November 24, 2016


News and Views


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-more-electoral-college-heres-how-campaigning-might-change/

No more Electoral College? Here's how campaigning might change
By EMILY SCHULTHEIS CBS NEWS
November 24, 2016, 10:12 AM

Video – Play CBS News video
Play VIDEO -- Trump previews his first 100 days in office
Play VIDEO -- Petition circulates for Clinton presidency
Play VIDEO -- Full interview: Newt Gingrich, November 13

Imagine this scenario: a presidential campaign in which the campaigns focused their attention on big cities like Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. More national TV advertising. And a race that depended far more on turning out one’s base than on expanding appeal to new voters.

That might be the reality if the United States decided to get rid of the Electoral College in presidential campaigns.

2016 is on track to be the fifth election in U.S. political history in which the candidate who wins the most votes is not the one elected president -- giving rise to another round of calls to abolish the Electoral College system. All told, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is currently leading President-elect Donald Trump by about 1.7 million votes nationally, despite Mr. Trump’s win in the Electoral College.

Mr. Trump, for his part, has responded to the criticism of the system by saying he would have won under a national popular vote system as well. In a meeting with the New York Times Tuesday, the president-elect said, “I’d rather do the popular vote from the standpoint — I’d think we’d do actually as well or better — it’s a whole different campaign. It’s like, if you’re a golfer, it’s like match play versus stroke play. It’s a whole different game.”

Still, he has tweeted about the “genius” of the Electoral College.

“The Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including the smaller ones, into play,” he wrote in one tweet. “Campaigning is much different!”

Given the complexity of actually changing the U.S. electoral system, it seems fairly unlikely that the country will get rid of the Electoral College anytime soon. But for the sake of argument, what would an Electoral College-less presidential election really look like?

There would be upsides and downsides to such a system -- for proponents and opponents alike, it’s hard to deny that the way a campaign conceives of its strategy and tactics would be drastically different.

Instead of a small number of national battleground states in which the candidates focus the majority of their attention, they would instead go to where their votes are -- even if those votes are in a deeply Democratic- or Republican-leaning state.

For Democrats, that would mean mining the urban centers they already depend on, but expanding those efforts even more to solidly Democratic states like California and New York. Out of Clinton’s approximately 64 million votes nationally, more than 7.5 million came from California alone. And Republicans would focus where their largest numbers of votes are: in some deeply GOP counties around the country, and likely on suburban areas where they’ve done well in the past.

“You would probably have legitimate field offices in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, San Francisco,” said Michael Trujillo, a Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist. “You would basically be doing base turnout, and Republicans would be doing base turnout in Texas and the Deep South.”

In order to reach more voters across the country, candidates would likely turn to more national television advertising -- instead of what campaigns do now, which is essentially flood the airwaves in a small number of states and media markets.

“You’re going to see more of what I called national TV ads, as opposed to buying the Dayton, Ohio, market out,” Trujillo said. “So you would have seen more of the campaigns’ ads during the baseball playoffs ... it would have been less newsworthy and more sort of the way campaigns would have been run.”

On the flip side, smaller states that currently get a lot of attention might see candidates start to make themselves scarce. Mr. Trump spent part or all of 43 days in Iowa during the course of the 2016 campaign, for example, and Clinton spent 49 days there. If the campaigns were focused on solely the popular vote, Iowa’s approximately 3 million residents would see far less of the candidates after the primaries were over.

Mr. Trump alluded to this aspect of the Electoral College in his talk with the New York Times. “What it does do is it gets you out to see states that you’ll never see otherwise. It’s very interesting. Like Maine. I went to Maine four times. I went to Maine...because everybody was saying you can get to 269 but there is no path to 270,” adding that the calculation was ultimately “false,” given that his electoral tally at this point exceeds 300 (Michigan has not yet been called).

“Smaller states are going to see much less of the candidate,” said Norm Sterzenbach, a veteran Democratic strategist based in Iowa. “You get rid of that system and you go to a national popular vote and they’re going to campaign where the votes are.”

It’s hard to say how campaigning in 2016 would have been different had the end goal been to win the popular vote, not the Electoral College. Trump and his allies have suggested that the GOP businessman could have made inroads in Democratic states had they put more time and resources there.

