For as long as I am here, I plan on posting some fun trivia/puzzles to begin the weekend.  I will start with an easy trivia question (and remember one of the best April Fool’s pranks) — what spelling error is on the Liberty Bell?

This week was a rare one for the Supreme Court as it heard two major cases having to do with international law.  As the week began, I was hopeful that the court might use one or both of these cases to resolve the questions around the doctrine of self-execution. Julien Ku at Opinio Juris noted the possibility at the beginning of the week, but thought it less likely.  After reading about the oral arguments in both these cases, it does seem unlikely – however Justice Kennedy’s speech at the ASIL convention seems to have engendered renewed hope. On a sidenote, SCOTUSblog has been great recently — just go there and scroll for several great analyses.

For those that don’t know, the doctrine in a (very simplistic) nutshell is that if the Senate as it ratifies a treaty declares it non self-executing, it is not enforceable by the judiciary as federal law.  Nonetheless, the United States is obligated to follow the treaty as international law.  My issue with this is that it seems, on its face, to violate the Supremacy Clause, whereby any valid treaty becomes the law of the land.  (for the extended counterargument, see John Yoo – 99 Colum. L. Rev. 2218)

I do not dispute this doctrine where to hold a treaty valid would interfere with the separation of powers (tariffs, appropriations, criminalization of behavior).  Nor do I want to argue now for treaties creating a private right of action.  But where a treaty does grant individual rights and a separate right of action exists – habeas or ATCA for example – isn’t the court required to uphold the treaty and interpret any prior statutes in light of the United States’ obligation under the treaty?  On this note, see the United States’ first report to the U.N. Human Rights Committee after ratifying the ICCPR but declaring it non self-executing, wherein we said, “The US does not believe it necessary to adopt implementing legislation when domestic law already makes adequate provision for the requirements of the treaty … The basic rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the CCPR … have long been protected as a matter of federal constitutional and statutory law.”

to a TV near you?

When I heard Baylor denied Francis Beckwith’s tenure, I went through shock, anger, and denial. I collected lots of angry posts from people and wrote some of my own. The spleen has been vented. No one did that in a more charged fashion than did First Things magazine, which is probably the most influential journal of religion, culture, politics, and law in the nation.

Now, I’m stepping back to take in the scene. There have been a lot of metaphorical explosions. Probably lots of heavy institutional politicking going on. Probably a good bit going on between regents and top officers of the administration. We still don’t know the reasons for Beckwith’s tenure being denied, particularly in light of his very strong publication record. However, he has formally appealed so knowledge of the reasons at least becomes possible. No one knows whether he will share them. We may never hear them if he succeeds in his appeal. Discretion would be the better part of valor for the man tapped on the shoulder and asked to return as he walks away from his office down the sidewalk of the green.

What is possible is that the situation is more complicated than it appears. Certainly, there are faculty members at Baylor who have resisted Beckwith for no better reason than that he is pro-life or that he has written searchingly about the status of intelligent design as a possible part of public school science curricula or that he is a darling of many in the conservative evangelical community. Others may view him as a threat. Baylor has proclaimed a move to the research model for faculty and he is definitely successful in that area. Still others don’t like him simply because the Robert Sloan administration thought he was a great new influence for an academic institute that traditionally leaned somewhat left. Add to the above that Beckwith was an advocate for the Baylor 2012 vision and Robert Sloan almost from the moment he arrived and you’ve got the makings of a marked man. It is quite likely that the faculty involved in tenure committee work reviewed his suitability for tenure in a less than objective manner.

If this is true and Beckwith’s application for tenure went to the President’s office freighted with a lot of subjective and unfair baggage, it is possible that a second look by the president’s office and by the provost will yield a different result. A second look may yield a more penetrating glance through an unhealthy fog of distortion. A second look may provide tenure to Francis Beckwith.

In that spirit, I’m removing the many posts I’ve written dealing with the Beckwith story and will adopt a wait and see attitude. The smoke may yet clear in Waco and we may be looking at spring again. Here’s praying for the best.

I’m genuinely puzzled about something.  Honestly.  In the dust-up about the rather intemperate anti-Neuhaus piece over at The New Republic, any number of folks on the Left (and Linker in his TNR piece does this as well) make a 1996 First Things Symposium entitled “the End of Democracy?” out to be this radical, awful thing.  I’ve skimmed back over the essays and I don’t get it.  Sure, I get thinking that they’re wrong, but the critiques are more fundamental than that.  It’s as if the FT folks were doing something un-American, as if the idea that a government, even one elected by “the people” and following established procedures, couldn’t stray so far from its moral foundations that it becomes illegitimate.  Why is that so crazy?  Isn’t that, um, the essential claim in the Declaration of Independence?

