There is no such thing as a bad boy.

In the name of the holy Flying Spaghetti Monster what the hell are the editors of the print edition of the Oregonian thinking? The headline to this article on parents who murdered their fifteen-month-old daughter by treating her pneumonia with faith healing reads: "When Secular and Spiritual Laws Collide."

Hey Big-O! This country is not Iran. Our legal system is not built around Sharia law. There is no such thing in this country as "spiritual law." None. Zippo. Nada.

You might as well headline the article "When Secular Law and Tinkerbell Collide." It would be just as grounded in reality.

The laws of the United States, of which the last time I checked Oregon was a participating state, are secular. Period.

I'm hoping those secular laws run over these parents doing about 75 mph then back up and make sure they're finished just for good measure.

Look at me, Damien! It's all for you.

At first I was a little torn by this story involving a Fifth Grader who was suspended for failing to remove his anti-Obama t-shirt at the school's instructions. I believe very strongly in the First Amendment, even if it's being abused.

But what becomes clear after reading more on this is that the boy's father Dann Dalton is a Grade-A prick.

Dalton was among a group of anti-abortion protesters who marched through an Arapahoe County neighborhood to protest a Planned Parenthood doctor in July 2000, according to a Colorado Springs Gazette story. The protest came in response to a law passed that week by the Arapahoe County Commission that banned “targeted picketing” outside the physician’s home. The picketers, led by Bob Enyart, had been gathering at least once a month in the doctor’s cul-de-sac.

Mr. Dalton argues that this is simply a First Amendment issue with his son Daxx's constitutional rights being violated by the district. The district argues that the rules are in place to keep the focus on *gasp* school by disallowing any sort of speech or behavior that would be disruptive.

Considering Mr. Dalton's own history of lunacy I don't see how the t-shirt can be anything else than an attempt by Dalton to use his son to disrupt the school. His efforts to try and hide behind his son as well as the constitution ring hollow in this instance. He's yelling fire in a crowded theater and then whining when the theater throws him out.

And one more thing, what you choose to call hell, he calls home.

Watching the news this week I found out that Americans love the Second Amendment but could care less for the Fourth.

The New York Times calls this "pragmatism."

I think the Founders might of had a different word for it.

Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but we just got our asses kicked, pal!

One of my favorite lines the last couple of months as the issue of gender has entered the presidential primary is to say we'd have a woman as president right now if congress did their damn jobs. I firmly believe this to be true. If congress was following their own constitutionally mandated role of oversight of the Executive Branch then I have no doubt that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would currently be working in the Oval Office.

The immediate reaction of realists when they consider that statement is to dismiss it outright. Simple math makes the idea that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney could be impeached and removed from office absurd. In the first place- the numbers aren't there for a conviction in the Senate. The whole thing would be an exercise in futility from the start.

It seems to me that this unfortunate reaction to my oft-repeated quip that if congress was doing their job Pelosi would be the president is based on the idea that I am attacking our Democratic leadership in congress in making that statement. In fact - I'm only partly attacking our Democratic leadership. I'm also attacking every other warm body in a suit on capitol hill, Democrats and Republicans, who refuse to accept their constitutionally mandated role in our federal government. Those that put the needs of their party or, more often, their own political careers ahead of the need of their country.

It also seems to me that the assertion of powerlessness of congressional Democrats in the face of a slim majority in the Senate as an excuse (and let's be honest an excuse is exactly what it is) towards inaction is also a tacit admission of the of the real problem facing us. Think about the above calculation on conviction and see if you can determine anything other than our leaders will not push for impeachment because, regardless of evidence, facts or public sentiment, Senate Republicans (and Lieberman) will vote in a block against conviction. Recognition of this reality may be rational, but acceptance of it is as a simple fact of life is beyond absurd.

This collective acquiescence to the true partisans in our government is what drives progressives like myself absolutely nuts. For over thirty years now we've watched as Democrats have continued to meet vicious attacks from Republicans by effectively rolling over and tucking their tail between their legs. We've watched as our constitution was subverted through Iran Contra or abused as it was through the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton. Probably the worst thing we've had to endure is to watch that constitution be simply ignored as this President used a horrible tragedy as an excuse to consolidate power in the Executive not granted to it under our constitutional framework. Again and again our elected representatives in congress refused to acknowledge what they're we're up against.