“If we had total vote mattering, we would have competed in California,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told CBS’ “Face the Nation” earlier this month. “And then -- we would probably have picked up at least 2 million votes just by competing.”

Trujillo pointed to Republicans’ recent attempts to win statewide in California, like Meg Whitman’s unsuccessful $140 million gubernatorial effort in 2010, to dispute the idea that a more concerted Republican campaign in California could significantly chip away at Democrats’ massive vote lead there.

“Donald Trump could have done whatever he wanted in California and Hillary would still be president” under a popular vote system, he said. “There wouldn’t have been enough visits for him in California for him to close the deficit.”

In fact, an electoral system based on the popular vote would also encourage candidates to further play to their respective bases rather than actually trying to persuade new voters.

The reason “battleground states” have earned that term is because they really are often very evenly split between parties -- and the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College gives candidates incentives to work to reach out to undecided voters and tip the scales in their favor in those states.

“There’s a real sort of persuasion campaign that goes on to win those votes,” Sterzenbach said. “I think what you’d see a lot of if we just had a national popular vote is the candidates might be playing to their base -- because that might be enough.”

The idea of a truly national presidential campaign would also, in theory, mean already well-known individuals like actors or athletes with high name ID among the American electorate would have a built-in head start.

Then again, a businessman best known for his TV show “The Apprentice” won this time around, noted longtime GOP strategist Mary Matalin.

“The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent tyranny of the majority, to protect minority rights,” Matalin said. “Which is why this specious campaign is so ironic.”



I read an article some years ago that the purpose of the Electoral College was to interpose intelligent, well read, and wealthy people between the illiterate and not too bright public by legally, but behind closed doors, "unelecting" any idiot or rascal who might become the President Elect. I would propose that perhaps that should have happened here; but because he was also a billionaire, it didn't. If I'm arrested after saying that, perhaps some Perry Mason or Matlock will come to my defense.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dodo-skeleton-auctioned-for-over-400k-reminds-of-mans-impact-on-nature/

Dodo skeleton a grim reminder of man's impact on nature
By MARK PHILLIPS CBS NEWS
November 23, 2016, 7:08 PM

28 Photos -- Critically endangered species and beloved animals at risk
Photograph -- phillips-climate-dodo-brighter.jpg, Skeleton of odd bird ruthlessly hunted by men into extinction fetchs $416,000 at U.K. auction CBS NEWS
Photograph -- phillips-climate-dodo-nfa2.jpg, The bird on the block CBS NEWS


BILLINGSHURST, England -- More than a collection of old bones was on the block at one England auction house.

Those bones, once assembled, formed the world’s most famous dead bird, the dodo.

“And then you get the phrases like ‘dead as a dodo.’ It just rolls off the tongue sort of beautifully really, doesn’t it?” said dodo expert Errol Fuller.

The phrase stuck but not just because it was catchy, according to Fuller, but because the dodo’s extinction is so well documented.

Hungry European sailors found the bird on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius in the late 1500s. Within about 80 years, the hapless and significantly flightless bird was gone.

The dodo has been extinct for more than 300 years, but it is still the most important symbol of what mankind can do to nature if it isn’t careful, or if it doesn’t care.

Yet the dodo and its lessons live again.

It’s hard to put a price on a lesson, but auction house owner Rufus van der Werff said he was selling an idea.

“It really brings it home that we can have a big impact on the environment,” van der Werff said.

Make no bones about it.

“Animal and bird species are being made extinct at a faster rate than ever. And that is, one way or another, our fault, or mankind’s fault. So whether we’re actually learning the lesson, I don’t think I’d like to say.” Fuller said.

Or whether humans will become the next dodo?

“Well that’s a possibility too, a very strong possibility I guess,” Fuller said.

That bird skeleton sold for £288,000, about $416,000 with commissions.

A big price for a big lesson.



