Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's an absolutely repulsive story.
California State University East Bay has fired a math teacher after six weeks on the job because she inserted the word "nonviolently" in her state-required Oath of Allegiance form.Marianne Kearney-Brown, a Quaker and graduate student who began teaching remedial math to undergrads Jan. 7, lost her $700-a-month part-time job after refusing to sign an 87-word Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution that the state requires of elected officials and public employees.
First of all, the whole notion of loyalty oaths makes my skin crawl and if it doesn't yours then perhaps you need to rethink things. Especially for a teacher, for crying out loud. But even worse is the university's blind and unthinking response:
Modifying the oath "is very clearly not permissible," the university's attorney, Eunice Chan, said, citing various laws. "It's an unfortunate situation. If she'd just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment."
Ah, the mind of a bureaucratic automaton. Pure stupidity. We can only hope that the courts will intervene and overrule such idiocy.
Comments
I had to sign one of these years ago when I was a grad student in the Cal State system. I looked at it for a couple of days deciding if I could or should sign it. I came very close to not doing so, but ultimately did because, I rationalized, the oath was ambiguous enough that I could interpret it in ways that I could agree with. But Ed is right, the very notion of loyalty oaths is repugnant. I would think court decisions on religious liberty and symbolism might apply here, but she'd have to press it. While I hope she does, its tough to be a--now unemployed--grad student and also be a movement symbol.
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | March 3, 2008 9:58 AM
I'm with you, demanding an Oath of Allegiance just creepy, especially as a condition of employment. What's the point of demanding that teachers swear to defend the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? What's more, the oath says that you take it freely, without mental reservation. Section 3108 of the California Government Code makes signing the statement while you have such reservations an act of perjury, punishable by fine and imprisonment!
Demanding such an oath is antithetical to the principles of liberty, free speech, and free thought. So, in my view requiring such an oath would go against both the state and U.S. constitutions. Paradoxically, and with the perjury issue aside, if I ever did sign such an oath, I would then be compelled to campaign against it.
I think a man by the name of Jimmer Endres says it well:
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 10:06 AM
Why is there a requirement in some jobs to sign an oath like this ?
Posted by: John Doe | March 3, 2008 10:22 AM
"If she'd just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment."
Yeah, and if they'd just overlooked the one-word insertion, there wouldn't have been a problem.
The administration should have recognizd that this teacher adding any sort of modifier indicates that she takes the oath seriously -- as opposed to the rest of the lot, who probably just sign the piece of paper as a requirement for the job, right along with the I-9 and W-4 and insurance elections and yada yada yada...
Of course, requiring an adult to sign such a form is totally redundant and useless: your loyalty is directly implied by the mere act of working within the system and benefiting from it. Like all the rest of us, this teacher was already bound to obey the laws of her country and fulfill all of the obligations conferred by said laws, from jury duty to cooperating with law-enforcement when necessary to paying taxes to sorting trash for recycling, etc.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 10:37 AM
"If she'd just signed the oath, the campus would have been more than willing to continue her employment."
Jesus. "If he'd just signed the confession, we wouldn't have tortured him." "If she'd admitted to heresy because a bunch of stoned little girls said she was a witch, we wouldn't have hung her."
Posted by: Andrea | March 3, 2008 10:41 AM
What's the point of demanding that teachers swear to defend the U.S. and state Constitutions "against all enemies, foreign and domestic"?
So that you can be charged if you allow a child to wear a t-shirt that might promote violence against the country.
Posted by: Andrea | March 3, 2008 10:42 AM
It is a principle of democracy and of human freedom that the state derives its legitimacy from the population, and that it is granted power only to that extent. The converse---that citizens be granted full rights only by proclaiming loyalty to state power---is, I think it is clear, diametrically opposed to the whole of the democratic tradition.
In theory, yes. In practice, however, there can be no democracy -- and a democratic government cannot protect or enforce our rights -- unless the people pledge (and, more to the point, exercise) loyalty to their democratic governing institutions and principles, even when your own party or faction loses the last election.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 10:43 AM
When SCOTUS gets its hands on this one, I predict nothing but defeat for Kaleeforrneea (which, btw, is nearer the correct historical pronunciation, Ahhhnolld notwithstanding!). It'll cost them millions.
