Fort Bethesda - $54,350
Found under the categories "Pint-Sized Fun - Luxury Playhouses" at PoshTots, "The Most Extraordinary Children's Furnishings in the World."

I conclude there are enough extremely rich, insane people in this country that this is a viable business.

(Via Yglesias.) posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:27:00 AM -- |    

 
Garrett Park, Maryland SLAPPed -- then stifles itself
The term SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") is used to describe a lawsuit "involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance," and more generally suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue.

Though it hasn't reached actual litigation yet -- and perhaps never will -- something very much like that has happened to Garrett Park, Maryland impeachment advocates and their city government.

The story begins on September 10th, when the Garrett Park city council first considered passing a resolution supporting impeachment. Nine citizens of the small (pop. 917 in 2000) town testified for it, one suggested a referendum. For whatever reason, the latter suggestion prevailed in a 3-2 vote.

Or so it seemed. A legal firm representing two Garrett Park residents unhappy with the vote claimed in a September 27 letter that the Garrett Park council could not call for such a referendum, under state law and the town charter, since there was no ordinance for the referendum to refer to:

Pursuant to the Annotated Code of Maryland, Art. 23A, the powers of a municipal corporation such as Garrett Park are limited to those powers specifically enumerated in Section 2 of Article 23A. The power to vote a referendum is not among those powers, because, among other reasons, under the Constitution of Maryland, Art XVI, the referendum is reserved solely to the people. In order to exercise the power of referendum, either for the purpose of amending the municipal charter (Ann Code of Maryland, Art. 23A, Section 13) or for submitting an ordinance of the Town Council for the approval or disapproval of the qualified voters of the town (Garrett Park Charter, Section 78-15), a petition of not less than twenty percent of the qualified voters of the town is required. It is our understanding that you do not have before you a petition of at least 20% of the qualified voters on this matter, and even if you did, the question of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Chaney (sic) is neither an ordinance of the Town Council nor a proposed charter amendment, so submitting the matter to referendum is improper. Lastly, because the Town Council, as a legislative body, lacks the power of referendum, the vote on September 10, 2007 to refer the matter to referendum was also improper.

(Links added.) The mayor and town council hastily agreed -- having established meanwhile that the proper sequence of votes on the various motions of the evening had not occurred, so that the referendum vote itself was procedurally out of order. (Parliamentarians can peruse the mayor and town council's explanatory letter of October 2, and a local "e-Bugle" newsletter covering the meeting, to check whether I -- and the elected leaders of Garrett Park -- have this part of the story right.) From the council's letter:

Further research after the September meeting has led the Council to understand that it does not have the authority to call for a referendum on the issue of impeachment of the President and Vice President. Under state law and the Town Charter, referendums may only be held for Charter amendments or approval or disapproval of ordinances of the Town based on petitions with the signature of 20% of the registered voters of the town.

Notice so far that even if both the legal firm and the town fathers are absolutely right about all of the above, they are saying a very limited thing at this point: for lack of (1) a relevant ordinance or Charter amendment and (2) signatures from 20% of Garrett Park, a referendum can not be called by the Garrett Park town council. As will be seen below, it is not clear that everyone is absolutely right even about that -- but the story takes a far more disturbing turn at this point.

At their October 8th town council meeting, far from revisiting the impeachment issue as promised in their October 2 letter, the city's elected leaders "declined, on advice of counsel, to take any further action on the impeachment resolution that had been acted upon inconclusively at the Council’s previous meeting. The Council members and the Mayor had been advised by the town attorney, it was announced, that any further action or, indeed, any further public discussion of the matter within or beyond the Council chamber, would make them collectively and individually liable for legal damages."*

This seems clearly and perniciously wrong to me, simply as a matter of common sense -- but also as a matter of a look (admittedly untrained) at the statutes involved. Maryland's Article 23A, Section 2:

(a) "General Authority": Municipalities can "pass such ordinances not contrary to the Constitution of Maryland, public general law, or, except as provided in § 2B of this article, public local law as they may deem necessary in order to assure the good government of the municipality, to protect and preserve the municipality's rights, property, and privileges,..."

(b) "Express Powers": municipalities can pass ordinances...