They done gone too far.  Whoever decided to excise “a wretch like me” and replace it with “that saved and set me free…” will surely spend an eternity debating the finer points of campaign finance law with, oh, let’s say E.J. Dionne.  Or perhaps we can come up with something better?

Ilya Somin’s post forces the question:  Is freedom really on the march, or just democracy? It is not democracy which guarantees freedom.  Indeed, some democracies regularly violate individual freedoms.  Instead, it is a shared commitment to the (liberal in the classical, capital L sense) ideals of individual self-determination and reason which is the best guarantor of human rights (and are also essential to a functioning liberal democracy).  What I am saying is that democracy and freedom are both effects of acceptance of the principle of autonomy, rather than the former causing the latter.

UPDATE:  I do not agree with Mr. Somin’s conclusion that the Bush administration has given this little attention.  My reason for posting is, as suggested in comments, a question of whether instilling this ideal of autonomy and an independent civil society is even possible with certain forms of Islam.

Did you know that Davidson had a speech code? I sure didn’t.  According to FIRE, you can’t say things like “honey” or “hunk” or “inquire about dating” or wear SDIFS t-shirts.  (Just kidding on that last one, but they do have dress codes).  Any Davidson readers out there?  Are the codes enforced?

Sharon Stone’s impenetrable wisdom on youth and sex:

“Young people talk to me about what to do if they’re being pressed for sex? I tell them (what I believe): or*l sex is a hundred times safer than vagin*l or an*l sex. “If you’re in a situation where you cannot get out of sex, offer a bl*w job. I’m not embarrassed to tell them.”

Me: Well you should be…

First off, what kind of situation are these kids supposed to be in where they can’t get out of sex? Isn’t that usually called rape? Second, anyone else find it weird that she only really addresses girls in her little spiel? Very unliberal of her, IMO (unless, of course, she’s somehow referring to gender-neutral “bl*wjobs,” or guys with vagin*s – sounds a little demoralizing if you ask me.)

Does it fail to register with people like Sharon Stone that they might be better off spending their time advocating the idea that young people keep themselves out of sexual situations in the first place? Not to beat a dead horse here, but do they really hate the idea of abstinence that much? What kind of message does this send to a 14 yr old boy wanting to whet his sexual appetite? Or in a world where 12 yr old girls increasingly find themselves pressured to offer some form of sex as a rite of passage, how are they expected to stand on such a crumbling foundation? My stomach’s turning right now. I’m not even a parent yet, and I’m already scared to death for my kids!

*Slightly edited by the fedster, who really, really, really doesn’t want SA being highly ranked in the Google index for, inter alia, ”bl*wjobs”

Today at 11, Justice Stevens will preside over oral argument in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld.  This is a case that I have been watching develop for over a year and has the potential to provide the final judgment on the legality of the military commissions to try those detained at GTMO.  For those interested, literally all of the documents relevant to the case are here.  Audio of oral argument should be available starting around 12:30pm (ht: SCOTUSblog).  I predict Scalia won’t recuse and a  5-3 decision overturning the circuit court, but Lyle Denniston has an interesting post playing out what a 4-4 split would mean.

I don’t believe that the commissions are legal.  Both IHL (the laws of war) and the UCMJ have changed drastically since we last used them.  According to Ex Parte Quirin and Article 21 of the UCMJ, military commissions can obtain jurisdiction over offenses and offenders either by statute or common law of war.  Here, the government is claiming authorization under the latter.  The problem is, however, that Article 85 of the Third Geneva Convention was added specifically to deny military commissions any jurisdiction over POWs for violations of the laws of war.  To deny that this applies because the detainees have violated the laws of war would be to find them guilty (of violating the laws of war) before any trial. Another interesting issue is whether conspiracy is part of the common law of war at all, although I think this argument can be overcome by citing Dynes v. Hoover and arguing conspiracy as a lesser included offense (though this is another close issue).  While the President is granted the authority to ‘prescribe’ the rules of evidence and procedure of both courts-martial and military commissions, he may do so only in a manner not inconsistent with the rest of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  The lack of a pretrial hearing, the limitations on right to counsel, the panel’s authority to judge questions of both law and fact, the evidentiary standard, the two-thirds requirement for guilty verdicts, and the lack or any formal review process are all violations of the current requirements of the UCMJ.  Stuart Taylor has an excellent extended editorial available for a week.