Endangered animals photos

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/recommended/

These animals are so uncommon that I had only heard of or seen photos of two thirds or so of them, and I read anything I find about biology. Look at them for your pleasure and new information.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/west-virginia-william-pulliam-fatal-shooting-black-teen-james-means-investigated-as-hate-crime/

W. Va man admits fatally shooting black teen, but was it a hate crime?
CBS NEWS
November 24, 2016, 6:58 AM

Watch CBS news video


Federal officials are investigating the shooting death of a black 15-year-old in West Virginia as a hate crime. Sixty-two-year-old William Pulliam has reportedly confessed, saying he felt threatened when confronted by the teen outside a Charleston convenience store Monday night.

The complaint signed by Charleston police reportedly said Pulliam wasn’t just unremorseful; he also referred to the victim as “trash.” And now the teen’s family said they’re putting their faith in the law to see justice done, reports CBS News correspondent Don Dahler.

The police complaint reportedly stated 15-year-old James Means was part of a group that engaged in a verbal confrontation with Pullium outside a Charleston convenience store. It escalated into violence, with Pulliam allegedly opening fire. The teen was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead with two gunshot wounds. Pulliam gave a jailhouse interview after his arrest, repeating what he says he heard from the group.

“‘What the f*** you say?’” I said, ‘Man, I didn’t say anything.’ I’m sorry, but, I mean, I’m 62 years old. I’m not going to take a bunch of punks beating me up,” Pulliam said.

The police complaint reportedly said Pulliam confessed, stating, “The way I look at it, that’s another piece of trash off the street.” Authorities are now looking into whether the shooting falls under the federal hate crime statute -- killing someone because of their race.

“I just shot him. I mean, I felt my life was in danger,” Pulliam said. “I don’t care if they’re white or black. Nobody’s going to treat me like that.

Means’ family said this is not a time for revenge, but for justice.

“We don’t hold a grudge, so nobody else should hold a grudge,” said his aunt, Teresa Means. “We all have to forgive and let everything take its place.”

The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports that Pulliam was not allowed to have a gun because of a previous domestic violence conviction. A Thanksgiving peace walk for the teenager is set to take place in Charleston later Thursday morning.



EXCERPT -- “Authorities are now looking into whether the shooting falls under the federal hate crime statute -- killing someone because of their race. ‘I just shot him. I mean, I felt my life was in danger,” Pulliam said. “I don’t care if they’re white or black. Nobody’s going to treat me like that.’”


The trouble with a teenaged boy of 15 or older is that he may be 6’ tall and 170 lbs. already, and teens are often hostile and likely to rob or attack a gray-haired man coming out of a store alone. They do things like that not out of financial need, but for fun or to prove their strength and masculinity. To a great degree, it really is a testosterone problem. That is especially true if they are with a group who may be better classified as a gang than just a bunch of friends.

I understand why the man shot in this case, but his final statement “Nobody’s going to treat me like that,” goes to reason number two for the shooting – fury. Frankly, I understand that, too, but we need to reduce the number of cases when a grudge is settled with a gun. This man even had a history of domestic violence, which mean that he has psychological issues around anger management and possibly very little regret of having done this.

My impression from what I read here is that he didn’t do it because he hates Blacks, though he may have been motivated by the fact that most white people in this society and probably around the world do deeply fear Black men as being potentially more dangerous than Whites or other groups. That very statement even made it into a court trial in the news recently, coming from the mouth of an official court psychologist. Of course, psychologists – or teachers, police officers and religious leaders -- aren’t necessarily any more sane or virtuous than the average man on the street. We really don’t screen for that factor well enough in hiring those who directly impact our most vulnerable citizens.

That, though, is part of the overall problem of human interactions, judging individuals as part of a group rather than as unique, worthwhile and vulnerable people. I was unable to find a reference to this exact news story because I can’t remember enough detail; but I found a wealth of interesting information about Blacks and psychologists, including the paucity of Black males in the ranks of psychologists, the tendency of young Black people as young as five years old to be viewed as “older and less innocent” than Whites. There is an unfortunate stigma about people with psychological problems that exists within the Black community, causing them to be in denial about the need for medical attention, changing family dynamics, and mental health care in general for themselves or family members. That same thing is true of Whites, though, especially poor whites and members of extreme fundamentalist religions. Look up “black men psychology violence,” or almost any combination of such words on Google. The problem is very complex and widespread. It’s a true “Gordian knot.” One article that is particularly insightful and simply stated is http://atlantablackstar.com/2013/11/26/5-reasons-young-black-men-resort-violence/, by By A Moore - November 26, 2013.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/dakota-access-pipeline-protest-costs-pressure-president-obama-standoff/

Pressure mounts on Obama to end Dakota pipeline standoff
AP November 24, 2016, 8:00 AM

Photograph -- A protester blocks highway 1806 in Mandan during a protest against plans to pass the Dakota Access pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, North Dakota, U.S. November 23, 2016. REUTERS
Play VIDEO -- Will Trump presidency play role in controversial pipeline's completion?


