Over the years, I have written often about The Living Constitution. See, e.g. On Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution; Scalia's Nonsense on Originalism,Dred Scott,Originalism and A Living Constitution, Constitutional Interpretation: Originalism v. A Living Constitution, Uncertainty In Life:Justice Souter's Harvard Commencement Address. I spilled tens of thousands of words on the subject, but Justice Souter's commencement address at Harvard last year wonderfully described the philosophy that I believe underpins the Living Constitution idea:

[B]ehind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, or years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings for certainty, which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.

[. . .] If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.

Brilliant words from one of the finest of our modern Justices (now about that Twombly decision. . . .) It is important to realize that this concept does not always redound to consequences that we may feel are optimal. One of those for me is the modern understanding of the war power under the Constitution. The words are simple enough. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides:

Open Thread.

The unrepentant sexist Andrew Sullivan:

Quote For The Day

"God bless [Clinton]" - Karl Rove, on the secretary of state's success in starting the war in Libya.

(Emphasis supplied.) Poor hen pecked Obama sez Sully. It's no wonder he is a Tweety favorite.

Speaking for me only

Via Echidne, The Nation's Robert Dreyfus has a problem with women. The Nation's Katha Pollit responds:

In a post entitled “Obama’s Women Advisers Pushed War Against Libya [1]" (originally titled “Obama’s Women” tout court) he’s shocked-shocked-shocked that UN Ambassador Susan Rice, human-rights adviser Samantha Power and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were keen on intervening militarily in Libya. The piece is dotted with arch and sexist language—the advisers are a “troika,” a “trio” who “rode roughshod over the realists in the administration” (all men) and “pushed Obama to war.” Now it’s up to the henpecked President to “reign (sic) in his warrior women.” Interestingly, the same trope—ballbreaking women ganging up on a weak president—is all over the rightwing blogosphere. [. . . C]an you imagine a piece in The Nation titled “Black President Opts for Bombs” or “Qaddafi, a Man, Threatens to Massacre Rebels, Most of Whom Are Also Men”?

Misogyny—it’s the last acceptable prejudice of the left.

Indeed.

Speaking for me only

Via Atrios, Media Matters reports on NRO's sexism:

[T]he problem is not with women leaders — the enemies of the Virgin Queen and the Iron Lady can attest to that. The problem is not even with the president having strong female subordinates. Rather, Obama's pusillanimity has been hugely magnified by the contrast with the women directing his foreign policy and the fact that they nagged him to attack Libya until he gave in. Maybe it's unfair and there shouldn't be any difference from having a male secretary of state do the same thing, but there is.

The title of the piece - They Know Who Wears the Pants in This Country. Nice.

Speaking for me only

The irony is too rich for it not to make headlines: The Las Vegas assistant D.A. who prosecuted Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars is himself busted for coke possession. But once you get past the titillating factor, I'm not sure the facts add up.

Clark County Deputy District Attorney David Schubert, who for the past two years has been assigned to a federal-state task force, and who prosecuted Paris Hilton and Bruno Mars for cocaine possession last year, was arrested this weekend in Las Vegas after having someone purchase a "rock" of cocaine for him.

According to the arrest report, police on routine patrol (in plain clothes) observed a man in a BMW (DA Schubert) pick up an African American male, identified as Raymond Streeter, in a neighborhood known for drug trafficking. They drove to an apartment complex where Streeter exited the car and went into the complex. Schubert drove around the block for a few minutes then returned to pick up Streeter. The officer says Schubert then made a turn without signaling, so he stopped the car. Streeter bolted, but the cop chased him and with the help of a second cop, captured him. Streeter waived his Miranda rights and ratted out Schubert, saying Schubert had been using him to buy cocaine several times a week for months. [More...]

A new season of Dancing With the Stars begins. We don't have Bristol to kick around any more. Unfortunately for viewers, pro dancer Derek Hough is taking the season off. I'll be mildly curious to see how Kirstie Allie and Sugar Ray Leonard do. Otherwise, I'm not too interested. I'm going to watch The Triangle Waist Fire instead.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

For years, there have been rumors that Congress might increase good time credit for federal inmates. None have come to pass.

There is no parole in the federal system. The amount of good time is the same for everyone -- 54 days a year after the first year.

Sentencing Law and Policy reports that one of the speakers at the Sentencing Commission's hearings last week was Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin. After discussing how overcrowded our prisons are, and what can be done to alleviate it, he said that the Justice Department is working with Congress on two proposals. The first would increase the good time from 54 days a year to 61 days (not much of a change.) The second proposal is more promising: [More...]

Matt Yglesias, who is blogging great stuff of late, writes:

Peter Bergen argues that the intervention in Libya is no invasion of Iraq:

[T]he military intervention that President Obama authorized against Libya on Saturday — eight years to the day after President George W. Bush announced the commencement of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” — is a quite different operation than the 2003 invasion of Iraq. [. . .]

Granting all that follows for the sake of argument, isn’t this a strange way for Iraq to impact the structure of debate? Is “less misguided than the invasion of Iraq” really a reasonable standard for policy to aspire to?

Indeed, it is not. Similarly, commenter ABG (whose honesty is bracing and makes good points as well, though not this time imo) argues that he is happy with the Dems because they are not as bad as the GOP:

Last year, the Danish Navy thought a Somali boat was approaching the Ely Maersk, a Danish merchant vessel off the coast of Somalia, shot at it and arrested the occupants. They were brought to Denmark to face piracy charges. They were appointed counsel. The Danish Prosecutor For Special International Criminal Cases decided not to file charges and released the men back to Somalia.

The Danish counsel for the men has now sued for damages for unlawful detention and the destruction of their boat and property.

The Danish Navy's Esbern Snare has seized 200 suspected pirates, all of whom were later released. "Somali pirates are currently holding some 28 international vessels and 587 hostages."

[Note: my headline is hyperbolic in that some of the Senators were not in office in December. But I think we can confidently state that everyone of them would have voted for the The Deal, that cut taxes that increased the debt by trillions, and surely will again.] Via Atrios and Steve Benen, 64 Senators have redefined chutzpah:

Dear President Obama:

As the Administration continues to work with Congressional leadership regarding our current budget situation, we write to inform you that we believe comprehensive deficit reduction measures are imperative and to ask you to support a broad approach to solving the problem.

[. . . W]e urge you to engage in a broader discussion about a comprehensive deficit reduction package. Specifically, we hope that the discussion will include discretionary spending cuts, entitlement changes and tax reform.

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

The middle part of the country—the great red zone that voted for Bush—is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead—and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column - Andrew Sullivan

I do not see the American national interest in a military intervention in Libya. But it can not possibly be compared to the Iraq Debacle, the worst decision in recent American Presidential history. When you supported the Iraq Debacle and assailed in vicious terms anyone who opposed it, a little humility is in order. Andrew Sullivan is incapable of such humility. Coupled with his hatred of anything Clinton (did you know that Hillary Clinton tricked Obama into the Libya action?), it produces this: