Skip to main content

Tom Cotton Should Go

(An excerpt from a hypothetical) Open Letter to Saddam Hussein (from sometime pre-2003 invasion):


It has come to our attention while observing the discussions concerning your possible programs of weapons of mass destruction that you may not fully understand our constitutional system.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of our Constitution -- the power to make binding international agreements and the power to make war -- which you should seriously consider.
...


(In case you can't read between the lines, you are an idiot that could not possibly have asked any of the lawyers in your country that specialize in international law ... or your U.N. Ambassador ... or any 1L ... or even most high school students that paid attention in Civics ... or, you know, read the document yourself.)


(Also, this has absolutely nothing to do with internal politics, and you should ignore the fact that I'm a junior senator who just started my first term, that I actually don't know what the deal is going to be, and that, despite what might seem obvious wording in the Constitution, in practice the provisions I cited are not going to matter as far as the impact of the Executive decision.)


(And, to anybody else reading this open letter, I absolutely do not mean to scuttle any deal... except any besides the hypothetical one I would make, if anybody cared about my opinion.  Unlike the President, I love America, and I would only undercut the President if I thought it would make America stronger.  Really.  And that's what this letter is designed to do. I promise.)


Any Junior Democratic Senator

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more