BISMARCK, N.D. -- North Dakota’s governor and congressional delegation are pressuring President Obama to pave the way for completion of the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline, protests over which they say are taxing law enforcement and are costing millions of dollars.

Republicans Gov. Jack Dalrymple, U.S. Sen. John Hoeven and U.S. Rep. Kevin Cramer implored the Democrat in a letter Wednesday to authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to approve the pipeline’s crossing under a Missouri River reservoir in southern North Dakota.

It is the final large segment of the $3.8 billion, 1,200-mile pipeline to carry North Dakota oil to a shipping point in Illinois that’s been held up while the Corps consults with the Standing Rock Sioux, who believe the project could harm the tribe’s drinking water and Native American cultural sites. Months of protests have taken place near Lake Oahe.

Obama raised the possibility of rerouting the pipeline earlier this month, which Kelcy Warren, CEO of pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners, told The Associated Press is not an option from the company’s standpoint. Obama said his administration is monitoring the “challenging situation” but would “let it play out for several more weeks.”

“Your inaction on the pending easement has created undue hardship and uncertainty for area residents, private landowners, tribal members, construction workers and law enforcement personnel,” Dalrymple, Hoeven and Cramer told Obama.

Photograph -- ap-16326149400437.jpg, In this image provided by Morton County Sheriff’s Department, law enforcement and protesters clash near the site of the Dakota Access pipeline on Sunday, Nov. 20, 2016, in Cannon Ball, N.D. AP

Democratic U.S. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp said Wednesday she also pressed the White House to make a decision, saying inaction “has put lives at risk.”

Protests have intensified in recent weeks, with total arrests since August rising to 528, and a clash earlier in the week near the main protest camp left a police officer and several protesters injured. One of them, Sophia Wilansky, 21, of New York, suffered an arm injury in an explosion during the skirmish and is hospitalized in Minneapolis. Protesters say she was injured by a grenade thrown by police, while police say she was hurt by a small propane tank that protesters rigged to explode.

The protests have garnered the attention of several celebrities, two of which - Jane Fonda and Shailene Woodley - will be at the Standing Rock reservation Thursday to help serve Thanksgiving dinner to about 2,000 protesters.

The North Dakota lawmakers also asked for federal law enforcement help to police the protests. Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier said Monday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection will be providing some Border Patrol agents to help his department, the state Highway Patrol and officers from other states, though he didn’t say how many.

Another issue for the state is the cost of policing the protests, which is up to more than $11.8 million, state Emergency Services spokeswoman Cecily Fong said Wednesday. The department will seek another $7 million in emergency borrowing on Nov. 30 on top of the $10 million borrowed earlier this year, Fong said. Morton County also has spent more than $8 million policing protests, and county officials have said they may apply for state reimbursement.



Last week or so an article said that Pres. Obama stated a rerouting may be possible to avoid the Native American sacred areas, but if the river runs across the path of the pipeline it is probably harder to avoid that. Another article on this also said that “pipelines do leak.” Sometimes I wish ever onward push of technology would be stopped. It seems to me that just because there is BIG BUSINESS doesn’t mean that mining, oil exploration, etc. should be allowed to do any old thing they want to merely because they CAN – or because their holiest calling is to make ever more money at any cost to the environment.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-meets-with-new-york-times-is-asked-about-prosecuting-hillary-clinton/

Trump appears to back away from some campaign promises
CBS NEWS
November 22, 2016, 1:25 PM

Play VIDEO -- Trump Foundation admits to breaking IRS rules
Play VIDEO -- Alt-right movement makes momentum with Trump presidency
Photograph -- Trump's team
Play VIDEO -- President-elect Trump outlines first 100 days in office

In a meeting with the New York Times, Donald Trump appeared to back away from some of the most prominent promises he made during his presidential campaign, notably, whether he would appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton, and whether or not torture should be used in the war on terror.