(2) To expend municipal funds for any purpose deemed to be public and to affect the safety, health, and general welfare of the municipality and its occupants, [...]
(7) To provide, maintain and operate such community and social services for the preservation and promotion of the health, recreation, welfare and enlightenment of the inhabitants of the municipality as the legislative body may determine. [...]
(29) To provide for special elections for municipal purposes at such times and places as may be determined, and subject to the provisions of the charter of said municipality.

Garrett Park Charter, Section 78-17 (Powers of Council enumerated):

(1) the council shall have the power to pass all such ordinances not contrary to the Constitution or the laws of the State of Maryland or this charter as it may deem necessary for ... the protection and preservation of the town's property, rights, and privileges... and for the promotion of the ... welfare ... of the residents ... in the town. [...]
(15) Cooperative activities. To make agreements with other... governmental authorities for cooperation in the performance of any governmental activities [...]
(56) Saving clause. The enumeration of powers in this section is not to be construed as limiting the powers of the town to the several subjects mentioned.

It seems clear enough from the above that a resolution recommending impeachment, and forwarding that recommendation to the Maryland congressional delegation, is well within the prerogatives of the Garrett Park town council.

What's more, it's seems quite arguable that from Maryland's point of view at least, the Garrett Park council can call a referendum -- or "special election for municipal purposes", if you will -- on whether to hold a "Bologna Sandwich Day" or a "Ham Sandwich Day," should that seem to promote the welfare of town residents. (I imagine the 20% signature quota may be a valid hurdle under Garrett Park's own charter; given that 104 were already collected, they can't be far shy of the mark if the total population is around 1,000.)

Moreover, should these enumerated, express powers fail to to be enough under state law, it simply cannot be true that the State of Maryland can limit the power of the people to seek redress of grievances under their First Amendment rights through their elected officials.

This may seem like a tempest in a teapot to people outside Maryland, or even outside Garrett Park. While I reiterate that I'm no lawyer, I suspect that this is important -- even as I hope that I'm making too much of it. At minimum, the residents of a town have arguably been silenced by one lawyer, two clients, and one somewhat timorous city leadership and attorney. But that has also brought into question their fellow citizens' rights to have grassroots efforts like Takoma Park's successful impeachment resolution -- or Garrett Park's abortive one -- considered and acted on.


=====
* Personal e-mail communication from a Garrett Park resident who attended the meeting. Emphasis added.
NOTES: lawyer letter via AfterDowningStreet.com. I'm not sure the 10th amendment argument there applies, since that amendment reserves unenumerated powers to the people or the States. posted by Thomas Nephew at 6:45:00 PM -- |    

 
Despicable Washington Post editorial against Armenian Genocide Resolution
With its opening paragraph and chosen title of "Worse than Irrelevant," The Washington Post's editorial board leaves little doubt where it stands on H.Res.106, the Armenian Genocide resolution:

IT'S EASY to dismiss a nonbinding congressional resolution accusing Turkey of "genocide" against Armenians during World War I as frivolous. Though the subject is a serious one -- more than 1 million Armenians may have died at the hands of the Young Turk regime between 1915 and the early 1920s -- House Democrats pushing for a declaration on the subject have petty and parochial interests.

Beyond the despicable slap of putting the word "genocide" in quotes, the belittling "may have," the dismissal of representatives as "petty and parochial," and the concern as "irrelevant," the editorial mistakenly implies only Democrats support the bill, calls the findings of H.Res.106 "one sided" -- and concludes that "frivolous" doesn't go far enough. Given alleged glacial progress in Turkish-Armenian relations, but far more importantly the possible negative effect on Turkish cooperation with U.S. in Iraq, "its passage would be dangerous and grossly irresponsible."

Wow. That's one powerful nonbinding resolution. It gets the Washington Post to oppose the democratic sense of the American people -- a majority of the House of Representatives has co-sponsored the bill -- on behalf of a foreign country still ruled in large part by its generals. It gets the Washington Post to defend and promulgate genocide revisionism, on behalf of unreconstructed apologists for the opening act in the 20th century's parade of horrors. It gets the Washington Post to marginalize one group of "hyphenated Americans" in a way it wouldn't dare for any other: imagine similar invective against the Holocaust Museum, or a resolution condemning slavery. It gets the Post to make sloppy claims -- there is no "large Armenian population" in Pelosi's district that accounts for her support.

What's at stake for the Post? "Charitably," it's the conduct of their precious war in Iraq. Angering Turkey might cost the US the use of air bases and complicate efforts to keep a lid on the ever-present Turkish-Kurdish conflict. But it's hard to believe a nonbinding resolution will cause hard-headed Turkish generals and politicians to do anything other than what they believe is in their own interests anyway.

