SPIRIT OF THE LAW

The president has spoken recently again, about the spirit of the law. This has been his out in all of this dissembling. Good intentions somehow figure into interpretations of the law more than the actual words in the law. To cover the other end of the deal, write memos that no one reads but hope they will follow until they need to be rewritten. Who needs lawyers when you have judges? Who needs to rewrite history, when you can rewrite memos?

The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.

I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.

…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004

It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.

"just supposed to 'call balls and strikes'-"

Sotomayor on the letter of the law.
A Smile to Set the GOP on Edge.
by Eugene Robinson, The Washington Post

Empathy, Sotomayor, and Democracy: The Conservative Stealth Strategy
by George Lakoff, TruthOut / Perspective

The logic of perspective and experience demonstrates the dynamics of interpretation. The framing of the question under the dynamics link almost makes moot the need to follow the arguments that supposedly "demolish" the supremacy of the courts, yet seems to demostrate the spirit of the law over the letter of the law. That being the dymamics of the power to the people and the foundations of justice in the constitution. It seems that it is only in the lack of the people to call into question a law that it not find itself before the court.
[And before one points out that there is no spirit of the law in the constitution, neither is there the word "letter" or "balls or strikes", let alone "policy" or "corporation", except in the privacy policy of the web page.] Without the spirit of the law as interpreted and argued by all three branches for the people, there is no foundation or principle let alone moral high ground for our exceptionalism.]

[6-2-09: ThinkProgress.org The Two Faces of Opposition ]

There was nothing...

necessarily prophetic meant with Third Time's the Charm. Or was there? It may have been the spin-off of either or and the likes of Beck and some evangelicals. Even just in the either or of "I'm just saying", which might be related to a silver lining, which only has three sides. There is the light, the dark and the actual cloud that matters. [SAVED IN DRAFT & CONTINUED & SUBMITTED 3-22-11) Third Times a Charm, means that if you look right, look left, cross the street, and there is a chicken already on the other side, you may have learned a lesson...or not. Not to be making light of recent tragedies, but that actually is the point. That nuclear energy is not on the same plane as air or traffic accidents. But back to the original point, that Third Times a Charm regards Toning Down the* Lines.

*Or were we?

[SUB-TEXT: the table and I Ron Knee.]
[Update: my original assessment before the air strikes began was that the President was following the letter of the law if not the spirit. I won't get into the spirit of the Patriot Act but is part of the law as well as the 1973 War Powers Act and the constitution. My point being that it is one thing to debate an action by the president, it is another to make a law determining or undermining his powers. Any reassessment will have to take into account the current politics as well as earlier circumstances not to mentiuon the politics then. It is that frame in which I am optimistic that change matters as well as who is in charge.]
[Footnote to power and politics not to mention economics.]
[Not exactly breaking, but one reason going to congress would not make sense. Would it make sense to make doing the right thing even more political? Would it make sense for journalists to be giving detailed intel to an enemy? The right thing being to save lives rather than waiting for a massacre. It can be wondered well why not other places, well then get some consensus, but some are in the past and others may be prevented in the future or nothing may change. And there may be a bonus feature[**] in this turkey on the table and that is the subject of war funding and the budget process or complacency.]
[**] 3-25-11 links added

SJM 8016 / US Attorney Scandal

Democrats must put ethics and the law back on the table.
While as Professor Domke said at one of our PCO trainings in Olympia, Democrats run to govern, and Republicans govern to run... I would say that those who are of neither party see what is not on the table. [ALSO MEANING: REPUBLICANS ARE ALWAYS CAMPAIGNING, POLITICS CAN NEVER BE OFF THE TABLE, PLAY IT FORWARD, PLAY IT HARD!]

Those on the so-called Left and those of the non-partisan middle, know what is right.

So while Democrats are working on issues for us, Republicans will be working on other issues against us. So we must face them on all fronts or they will flank us.

ON A RELATED ISSUE OF ETHICS, THE LAW AND GOVERNMENT: and where they will be putting the pressure...

Remember there are several levels of government but the people count, please help them count by supporting this getting from the ground up. Leaders won't go where people fear to follow, but they should go when they have the people and the issues.

WHAT IS THE PERSPECTIVE I NOTE BELOW?

A: Outside interests may not file ethics complaints against members of Congress. They may only file ethics complaints against each other. "And that almost never happens," said Sloan.
B. We sure hope Adam Smith will do the rare and righteous thing: make that complaint- and show us that Democrats will give equal treatment and oversight to both geese and the ganders.

ETHICS SHOULD NOT BE OUTSIDE INTERESTS! Italics quoted from BlatherWatch link [McKay testimony] previous post.


THE ONLY THING BLACK AND WHITE IS A VOTE: But while the law is not just ethics, even the law has a spirit and the letter. So gray areas matter, but people should count. THAT IS A BIG CONNECTION.

Laughter is the Best Medicine?

This is not just a google of the day. It is about a search for meaning. It is not about two sides* agreeing so they must be right or the answer being in the middle of two extremes, but it is about what works maybe not being even on that line or plane. I take as a model, the constitution and its three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial, but what of they be, in the of, by and for? Well that would be from another speech but there is the preamble, not to mention the declaration. The point is that if two perspectives agree it does not make their agreement correct, there may be another perspective that gets them off the dime of the teeter totter. Not to mention if three agree it will get us anywhere, let alone progress or good. The recent UN action on Libya is a prime example of progress, not on the agreement that it receives in popular opinion, but that it is a change in the process. It is not a final solution, but it is an international community effort of which, we have only just begun to talk.