Asked whether he had ruled out prosecuting Hillary Clinton, he replied, “It’s just not something I feel strongly about,” Mr. Trump told the room, according to Times media reporter Michael Grynbaum, who live-tweeted the meeting.

Follow
Mike Grynbaum ✔ @grynbaum
Trump is pressed if he has definitively ruled out prosecuting Hillary Clinton. “It’s just not something that I feel very strongly about."
1:14 PM - 22 Nov 2016
788 788 Retweets 567 567 likes

Prosecution, he said “would be very, very divisive for the country,” Mr. Trump told the room, according to Times political reporter Maggie Haberman. “My inclination for whatever power I have on the matter is to say let’s go forward. This has been looked at for so long, ad nauseum.” In addition to the FBI’s investigation, the House Select Committee on Benghazi has looked into Clinton’s emails, as did several media organizations and watchdog groups like Judicial Watch. Mr. Trump also said that Clinton had “suffered greatly” and he does not “want to hurt the Clintons.”

Follow
Mike Grynbaum ✔ @grynbaum
“I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t. She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways."
1:14 PM - 22 Nov 2016
330 330 Retweets 247 247 likes

This was a far cry from the cries of “Lock her up” he encouraged at rally after rally during his campaign. And during the second presidential debate, Mr. Trump told Clinton he would appoint a special prosecutor. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there has never been so many lies, so much deception,” he said.

Mr. Trump also appears to have had a change of heart on the use of torture. Gen. James Mattis (ret), he said has told him “’I’ve never found it to be useful.’” Mattis, who is under consideration for secretary of state, told Mr. Trump that building trust with terror suspects and rewarding cooperation elicited better results. “‘Give me a pack of cigarettes and a couple of beers and I’ll do better,’” Mr. Trump said, quoting Mattis. “I was very impressed by that answer.’’

Torture, Mr. Trump told the Times, is “not going to make the kind of a difference that a lot of people are thinking.”

This is also a stark departure from his campaign rhetoric, when Mr. Trump expressed support for waterboarding and worse. In dealing with the threat posed by ISIS, Mr. Trump said in February, “Torture works, okay folks? ... Believe me, it works.” Waterboarding, Trump has said is “your minor form,” and said “some people say it’s not actually torture.” And he said, “we should go much stronger than waterboarding.”

On climate change, too, which he has more than once called a “hoax,” in the meeting with the Times, when he was asked whether he thought it was related to human activity, he said, “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much.”

Mr. Trump did not say with certainty he would withdraw from climate change accords, indicating it was a matter under consideration. “I’m looking at it very closely,” he said. “I have an open mind to it.” This again, differs from his past insistence that he would walk away. “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement,” he said in May.

He did say, however, that he’s taking into account the impact on U.S. businesses, “how much it will cost our companies” and the impact on American competitiveness, he told the Times.

There was even a change of tone on First Amendment rights. Mr. Trump, who told the Times he thought its reporters had been “very rough” on him during the campaign, has threatened to sue the Times over its stories on him. He also threatened to change the libel laws during his campaign. “One of the things I’m going to do, is I’m going to open up the libel laws,” he told a rally in Radford, Va., in February. “...[W]hen people write incorrectly about you and you can prove that they wrote incorrectly, we’re going to get them through the court system to change and we’re going to get them to pay damages.”

A reporter in the room asked him about whether he still intends to “open up the libel laws.” It seems he’s rethought this idea, telling the Times that someone pointed out to him, “’You know, you might be sued a lot more.’ I said, ‘You know, I hadn’t thought of that.’”

During the hour-long conversation with the Times, Mr. Trump was also asked about other issues, as well.

Has he energized the alt right? “I don’t think so, Dean,” the president-elect replied to Executive Editor Dean Baquet. “I don’t want to energize the group, and I disavow the group,” Mr. Trump said.

The president-elect did not appear to address the concerns of minority groups about the right-wing news site Breitbart under Steve Bannon, who will be his chief White House strategist, and he defended the site by saying it covered stories like the Times does.