So perhaps we should be less charitable and look elsewhere. At the end of the related news story "White House, Turkey fight bill on Armenia" -- on page A1! -- Glenn Kessler writes, "The Turkish Embassy is paying $100,000 a month to lobbying firm DLA Piper and $105,000 a month to the Livingston Group, and it recently added communications specialists Fleishman-Hillard for nearly $114,000 a month, according to records filed with the Justice Department." Looks like they got their money's worth today -- at least from the Washington Post.

The House Foreign Affairs committee has scheduled a vote on H.Res.106 for today, with the hearing beginning at 1:30pm; live video of the proceedings can be accessed at the committee's web site. I hope Rep. Schiff and multitudes of Armenian-Americans are on hand -- with middle finger salutes to the Washington Post.


=====
SELECTED PRIOR POSTS on H.Res 106 and the Armenian Genocide:
2007/03/07: pander n.: "When [Rep. Schiff] proposes a legitimate goal of people in his district to the Congress of the United States, then in our "democracy" that's not a bug, that's a feature."
2007/03/05: Re Jackson Diehl's "The House's Ottoman Agenda"
2005/04/24: 90 years ago: Armenian genocide begins

UPDATE, 10/11: Huzza! -the resolution was passed in committee by 27-21, and thus advances to the full House for consideration. A roll call and video of the debate can be found at the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) web site press release. posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:30:00 PM -- |    

 
Next stupid wingnut trick: phony 12 year olds
Right Wing Launches Baseless Smear Campaign Against 12 Year Old Recipient Of SCHIP
(Think Progress)

I despise these people. John Cole ("Balloon Juice")-- who doesn't even support SCHIP, by the way -- notes that Michelle Malkin actually did a little drive-by investigation to dress up her baseless claim that the Frosts are too rich to deserve CHIP support. The state of Maryland disagrees, but why let that get in the way of a nice little Swift Boating.

eRobin ("fact-esque") does support SCHIP, and backs it up with background and arguments here. You'll learn something, e.g. why allegedly shocking "crowdout" numbers are misleading (they include families predicted to cycle back from uninsured to privately insured status at some point within several months -- not a very useful measure if you're concerned with uninsured people who need health insurance right now.) Excerpts from eRobin's "why you should care despite numbers fatigue" part:

Your soul should stir when you realize that this SCHIP fight is the most naked and aggressive salvo in the American Class War that we've ever seen. [...]

...this fight to overturn BushCo's veto of a compromise bill that helps the poor and middle class is at least as important as the fight to stop the dismantling of Social Security. That's true not only because of the number of families the compromise SCHIP bill will help but also because the right is so willing to pin a lot of their Class War hopes on it.

OK; I'm sold. I was anyway, now I really am. I just wish this didn't seem to be the entire Pelosi agenda -- a heavily compromised, incremental program that still may not survive a Bush veto, yet so crucial that it apparently justified taking the Constitution and the Fourth Amendment off the table. Think carrot dangled before a starving donkey -- as rider and beast head off a cliff.

But SCHIP is a good thing -- a good carrot, for a hungry donkey -- and it deserves support. If you can't tell any other way, you can tell by the quality of opposition like Malkin, Steyn, Reynolds, et al. No doubt Rush Limbaugh, too, soon enough ... bing.


=====
NOTES: "apparently justified": Pelosi's remarks at a "Maria Leavey Breakfast" series event in late July. See Pelosi's response to a question about bill for Alberto Gonzales' impeachment -- she put her hands to her temples, the poor thing -- and other comments about the allegedly hard line Democrats were going to take about encroachments on FISA by the Bush administration. Harold Meyerson was pleased, though, so it must have been all right. Via "Pelosi's Choice," this blog.
UPDATE, EDIT, 10/9: parenthetical rewritten ("within several months", "not a very useful measure" added) for clarity, "bing" for the oxycontin addict smear artist weighing in.
UPDATE, 10/10: See also hilzoy ("Obsidian Wings") and AJStrata ("Stratasphere"); the former takes apart the smear, the latter reflects on what those smears -- and later on, whines about pushback -- say about Malkin et al.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 2:34:00 AM -- |    

 
Takoma Voice impeachment op-ed piece
Our community's monthly newspaper -- the Takoma/Silver Spring Voice -- has published "Local activists meet with Van Hollen, urge impeachment of President," a piece I wrote that builds on the "A town hall meeting on Capitol Hill" blog post here a couple of weeks ago. The piece combines a report about the basics of that meeting with commentary taking issue with some of Representative Van Hollen's statements then -- principally, that Congressional oversight was already sufficient, and that failed impeachment was worse than no impeachment. Excerpts:

Congressional “oversight” has amounted to political theater: stern talk and cheap subpoenas the White House refuses to honor. There have been departures from the administration – but those don’t change its underlying lawlessness and deceit.