Maybe the Governator will intervene. No problemo.
Posted by: Farb | March 3, 2008 11:03 AM
I wonder what would have happened if she'd signed it "under duress." Years ago that is what my mother did in response to neighborhood pressure to sign a petition against another neighbor parking his semi on the street during the times he was not on the road. She believed, and I don't know if this is true or not, that putting "under duress" next to her signature invalidated it. The "under duress" statement certainly would have been true in tis case.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | March 3, 2008 11:13 AM
What do you do if the state and US constitutions conflict, like, say, Alabama's does?
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 3, 2008 11:19 AM
Here is one interesting take on the California loyalty oath, one which links to various cases and gives the full text of the oath:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/oath/
Posted by: Karst | March 3, 2008 11:22 AM
Raging Bee, dissent is vital to a functioning democracy. I would say by swearing to support and defend the constitution, rather than one's own ideals, one harms the democratic process.
For example, my own state's constitution has been amended to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. I do not agree with, nor support, that amendment. But if I'd made such an oath, even prior to the amendment being passed, than my oath would be in conflict with my beliefs. Conceivably I could be fined and/or imprisoned for perjury if I were to participate in the kinds of rallies, marches or even discussions that I do today.
Even if no legal action came against me. I would know that I am breaking my oath, which would distress me greatly.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 11:27 AM
I could not sign "under duress". No modifications allowed. You have to sign it "with no mental reservations or purpose of evasion". If you sign it without truly believeing it, that is perjury and subject to 14 years in prison ( a different state code). Would they have thrown me in prison? I really doubt it. But why is this the law? If I am not supposed to really think about it, why have me sign it? I feel like I am being more loyal to the Constitution right now than I would have been by blindly signing that oath.
mkb
Posted by: Marianne Kearney-Brown | March 3, 2008 11:28 AM
...dissent is vital to a functioning democracy.
Where did I say it wasn't?
For example, my own state's constitution has been amended to explicitly ban same-sex marriage. I do not agree with, nor support, that amendment. But if I'd made such an oath, even prior to the amendment being passed, than my oath would be in conflict with my beliefs. Conceivably I could be fined and/or imprisoned for perjury if I were to participate in the kinds of rallies, marches or even discussions that I do today.
Not as long as the First Amendment is in effect. Swearing to obey the law does not mean swearing never to criticize it or advocate changes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 11:39 AM
Welcome to the Culture Wars Marianne. I salute your courage and integrity. It's people like you who truly make this country great.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 11:44 AM
The oath is to support and defend, not obey. I don't see how one can criticize and amendment and still be said to be supporting it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 11:48 AM
"Support and defend" means you obey the law and cooperate with the proper law-enforcement authorities as necessary, and not obstruct their lawful business. It does not mean "never criticize."
Of course, if you wish to protest a particular law by disobeying it, or by obsructing those who try to enforce it (i.e., don't rat out a pot dealer who's selling to old ladies with cancer), that's fine with me, but that's an act of "civil disobedience," which is punishable by law, and for which you should be willing, as an honest citizen, to pay the price.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 12:05 PM
The wording is very close to the US Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment. It's kind of odd to require a teacher to take such an oath. Is this some sort of historical leftover, requiring the drafting of teachers to take up arms if the government requires it?
Posted by: Rob H. | March 3, 2008 12:28 PM
I admit I was going by dictionary definitions of the words. If the phrase "support and defend" has a legal definition meaning something other than what's in the dictionary than obviously some of my fears regarding legal action are unfounded.
But if that's the case, what is the point of requiring the oath? All citizens are required to obey the law or face the consequences. Why then ask state employees to acknowledge that the law applies to them in the same way as every other citizen? And if that's all this document does, why not say so in plain English instead of using some confusing legal phrase?
Wouldn't a document that says, "I hereby acknowledge my position as an employee of the state does not exempt me from any state or federal laws," be preferable?
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 12:42 PM
Soooo...
Loyalty Oaths - how long has this been going on, and why hasn't anyone before stepped up to do anything about it?
