The Hill. In other news, I oppose opposite sex marriage as well as same sex marriage. At least marriages that involve the state. Government should get out of the marriage business, straight or gay.

And I bet you that the President agrees with me. But politics does not allow him to say that. Instead the President's men say stuff like this - "The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples, and benefits and other issues, and that has been effectuated in federal agencies under his control[.]"

Pols are pols and do what they do.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias:

[T]he message seems to be—calm down. Be more patient. Be less critical. [. . .] I [. . .] disagree with that. The recession has already been a long one. If it takes us three more years to achieve full employment, that will be a long time. If it takes us six more years, that will also be a long time. But in terms of actual human beings’ lives, it makes a great deal of difference which one happens. So given that “it’s not that governments are powerless” it’s important to focus attention on the need to use those powers.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hear! Hear! Reminds me of this:

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

Speaking for me only

See my previous posts here and here. Two post on the subject caught my eye this morning. First, David Waldman takes apart Senator Chris Dodd's rather ludicrous defense of the filibuster. As David points out, the constitutional structure of the Senate is not to obstruct legislation, but rather it was to protect smaller states from the dominance of the larger states. See, ironically considering Dodd is the Senator from Connecticut, the Connecticut Compromise.

Dodd has a better point when he says "people who haven't been here in the minority [. . .] don't understand how the rules, if intelligently used, can help protect against the tyranny of the majority and cause things to slow down[.] Now that is bad for small-d democracy, but as I have argued before, not necessarily bad for Democratic policies. Which brings me to the second post I want to highlight - Matt Yglesias' point that extreme conservatives and libertarians are also stymied by the filibuster. Matt writes:

Rudy Giuliani's daughter, Caroline Giuliani, a 20 year old Harvard student, was arrested Wednesday afternoon for shoplifting $100 of cosmetics from Sephora on the Upper East Side of New York, near her mother's apartment.

The store says when it learned who she was, it tried to call of the cops and told them it didn't want to press charges. The cops said it was too late.

The store video reportedly shows Ms. Giuliani putting about 5 different products in her pockets. She was given a desk ticket and the DA will decide whether to file charges. [More...]

Bump and Update: Today, OFAC granted the license to the ACLU and Center for Constitutional Rights to represent the al Awlaki's. (If you read my post below from this morning, you'll see I predicted that. Why? Aside from the news interview with the OFAC spokesman, as I wrote, the licenses are liberally granted so that lawyers don't challenge the government's authority to make you get one. (According to the OFAC website, the average wait time for approval is something like 117 days, but it can be a lot less and varies by the part of the country you are in. )

The Government doesn't want that lawsuit. But the ACLU still intends to challenge the license requirement, as applied to those providing pro bono legal services.

Today, the ACLU and CCR say:

“The license issued by OFAC today will allow us to pursue our litigation relating to the government’s asserted authority to engage in targeted killings of American civilians without due process. While we appreciate OFAC’s quick response to our lawsuit, we continue to believe that OFAC’s regulations are unconstitutional because they require lawyers who are providing uncompensated legal representation to seek the government’s permission before challenging the constitutionality of the government’s conduct. Notably, OFAC has indicated that the license issued to us today can be revoked at any time. We will pursue our claim that OFAC’s attorney-licensing regulations are unconstitutional and should be invalidated.”

[More...]

NYTimes:

Saying that it unfairly targets gay men and women, a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage on Wednesday, handing supporters of such unions a temporary victory in a legal battle that seems all but certain to be settled by the Supreme Court.

[. . .] "Proposition 8 cannot survive any level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause," wrote Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, who heard the case without a jury. "Excluding same-sex couples from marriage is simply not rationally related to a legitimate state interest."

The decision ((PDF).

I was on a conference call organized by the Immigration Policy Center titled "The 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship, Discussing the History and Ramifications of Amending the Constitution." Good background link here. The panelists were Michele Waslin, Senior Policy Analyst, Immigration Policy Center (Moderator), Margaret Stock, Attorney and Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, US Army Reserve, Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center, Eric Ward, National Field Director, Center for New Community, and Bill Hing, Professor of Law at University of San Francisco.

It was a good overview and the discussion was both policy based and a review of the relevant law. On the case law, of course the starting point is the 1897 case, US v. Wong Kim Ark. Also discussed was the legislative history of the 14th Amendment. A good article on that is here. I asked two questions - one was about Wong Kim Ark and its discussion of birthright citizenship as, not only being enshrined by the 14th Amendment, but also by the Constitution itself. To wit, the birthright citizenship language of the 14th Amendment was only necessary because Dred Scott put it in doubt. My second question was directed at some misinformation on the subject disseminated last night on Keith Olbermann's show by Professor Jonathan Turley:

Busy day.

Open Thread.

Plans to build a Mosque near the site of the former WTC cleared a final hurdle today. The ACLU says:

We congratulate the Landmarks Preservation Commission for promoting our nation's core values and not letting bias get in the way of the rule of law. "The free exercise of religion is one of America's most fundamental freedoms. For hundreds of years, our pluralism and tolerance have sustained and strengthened our nation. On 9/11, religious extremists opposed to that very pluralism killed 3,000 Americans. Those fanatics would want nothing more than for our nation to turn its back on the very ideals that make this country so great.

The ACLU calls the planned center a "monument to pluralism, symbolic of America's commitment to religious freedom."

I agree the Islamic Center has every bit as much of a right to be built on the site as any other kind of building. To reject it because of 9/11 is to further the very prejudices we should be striving to overcome. [More...]

TPM:

[Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid (D-NV) quoted extensively from a column written by Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson on Friday. Reid read this portion from the podium of his press conference:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

Then Reid said of Republicans pushing the issue, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles."

Well played Mr. Leader.

Speaking for me only

The GOP continues to reveal itself:

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment[. . . .] McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.

To refresh our memories, let's look at the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Republicans are focused on now (they hate the whole thing of course):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in July 1868, by the Reconstruction Congress, and the line quoted above was intended to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision which addressed this question:

For cycling fans, big news today - 3 time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has signed with Saxo Bank (new sponsor next year) head Bjarne Riis' team.

Open Thread.