| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
12 Apr 2004 03:37:54 PM |
| Object: |
PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
This is just idle speculation by two people with no legal training,
so I hope it does not sound too silly.
A friend and I have been talking about the various laws being broken
by the neo-cons and their utter disregard for chruch/state separation,
and he came up with an interesting angle pertaining to divided
loyalties. We know about the law which prevents American citizens
from accepting foreign honors, such as knighthood, without special
dispensation from the government, but we don't know where that is on
the books or what the exact wording is. We're wondering if it
contains any condemnation of such acceptance on the grounds the
recipient is acknowledging the foreign power as being worthy of his
loyalty, rather than keeping his loyalty 100% for the US.
The speculation comes in when we wondered if those people who claim
their first loyalty is to a deity are by their own admission giving up
their US citizenship by submitting to a foreign power. It would be
amusing to have another way of poking these ultra-patriotic neo-cons
by pointing out they cannot be both US citizens and consider their god
the most important thing in the universe.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
12 Apr 2004 04:14:47 PM |
|
|
We know about the law which prevents American citizens
from accepting foreign honors, such as knighthood, without special
dispensation from the government, but we don't know where that is on
the books or what the exact wording is.
I believe you're thinking about the Original 13th Article of Amendment, which
read:
"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain
any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress,
accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind
whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall
cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding
any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."
This was proposed in 1810 and did NOT pass into law.
IANAL, but as far as I can determine, contrary to popular belief there is no
law prohibiting a US citizen from accepting a foreign honor, special
dispensation or no.
Quite a few prominent Americans have received foreign titles of nobility
including Ronald Reagan, Norman Schwartzkopf and Wesley Clark. A rather large
number of US servicemen have received military honors from France and Vietnam.
Recently France bestowed the Legion d'Honneur on all surviving US WWI veterans
who served in France and the RVN government gave a service ribbon to all US
servicemen who fought in Vietnam.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
12 Apr 2004 03:53:11 PM |
|
|
In article <407afb1d.1725834@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
This is just idle speculation by two people with no legal training,
so I hope it does not sound too silly.
A friend and I have been talking about the various laws being broken
by the neo-cons and their utter disregard for chruch/state separation,
and he came up with an interesting angle pertaining to divided
loyalties. We know about the law which prevents American citizens
from accepting foreign honors, such as knighthood, without special
dispensation from the government, but we don't know where that is on
the books or what the exact wording is. We're wondering if it
contains any condemnation of such acceptance on the grounds the
recipient is acknowledging the foreign power as being worthy of his
loyalty, rather than keeping his loyalty 100% for the US.
There are two issues: foreign honors, and swearing allegiance. They
are both related to citizenship, and thus are mainly in the U.S. Code
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/toc.html
Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part III, Section 1481:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/chapters/12/subchapters/iii/parts/iii/sections/section%5F1481.html
A national of the US (whether by birth or naturalization) loses his or
her citizenship if they perform certain actions "with the intent of
losing their citizenship[*]". Among them are:
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years;
and:
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any
office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign
state or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the
age of eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such
foreign state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the
duties of any office, post, or employment under the government
of a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after
attaining the age of eighteen years for which office, post, or
employment an oath, affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is
required;
Knighthoods or titles (in the UK) usually fall under either (2) or
(4)(A), since certain peerages make you a member of the House of
Lords.
[*] In the late 1980s there was a Supreme Court ruling that said that
actions by themselves do not speak of intent.
The speculation comes in when we wondered if those people who claim
their first loyalty is to a deity are by their own admission giving up
their US citizenship by submitting to a foreign power.
Not as such; on the other hand, those who swear allegiance to the
Pope, who is the civil head of a foreign government, could. However,
the Supreme Court ruling I mentioned places severe limitations on the
ability to enforce such conclusions, since "intent" plays such a heavy role.
It would be
amusing to have another way of poking these ultra-patriotic neo-cons
by pointing out they cannot be both US citizens and consider their god
the most important thing in the universe.