I have refused two jobs (at Christian colleges) because they wanted me to sign a paper espousing the Christian religion before they would allow me to teach mathematics (George Fox University and Warner Pacific College); what that has to do with mathematics is beyond me, but without my signature attesting to something I don't believe, they wouldn't hire me.
I am currently a graduate student at PSU (PhD - mathematics) and I am very glad that I don't have to put up with *that* in addition to the usual stress of being a graduate student! Still, I think that this is something that we should make a stink about at the highest levels we can - perhaps through the professional societies: the MAA and AMS are two places to start. As a thought, perhaps we (future mathematicians and professors (of all subjects)) could simply refuse to work in a state that requires such oaths as a condition of employment.
I will certainly think twice before even applying to a post-doc position in California, no matter how good the UC system is...
Another place to contact is the ACLU - as is pointed out here:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~jendres/oath/
There is really no place in a democratic society for loyalty oaths of any kind.
ex animo
Eric
Posted by: Eric | March 3, 2008 12:50 PM
As far as I know, all state colleges and universities require something like this -- at least Cali, Florida and NCarolina.
Posted by: sherrold | March 3, 2008 12:59 PM
Wouldn't a document that says, "I hereby acknowledge my position as an employee of the state does not exempt me from any state or federal laws," be preferable?
Yes, it would. And I vaguely remember hearing about statements to that effect in such situations as (just the example I remember) joining a Policemans' Benevolent Association, where your membership documents include a statement that belonging to the Association does not grant you special treatment by cops.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 1:04 PM
Marianne Kearney-Brown, have you consulted a lawyer as to the constitutionality of this oath? I had no idea that such oaths survived the days of Joe McCarthy and the Red Scare. Doesn't freedom of speech encompass the right to _not_ speak, somewhat along the lines of the notion that Freedom of Religion encompasses freedom _from_ religion? If you are compelled to speak, as in the case of an oath or a pledge, how is that freedom of speech?
Posted by: Elf Eye | March 3, 2008 1:05 PM
Hmm...seems to me that, any fundy teacher tries preaching to their class (or even just teaching ID), it should be a slam-dunk to fire them for breaking their oath, and maybe charge them with perjury. Like that bunch up in Mountain View from last year....
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 3, 2008 1:06 PM
If the subject is a Quaker and is bound to non-violence by those beliefs, would that supercede the "pledge?" That's beside the point, anyway. Of course, 30 years ago in Junior High, I used to not say the "under God" part of the "Pledge." I'm lucky I didn't get expelled.
Posted by: Phil | March 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Rob H and sherrold: it occurs to me that this oath may be required of teachers, as a reaction to the "revolutionary ferment" of the '60s and '70s, when some professors used their academic positions to lead opposition to the government; and colleges in general got a reputation for being hotbeds of disloyalty, rebellion, anti-Americanism, and violent revolution. If that's the case, then I can understand the desire of colleges to erase that stigma; but firing teachers for not signing redundant oaths is not the right way to do it.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 1:11 PM
Sherrold, Virginia has no such statewide requirement. I teach at Radford University and have never had to sign an oath or take a pledge. The university did try to get us to attend anti-terrorism training, supposedly in response to a state mandate, although this may have been a misunderstanding on the part of university officials. I sent a letter to my Dean refusing to attend on the grounds that some aspects of the training were akin to indoctrination. The Dean quietly let it slide, I guess, as I never heard back. (On the other hand, there _were_ those odd clicking noises on my phone--oh, wait, that is the bad DSL service I pay $ 20 a month for.)
Posted by: Elf Eye | March 3, 2008 1:12 PM
On the other hand, about a dozen years ago Virginia began requiring _parents_ to sign a pledge to support teachers and administrators in disciplinary matters. Parents of all political persuasions bridled, lawsuits were threatened as schools struggled to implement the policy, and the legislature quickly backpedaled, first promising to change the wording of the pledge in order to make it more palatable and then doing away with it altogether. To my shame, I did sign it the one year it was in effect, as I did so informing the teacher that I did so "under protest." Other parents were braver and refused to sign it, declaring that they would welcome the state's attempt to enforce it (I think refusing to sign was a misdemeanor). Prosecutors made noises about bringing cases--obligated to enforce the law and blah blah blah--but were in fact clearly relieved when the legislature backed down.
