Retarded state legislation: Connecticut and Mississippi Double Edition

Here's a church/state double whammy for you today! Let's start with Connecticut, where it's as cold as a witch's...trial. What did you think I was going to say?

In the Connecticut State Senate, Democrat Paul Doyle has proposed legislation every year recognizing the "victims of the witch trials of colonial Connecticut." (Gee I wonder why it has to be reintroduced every year?) Yes apparently, there were witch trials in parts of America that Arthur Miller never dramatized. And they caused innocent people to be harmed, and the state wants to (somehow) rectify that fact a mere 300 years later.

According to the resolution: "Although these accusations, prosecutions, trials and executions cannot be undone or changed, no disgrace or cause for distress should attach to the heirs of those persons."

Distress? I doubt ANYONE knows their genealogy well enough to feel distress at what happened to their ancestors. And even if there was distress, what the hell good would this steaming turd of a resolution do? I don't really understand why I'm so steamed about this resolution - maybe I am descended from witches!

Let's move South to where the air is warmer and the legislators even dumber (at least some of them). Rep. Gary Chism (R-Shocker) has introduced a bill that would require a disclaimer be placed in school textbooks about evolution. The warning reads in part:

This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life’s origins should be considered a theory.

This is pretty sad - this public official has so little understanding of how science works that thinks that scientists can only make conclusions based events they personally witnessed. Think of the implications! If it snows today in Chicago, and I fly to Chicago tomorrow, I can’t conclude that it snowed in Chicago the day before because I wasn’t there to see the snow fall.

If we take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, no one was present when God created the universe, so any statement in the book of Genesis “should be considered a theory.”

The disclaimer notes: "the word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles."

I would also like to point out that the word legislator has many meanings, including: pinhead, theocrat, and demagogue.

Mississippi could become the second state to print a textbook disclaimer on evolution - I suppose they want to “keep up with the Joneses” over in Alabama.

Is Barack Obama the first black president?

According to one law professor, the answer may be no...

Ken Katkin of the Salmon P. Chase School of Law at Northern Kentucky University tells the Washington City Paper that for one minute, Condoleeza Rice was acting president. Here's a sketch of his argument:

(1) The 20th Amendment provides that “[t]he terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January. . . . ”

(2) Art II., Sec. 1 Cl. 8 provides that “[b]efore he enter on the Execution of his Office, [The President] shall take the following oath. . . ”

(3) President Obama did not take the Oath of Office until about 12:03 pm today, after Vice President Biden took it at about 12:01 p.m. (Yo Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman were still fiddling at noon).

(4) Therefore, there was a brief window (just after noon) when George Bush and Dick Cheney were no longer President and Vice President, but Barack Obama and Joe Biden also were not yet qualified to enter on the Execution of their offices.

(5) The Presidential Succession Act, 3 U.S.C. sec. 19(a)(1), provides: “If, by reason of . . . failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.” Section 19(b) states that the President Pro Tempore of the Senate shall act as President (under the same terms and conditions) if the Speaker of the House fails to qualify.

(6) Neither Nancy Pelosi nor Robert Byrd actually resigned their seats in the Congress. Thus, neither of them qualified to become Acting President under the Presidential Succession Act. Plus, interbranch appointments might be unconstitutional anyhow. See Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar, Is the Presidential Succession Law Constitutional?, 48 Stan. L. Rev. 113 (1995); but see Howard Wasserman, Structural Principles and Presidential Succession, 90 Ky. L.J. 345
(2002).
...
(9) The term of office of the Secretary of State does not automatically terminate at noon on the 20th day of January.

(10) On January 20, 2009, Condoleeza Rice was (and is) still the Secretary of State.

(11) Accordingly, from 12:00 noon until 12:01 p.m. (when Vice President Biden took the oath of office and became Vice President), Condoleeza Rice was momentarily the Acting President of the United States, our first African-American President.

I don't think he'sright, but it's the type of question that causes con law geeks to toss and turn at night. What do you think?

MLK 4TW!

My one little bit of seriousness about the inauguration. Check out this 1964 interview with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in which he predicts the election of an African American president in 25 years or less.

OK, I promise that tomorrow I will bring back the funny. Or at least make an attempt.

Dusting off the old blawg...

Sorry for the lapse in posting. Those of you who know me in real life understand why blogging has been on the back burner lately. But hopefully this is the first of many (regular) posts to come.

Q. How many former editors of the Harvard Law Review does it take to administer the presidential oath of office?

A. More than two.

It appears as though 1.8 million people yesterday did not actually see Obama get sworn in. Oops! From today's Washington Post:

The presidential oath of office is required of a new president before he can execute his powers, and the Constitution is clear that its 35 words must be spoken exactly.

Which is what makes the oath President Obama took yesterday so interesting. It might be that the more than 1 million spectators didn't actually witness Obama being sworn in.

Because of a noticeable gaffe by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Obama transposed the words. He should have said he will "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" but instead said he will "execute the Office of President of the United States faithfully."

Constitutional law experts agree that the flub is insignificant. Yet two previous presidents -- Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur -- repeated the oath privately because of similar issues.

Lawyers said Obama and his supporters need not be worried about the legitimacy of his presidency, but they also said a do-over couldn't hurt. Charles Cooper, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel under President Ronald Reagan, said that the oath is mandatory, that an incorrect recitation should be fixed and that he would be surprised if the oath had not already been re-administered.

God damned Republicans, is there nothing you can get right?!?