supporting home schooling would be an effective solution to current education problems.\nHe opposes nearly every international trade agreement including World Trade Organization, Central America Free Trade Agreement and North American Free Trade Agreement, ignoring the kind of huge economic turmoil that would likely be caused by bottlenecking world trade.\nHe also supports withdrawal from the United Nations, an action that would probably bring about the dissolution of an organization that has fed millions of children, maintained a lifeline to international refugees, provided a focal point for global HIV and AIDS relief efforts and helped families plan, mothers survive and children grow up healthy in the most impoverished places on earth. \nThe Ron Paul movement tries to frame itself as revolutionary; the official campaign slogan is “Hope for America,” but it is clearly regressive. The campaign is merely a list of things our government should not have done; I am still waiting for the list of what the government should do instead. His campaign tries to justify its lack of vision with its ideology – for Paulites, every problem facing America comes from a lack of respect for the rule of law and the Constitution. This view seems to suggest a static America, one distinctly separate from human civilization and the world community. \nIt would be nice if people reading this walked away with a better idea of what Ron Paul stands for. It would be even nicer if his supporters were a little more honest with their chalking, but I guess “Down with UNICEF: Ron Paul” doesn’t sound as good as “Ron Paul for freedom.”
(11/01/07 11:38pm)
If I were writing this column a year ago, I probably would have opened with some sarcastic comment about how George W. Bush should be a president who cares about human rights for Halloween. It seems, however, that Bush did something incredibly historic a few weeks ago: He became the first sitting U.S. president to appear publicly with the Dalai Lama.\nNow, I know what you’re thinking: How does standing next to a monk somehow exonerate a man who put the Middle East in a blender, trampled on our Fourth Amendment rights and has maintained secret prisons throughout the world that practice torture? The short answer is that it doesn’t. But when put in the proper perspective, it becomes clear that Bush deserves some points for standing up to China. \nIt is certainly sad that meeting the Dalai Lama could be characterized as one of the most defiant things a Western leader has done to China lately, even as President Bush avoided the Oval Office, where political leaders are usually welcomed. \nOut of the ten countries with the largest economies, China stands alone as the only one that isn’t a multi-party democracy. It offset efforts to try and pressure Myanmar’s military junta, and it continues to invest in Sudan: making the genocide in Darfur harder to stop. By prioritizing its economic interests in Iran, it has prevented the emergence of a united front against nuclear proliferation. \nIt might appear strange that while many politicians don’t hesitate to associate Iran with World War III, few harsh words are ever dished out about China. The costs of deriding a key player in international diplomacy and one of your biggest trading partners are apparently too much for most leaders. Some members of the European Union even seem to think that China is onto something with this whole “why discriminate against evil despots oppressing their people” approach and are calling for a new policy towards dictators in Africa. \nMany activists believe that viewing civil liberties through a kind of cost-benefit approach is far too utilitarian; groups on campus such as Students Taking Action Now Darfur and Students for a Free Tibet often stress China’s abysmal human rights record. \nDespite the temptations for the West to retreat from its moral high ground amid claims that it has often made conflicts worse and used human rights and democracy as geopolitical tools, now is not the time to step back. The West needs to establish a new consensus with China on how to deal with questionable regimes and it is about time that we leveraged the 2008 \nOlympic Games. \nIt is probably too late for an independent Tibet, but giving the region genuine autonomy would be an important step for human rights in China and the world. If the United States decides it is worth the cost it can help make it happen.
(10/05/07 12:00am)
Two weeks ago the United Nations General Assembly brought many of the world’s leaders to New York, but the only one anyone really talked about was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The president of Iran’s visit to Columbia University sparked intense debate, but I suspect Ahmadinejad’s visit was largely irrelevant.\nSome probably thought the entire General Assembly was irrelevant – just a bunch of debunked world leaders going off on their usual diatribes. At the meeting, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki called for a “united front that supports democracy and confronts terror.”\nSeems like pretty typical fare, right?\nMaybe it isn’t. Maybe that was one of the most interesting things said by a world leader in a long time.\nTomorrow, while many of us will be watching IU (possibly) beat Minnesota, searching for parties or otherwise trying to wind down from the long week, Pakistan will likely see General Pervez Musharraf reinstated for another five-year-term as president. Musharraf came to power in 1999 through a military coup, appointed himself president in 2001 and has attempted to legitimize his rule through “irregular” referendums and parliamentary deals.\nDespite his efforts to make it appear otherwise, Pakistan has not enjoyed free or fair elections. But regardless of Musharraf’s autocratic tendencies, one of his most important allies is ... the United States.\nI know, I don’t believe it either – surely there must be some kind of mix-up. Just look at all the democratic regimes the United States supports in the Middle East. \nWe give Egypt a lot of money, and it has elections, kind of. Except that the president Hosni Mubarak can dissolve the national legislature at any time, and his political party is basically the only one legally allowed to run.\nBut whatever, we saved Kuwait from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, didn’t we? Oh right, Kuwait is a monarchy.\nMaintaining the premise that the United States supports democracy would probably be a lot easier if the United States had not acquiesced to a military coup in Algeria that caused a civil war costing as many as 100,000 lives, or if our principal ally in the Middle East were not Saudi Arabia, a Wahabist kingdom with a dismal human rights record. \nIt looks like Maliki’s call for a united front supporting democracy is a little more progressive than we thought. It is also probably worth pointing out that many of those opposing these not-so-democratic regimes are Islamists. I think it would be pretty crazy if we someday found out there was a connection between marginalizing Islamist groups and fostering extremism. \nDespite all of this, I am sure it makes sense to focus exclusively on the transgressions of Iran. They have, after all, called for the destruction of Israel, which may be one of the only true democracies in the Middle East we can claim to support. Oh darn, I forgot that Israel marginalizes its Arab vote. The Iranian constitution gives the Jewish population equal rights and a guaranteed seat in parliament.\nAin’t irony great?