Under mexican law prior to 1990, catholic priests did not have
citizenship rights; the legal argument was that since, upon
ordination, they must swear allegiance to the head of a foreign state
(The Vatican, with which Mexico had no diplomatic relations prior to
1990), that act forfeited their mexican citizenship.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
13 Apr 2004 05:14:03 PM |
|
|
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Thanks much, Mr. Goranson and Mr. Magidin. I've shown your answers to
the gentleman with whom I've been talking about this, and he has a
further question. May I ask what you or any others may have to
suggest? To quote him:
There must be laws concerning conflicts of interest for those in
public office. The obvious thing is gaining some sort of personal
financial advantage from one's office. I'm wondering if these laws
could also be applied to conflicts of interest that might involve
obsessions or participation in mass delusions. For example, what we
do with someone who used their office so as to try to satisfy their
out-of-control model train hobby? Swearing allegiance is a serious
conflict of interest, but I would think it would be difficult to twist
that our way. It might work with the Catholic church as the Vatican
has some claims to be its own nation, but we need something for the
mostly Protestant neocons.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
13 Apr 2004 06:00:51 PM |
|
|
In article <407c656f.137403@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Thanks much, Mr. Goranson and Mr. Magidin. I've shown your answers to
the gentleman with whom I've been talking about this, and he has a
further question. May I ask what you or any others may have to
suggest? To quote him:
There must be laws concerning conflicts of interest for those in
public office. The obvious thing is gaining some sort of personal
financial advantage from one's office. I'm wondering if these laws
could also be applied to conflicts of interest that might involve
obsessions or participation in mass delusions. For example, what we
do with someone who used their office so as to try to satisfy their
out-of-control model train hobby?
It really depends on just what that means! If you take your salary and
use it to buy lots and lots of model trains, then people might not
want to vote for you again, but there seems to be nothing wrong with
it. If, on the other hand, you use the petty cash from the office,
then you are guilty of embezzlement; if you use your position to take
away someone's model trains, then you are guilty of larceny.
If, during the course of your duties, you may also indulge in your
hobby in a way that does not interfere with said duties (e.g., having
a model train in your office; or perhaps taking advantage of business
trips to go to model train museums), then there should be no problem
of a crime, so long as the duties of the office are discharged.
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
To be honest, I think the gentleman is reaching for straws, and I
would certainly not be open to such suggestions, even to get rid of
people I find undesirable. Certainly, if you have someone who refuses
to abide by a law on "moral principle" (e.g., Judge Moore in Alabama),
then you can remove him from office; but the simple fact that you hold
certain opinions or engage in certain outside activity, so long as it
is legal and does not interfere with the discharge of your obligations
in office, should not disqualify you per se.
Swearing allegiance is a serious
conflict of interest, but I would think it would be difficult to twist
that our way. It might work with the Catholic church as the Vatican
has some claims to be its own nation,
It's not "some claims". By international treaty, it is a separate
nation, and I am pretty sure that it has a Nunzio in the U.S: i.e.,
the United States has recognized this nation and has diplomatic
relations with it (though it need not have a separate ambassador to
the Vatican: the ambassador to Rome could be the "itinerant
ambassador" to the Vatican).
The main difficulty is twofold: first, the U.S. recognized dual
citizenship, so that the mere fact that you have duties other than
your allegiance to the United States does not in any way impede your
activities as a U.S. citizen (though, for example, the State
Department will not help you in fulfilling any such obligations). And
second and more specifically, you may only lose your U.S. Citizenship
if it is deemed that you acted ->with the intent<- of losing your
U.S. Citizenship (the handful of exceptions including things like
serving in an army which is engaged in open hostilities with the
U.S....)
but we need something for the mostly Protestant neocons.
Here's a suggestion: try to convince people not to vote for them. And
if they fail in the discharge of their obligations, try it on those
grounds. And if it they ->criminally<- fail to discharge their
obligations, or violate the law in the pursuit of their personal
agendas, then impeach/convict them.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
15 Apr 2004 12:36:46 AM |
|
|
Arturo,
Thank you for your comments and thoughts. I'm L. Raymond's friend that
brought up the question.