“Breitbart is just a publication. They cover stories like you cover stories,” Mr. Trump told the Times, according to Grynbaum. “They are certainly a much more conservative paper, to put it mildly, than the New York Times. But Breitbart really is a news organization that has become quite successful. It’s got readers, and it does cover subjects on the right, but it covers subjects on the left also. It’s a pretty big thing.”

According to Haberman, Mr. Trump said of Bannon, “If I thought he was a racist or alt-right or any of the things, the terms we could use, I wouldn’t even think about hiring him.” And apparently in reference to the allegations about sympathies toward the alt right, Mr. Trump added that “I think it’s very hard on him. I think he’s having a hard time with it. Because it’s not him.”

The Times also pressed Mr. Trump on the potential for conflicts of interest -- “The law’s totally on my side. The president can’t have a conflict of interest, Mr. Trump said, according to Haberman. It was not immediately clear what he meant by that.

“In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this,” the president-elect also said. And he said that while he could continue signing checks at his company, he’s “phasing that out now” and giving control to his children, according to Haberman.

“If it were up to some people, I would never, ever see my daughter Ivanka again.” Ivanka Trump participated in the president-elect’s meeting with the Japanese prime minister last week, and reportedly spoke on the phone with the president of Argentina while he was speaking with Mr. Trump. The president-elect has said that his children will run his businesses while he’s president, and he told “60 Minutes” earlier this month that his children will not be consulting him on their business decisions. Also, a recent meeting between Mr. Trump and three of his Indian business partners has also raised questions about the separation of his business from the government’s interests.

Times reporter Maggie Haberman said she asked Mr. Trump what role he imagined in his administration for his son-in-law, Jared Kushner. He indicated that a formal role was unlikely, but he thought that Kushner could be involved in Mideast peace.

Mr. Trump also talked about his domestic agenda, which includes a very expensive infrastructure plan. Asked what House Speaker Paul Ryan and Republicans thought of the plan, Trump said, “Right now, they’re in love with me.”


Excerpt – “… conflicts of interest -- “The law’s totally on my side. The president can’t have a conflict of interest, Mr. Trump said, according to Haberman. It was not immediately clear what he meant by that. ‘In theory, I could run my business perfectly and then run the country perfectly. There’s never been a case like this,’ the president-elect also said.”


Donald Trump is, for journalists, “the gift that keeps on giving,” as some say. His problem is that he HABITUALLY doesn’t think things through until somebody tells him he needs to, or a massive number of abusive tweets are sent out. Then he says, “Oh, yeah. That wasn’t a good thing for me to say.”

Does he mean in that statement that a President must not have a conflict of interests, or that a President can do any durned thing he wants to? Something very much like that but not quite as extreme was argued by President George W. Bush’s lawyers and advisors under their “Unitary Executive” views. For more on that go to an interesting article on the subject -- https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/exploring-the-limits-of-presidential-power, by Chris Edelson, Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs, December 2, 2013, which is presented below.”



https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/exploring-the-limits-of-presidential-power

Exploring the Limits of Presidential Power
by Chris Edelson, Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs
December 2, 2013


In March 2009, about a month after President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney left office, Scott Horton declared that “[w]e may not have realized it, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution.” Some of the most infamous of these memos were drafted by John Yoo, an Office of Legal Counsel attorney from 2001-2003. Yoo and others – most notably, Cheney’s counsel, David Addington – advanced the unitary executive theory, a theory of presidential power Cheney had personally favored for decades.

The unitary executive theory, as implemented by the Bush administration, was claimed to justify effectively unchecked presidential power over the use of military force, the detention and interrogation of prisoners, extraordinary rendition and intelligence gathering. According to the unitary executive theory, since the Constitution assigns the president all of “the executive power”, he can set aside laws that attempt to limit his power over national security. This is an enormous power: critics charge that it effectively places the president above the law. Advocates of broad presidential power argue it is necessary to defend the nation against the threat posed by terrorism.

