September 2010

  • September 17, 2010

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The Kansas billionaire brothers noted for funneling large sums of money to Tea Party activities are also drawing attention for their interest in bringing down California's Global Warming Solutions Act intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

    Charles and David Koch, as exposed by The New Yorker's Jane Mayer, have until recently waged an under-the-radar offensive against Obama administration policies. Mayer notes that the brothers "are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry - especially environmental regulation." So it's hardly surprising that the two, as noted by The New York Times have spent, so far, $ 1 million, to promote a ballot measure, called Proposition 23, to stop California's law from taking effect.

    The newspaper reports that the brothers' attention to the law has "jolted environmental leaders who are worried that a vote against the law in this state - with its long history of environmental activism - would amount to a powerful setback for emission control efforts in Washington and statehouses across the country."

    The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national environmental advocacy group, has taken note of the Koch brothers' actions and is girding for battle. Annie Notthoff, with the NRDC, told The Times, "We certainly expect to have a fight on our hands."

    Kristin Eberhard, a blogger for NRDC, wrote recently, "Proponents of clean energy and jobs already are battling Proposition 23, a stalking horse ballot initiative funded by out-of-state oil companies Valero and Tesoro and the billionaire Koch brothers that would suspend AB 32 [the Global Warming Solutions Act] indefinitely. Though Proposition 23 is deceptively touted as a ‘jobs protection' bill, its real goal is to keep California dependent on fossil fuels and keep profits pouring into the coffers of those polluting corporations that don't care about sacrificing California's health and clean air standards."

  • September 17, 2010
     

    In honor of Constitution Day, Constitutional Accountability Center Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra spoke with ACSblog about what the Constitution really means, and where the Tea Party has gotten it wrong. Wydra is the author of an Issue Brief on the subject, Setting the Record Straight: The Tea Party and the Constitutional Powers of the Federal Government, and wrote a related guest post for ACSblog. The Constitutional Accountability Center has also published a series of blog posts on the Tea Party's reading of the Constitution.

  • September 16, 2010
    Lawmakers are again considering legislation aimed at outlawing videos that depict animal cruelty. In the spring, the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Stevens, invalidated as a violation of the First Amendment a 1999 federal law that banned creation and disturbution of videos of animal cruelty.

    The Blog of Legal Times (BLT) reports on a hearing this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee focused on creating a new law that supposedly would not be as sweeping as the first one. The new legislation is supposedly aimed primarily at crush videos, which show animals being crushed to death by "scantily clad, high-heeled women," as described before the committee by the Humane Society of the United States' (HSUS) vice president for government affairs Nancy Perry.

    The BLT, notes that "ACLU lobbyist Michael Macleod-Ball," testified against the bill warning that although animal cruelty is illegal, but that banning such acts would still violated free speech.

    In post for the HSUS blog, the group's leader Wayne Pacelle writes that the matter of trying again to ban crush videos has "united members of Congress across the spectrum," noting that the House of Representatives has already passed a bill "to ban interstate and foreign commerce in these abhorrent videos."

  • September 16, 2010

    Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren will take a lead role in setting up the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, following her appointment by President Barack Obama as assistant to the president and special advisor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

    Warren, who touted her idea for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency during the 2009 ACS National Convention, was a top contender to lead the new watchdog agency, but opposition by Republican senators suggested a difficult confirmation battle, The Wall Street Journal reports. As advisor to Geither, Warren will have a hand in designing the agency and establishing its mission.

    "This appointment allows the administration to skirt the [Senate] confirmation process while keeping Warren involved in the agency. It also doesn't preclude her from being nominated as bureau chief later on--though some contest that point," reports The Atlantic.

    The downside is that "piqued Republicans are even less likely to support her in a future Senate battle, meaning this temporary appointment might come at the cost of a permanent position. And won't potential employees be reticent to join the agency when they don't really know who their actual boss will be?" writes Ezra Klein for The Washington Post.

    President Obama was asked during a press conference last week whether he was worried about getting Warren confirmed if he appointed her to head the agency. "I am concerned about all Senate nominations these days," he said. "...They're just playing games. And as I think Senator Voinovich said very well, it's time to stop playing games."

    The Atlantic offers more perspectives on the appointment here.

    Watch Elizabeth Warren's 2009 ACS speech and on the importance of a consumer financial protection agency below, and share this link containing her remarks with others.

  • September 15, 2010

    The Constitution is written generally so its principles can be applicable for changing times, Justice Stephen Breyer tells National Public Radio (NPR).

    In his interview, which can be heard here, Breyer said, "I think we're following an intention by people who wrote this document - Madison, Adams, Washington, Hamilton. They had an idea that they were writing a constitution and in that constitution, they would create certain institutions ... to create basically democratic systems of government protecting basic liberty. Much in the Constitution is written in a very general way. Words like ‘freedom of speech' do not define themselves. Nor does the word ‘liberty.' And what they intended with these very basic values, in a document, [was that they] would last for hundreds of years. So they had values that changed but little, while the application of those values changes as circumstances change."

    In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America," to discuss his new book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge's View, Breyer said he wasn't convinced that the First Amendment protected the right of a Florida pastor to burn Qurans (the pastor eventually cancelled his plans after weeks of growing media attention). Breyer, citing a 1919 Supreme Court opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., said, "Holmes said it [the First Amendment] doesn't mean you can shout ‘fire' in a crowded theater."