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <407c656f.137403@news.mylinuxisp.com>,
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
L. Raymond <baddaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Thanks much, Mr. Goranson and Mr. Magidin. I've shown your answers to
the gentleman with whom I've been talking about this, and he has a
further question. May I ask what you or any others may have to
suggest? To quote him:
There must be laws concerning conflicts of interest for those in
public office. The obvious thing is gaining some sort of personal
financial advantage from one's office. I'm wondering if these laws
could also be applied to conflicts of interest that might involve
obsessions or participation in mass delusions. For example, what we
do with someone who used their office so as to try to satisfy their
out-of-control model train hobby?
It really depends on just what that means! If you take your salary and
use it to buy lots and lots of model trains, then people might not
want to vote for you again, but there seems to be nothing wrong with
it. If, on the other hand, you use the petty cash from the office,
then you are guilty of embezzlement; if you use your position to take
away someone's model trains, then you are guilty of larceny.
If, during the course of your duties, you may also indulge in your
hobby in a way that does not interfere with said duties (e.g., having
a model train in your office; or perhaps taking advantage of business
trips to go to model train museums), then there should be no problem
of a crime, so long as the duties of the office are discharged.
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
This is exactly what we're fishing for. Maybe the question should have
just been phrased as what pointers are there for conflict of interest laws.
One very concrete example that might nail this down is John Ashcroft and
his willingness to not enforce the Constitution when is suits the
political agenda of his cronies. The Faith-based Charity initiatives
are clearly unconstitutional, yet Ashcroft has little interest in
putting a halt to it. (He's been busy trying to slow Greenpeace down
with 150 year old pirate laws.) Another example is that I've seen the
claim that a vast majority (perhaps all) of Bush's appointments have
been people of the Christian faith, which is a de facto test of faith
for office, which may also be unconstitutional. I'm trying to find out
if any of these offenses are covered by existing conflict of interest
laws.
Let's not forget the no-bid Iraq contracts to Halliburton, Cheney's
former employer...
To be honest, I think the gentleman is reaching for straws, and I
would certainly not be open to such suggestions, even to get rid of
people I find undesirable. Certainly, if you have someone who refuses
to abide by a law on "moral principle" (e.g., Judge Moore in Alabama),
then you can remove him from office; but the simple fact that you hold
certain opinions or engage in certain outside activity, so long as it
is legal and does not interfere with the discharge of your obligations
in office, should not disqualify you per se.
I think that using one's office to violate the constitution is a clear
problem.
Swearing allegiance is a serious
conflict of interest, but I would think it would be difficult to twist
that our way. It might work with the Catholic church as the Vatican
has some claims to be its own nation,
It's not "some claims". By international treaty, it is a separate
nation, and I am pretty sure that it has a Nunzio in the U.S: i.e.,
the United States has recognized this nation and has diplomatic
relations with it (though it need not have a separate ambassador to
the Vatican: the ambassador to Rome could be the "itinerant
ambassador" to the Vatican).
The main difficulty is twofold: first, the U.S. recognized dual
citizenship, so that the mere fact that you have duties other than
your allegiance to the United States does not in any way impede your
activities as a U.S. citizen (though, for example, the State
Department will not help you in fulfilling any such obligations). And
second and more specifically, you may only lose your U.S. Citizenship
if it is deemed that you acted ->with the intent<- of losing your
U.S. Citizenship (the handful of exceptions including things like
serving in an army which is engaged in open hostilities with the
U.S....)
Thanks for the clarification.
It is my understanding that the Vatican has recently lobbied various
Catholic Senators to swing their vote on some gay marriage legislation.
I consider this a violation of our national sovereignty. If anyone was
concerned about JFK being influenced by the Pope, isn't this the same thing?
but we need something for the mostly Protestant neocons.
Here's a suggestion: try to convince people not to vote for them. And
if they fail in the discharge of their obligations, try it on those
grounds. And if it they ->criminally<- fail to discharge their
obligations, or violate the law in the pursuit of their personal
agendas, then impeach/convict them.
Agreed. I'm trying to determine whether or not these things are real
violations. It seems to me they should be.
Thanks for your time. --Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
15 Apr 2004 11:12:30 AM |
|
|
In article <407E1F50.4060904@earthlink.net>,
Don Baker <dbaker62@earthlink.net> wrote:
[.snip.]
