Scandal in Lock Down Mode: Rick Perry and the Texas Youth Commission 1/3

(this series first appeared earlier this year at Politicalgates)
by Nomad

Sergeant Brian Burzynski

The Easiest of Prey

If children, as a group, make ideal targets for predatory abusers and exploiters, then incarcerated juveniles undoubtedly make the easiest of that targeted prey. 

Subject to manipulation and intimidation, with limited access to legal recourse or independent monitoring and underrepresented in the political system, these children are easily forgotten by the public. The pleas from juvenile inmates generally go unheard. The very real threat of retribution by the authorities is sufficient to prevent any victims from coming forward.

So, when incidents are reported- and followed up on by authorities- it is generally an exceptional case. 

In February of 2005, Texas Ranger Brian Burzynski received reports from a volunteer instructor at the West Texas School, maximum security, all-male correctional facility in Pyote, Texas.
 One of many facilities scattered across the state, The West Texas school was built to house boys who had been in trouble with the law. The teacher who had contacted the Texas Ranger had had a crisis of conscience when several of his students had come forward with stories of sexual misconduct by the assistant superintendent. According to sources:

[The teacher] knew it would be futile to go to school authorities—his parents, also volunteers, had previously told the superintendent of their own suspicions, and were "brow beat" for making allegations without proof —so the next morning he called the Texas Rangers. A sergeant named Brian Burzynski made the ninety-minute drive from his office in Fort Stockton that afternoon. "I saw kids with fear in their eyes," he testified later, "kids who knew they were trapped in an institution where the system would not respond to their cries for help."

Those who Deny Freedom to Others...

I hope everybody will keep this bit of wisdom in mind when voting. America used to be a land with a heart large enough for diversity.

Franklin Roosevelt's Forgotten War with The Supreme Court

by Nomad

As the Supreme Court deliberates the constitutionality of President Obama's health care plan, it might come as a surprise to a lot of people that this isn't the first time a progressive president has come up against a conservative Supreme Court. Franklin Roosevelt encountered similar problems when he attempted to implement his own economic reforms.

Of the Court's overreach, the president in his ninth fireside chat told the American people, "To the far-sighted, it is far-reaching in its possibilities of injury to America."

Battle Between the Branches

This event of our day and age would not be the first time the Supreme Court has been accused of activism and overstepping its prescribed powers. And this isn't the first time a crisis has developed between the Judicial and the Executive branches of the United States Government.

On March 9, 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, speaking by radio to the nation described the problem of an obstructionist Supreme Court, and the need for a drastic re-evaluation of the process. 
Roosevelt stated the problem very directly "The Court" he claimed,"has been acting not as a judicial body, but as a policy-making body." He went on to cite, with quotes of dissenting opinions from other High Court judges, instances after instance in which the Court went beyond its duty.

I want - as all Americans want - an independent judiciary as proposed by the framers of the Constitution. That means a Supreme Court that will enforce the Constitution as written, that will refuse to amend the Constitution by the arbitrary exercise of judicial power - in other words by judicial say-so. It does not mean a judiciary so independent that it can deny the existence of facts which are universally recognized.

His proposal was that "hereafter when a Judge reaches the age of seventy, a new and younger Judge shall be added to the Court automatically."

Obama’s Impeachment: Mr. Jones and the War Powers Act 2/2

by Nomad

In the previous post in this series, we examined in detail the resolution put forward by Republican Congressman Walter B. Jones of North Carolina charging President Obama with impeachable acts for his handling of the incidents in Libya last year. For the most part, we have seen them to be specious and without any real foundation. As I mention at the close of that post, there still seemed to be something I was overlooking. We'll begin with a closer look at the law.

The War Powers Act as Written

source:

To understand more about the War Powers Act, we need to take a small step back in time. 

In an attempt to put in practice the lessons learned from the Vietnam War, in 1973 Congress established the War Powers Resolution (later called the War Powers Act) which attempted to limit the president’s ability to wage undeclared wars; more precisely to limit the president’s ability to conduct a protracted military engagement without the authorization of Congress.

The act also attempted to clarify the ambiguity on the Constitution which considers the president the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces while at the same time, gives Congress the power to declare war and to provide the funding.

Obama’s Impeachment: Mr. Jones and the War Powers Act 1/2

by Nomad

Republican  Congressman
Walter Jones of North Carolina

Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina recently sponsored a resolution (H.CON.RES.107) “expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, section 4 of the Constitution.” 

It would all too easy to write off Jones’ resolution as just another time-wasting exercise by a Congress that has already engaged in such foolishness as reciting the Constitution on the House floor. (If Vanity Fair’s calculations are accurate, that political stunt cost taxpayers a cool $1.1 million.) 

Or the embarrassing reaffirmation by Congress of the national motto “In God We trust” a resolution proposed by Rep. Randy Forbes, Republican from Virginia. (Only nine risked God’s wrath and the measure was passed 396-9, with 2 abstentions.) These are merely two examples from a list of proposals and resolutions. This kind of silliness might account for the fact that a New York Times poll in October of last year found that Congress' approval rating fell to an all-time low of 9 percent. The 112th Congress will undoubtedly go down in American political history as the most disliked.