I would ask the realists to consider this mathematical formulation: 61-39. That is the absolute minimum margin the next Democratic president will have to have in the Senate in order to get anything done. It doesn't matter if it's president Clinton II or Obama. NOTHING of any consequence will make it through the Senate without a Democratic majority of at least 61 Senators. Not health care reform. Not tax reform. Certainly not any progressive Supreme Court Judges. Republican Senators will block it all. They'll do it because they can.

God forbid the Democrats don't lose the House and/ or Senate while a Democratic president is in office, because that day in January that they swear that new congress in will be the day impeachment proceedings begin against that man or woman. They'll do it because they can.

Because they can. Because Democrats don't fight. Because Democrats continue to try and get along with these people or meet them half-way when all they'd rather do to the Democrats in return is put 'em in a bus and drive 'em off a cliff.

I understand the question of what impeachment would accomplish (and it it's really a moot question this late in Bush's term.) My honest answer is that I just don't know.

But I also know what NOT impeaching Bush has gotten us. Not to mention NOT forcing Senators to filibuster or NOT using the congressional powers of Inherent Contempt to really bring the hammer down on John Bolton and Harriet Meiers and a whole list of powers inherent to, but unused by, congressional Democrats which are too numerous to list here. It hasn't led to victory, legislative success or even compromise. It's led to one big GOP middle-finger in our direction.

If we're truly serious about the kind of country we want this to be then we need to bend that finger back until in breaks.

I like my privacy.

Fourth, and most importantly I don't think a retroactive grant of immunity to telecoms is the least bit constitutional.

"Ex post facto" law and all that.

You're pirates. Hang the code, and hang the rules. They're more like guidelines anyway.

I just read the phrase "the constitution is not a suicide pact" for about the umteenth zillioneth time in the context of a political debate. The implication is always that the shady and extraconsitutional measures taken by the administration over the last several years were necessary in order to ensure the physical safety of the populace against our enemies. In a nutshell: it's okay to ignore the constitution if it keeps us safe.

But what if it's the actions of a bumbling executive that have made us less safe? What if it's his incompetence that's emboldened our enemies and left us more at risk of attack? Would it be proper in this instance to employ extraconstitutional means to remove such a president?

Of course not. The constitution isn't some sort of quaint document suggesting the means of formation and rules by which we govern ourselves. It is a statement of values and mission. It says who we are as Americans and as Americans we believe that this is a nation of laws. Laws that apply to everyone.

I am sure, in the miserable annals of the Earth, you will be duly enshrined.

It's all well and good that some of the Supremes who handed Bush the presidency are still claiming it was the right decision. But would it kill the author of "Supreme Conflict" and those writing articles about that book to at least try and acquaint themselves with the decision and politics surrounding Bush v. Gore, the constitution of the United States (especially the equal protection clause) and the media consortium recount findings that O'Connor tries to hide behind? I mean it's seven years after the fact, you'd think they might have the time to be able to do a little background before putting pen to paper. Is that really asking too much?

Just a few examples-

"A no-brainer! A state court deciding a federal constitutional issue about the presidential election? Of course you take the case," Kennedy told ABC News correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg in her new book, "Supreme Conflict."

Yeah, that is nuts. Except for the fact that the U.S. constitution reads- "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. "

The legislature of the state of Florida set down the rules for the election of Presidential electors from that state prior to the 2000 election. They provided rules for a recount in a disputed election. The Secretary of State chose not to enforce those same rules for recounts in certifying the electors before the recounts were complete and owing to her allegiance to one of the candidates. The legal challenge in Florida was simply an effort for to force the state election apparatus which was solely under the control of one of the candidates to actually follow Florida election law as provided by the U.S. Constitution. There is no federal constitutional issue there that would justify the intervention of the supreme court.

A "no-brainer" indeed, Kennedy. Perhaps you actually should have used yours.

In a decision made public on the evening of Dec. 12, 2000, the court said the recount violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because Florida counties were allowed to set their own standards for determining whether to count a vote.