There must be laws concerning conflicts of interest for those in
public office. The obvious thing is gaining some sort of personal
financial advantage from one's office. I'm wondering if these laws
could also be applied to conflicts of interest that might involve
obsessions or participation in mass delusions. For example, what we
do with someone who used their office so as to try to satisfy their
out-of-control model train hobby?
It really depends on just what that means! If you take your salary and
use it to buy lots and lots of model trains, then people might not
want to vote for you again, but there seems to be nothing wrong with
it. If, on the other hand, you use the petty cash from the office,
then you are guilty of embezzlement; if you use your position to take
away someone's model trains, then you are guilty of larceny.
If, during the course of your duties, you may also indulge in your
hobby in a way that does not interfere with said duties (e.g., having
a model train in your office; or perhaps taking advantage of business
trips to go to model train museums), then there should be no problem
of a crime, so long as the duties of the office are discharged.
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
This is exactly what we're fishing for. Maybe the question should have
just been phrased as what pointers are there for conflict of interest laws.
One very concrete example that might nail this down is John Ashcroft and
his willingness to not enforce the Constitution when is suits the
political agenda of his cronies. The Faith-based Charity initiatives
are clearly unconstitutional, yet Ashcroft has little interest in
putting a halt to it.
Hmmm... As far as I am aware, there is no such "Faith-based Charity"
currently ->in action<-; the proposal got stalled and the guy
responsible for pushing it through Congress resigned from the White
House in frustration.
Now, if it were in action, then you have a right to file suit against
Ashcroft and the Justice Department as a tax-payer. If you win the
suit, and Ashcroft were to refuse to comply, he could be impeached on
those grounds.
(He's been busy trying to slow Greenpeace down
with 150 year old pirate laws.) Another example is that I've seen the
claim that a vast majority (perhaps all) of Bush's appointments have
been people of the Christian faith, which is a de facto test of faith
for office, which may also be unconstitutional.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. By that token, since an atheist is
highly unlikely to be elected, and a muslim is highly unlikely to be
elected, does that mean that there is a "de facto test of faith" for
holding elected office?
This is reaching way too much. Any elected official who can do
appointments will necessarily make appointments of like-minded
people. It's just common sense: for one thing, he's going to have to
work with them, or for another, he wants to leave a certain
legacy. Clinton did not appoint any Christian fundamentalists to the
Federal Bench. So that means that there was a "de facto test of
faith", surely! If you're a fundamentalist christian, you could not
get appointed.
I'm trying to find out
if any of these offenses are covered by existing conflict of interest
laws.
Let's not forget the no-bid Iraq contracts to Halliburton, Cheney's
former employer...
Now, ->that's<- plain old and simple corruption; he's not in legal
trouble, because he technically holds no interest in the company right
now. But it is certainly fishy. I don't think you can do much about it
except not vote for him next time around, though.
To be honest, I think the gentleman is reaching for straws, and I
would certainly not be open to such suggestions, even to get rid of
people I find undesirable. Certainly, if you have someone who refuses
to abide by a law on "moral principle" (e.g., Judge Moore in Alabama),
then you can remove him from office; but the simple fact that you hold
certain opinions or engage in certain outside activity, so long as it
is legal and does not interfere with the discharge of your obligations
in office, should not disqualify you per se.
I think that using one's office to violate the constitution is a clear
problem.
Yes: but then it is actionable simply because they are actions that
violate the constitution. Just as with Judge Moore: he was impeached
and unbenched because he refused to follow the law, pure and
simple. The issue, contrary to his claims, for which he was removed
from the bench was not that he put up a 10 Commandments monument in
the Courthouse. The reason he was removed from the bench was that ->he
refused to follow the orders of the Federal Court<-.
Thanks for the clarification.
It is my understanding that the Vatican has recently lobbied various
Catholic Senators to swing their vote on some gay marriage legislation.
I consider this a violation of our national sovereignty.
There are laws that prevent foreign nationals from engaging in
politics in the US. However, if a US citizen sympathetic to the
Vatican (say, a local bishop or cardinal) engages in lobbying, then it
is not a violation, any more than a group of chicanos can lobby for
better treatment for Mexico or changes on the immigration law.