*on disagreement with involvment in Libya

[I take the stand that the President is within the spirit of the law until the law is respelled.]

[But myth** of the day? And based on two links back, this site is not necessarily a myth buster but maybe some reactions will.]

** links that follow are not exactly copacetic or flowing naturally, but I will point to the foundations of myth in this faux debunker. His arguments are too based on the myths that may be the subject of this piece. "Myth(one): Social Security didn’t create the deficit and shouldn’t be cut to fix it". Half true, and the other half not the only solution. Anything further may be besides the point. From Myth Two: "As long as voters consider(...), they will be." Well, duh. Fill in the blank. This guy is, in my mind,(using his own words)"... Exhibit A in why it is so hard to fix them." In some ways he misses his own myth or actual truth: "In other words, the myth misses the point. Whether Social Security continues to pay benefits at today’s rates isn’t a question of credit quality. It’s a question of politics and priorities." And his most destructive myth: "Which brings us to what may be the most destructive myth of all: The idea that Social Security is, fiscally speaking, an end in itself." And the height of I Ron Knee: "The discussion we need to have, then, isn’t simply whether we can pull the levers to bring Social Security into balance. That is easy." This might be Exibit B of mything with myths.

Unity Hits Reality

As a person who participated just to be in the loop of the Unity '08 process I received the following news. Unity '08 scales back due to successes and lack of funds. Hmmm? Well the link just attached will presumably not remain, as part of the scale back includes the lack of interactive capabilities on their website due to staff cuts, and any later ramping back up will not necessarily keep that link to the letter from which I pull the following.

Two of our core ideas - the importance of a centrist, bi-partisan approach to the solving of our nation's problems and the possibility of an independent, unity ticket for the presidency have already gone from far-out to mainstream.

Noting Barack and Bloomberg in these references.
In Bipartisan Group Eyes Independent Bid by David S. Broder Washington Post:

At the session, Boren said, participants will try to draft a statement on such issues as the need to "rebuild and reconfigure our military forces," nuclear proliferation and terrorism, and restoring U.S. credibility in the world.

And former presidential candidate and Senator Gary Hart in Huffington Post:

This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power. We will either move forward or we will go back.

I will note that while the issues noted are important, more important is the job that is being done now and their not focusing on current accountability, of the administration, the congress, and the media, not to mention corporations and the actual vote. Partisanship may seem the roadblock, but it is just more blame and game. In my view it is not just a linear spectrum of what is left and what is right or we only leave and end up wrong. What is right is not necessarily in either camp, so how would aiming at the middle help. We do have to work together, but ignoring those that are against that is not going to generate progress. I will not say that hope is a fantasy, but their is the word and the spirit... of the law. Too much emphasis on hope and spirited emotional appeal without doing what is needed, draws me back to the lawyer, and in the case of the leading three(each lawyers), the one who has success in convincing a jury (Edwards). If this is called a vested or interest group, it is at least of and for the people, and if the law is the problem, that too has its work to do on the same plane, not just as a balance between poles.

Leaking Intelligence

Why are Republicans Forcing a Shutdown of Government? This is the ledership to a preemptive thought bubble blown earlier. i.e. I thought that the Republicans are going to force a shut down because they have already blamed one on the Democrats just as the Democrats are about to present their compromise. Now this is not to predict a shutdown, but it is easy for the Republicans to predict one. And indeed it may only be in the Democrats power to force one. Just look at Wisconsin. Woops, even their out of state filibuster did not stop the Republicans. Now, cutting the jest and my tangent. Back to the thought bubble. The Republicans may force a shutdown to blame the Democrats, or the Democrats may force a shutdown to hold their horses. It seems that false equivalents, make it either the Trojan Horse or the Four Horseman. But back to my thought bubble, I just said that.

{Further leaking of nuance and exceptionalism, the so-called Constitutionalists, orginal intenders, and frackin' flip-floppin' neo-cons or Libertarians forget all about the Bush administration and the congressional behaviour then. As I have sketchily outlined the constitution and the war powers act and the partiot act, the president is within his powers until the law or the spirit changes it. How much Iron Knee or I Ron Knee is there that the UN Libya resolution is Numbered 1973? Or that the Patriot act was just extended?

BTW: Freedom is not a license, in reaction to or spin-off of Bill Maher, in respect to the requirement of humor for him and not Beck or O'Reilly, and I might add or Trump a few others.

Hint: on labels and scroll-over tangent I have not always read nor will I read (or reread)all links that are embedded in my blog. But I do wish to note them as sometimes serving as footnotes which I sometimes google post post, which sometimes may just be scrolled over or glannced at after clicking on to get the gist of.

[Toxic Leak? I am concerned with the roles that government spouses play. Not to mention Media Matters and its battle with FOX related to its non-profit status. But let me burst my thought bubble. The Republicans may not hold together on the ability to shut it down, but it will likely be another extention. I don't think either side wants to shut it down, but look who's talking.]
[Speaking of breaking or thought: here is the why, which will be inserted later, but it is for now to get the Democrats to move, and blame them for failure when the Republicans can move the line away a better economy. Stuck bubble: Should Corporate Executive go to jail for killing people? No, since corporations are people the whole corporations should. Just being facitious but really, they should be paying the same taxe rates as people, and have passports.]