Posted by: Elf Eye | March 3, 2008 1:23 PM
Actually just as an FYI, I think that college and university "oaths" for faculty and staff are far more common than most people believe. I have worked at five separate institutions and three of them I recall for had them and I know my spouse had to sign one at his current institution as well. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Posted by: JoH | March 3, 2008 1:34 PM
Ah yes, that wonderful Pledge of Allegiance. I think I was second or third grade when I started refusing to say it (early 80's). Caused a bit of a stir in the smallish mid-west town where I grew up, not to mention embarrassing my parents, which was a much greater concern to me at that age. My thinking at the time was that as a child I was not sufficiently wise in the ways of the world to declare any such oath. After all, if I was to young and naive to be aloud to sign a contract, I shouldn't be forced to make an oath either, which would be equally binding to a person of integrity.
Luckily the principal agreed with this thinking and I was aloud to forego saying the pledge. The reaction from teachers and my fellow students varied. But in the eyes of my community I was a rather odd child to begin with. So in a way it kind of fit folks expectations and most just shrugged it off.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 3, 2008 1:44 PM
"Oaths" in general are pretty commonplace: if you get any special powers or privileges along with a job, clearance or grant, you might be required to sign a pledge not to misuse or abuse what you've been given. Companies make you promise to obey company policies, government agencies make you promise not to divulge secret, classified or privileged information, professionals have to promise to abide by the ethics and standards of their respective professions, etc. The question is not "is this contrary to democracy?" but "Is a particular pledge necessary and appropriate to a particular position?"
In all fairness, I can sorta see the administration's position here: once all the teachers have been required to sign a particular pledge, it could easily be seen as unfair to allow one teacher to unilaterally change the wording of the pledge for herself. (Perhaps she should have signed it "with reservations" or "under protest" instead, as some here have done.) Not that this justifies firing an otherwise qualified teacher, of course; just something to consider. For a few seconds...
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 1:52 PM
Almost all government jobs civilian or military require an oath. If this individual does not wish to take the oath then they do not meet a condition of employment therefore they forfeit the job. Nobody is forcing them to sign the oath they have the right to seek other employment.
Posted by: AFSGTSAM | March 3, 2008 2:02 PM
The state is mandating speech when it forces pubic officials (in this case a part-time college professor to take a loyalty oath). I would argue that state mandated speech is exactly the same creature as state restraint of speech. Same coin, different sides. The constitutional standard implicated when the state engages is prior restraint of speech is that the state bears the burden of showing that the restraint is necessarily related to a compelling state interest and that the state's regulation is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest. Here, the state of California's interest, I assume, is having public educators who do not advocate the overthrow of the state of California or the U.S of the A.. While this is probably a compelling interest, the state will surely fail on the second prong in that it will fail to show that exact uniformity of everyone signing this particular loyalty oath is absolutely necessary and the is the least restrictive means of accomplishing its interest. the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of loyalty oaths requirements but those involved public officials. Here, the teacher is not arguing that she won't sign a loyalty oath, only that here particular well-grounded status as a conscientious objector be integrated into the oath. Conscientious objector status was provided for in the Revolutionary War for christ sakes. Consequently, she should be able to successfully argue that the state's failure to integrate or accommodate this status into an otherwise valid oath, shows the oath not be as narrowly tailored or as least restrictive as is constitutionally required.
Posted by: OMM 0910 | March 3, 2008 2:08 PM
I have only worked in two states: Colorado and Oregon, but neither of them required an oath of office (or loyalty oath...) It seems like the CA version is more an 'oath of office' than a loyalty oath per se, but I must still disagree with the requirement.
I have contacted some people at the university:
Public Affairs: kim.huggett@csueastbay.edu
Human Resources: applycsueb@csueastbay.edu
President: Dr Mohammed "Mo" Qayoumi mo.qayoumi@csueastbay.edu
asking them if I would be as unwelcome in the California State University system for refusing to advocate violent defense of either constitution, and how long it will be until they rectify this matter. I have also contacted the professional societies which I am a member of: the American Mathematical Society, the Mathematical Association of America, and the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics to ask their position on the issue.