This is of course the square peg the prevailing five justices pounded into the round hole of their decision giving Bush the election. The Equal Protection Clause- "Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

The majority members of the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Florida Supreme Court was unconstitutionally depriving George W. Bush's right of "life, liberty or property" which was an obvious grievous injustice. To right this justice they simply decided that the rights of the millions of people who voted for Gore in Florida and nationwide need to be set aside so that this wrong could be righted. Let's not even get into the question of whether there was something for Bush to lose to begin with. To accept this argument you have to take at face value that Bush "won" before all of the votes had been counted. Bush couldn't have been deprived of a right he hadn't yet earned through election. The reasoning is just plain nuts.

Still, O'Connor said the outcome of the election would have been the same had the court not intervened.

She was referring to media consortium study that suggested Bush would have won a recount limited to counties that Gore initially contested, although other studies said Gore might have prevailed in a statewide recount.

You mean the that found Gore would have won in all cases under all standards except under the strict requirements and four county recount strategy he was ironically employing at the time? A full statewide recount under any counting standard, something the Florida Supreme Court would've almost assuredly have ordered had they been allowed to proceed, would have given the presidency to Gore.

I'm sure O'Connor, Kennedy and Scalia would love history to remember them well in light of this incident. It won't. It simply can't. Their disgustingly political extra-constitutional decision will stand as a black mark on their names and the history of the court they served on, far into the future.

Look at these three words written larger than the rest. With a special pride never written before.

We the people, baby! Tomorrow we start the long journey to take our country back.

I MEANT to do that.

Today's news that the Senate Intelligence Committee won't be investigating Bush's domestic spying program after all has to be a tremendous shock to all of us. Who would have thought that Pat Robert's committee, the same Committee that's continued to drag it's feet on "phase 2" of the use of intelligence by the Administration in the run-up to the Iraq War would spike a look at warrantless eavesdropping by this same Administration? Color me surprised.

I'm realizing that watching these guys squeeze and contort their way out of traps of logic brings out the same sick, strange mixture of feelings one gets watching an average episode of "Jackass." One part bemused awe, one part focused revulsion and a big part plain old embarrassment. (Whether it's embarrassment for the performers or ourselves I think is debatable.) We've all become perpetual rubber-neckers driving slowly by a horrible accident and trying not to look.

When this story broke two months ago it seemed once again like one of those "gotcha" moments in politics where a political party makes a misstep so enormous it falls well outside of the normal conventions of traditional political skullduggery. The language of the 1978 FISA law, not to mention the Constitution of the United States, seemed pretty unambiguous in it's language. In order for our government to intrude on the privacy of it's citizens it simply needs to acquire a warrant. The Administration refused to get such a warrant before initiating eavesdropping. They've clearly violated both the FISA statute and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. Caught between an Administration who boasted loudly and publicly that they'd actually engaged in the spying and the clear letter of the law, the Administration's supporters in Congress were faced with Damocles Sword.

But then Roberts started his Contortionist act. This would be the biggest challenge of his career. (Admititedly made easier by his naturally spineless condition .) Could he worm his way between the letters of the 4th Amendment, up through the clauses in the FISA statute and still loop himself back around towards absolving the Administration of any wrongdoing? Was there ever really any doubt?

Thursday, they voted to forestall hearings in favor of developing White House-backed legislation establishing clearer rules for the controversial program. Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, is drafting legislation that would exempt the NSA program from the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act but limit eavesdropping to international calls.

Get that? They're going to okay Bush's program retroactively. I stand in awe and deliver a hearty golf clap towards the sheer enormity of this bitch-slap to objective logic and the rule of law.

Of course they can't ACTUALLY change the FISA law after-the-fact. There's this tiny little clause in the Constitution that reads "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

What they can do, what they WILL do, is change the law then say something along the lines of "We meant to do that but just never got around to it, therefore it's our fault Bush had to break the law. Sorry about that." It's simply a loophole that Congress forgot to consider when they drafted the FISA law 30 years ago.

As for the violation of the Constitution, ever heard of the term "Originalism?" Conservatives, who take an "original" approach to interpreting the Constitution, are obviously in the best position to inform us of what the Founders intended to include in the text but mistakenly let slip through the cracks. Perhaps it was an edit that just didn't make it to the publisher. I have not doubt that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito will reaffirm this position shortly.