It’s the most wonderful time of the year….yes, almost time for opening day in baseball. My fantasy baseball team is geared up and ready for action. Apropos such, comes this interesting excerpt of the book “Fantasyland: A Season on Baseball’s Lunatic Fringe,” in Friday’s WSJ (link should/may work for nonsuscribers). I passed the link on to a couple of friends on Friday and one guy bought the book and is already half-way finished. Looks good, especially if you love baseball. The intro for the excerpt reads:

Baseball, more than any other sport, is a game of numbers. As more major-league teams turn to scientists and mathematicians to help evaluate ballplayers, this notion has never been more fashionable.

But are algorithms and computer models really better than observation and gut instinct?

During the 2004 season, our sports columnist, Sam Walker, went on a 10-month baseball pilgrimage to seek an answer. He embedded himself in dugouts and clubhouses and interviewed hundreds of ballplayers, scouts and executives. His goal: To use this knowledge to outwit some of baseball’s most talented analysts in the world’s toughest fantasy-baseball league.

Good stuff.

The Senate Judiciary Committee has proffered a broad immigration bill that will now head to the full Senate. I’ll not comment on the details, but it’s going to be an interesting coming debate.

After an enjoyable spring break, including a trip to lovely Charleston (although the weather was not such that it reminded one of spring), I came across this excellent interview with Thomas Sowell in the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal.  Be sure to check it out.

to Feddie and all the folks at Southern Appeal for inviting me aboard, it is an honor.  While I have chosen to blog anonymously (and would ask anyone with inklings to respect that), I will offer a little by way of introduction.  I am finishing up my first year at a leading law school.  Outside of reading far too much law, I am a history and philosophy dork.  Politically, I tend to fall in the libertarian/federalist camp albeit with some significant differences. 

A brief introduction is also merited for my name.  It is the female form for the family name of both Catos.  The frequent use of Cato in history and politics, as well as the possibility of honoring a lesser known female Cato, made me turn to the nomen gentile.  This family was famously dedicated to moderation, liberty, and republican virtue; Cato the Younger lived out Patrick Henry’s famous words by committing suicide rather than submitting to Caesar as emperor.  While I share most of their principles, I can only hope for the strength to live up to all of mine as they did their own.

Or ti piaccia gradir la sua venuta libertà va cercando, ch’è sì cara, come sa chi per lei vita rifiuta.  (Purgatorio 01.072-5) 

The Department of the Interior made it official this morning.  There’s currently a photo of Secretary Norton and Priscilla on the DOI homepage.  The AP story on the Commerical Appeal’s website is here. 

Thankyouverymuch.

Everyone needs to read this Article by Heather McDonald about the Mexican Government’s concerted efforts to interfere with U.S. border control.  We simply can’t ignore this any longer.  Hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

Congrats to my Florida Gators and the Tigers of LSU for storming their way into the 2006 Final Four. Florida will face this year’s Cinderella, George Mason, in the early game Saturday. LSU will tackle the UCLA Bruins in the late game.

(3) Florida v. (11) GMU
Despite GMU’s miracle run, I think it’s midnight for the princess when Florida’s depth, defense, and up-tempo game begin to wear on a GMU team with no bench scoring to speak of. Florida wins a game very similar to the Villanova game, 73-62.

(2) UCLA v. (4) LSU
UCLA is playing very high-energy basketball right now. They refused to give up against a Gonzaga team that had them dead in the water and overwhelmed a perhaps overrated but scrappy Memphis squad. LSU has been slugging it out on the way to the Final Four, and Big Baby Glen Davis is finally living up to his baby-Shaq billing. Florida plays a game very similar to UCLA, and Florida beat LSU twice this season. I hope LSU wins, but I suspect UCLA might be a touch too fast for the Tigers. Geaux Tigers, but I think the Bruins win 77-76.

Here’s hoping for an all-SEC final!

With its overtime win against UConn, the George Mason Patriots are heading to the Final Four, the first No. 11-seed to do so since LSU’s trip in 1986.

To mark the occasion, NRO has posted John Miller’s recent profile of Mason’s fine law school, here.

J. R. Dunn (former editor of the International Military Encyclopedia) has an outstanding 3 part piece at The American Thinker regarding the future of our war on terror. Since it relates to my last post on eroded resolve to combat terror, I share this portion….