For my, I will refuse to work for any institution that requires an oath as a prerequisite for employment.
ex animo
Eric
Posted by: Eric | March 3, 2008 2:10 PM
*AFSGTSAM* At least read three sentences into Ed's post before commenting. The teacher is willing to sign an oath, she merely wants it amending slightly to integrate her pacifist beliefs. Nothing in that lessens the effect of the loyalty oath.
Posted by: OMM 0910 | March 3, 2008 2:12 PM
I remember having to take oaths for various state bar memberships that required me to include some words about a guy in the sky with a white beard (god). When the oath was in writing, I merely crossed out the word god, then affirmed it with my signature. If the oath was verbal, I just didn't say the words.
Posted by: OMM 0910 | March 3, 2008 2:17 PM
What's really silly about all this is that she was employed as a TEACHER. Since when were schools and colleges responsible for ensuring that people join the armed services? The college would have had absolutely no authority -- or means -- to force any of its teachers to do any sort of armed duty; nor does it have any say in who gets exempted from such duty or why.
I'm of two minds on this: the college admins were silly to require such an oath; and the teacher was kinda silly to quibble over a point the college couldn't enforce anyway.
And that brings me to another problem: the more we make people sign "oaths" for symbolic "look, we're doing something about the problem" purposes, the less meaningful they, and the promises we make, become. As long as we're telling people thay have to sign "oaths" to get certain jobs, the more important it is to make sure that the oaths they sign are correctly worded, relevant to the job, and enforceable by the signatories.
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 3, 2008 2:24 PM
As an undergraduate employee (making state minimum wage) and as a grad student at the UC system, I had to sign this. I needed employment (or education), and since I didn't plan to be a rebel against any constitutions, I didn't think too hard about signing it. However, I've recently been teaching at a CSU campus (and will be at a UC campus again next Spring), and seeing it made my skin crawl a bit. I signed, but will probably have to sign again after a break for fetal production and elimination (making a baby). I really find it difficult to believe that there is NO way to offer a revised or alternate oath that can be acceptable. I find the whole thing repugnant. Maybe I'll just make do with teaching at the community colleges, which don't require it, at least not that I recall from previous employment there.
Posted by: biogeek | March 3, 2008 2:56 PM
Let me join Abby Normal in welcoming Marianne Kearney-Brown and in applauding her for taking a brave stand. We owe a great deal to Quakers (and to Jehovah's Witnesses) for standing up throughout our history against such banal and authoritarian policies.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 3, 2008 3:14 PM
Aren't oaths moot because subversives would be the first to sign?
Posted by: Bill in NC | March 3, 2008 6:19 PM
Wow. I already knew that California is a state that doesn't believe that people could figure out where to pee and when to write home to Mama without the government making them do it, but this warmed-over McCarthyite horseshit is news to me.
Don't expect the courts or the Gropinator to do anything positive; not after umpteen years of infiltration of the judiciary by right-wing authoritarian followers.
Where the Hell is Major ______ de Coverly when you need him?
Posted by: Ktesibios | March 3, 2008 7:20 PM
Nevada also requires graduate students, staff and faculty to sign such an oath. Actually, a couple of years ago, there was a move to have everyone "update" their oath paperwork, and all of us had to come in and sign *again.* Apparently, the first time wasn't enough.
I was a grad student and adjunct. I felt like I didn't have a choice, and I hated it, but my kid had to eat.
You know, I haven't had to sign such a thing here in Texas.
Posted by: tmcginnis | March 4, 2008 1:17 AM
What, dozens of comments and not a single reference to Catch-22?
The lunatics are the keepers, and we the kept.
Ooops -- just noticed Ktesibios -- make that *only* a single reference.
Posted by: xebecs | March 4, 2008 9:53 AM
They don't require it in Pennsylvania state universities, that I can recall.
Posted by: Lisa | March 4, 2008 10:13 AM
For the people wondering why teachers have to sign this: I believe it's a statewide California thing for public employees. I had to sign one to work as a nurse in the San Francisco Department of Public Health.