Meanwhile, which is worse for the rule of law: a prosecutor who falls short of convicting criminal gang members with buddies in the jury -- or one who gives up in advance and refuses to bring cases to trial? Let the American people see the charges argued; let them see who defends Bush – and who defends the Constitution.

...Van Hollen's deepest obligation isn't to Speaker Pelosi, the DCCC, or the Democratic Party; it isn’t even to pass good legislation or end the Iraq war. It is in his oath of office: “to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies.” Impeachment can’t be swept “off the table” on a political whim; it’s a fundamental obligation when we face constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government or undermine the Constitution itself.

If Congress doesn’t impeach a President who lied about war, approved torture, and conducted illegal warrantless surveillance, it will become an accomplice to its own irrelevance. It will assist the stealthy revision of our Constitution to one beyond recognition, meaning merely whatever a President says it means. And it will reduce our best means of opposing that – impeachment – to a dead letter, used only to sanction narrow infractions rather than systematic lawlessness.

I was pleased to see that the "If Congress doesn't impeach... it will become an accomplice to its own irrelevance" sentence was pull-quoted in its own box, making it hard to miss in Longworth House Office Building -- assuming Van Hollen's office gets a copy.

I thank Takoma Voice publisher and editor-in-chief Eric Bond for publishing the piece -- including Van Hollen's phone number, brief talking points for a phone call, and the final line "The Constitution you save may be your own."

The Voice typically lags with online publication of its paper issue by a week or so; once available, the "Local activists" title above will link to the online article. Meanwhile, here is the Voice's past coverage of impeachment advocacy in Takoma Park:

• Takoma Park throws its weight behind impeachment of Cheney and Bush
• Q: What do you think about impeachment?

=====
EDITS, 10/9: added Voice links at end, and no need to assume our voice is heard at Longworth - it was.
posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:52:00 PM -- |    

 
The Constitution for Children
As ever, Maddie (9) has been paying attention to things. Earlier this year she composed a letter to Bush with the closing "It is not with pleasure that I end this letter to you, George Bush." Here's her latest -- quite without prompting from me beforehand (or any silly editing or revising afterwards). The title is hers.

We, the children of the United States of America, declare our say in President George Bush’s ways and actions. I hereby state that we will declare what most of us feel of the environment that the President has laid out for us. In other words, our own future.

I—and many others, think that what George Bush is doing is wrong. Oh, not just for the bloody answer he has concluded upon in Iraq, oh, not just his vetoe of many bills that should have been passed, but may I ask one thing—does he ever think of what he is doing to families, once whole, but now almost empty? Did he ever stop to think of the poor people out there suffering, for there is no health care to speak of? Oh, and with the war…it is clear that he is ruining their lives, when he could have put a stop to it all, and saved them? And finally, he is unaware of this though—by doing these awful things, he himself—G.W. B., is ruining our future? Did he ever, ever, ever, in a lifetime, stop to think on what he was doing?

Oh, no. I can answer that one for you. Child health care doesn’t matter, if it’s too expensive because we’re spending all the tax money on the Iraqi war. And boy, torturing…that’s easy. Just grab a person involved in something you dislike and torture him or her for information! Those people in Iraq…oh, they aren’t suffering that bad!

This “President” we have is more of a pea-brained slug than of anything else. (No offense to slugs…) I appreciate what my own dad is doing to stop this mess which America has found itself entangled in. In other words, he is trying to impeach George W. Bush, and that is best after all this horrible stuff that we have entered in the past seven years. With your support, and that of many others, we can throw off this “President”. To show the following Presidents that they don’t have the power to do this.

We need your help.

Thank you, Maddie. Yes, we do. posted by Thomas Nephew at 9:58:00 PM -- |