DailyKos has Ken Salazar reading George Washington’s farewell address on the Senate floor, in a rebuke to those who apparently think that separation of powers is secondary to what Ben Franklin referred to as ‘temporary security’.

Not much else to say, there. On a related note, though–our administration apparently thinks that the Constitution ought to mean today exactly what it did at its creation. How come they think the Geneva Conventions can change their meaning over time, or through outdatedness? Are these two different theories of the rule of law, or do they actually have a coherent theory?

To start out the first post in a week (ahem, dropping the ball much?), I want to mention that tonight marks the end of an era. Today’s NYT reviews the series finale of Arrested Development, tonight at 8pm, on FOX. Like Aaron Sorkin’s Sportsnight before it, A.D. is an underappreciated cult favorite, a witty show unmatched on television today, but sadly cancelled before its time.

Until the show gets picked up on Showtime, or some other premium channel, i’ll have to entertain myself with the Bob Loblaw Law Blog (a reference from the show… say it aloud).

I’m in Philadelphia for the weekend, so I won’t be blogging probably at all except for today in the lobby of the Hotel that I am in.

I was hoping for some great inspiration to write from seeing as I’ve just returned from the National Constitution Center the place that we’re holding the event tomorrow, but in reality I just remain incredibly exhausted from an already long day of work.

I could talk some more Basketball, but I think last night speaks for itself, rallying to win in the second half, and Maurice Rice showing Dicky V. how we can fight, scrap, and get it done to win the game.

Then again, I haven’t really talked politics in a while either, which probably would be important to say I suppose since this is a politics based site.

So here we go, my political insight. During the State of the Union, was I the only one who heard that Bush wanted the Congress to pass the line-item veto. I understand that governors have this power, that’s why Clinton wanted it, and assumingly why Bush also wants it, but it was only a few years ago that the Supreme Court called it unconstitutional, mind you with Rehnquist siding with the majority to make it 6-3.

I don’t necessarily think that with regard to Court composition he’s gotten backers of that power, but then again Bush never really did care about the Constitution in the first place.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline has a tremendous amount of power in addition to too many ‘l’s in his name. The linked Slate article follows on the heels of a NY Times piece, neither of which (surprise surprise, given the sources), is what you’d call complimentary.

You won’t call me that, either. Personally, I’m used to conservatives being “strict original intent” kinda guys for the purposes of interpreting the Constitution. Certainly “strict adherence to and respect for the law” types, at any rate. And here’s Phill Kline, conceivably the most conservative man in a conservative state, fiddling with the rule of law to please himself. For those who haven’t read the article, this is the man who subpoenad 90 women’s abortion records, and is trying to outlaw teen sex, both in an attempt to weed out child abuse in the state of Kansas. Slate’s analysis is masterly, and I won’t repeat it here, but it’s pretty clear that he’s going after abortion clinics.

One wonders about the separation of powers when Presidents avow “signing statements” and state AGs interpret the law however they damn well please in order to stamp out their pet moral peeve.

I haven’t heard about any outcry in Kansas, and I know that the kids who might be thrown in jail (or juvee) as a result don’t have a vote, and therefore won’t be attentively courted by public officials in the upcoming election. My instinct here is to say that Phill Kline is everything wrong with our nation’s understanding of the rule of law, and that he should be fired.

But I’m just one man, I live hundreds of miles away, and I’m not the people of Kansas. Who knows–maybe they really do think it’s for the best.

9 of 10 Iraqi Sunnis approve of attacks on US troops, and as well as half of all Iraqis.

It’s a good thing so much of the State of the Union, and so much of our national media, are devoted to understanding their outlook on our war, and ways to end it amicably and completely.