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

The problem with fundamentalism, part 2: Religious fundamentalism

This is the second part of a two part series where I discuss the problems I see with two prevalent forms of fundamentalism (the first discussed Constitution and fundamentalism: http://amusingbeam.blogspot.com/2012/05/problem-with-fundamentalism-part-1.html ).  In this part, I will be discussing biblical fundamentalism.  I will be referring to sources more frequently here, as I cannot claim the expertise I could for the last installment. Let me start by saying that I understand this is an extremely controversial topic, especially the stance I am taking.  My goal is not to offend, but it is instead to discuss why I think a fundamentalist approach to the Bible (and, in some respects, any text) has insurmountable problems.  I think that most Fundamentalists I know are quite willing to discuss why they believe their hermeneutic approach is the correct one, so my hope is that they are equally sanguine when someone explains why that pathway seems problematic. Here is t...
2 comments
Read more

Why COVID-19 is MUCH worse than the seasonal flu

This is the second in a series of posts about the COVID-19 pandemic . This installment is discussing why COVID-19 is much, much worse than the seasonal flu. Here it is, in a nutshell : COVID-19 is more contagious, more deadly, already has more known long-term impacts, has no vaccine or truly effective treatments, and has no apparent seasonality. Contagion SARS-COV-2 is much more contagious. The median R0 (average number of people infected by each person when nobody is immune) is 5.7 , or more optimistically 2.5 . For the pandemic to go away, R0 would need to effectively be less than 1.  The estimate of the 1918 novel flu was between 1.2 and 2.4 .  (An R0 of 5.7 means we need over 80% of the population to be immune to reach effective herd immunity .) Beyond that, the incubation period is long, and the number of transmissions before symptoms begin hovers near half those infected . And the duration of being contagious is longer, up to 10 days after the first symptoms. That means ...
3 comments
Read more

The problem with fundamentalism, part 1: Constitutional fundamentalism

In this two-part series, I plan on discussing the major issues I see with two prevalent types of fundamentalism: constitutional and biblical.  Though the two need not be related, it appears to me that one often leads to the other. This first installment is on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution.  I have some expertise here, given that I have my JD and an undergraduate in English, so I will rarely be referring to other sources (outside the Constitution itself).  In this discussion, I am defining constitutional fundamentalism as a combination of "originalism" -- look at what the words meant when they were originally written -- and "strict constructionism" -- go strictly by the words on the page, with no reference to anything external, avoiding inferences. Original intent Ethical considerations Before I get into a more textual discussion, first I would like to point out that the founders were extremely flawed, and the document they made was, to mo...
Post a Comment
Read more