(09/21/07 1:25am)
Last Friday I had the pleasure of attending a lecture by General V.P. Malik, former chief of staff of the Indian Army. The lecture was titled, “Indo-U.S. Defense and Military Cooperation,” a topic most Americans probably don’t think about a lot. \nThe opposite situation exists in India. Every day. One of the main focuses of Indian media is the progress of a controversial nuclear deal between India and the United States. Under the deal, the U.S. will provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.\nThis intense debate has not been mirrored in Washington, where the deal was approved with bipartisan support by Congress in the form of the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. However, Congress still needs to approve a Section 123 agreement with India as per the United States Atomic Energy Act of 1954 – and I hope that evryone reading this takes the time to urge their congressional representatives to vote against it. \nSome of you may or may not be aware of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a supposed commitment to the disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. India remains one of three nations that have not signed it.\nPresident Bush has championed the deal by claiming that it will bring India out of nuclear isolation. By providing India with nuclear fuel, supporters of the deal claim worldwide demand for coal, crude oil and natural gas will ease. Furthermore, they claim the deal would allow the IAEA to inspect some of India’s reactors, increasing safety.\nStill, these advantages do not outweigh the drawbacks of going ahead with this deal. China is already exploring the possibility of more nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, another non-signer, and India has demanded exceptions in cooperating with the IAEA. India wants the right not just to say which reactors can be inspected, but also when inspections can occur.\nCritics of the NPT too often downplay its successes. After signing it, South Africa dismantled its nuclear weapons program, and the NPT achieved similar success in Argentina and Libya. The IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers Group, both solidified in the NPT, have created a stable structure for exchanging nuclear material. Such a structure will become only more important as the popularity of nuclear power increases.\nI see students protesting against abortion, rallying against the war and urging intervention in Darfur, but why is it that no one seems to talk about non-proliferation? As the United States has loosened its commitment to the NPT, is it any wonder that countries such as Iran, Syria and North Korea pursue their own nuclear weapons programs?\nAfter the lecture, I asked Gen. Malik why India wouldn’t sign the NPT. He said the treaty was discriminatory because countries like the United States, who are allowed weapons under the treaty, have not scaled back their nuclear weapons programs. It is true that the United States needs to recommit itself to disarmament, but an India-sized hole in the NPT is only likely to get bigger.
(09/14/07 12:06am)
Well, I am in college now. In fact, I have been here for about three weeks. Obviously, that makes this my first column. And while I have no idea what kind of thoughts will grace this space in the future, now feels like a good time to be introspective about my first college experiences. \nCollege definitely hit me fast. I was not particularly sentimental at graduation, and throughout the summer, college did not feel that close. A month or two ago, college was still just an idea to me. \nIt was definitely an exciting concept. Going away to school would mean more freedom, more responsibility, new friends, plenty of partying and perhaps, a great deal of work. College is hyped up to be a fundamentally transformative experience – one that will shape you into a new person and give you enough stories to make you nostalgic for the rest of your life. College, it seems, has an almost mythic reputation. It was a reputation reinforced by some of the calls I received from friends who had already made the jump.\nCollege sounded like a non-stop party, one inhabited by the wildest people one could ever dream of. That was certainly consistent with everything I had learned about college from the media. \nI know now that college does indeed have tons of parties. Theoretically you could party forever. You certainly have plenty of variety: frat parties, house parties, apartment parties, theme parties and costume parties. They are all pretty wild (though anyone will admit there are a few duds here and there).\nCollege will not be a non-stop party for me though; I could never handle that. So far I have found that the most honest college lore is that of the hours you will need to clock in studying. I know a few friends who would disagree, but I am thinking a few more weeks of this whole college thing will change their minds. \nUnfortunately, the image of college life in popular culture is about as accurate for some as its image of high school. Our college experience is corrupted by our image of what we would like it to be. \nFortunately, college is still amazing, probably because other parts of the college myth hold true. I have already made plenty of new college friends. Though ironically at least half the people I have met here are from around my hometown of Chicago. \nThe freedom and responsibility are also real, however; I think it’s the responsibility that is really satisfying. So far scheduling one’s life completely autonomously is pretty cool. Still, I dreaded washing my own clothes.\nIn truth, I am not really sure why I feel so good here. I feel like I kind of have this generic positive college feeling. It could just be the myth and all the expectations that come with it living on in my head. For now, I am hoping it just comes from the fact that college is legitimately cool.