No, I'm not declaring that Joe Biden is the current President, but I do believe he was the President for a few minutes on January 20th. I'm going to completely avoid commenting on the oath flubbing, but on a related note, I sure hope Chief Justice Roberts isn't a textualist.
The 20th Amendment provides that "the terms of the President and Vice-President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January...and the terms of their successors shall then begin." (Italics mine).
This leads to the simple conclusion that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney no longer held their offices at that point. However, Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 8 provides that "before he enter on the execution of his office, [the President] shall take the following oath..."
This creates a minor problem because Obama did not take the oath prior to noon. According to many different sources and my own recollection, it was about 12:03pm when he took the oath. Therefore, Obama was not eligible to assume the office of the Presidency at noon because he did not meet the express condition of taking the oath before his term began.
This takes us to Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 which grants succession power to the Vice-President. It states in part, "In case of inability to ... discharge the Powers and Duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice-President..."
Accordingly, with (now) President Obama unable to assume those powers by failing to take the oath prior to noon, Vice-President Joe Biden assumed the powers of the Presidency for about a period of three minutes.
Disclaimer: I'm merely a second year law student in the second semester of constitutional law. Perhaps - maybe even probably - my analysis is entirely off-base. But for the record, I think it looks pretty good. And yes, this is without a doubt the most dorky post I have ever written on this blog.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Gas Tax?
This week it was revealed that truck and SUV sales have gone up and are outpacing cars. Yes, people are short-sighted or simply stupid...or both. However, people who can afford $4-5 a gallon gasoline in SUV's aren't that dumb so I'll spare them, but I'm going to guess that all these people buying SUV's don't fall into that category. Due to this, some (here, here and here) are calling for a gas tax to raise the price of gasoline to help wean our addiction to oil.
While I agree with Sullivan on most issues, and I agree that we need to end our oil dependence, I can't fall into line with this idea for two reasons. First, a gas tax is indiscriminate and punishes those who are moving the market in the proper direction (high mpg car owners). Yes, I know that those who have motorcycles or fuel efficient cars will pay a smaller penalty, but they are paying a penalty nonetheless for behaving in a desireable manner (reducing fuel consumption). Why should we punish good behavior? If this was the only way to discourage which types of cars we bought or how much gas we consumed, then I would be in favor of it, but there seems to be a less restrictive mean to accomplish the same goal - I'll get to that in a bit. Second, the economy is still in the shitter and it is getting worse everyday. The most learned financial advisers and economists still don't have a clue on how bad it is going to get or when we are going to start seeing the light of day. For this reason, I don't think we should implement taxes that raise the cost of doing business or living needlessly. If we raise prices again to summer levels, would that push us over the edge economically? I don't know the answer, but I don't want to find out either.
Instead of a gas tax, wouldn't it make more sense to tax the cause or the leading contributor of gas consumption - the SUV's and trucks themselves? This way, those who have moved the market in the proper direction and intelligently bought fuel efficient cars will not be punished at all. Doesn't this establish a clear incentive for those looking to purchase automobiles? This atleast seems a little more fair because those who are increasing our burden are bearing the cost themselves. Why spread the burden across the populous when a specific group is (more) responsible? Furthermore, even though the tax on the trucks and SUV's may have an adverse effect on the economy, it will be far less dramatic than that of a gas-tax on almost every citizen, thus we could hopefully avoid falling off of that economic cliff.
Hey, perhaps gas is going to stay cheap for years to come and we are climbing out of the recession, but as of right now we do not know. Until then, I think we should take actions that accomplish our policy goals but only through the least restrictive means possible.
While I agree with Sullivan on most issues, and I agree that we need to end our oil dependence, I can't fall into line with this idea for two reasons. First, a gas tax is indiscriminate and punishes those who are moving the market in the proper direction (high mpg car owners). Yes, I know that those who have motorcycles or fuel efficient cars will pay a smaller penalty, but they are paying a penalty nonetheless for behaving in a desireable manner (reducing fuel consumption). Why should we punish good behavior? If this was the only way to discourage which types of cars we bought or how much gas we consumed, then I would be in favor of it, but there seems to be a less restrictive mean to accomplish the same goal - I'll get to that in a bit. Second, the economy is still in the shitter and it is getting worse everyday. The most learned financial advisers and economists still don't have a clue on how bad it is going to get or when we are going to start seeing the light of day. For this reason, I don't think we should implement taxes that raise the cost of doing business or living needlessly. If we raise prices again to summer levels, would that push us over the edge economically? I don't know the answer, but I don't want to find out either.
Instead of a gas tax, wouldn't it make more sense to tax the cause or the leading contributor of gas consumption - the SUV's and trucks themselves? This way, those who have moved the market in the proper direction and intelligently bought fuel efficient cars will not be punished at all. Doesn't this establish a clear incentive for those looking to purchase automobiles? This atleast seems a little more fair because those who are increasing our burden are bearing the cost themselves. Why spread the burden across the populous when a specific group is (more) responsible? Furthermore, even though the tax on the trucks and SUV's may have an adverse effect on the economy, it will be far less dramatic than that of a gas-tax on almost every citizen, thus we could hopefully avoid falling off of that economic cliff.
Hey, perhaps gas is going to stay cheap for years to come and we are climbing out of the recession, but as of right now we do not know. Until then, I think we should take actions that accomplish our policy goals but only through the least restrictive means possible.
The Beginning of the End for Authorized Torture Part 2
Obama's selection of Leon Panetta has been both hailed and criticized by members of both parties. If nothing else, a non-partisan pick is an encouraging sign. However, I just wanted to pass along this article by Panetta himself written in the Washington Monthly.
Lengthy Preview:
It's about time we have someone willing to stand up to the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and end the immoral and illegal practice of torture.
Lengthy Preview:
If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock? The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines
Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force. We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground
It's about time we have someone willing to stand up to the lawlessness of the Bush Administration and end the immoral and illegal practice of torture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