Letting Down our Guard

It’s necessary to point out – it never seems to arise in public debate – that the U.S. has been safe for the past five years solely because of active security efforts. There is no other reason – not laziness on the part of the Jihadis, not the bravery of New York Times reporters, not the guardianship of the UN. American efforts have been successful both overseas in disrupting Jihadi plans at the source (it’s difficult to put a bomb together when you’re being chased by a Predator drone) and here in the United States. Some of the stories – the Lackawanna, Portland, and Lodi cells, “dirty bomber” Jose Padilla, and the Republican convention bombers, are known to the public, and some of us have seen things that strongly suggest that others have been picked up in secret. Jihadi groups in the U.S. have either been broken up, forced underground, or have fled the country completely.

Yet at the same time, every security program introduced during the period was greeted with protest in the media, in Congress, and among the intelligentsia. That includes TIA (Total Information Awareness), the ADVISE program that replaced it (Analysis, Visualization, Insight, and Semantic Enhancement), Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay, the international rendition of dangerous prisoners, the CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System), the Secure Flight system that followed, the NSA phone tapping program, and the national radiation monitoring program.

All of these, no matter what their nature or targets, were attacked as threats to civil liberties from an out-of-control administration.

……a docudrama by Michael Winterbottom premiered this year in Berlin and it’s on its way to a theater near you. He focuses on three British chuckleheads (Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasu) who get scooped up in 2001 by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and subsequently released in 2004. Dubbed the “Tipton Three” (that’s left-speak, I guess, sort of like the “Chicago Seven”) it’s their tale of mistreatment and a protracted detention at Gitmo. This U.S. film release comes on the heels of much public criticism of the media for suppressing positive stories in the war on terror. Winterbottom’s stated purpose of this film is to shut down Gitmo. OK, what then? We throw open the gates, write letters of apology to the inmates and give them lovely parting gifts? I am against torture and believe those in our custody should be treated with dignity. But, taking such isolated incidents and using them to shape world opinion against our conduct of the war is bizarre. It’s just another vial of acid poured on American resolve to face the challenge of Islamofascism. I cannot imagine how this would have played with my dad’s WWII generation. Well, I suppose I can.

In stark contrast to Winterbottom’s propaganda, I prefer to heed the counsel of Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Jay Hood who said in this recent NPR interview…

“There are a group of men here who are extremely well-educated, very familiar with the West… and many of them have looked us in the eyeball and said, ‘When I get out of here, I’m going to kill you.’”

Go see this Anthony Hopkins movie, based on the true story of motorcycle speedster Burt Munro.  Well worth your money.

The singer and host of Hee Haw (1969-86) died today in Bakersfield, California, age 76. Sing 365 has a big page of Owens’ lyrics, here.  His bio at the Country Music Hall of Fame is here.

…right here.

Go ahead, wander over to Frank Beckwith’s homepage. Look at all the articles he’s written, the books he’s published. I was in academia as a graduate student in a couple of our nation’s top schools for seven years and will be starting in the fall as an assistant professor in political science at a top-50 university. The idea that Baylor has denied Frank tenure is, simply put, an outrage. He has a publication record that would easily get him tenure everywhere except perhaps places like Harvard, Princeton and the like (where the tenure rate is something like one in a gazillion). Baylor should be ashamed of itself and young scholars and graduate students whose views lie outside the mainstream of academics should not think that Baylor represents a place where they can be open about their views and do their work honestly.

I have watched Baylor pretty closely over the past few years, and have thought that its Baylor 2012 program (where it was attempting to revitalize its Christian identity) made it a very attractive place to go. It even made the prospect of living in Waco palatable. No more.

Shame, shame.

  According to this story the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is sending undercover officers into bars to look for drunken patrons.  Furthermore, it doesn’t matter if you have a designated driver; just being drunk is enough to earn you a $500 fine and at least 12 hours in jail.
I don’t advocate getting drunk.  Over indulging in alcohol is not advisable for many reasons, not the least of which is because it is a sin.  That said, it sometimes happens, sort of like over eating.  However, if you want to alter your mental state with the legal substance of alcohol where else are you going to do it if not in your favorite watering hole?
It strikes me as a bit excessive on the part of Texas officials to go undercover in bars looking to bust some good ole boy or gal for having enjoyed themselves a little too much.  For crying out loud, Texas is going to put a real crimp in one of country music’s favorite themes.  I would think there are more serious crimes to dedicate scarce resources to than over indulging in a bar.