If the Pope called the Senators, then you indeed have a problem, but
it has little to do with religion: it has everything to do with a
simple violation of the law. If the Pope directly told the bishop to
engage in lobbying, there may be a problem, I don't know the exact
details of the prohibition. But, as with a mafia don, if the Pope
simply stated his desire that something were to happen in a certain
direction, and the Cardinal took it upon himself, as a US citizen, to
contact an elected official and tell him his opinion and beliefs
regarding pending legislation, then there would be no legal problem.
Of course, you are free to argue that this is a serious conflict of
interest, and use that to convince people not to vote for catholics.
Here's a suggestion: try to convince people not to vote for them. And
if they fail in the discharge of their obligations, try it on those
grounds. And if it they ->criminally<- fail to discharge their
obligations, or violate the law in the pursuit of their personal
agendas, then impeach/convict them.
Agreed. I'm trying to determine whether or not these things are real
violations. It seems to me they should be.
It seems to me they should ->not<-, at least, not the sort of thing
you are talking about.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
18 Apr 2004 11:31:01 PM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <407E1F50.4060904@earthlink.net>,
Don Baker <dbaker62@earthlink.net> wrote:
[.snip.]
There must be laws concerning conflicts of interest for those in
public office. The obvious thing is gaining some sort of personal
financial advantage from one's office. I'm wondering if these laws
could also be applied to conflicts of interest that might involve
obsessions or participation in mass delusions. For example, what we
do with someone who used their office so as to try to satisfy their
out-of-control model train hobby?
It really depends on just what that means! If you take your salary and
use it to buy lots and lots of model trains, then people might not
want to vote for you again, but there seems to be nothing wrong with
it. If, on the other hand, you use the petty cash from the office,
then you are guilty of embezzlement; if you use your position to take
away someone's model trains, then you are guilty of larceny.
If, during the course of your duties, you may also indulge in your
hobby in a way that does not interfere with said duties (e.g., having
a model train in your office; or perhaps taking advantage of business
trips to go to model train museums), then there should be no problem
of a crime, so long as the duties of the office are discharged.
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
This is exactly what we're fishing for. Maybe the question should have
just been phrased as what pointers are there for conflict of interest laws.
One very concrete example that might nail this down is John Ashcroft and
his willingness to not enforce the Constitution when is suits the
political agenda of his cronies. The Faith-based Charity initiatives
are clearly unconstitutional, yet Ashcroft has little interest in
putting a halt to it.
Hmmm... As far as I am aware, there is no such "Faith-based Charity"
currently ->in action<-; the proposal got stalled and the guy
responsible for pushing it through Congress resigned from the White
House in frustration.
Now, if it were in action, then you have a right to file suit against
Ashcroft and the Justice Department as a tax-payer. If you win the
suit, and Ashcroft were to refuse to comply, he could be impeached on
those grounds.
Surely, you're aware that Bush has side-stepped Congress and done most
of his faith-based program by executive order. The money involved is
not trivial, either. See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44442-2004Mar9.html?referrer=emailarticle
Ashcroft apparently has no interest in defending the constitution here.
I would love to see Ashcroft held accountable. I'm willing to
contribute to a suit, but I couldn't possibly affort such a thing on my
own. Maybe I should lobby Americans United for the Separation of Church
and State or People for the American Way to file a suit. I'm sure
anyone filing such a suit will feel like they've put a large target on
their forehead.
(He's been busy trying to slow Greenpeace down
with 150 year old pirate laws.) Another example is that I've seen the
claim that a vast majority (perhaps all) of Bush's appointments have
been people of the Christian faith, which is a de facto test of faith
for office, which may also be unconstitutional.
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. By that token, since an atheist is
highly unlikely to be elected, and a muslim is highly unlikely to be
elected, does that mean that there is a "de facto test of faith" for
holding elected office?
This is reaching way too much. Any elected official who can do
appointments will necessarily make appointments of like-minded
people. It's just common sense: for one thing, he's going to have to
work with them, or for another, he wants to leave a certain
legacy. Clinton did not appoint any Christian fundamentalists to the
Federal Bench. So that means that there was a "de facto test of
faith", surely! If you're a fundamentalist christian, you could not
get appointed.