In the fall of 2009, I was designing a new class on presidential national security power—what I call “emergency presidential power”. I call it “emergency” power because presidents have often claimed the need for extraordinary power during emergency or crisis—whether real or contrived. Such power has sometimes been wielded unilaterally, sometimes with congressional authorization—or, perhaps it would be better to say, claimed authorization.

I was interested in providing a way for students to understand and assess the ways in which presidential power has been used since 9/11. In order to do this, I wanted to begin by providing historical context, starting with the origins of the Constitution and continuing by examining the historical use of emergency presidential power before the September 11 attacks. This would provide a useful way to understand what had happened after 9/11, and to consider whether the Bush administration had acted legitimately.

I did not intend to present a specific argument as to the best way to define emergency presidential power. Instead, I wanted to present students with the evidence and the arguments made by both sides. How had the Bush administration justified its actions? How had critics responded? Who had the best case—taking the text of the Constitution, historical evidence, judicial precedent, and interbranch practice into account? As I planned for the course, I looked for a textbook I could use. When I couldn’t find anything that looked like an exact fit, I decided to design my own materials.

Over the past four years, those materials developed into Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror. The book begins with foundational materials – the Constitution itself and its origins, the Federalist Papers, Washington’s Neutrality Proclamation and the related Pacificus-Helvidius debate – followed by presidential practice since Washington. I discuss the odd history of the sole organ doctrine, the question as to whether Lincoln constitutionalized Lockean prerogative, Roosevelt’s actions during World War Two, Truman during the Korean War, and Nixon’s use of power against his critics and political opponents. Historical discussion sets the stage for examination of the post 9/11 presidency, beginning of course with the Bush administration. Along the way, I have added chapters about the Obama administration. As a candidate, Barack Obama criticized the Bush administration’s approach to emergency power and promised to restore the rule of law. As president, Obama and executive branch lawyers have found ways to justify broad presidential power, for instance by unilaterally authorizing military action in Libya and ordering the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen and AQAP member who the administration said had taken an operational role in planning attacks against the United States. (The Syria episode took place too late to include in this book).

The book provides students, and anyone interested in the debate over the scope and limits of emergency presidential power, with the raw materials needed to make sense of the debate. It is essential, of course, to understand scholarly perspectives, and I explain the differences between scholars like Louis Fisher, who emphasizes checks and balances, the need to place presidential power under the rule of law, and Adrian Vermeule or Eric Posner, who argue that presidential power cannot be, and should not be, restrained by the rule of law.

Harold Koh is a scholar who earned a reputation as a critic of unrestrained presidential power and, before 2009, would have been associated with the Fisher camp. In 2008, Koh predicted that, when it comes to the rule of law, “the last eight years are far less important than the next [eight] years.” I think he was right, but I am not sure yet what the verdict is. More than five years after Koh made his statement, the question today is whether the Obama administration (in which Koh served as an executive branch lawyer) has, in fact, taken a substantively different approach than the Bush administration when it comes to defining presidential power. That will continue to be a central question as President Obama finishes his second term, and when future presidents take office. As the amorphous “war on terror” continues on, with no clear end in sight, the essential problem for constitutional democracy will be whether executive branch officials, lawyers, and scholars can find ways to ensure that presidents have the ability to defend the nation while also ensuring that power is limited by the rule of law. I hope that this book provides some ways to think about this problem, and to arrive at some satisfactory solutions.

Tags: Executive power, National security and civil liberties, Separation of powers, Separation of Powers and Federalism, BookTalk, Chris Edelson, David Addington, Emergency Presidential Power: From the Drafting of the Constitution to the War on Terror, John Yoo


There are national emergencies, and I do believe that Osama bin Laden should have been found and eliminated from the earth, but I have never thought there was any logical reason for going into Iraq, a nation where bin Laden had never been in hiding nor had he, at that time, had a force fighting located there. Afghanistan and Pakistan were different, but I am unhappy with the success we have had at eliminating terroristic elements from any area of the Middle East, North Africa, etc. by invasion warfare.

Asymmetrical warfare is the only effective tool that a minority group can use against a larger power, and that is what we call “terrorism.” It often wins, due to the fact that it is based on the loyalties at the grass roots level against a conceived oppressor. Or as some creative person was quoted as saying during the last 15 or so years, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

Given all of that, I still don’t want to see another kind of national emergency, a radical rightist group taking over the reins of power in the US, as Trump still seems to be in my view. Maybe he will change and modify as he finds himself “unable” to rule this country by force, and I don’t believe that the truly patriotic citizens such as myself will obediently allow that to happen here. So be it.