I thought of it as an oath of office more than a loyalty oath; I think there are special duties that go with being a public employee; and I don't have any personal problem with supporting the Constitutions of the U.S. and California (something I wish our elected officials would take more seriously)... so I was OK with it and signed it. I'm a Quaker too, and the only reasons I didn't do exactly what Kearney-Brown did were 1) it already said "swear or affirm", so I figured they didn't care which one I was doing ["swearing" in the legal sense is a religious no-no for us], and 2) it hadn't crossed my mind that the "support" part could possibly be construed as implying anything violent.
So if the fact that I won't bear arms for the government means I'm not really willing to "support" the Constitution, then I'm guilty of signing with a "mental reservation" just as much as if I had amended the document. But I don't believe for a second that that's the case, either for me or for Kearney-Brown; and I think given the legal history around these oaths, the law is on her side. I'm just sorry that she's out of a job in the meantime, and that Cal State is administered by such idiots.
Posted by: Hob | March 4, 2008 2:19 PM
AFSGTSAM: Your comment is not only irrelevant to this case -- since she was willing to sign and did so -- but also very misleading, since (if my experience is typical) they do not ask you to sign these things up front; it's one of the very last stages in the hiring process, after you've accepted the job.
Posted by: Hob | March 4, 2008 2:22 PM
I have to say that Kearney-Brown was pretty dumb to insist that she pledge to "*non-violently* defend the Constitution." Since when does "defend" imply violence? Since when is the state going to issue you a gun or billyclub and order you to go out and beat heads? WTF was she thinking?? A teacher with bricks for brains has collided with a university legal department that can't explain plain English, and this really tragic outcome has resulted, one that's no good for anyone involved.
Posted by: Andrew | March 4, 2008 2:22 PM
Y'all missed a big one: she would have solid basis for an even more interesting form of dissent if she'd signed it.
Consider that phrase "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." It also appears in the oath of enlistment, and the oath of commission, for enlisted and commissioned officers respectively, in the US military.
And I happen to know that for many years, going back to year 2000 when Bush took office, that there has been quite a bit of discussion among officers and among enlisted about "what to do if the part of your oath about obeying the C-in-C conflicts with the part about defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign *and domestic*..?"
Yes, you read that right. Strong implication: what happens when the C-in-C behaves in the manner of a domestic enemy of the Constitution...?
The folks in the military would no doubt have a high threshold before they would feel forced to act: for example if Bush tried to cancel, suspent, or "postpone" an election.
However, folks in the civilian world don't bear the responsibility for use of awesome force in times of conflict.
See where I'm going with this...?
She could sign that thing and then turn around and raise some kind of issue based on the idea that Bush was a domestic enemy of the Constitution. Perhaps she could wear an impeachment button or shirt at work and if asked to remove it, say that she was wearing it because she was bound by her oath or affirmation. Perhaps she could raise the issue persistently with her union. Perhaps she could initiate a lawsuit and claim that doing so was also required as a consequence of that oath. Perhaps she could even sue other state officials on the basis that if they fail to support impeachment, they are violating the oath.
There would no doubt be plenty of grounds for such actions. Notably Bush's blunt refusal to allow members of his regime to answer subpoenas before Congress. The Constitution provides ZERO exceptions to the requirement that suboenaed persons be present to answer their subpoenas. Legally they may appear and then decline to answer questions on various grounds, and Bush could legally assert executive privilege against them answering questions. However there is no basis in the law for flat-out refusing to appear; except via Bush's novel legal doctrine (in legalese, "novel" means "so new it must have just come out your arse") about the "unitary executive" (another term that appears exactly nowhere in our legal history).
The items about torture and so on might be interesting, Habeas Corpus and all the rest, but those tend to get wrapped up with other ideological issues and moral issues that can be used by the other side to obfuscate the "enemy of the Constitution" issue by claiming that those issues are "political." The matter of flatly refusing to answer subpoenas has no such complications: it is straightforward and simple, Bush is violating the law and requiring his subordinates to do so as well, which constitutes grounds for impeachment with no wiggle-room for ideology.
Since this particular teacher missed the opportunity, I'd like to see someone else stand up and do it. Any takers...?
Posted by: g510 | March 5, 2008 10:54 AM