I think the good people of Texas need to remember one of John Wayne’s more memorable lines from the great movie The Alamo:

“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose. Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat – the same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step or his first baby shaves and makes his first sound as a man. Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.”

The link on Drudge caught my eye this morning……Albright:  There’s no axis of evil;  Good versus evil isn’t a strategy. 

No, Madeleine, it’s not a strategy but it sure as hell helps for us to discern the difference.  Doing so gives us the moral clarity to take a stand against tyrants, terrorists and criminals.  Albright’s relativistic and nuanced worldview, like that of Europe, paralyzes nations and invites destruction. 

So, go ahead…..visualize whirled peas.

Matt Tapie is the very definition of the man contending earnestly for the faith. He writes about the city of God and the city of man on a new blog that has already been noticed by Hugh Hewitt and The Evangelical Outpost.

I bring him up today because he has a particularly good post about how Christians should react to Brokeback Mountain. Is it boycott time?!!! Not according to Matt. He has a different view of things:

First of all, we must not confront culture using its rules of engagement. In our culture, much of politics has become a debased game of power plays. There is no longer agreement about the possibility of a “good” society, so there exists only grabs for power. The question has ceased to be about how to make society “good” and has now become “Who has the power to define society?” Because of this, we are tempted to appeal to polls and what the “American people” think to advance our positions. Christian cultural engagement is frequently associated with activism, boycotts, protests, and mass emails. Our engagement must rise above these “majority rules” methods. If our primary means of engaging culture consists of boycotting Target because they use the term “holiday tree,” or boycotting a movie because it does not line up with the Christian worldview, I believe we are in grave danger. We are in danger of being seduced by power politics and distracted from the mission of God in the world. Our obligation to live as the salt and light of the earth has been reduced to a lobbying effort, and Christ is not a lobbyist–he is the Son of God and Savior of the world.

I think I’m going to end up disagreeing with Matt on this one. Last time I saw a movie for reasons of cultural engagement was The Last Temptation of Christ. I’ll never have that two hours of my life back. I’m going to bow out for aesthetic reasons rather than any sort of political protest. I like my cowboys minimally interested in women, but only because they’re too busy driving a herd under desperate conditions or because some cold-blooded murderers are on the loose. Pencil me in for another viewing of Tombstone.

Matt’s got the right idea, though.

Newly released pre-war documents reveal that the connection between Saddam and Bin Laden were more substantial than many previously thought.  One of the interesting tid bits in the document is that Saddam agreed to broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher and mentor of Bin Laden, over Iraqi radio.  I guess this throws a wrench into the theory that a so-called secularist like Saddam would never work with a radical Islamist like Bin Laden.  Read the article here.  Hat tip to the Corner. 

When I was in high school, it was muy uncool to like comic books. I still remember hanging out at Albertson’s grocery store before or after a shift reading comics on the rack. One of the “cool” guys with the fab preppie name of Jonathan John walked by with his girlfriend and sarcastically inquired about the fortunes of Archie and Jughead. I didn’t bother to say I was busy reading Crisis on Infinite Earths. Besides, I kinda like Archie and Jughead, too.

Given my background, one might not be surprised to know that I’ve read the original comic version of V for Vendetta, which is now a film in theatres. I didn’t like the comic that much, largely because it imagines a post-nuclear scenario in which a group of men who are basically skinheads in suits and with better haircuts have taken control of the government of England. The message is typical left-wing fantasy: Conservatives are waiting to really unveil their true colors and start liquidating anyone of African descent, artists, gays, and fashion designers. Oh, and they’ll also have a concentration camp because it fits their brutal aesthetic.

I haven’t seen the film, though I probably will at some point, but hearing from a friend and reading the review by Peter Suderman at NRO indicates it may be worse than I thought. Same ugly message about conservatives, but instead of a post-nuclear scenario the conservatives have taken over post-extensive terror war operations. Thus, the conservative dystopia is updated to take in George W. Bush. How enchanting.

After some thought, I’ve concluded this genre is Left Behind for secularist lefties, except Lennon-like there’s no heaven after the “good” guys win. But I’ll tell you what, there’ll be free porn for EVERYBODY!

The WSJ has it mostly right here: the continuing horrors of Sudan do show what happens without some kind of leadership – and in today’s world, that means US leadership.  But maybe that’s just because I’m a neocon, American imperialist…