POLICE OFFICERS AND TEACHERS ARE THE LEAST WELL VETTED OF ANY OF OUR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, AND THE MOST POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS. SEE BELOW.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-carolina-school-allegation-teacher-grab-muslim-kindergartner-neck/

North Carolina school probes allegation of teacher grabbing Muslim kindergartner by neck
AP November 24, 2016, 10:24 AM


RALEIGH, N.C. -- Charlotte’s public school system is investigating allegations that a kindergarten teacher singled out a 5-year-old student for harassment because he’s Muslim.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Wednesday that the teacher grabbed the student by the neck at one point and called him a “bad Muslim boy” multiple times over several weeks.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools spokeswoman Renee McCoy said the district is investigating and takes the allegations detailed by CAIR in a letter to school officials seriously. She said she couldn’t comment further, partly because many employees are out for Thanksgiving.

The letter, written by CAIR lawyer Maha Sayed, said harsh treatment by the teacher at David Cox Road Elementary School made the boy fearful of coming to school.

“For example, she would routinely single out (the student) from his classmates and require him to carry a heavy backpack throughout the day ... which caused (the student) to develop significant back pain,” Sayed wrote in the letter dated Monday.

The boy’s mother had a meeting about his treatment with the principal and guidance counselor, and the principal placed him in another teacher’s classroom in October, according to the letter. Sayed says the boy continued to encounter the teacher he had complained about.

On Nov. 16, the teacher in the complaint approached the boy in his new classroom, “grabbed him by the neck and began choking him,” Sayed writes, noting that the boy was “crying and extremely shaken” afterward. The letter says that the boy’s new teacher had to separate him from the teacher who grabbed him.

Sayed’s letter was addressed to Rebecca Garland, North Carolina’s deputy superintendent of public instruction. It asks for an investigation and disciplinary action against the teacher, possibly including termination or rescinding her teaching license.

Garland said in an email Wednesday that she received the letter, which is being reviewed by a staff attorney for the Department of Public Instruction.

A Charlotte police spokesman said the department didn’t have any reports on the allegations.

The teacher accused in CAIR’s letter didn’t immediately respond to email or phone messages. The Associated Press is not naming her partly because she hasn’t been charged with a crime.

Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, said the allegations are all the more shocking because they involve someone in a leadership role over children.

“Teachers have to stand up,” he said. “The people in leadership have to stand up and squash it and don’t allow it.”



The fact that the South lost the Civil War and their legal right to lord it over a whole class of human beings -- for which they feel righteously angry -- is not an acceptable reason to brutalize any child. That five-year old did not have anything to do with the destruction of the Twin Towers. This article doesn’t say when the school administration learned about the situation, but it has been going on a while, at least since October. The school administration should have acted immediately and firmly against the teacher, because NONE of the things she did were acceptable. Thank God his new teacher did intervene immediately to stop the rather maniacal treatment that he was receiving.

The writer says that the result may possibly include termination or rescinding her teaching license. I think they should add child abuse to that, which is a criminal charge. I love and believe in teachers, but like police officers, if they don’t scrupulously live up to their duties they should be vigorously punished, and in this case perhaps committed to a mental hospital, because this story is one of those that has that element of truly bizarre thinking to it.

We, in our small communities, do tend to try to control these things without allowing the public to know, and as a result there is more going on all the time than the public ever knows about. I have read in an article within the last couple of years that MANY schools will dismiss a rogue teacher such as a sexual abuser, but they will continue to give them a reference to other schools, so that they can find new employment. I think it has to do with a fear of being sued for their actions in the case. The teachers’ union probably helps the teacher, also, as very frequently occurs in police abuse scandals. That also needs to be ILLEGAL. We are so lax in this country on perpetrators of violence of all kinds on the weakest of our society’s members. This is a really sick story, in my view, and this teacher should spend time in a situation that will make her ponder her actions deeply. She also should make restitution, but NOT be allowed to work around children again.