Fair enough, but Bush has made some appointments where religious
"credentials" outweighed real credentials. Fortunately, the appropriate
howling was made in these cases.
Thank you for your other clarifications, which I did not copy here.
--Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
15 Apr 2004 11:18:48 AM |
|
|
In article <407E1F50.4060904@earthlink.net>,
Don Baker <dbaker62@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
This is exactly what we're fishing for. Maybe the question should have
just been phrased as what pointers are there for conflict of interest laws.
One very concrete example that might nail this down is John Ashcroft and
his willingness to not enforce the Constitution when is suits the
political agenda of his cronies. The Faith-based Charity initiatives
are clearly unconstitutional, yet Ashcroft has little interest in
putting a halt to it. (He's been busy trying to slow Greenpeace down
with 150 year old pirate laws.)
As far as Ashcroft is concerned, what I would argue more than anything
else is really very simple: he should never have been confirmed as
Attorney General, for also a very simple reason. The top
law-enforcement official of the country should not be on record as
stating that the "Laws of God" are more important than the "Laws of
Man", and that he is willing to break the latter to uphold the former.
Now, ->that<- looks to me as grounds for not confirming him...
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
18 Apr 2004 11:17:30 PM |
|
|
Arturo Magidin wrote:
In article <407E1F50.4060904@earthlink.net>,
Don Baker <dbaker62@earthlink.net> wrote:
Now, if it is so "out of control" that it interferes with the
appropriate discharge of the duties of the office, then that's a
different matter.
This is exactly what we're fishing for. Maybe the question should have
just been phrased as what pointers are there for conflict of interest laws.
One very concrete example that might nail this down is John Ashcroft and
his willingness to not enforce the Constitution when is suits the
political agenda of his cronies. The Faith-based Charity initiatives
are clearly unconstitutional, yet Ashcroft has little interest in
putting a halt to it. (He's been busy trying to slow Greenpeace down
with 150 year old pirate laws.)
As far as Ashcroft is concerned, what I would argue more than anything
else is really very simple: he should never have been confirmed as
Attorney General, for also a very simple reason. The top
law-enforcement official of the country should not be on record as
stating that the "Laws of God" are more important than the "Laws of
Man", and that he is willing to break the latter to uphold the former.
Now, ->that<- looks to me as grounds for not confirming him...
Agreed. Sadly, most everyone in politics is falling all over themselves
to show how religious they are. This is not good. We can't count on
confirmations to get the right answer.
Clearly someone with such a strong conflict of interest could not be
counted on to do what's best for the country. I consider such a person
unfit for office. I would very much like to see a law concerning
conflicts of interest like this if there isn't such a thing already. Of
course, it would need to be phrased in such a way that it was not a
religious test of office, but rather a general test of any conflict of
interest. I would think there would already be such a law on the
books. If there isn't maybe we, as atheists, should put one there. It
should be relatively easy to do, since even the religious would not want
to give the perception that atheists outdoing them on the ethics front.
--Don
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: PING: U.S. Legal Eagles (Lord Calvert?) |
13 Apr 2004 06:09:22 PM |
|
|
In article <c5hrf3$ukv$1@agate.berkeley.edu>,
Arturo Magidin <magidin@math.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Swearing allegiance is a serious
conflict of interest, but I would think it would be difficult to twist
that our way. It might work with the Catholic church as the Vatican
has some claims to be its own nation,
It's not "some claims". By international treaty, it is a separate
nation, and I am pretty sure that it has a Nunzio in the U.S: i.e.,
the United States has recognized this nation and has diplomatic
relations with it (though it need not have a separate ambassador to
the Vatican: the ambassador to Rome could be the "itinerant
ambassador" to the Vatican).
According to the State Department Website, the U.S. has an embassy in
the Vatican (and thus, has diplomatic relations with the Vatican).
http://vatican.usembassy.it/embassy/ambassador.asp
The current ambassador is James Nicholson, and the official title is
"Ambassador of the United States of America to the Holy See" (don't
pay too much attention to the latter; I ->believe<- the 'to' part of
such title is decided upon by the host country; that's why the
Ambassador to the UK is "Ambassador [...] to the Court of
St. James's").
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
