The audience for Mitt Romney's speech on faith in politics was Christian conservatives in the upcoming Republican primaries, and hardly anybody else. As if on cue, Hugh Hewitt immediately pronounced the speech as "simply magnificent, and anyone who denies it is not to be trusted as an analyst."

A story in tomorrow's (Dec. 21) New York Times aptly entitled "Huckabee, Back in Iowa, Brings Christmas Message," includes the following:

[W]hile appealing openly to his core audience as someone who says he is driven “by convictions, not just positions,” Mr. Huckabee has been careful to delimit the role he sees for faith in public life. An elected official’s faith “is not something like a sweater that you put on and take off as a convenience,” he told the same audiences. “But should I be able to force it on somebody else? Of course not.”

It has recently been suggested, in the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, that Barack Obama would have profound difficulties in dealing with the Islamic world if he is elected president because he was born to a Muslim father and then raised as a Christian, making him an apostate. This, the stories claimed, make him eligible for the death penalty or assassination under Islamic law.

The spectacular ignorance of Islam in these stories has now been documented and refuted here by Abdullahi Ahmed an’Naim, one of the smartest Moslem intellectuals working today. He notes:

Mike Huckabee is the latest Republican candidate to call for amending the Constitution, though Mitt Romney has led the way. It was "flip-flop" Mitt who in recently told the Family Values Research Council's Values Voter Summit, "I will work with the people in this room, as I have for the past four years, to champion a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ... Make no mistake: a federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges" [who may, of course, be interpreting the Equal Protection Clause accurately, a possibility that Romney presumably doesn't recognize].

Apparently everyone is up in arms over the fact that John McCain was born in the Panama Canal zone in 1936. Is he a "natural born citizen" eligible to be President under Article II, section 1, clause 4 of the Constitution?

I have to tell you, frankly, that whether McCain is "natural born" is the least of our worries. If you are truly an originalist, as I am, nobody is eligible to be president today.

I recently took Ed Whelan's simple one question test to determine whether you are really an originalist and confirmed that, yes, I am one of that proud and hardy band.

Q. The Constitution provides, as one of the criteria to be eligible to become president, that a person must be a "natural born Citizen" (or, alternatively, in a provision that long ago ceased to apply to any living persons, "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") How would you figure out what the phrase "natural born Citizen" means?

Last July, I published a piece in the Boston Globe, entitled "No Vice," arguing that we would be better off either without a Vice President at all--we got along without one for 45 of our first 180 years)--or, perhaps more plausibly, waiting until after the election and having the winner, a la the 25th Amendment, nominate a vice president, subject to congressional confirmation. I would, incidentally, also allow the President or Congress to fire the Vice President, but that's another matter for another thread.

I can't help but wonder if John McCain might not find some real merit in the suggestion. Consider his dilemma. It is clear that Mike Huckabee isn't going to be the nominee for president, but his followers might (legitimately?) feel dissed if he isn't chosen for Veep. At best, they might stay home; at worst, they might vote for Obama and actually put some of the Red States in play, especially if Obama chooses, say, James Webb or Wesley Clark as his Veep. On the other hand,

Douglas Kmiec is a principled conservative, former head of the OLC under two Republican Administrations. Here is what he had to say about "Law and War":

There is probably no more important executive power topic than the relation between law and war. For example, Chris Matthews asked Governor Romney whether he would need the authorization of Congress to take military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Soundly, the Governor responded that his overriding consideration as President of the United States would be to do what is "in the best interests of the United States to protect us against a potential threat." However, because the Governor also commented that " he would consult legal counsel on the range of his available authority," he has been taking some flak.

This criticism is wholly unwarranted....

Initial reports are that the Attorney General appointed an "outside" counsel to oversee the criminal investigation of the CIA tape destruction. But there's nothing really "outside" about John Durham. He's a career DOJ prosecutor, the number two official in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Connecticut. As the Attorney General explained today (see statement below), the case would ordinarily be handled by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, but that U.S. Attorney requested that his office be recused from the matter "in order to avoid any possible appearance of a conflict with other matters handled by that office." (Hmm . . . what might that mean? That the investigation deals with whether there was obstruction of justice in cases being prosecuted by the E.D. Va., perhaps?)

The leading candidates from both parties in this presidential election make a point of emphasizing their religious convictions, which naturally raises questions about what role their beliefs will have in their decisions as President. A president who believes that Armageddon is just around the corner may see herself as a heroic instrument of God’s plan, and act accordingly (if you scoff at this, you are not paying attention). This prospect is unsettling to non-believers, as well as to adherents of minority religions.

In that regard, consider comments by Father Robert Araujo on the Mirror of Justice, a blog by law professors on issues of Catholic Legal Theory. In the context of addressing the possible relevance of eschatological beliefs to issues of global warming, Father Araujo writes:

In the fascinating story/interview by Zev Chafets of Mike Huckabee in today's NY Times Magazine, there appears the following description of the process by which Huckabee became Governor of Arkansas:

In 1993, Huckabee won a special election for lieutenant governor. Then, in 1996, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted on federal charges of fraud and conspiracy in events relating to the Whitewater scandal.

I'm one of those old-fashioned types who subscribes to magazines -- you know, ink on cheap paper that they mail to your house every month. You have to read essays consisting of literally thousands of words, but with a little practice, you'll find it's possible. It can give you a whole different picture of the world than you get from TV, or even the newspaper. For example, the front page of the Boston Globe this morning had as its headline a story about Pope Benedict coming to the U.S. (which hasn't even happened yet). Other front pagers were bits about parents telling their kids to stop sending so many text messages, and falling housing prices making it possible for people of moderate means to once again move to the suburbs. Turning the page, we find that Barack Obama said people in the rust belt are bitter, which according to Hillary Clinton proves that he is an arrogant out of touch elitist who hates America. This is evidently the key issue confronting the voters.

Grading constitutional law examinations provides an interesting window into what students are thinking and not thinking. As is the case with most professors, I find grading rather tedious, save for the occasional amusing mental typo. This year’s winner, on an examination that was quite good, was "the theory of the unitary executive gives the president the power to lead a rebellion against the United States." I hope no one tells Dick Cheney. Still, several points might be of broader interest and do not seem to be a violation of confidentiality.

Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, who has actively sought union support during his campaign, crossed WGA picket lines outside NBC studios in Burbank Wednesday in order to appear on the Tonight Show, all while offering several (often lame) excuses for his actions.

Before heading to LA for his appearance yesterday, according to the AP, Huckabee told reporters traveling with him that he

For those interested in avoiding work and/or learning about the new scholarship on race and American Constitutional Development, Professor Michael Klarman of the University of Virginia Law School and I are blogging about his new book, Brown v. Board of Education, and the history of racial equality in the United States over on the website of the American Constitutional Society. Our conversation has ranged from the influence of the Supreme Court on race policy to the political construction of judicial review to the extent to which racial progress in the United States is a function of virtue or interest. Happy reading.

This op-ed by the distinguished historian Eric Foner reminds us that January 1st we celebrate the 200th anniversary of a law banning importation of slaves into the United States. President Jefferson signed the law on March 2, 1807, to take effect January 1, 1808. Trade in slaves within the United States continued until slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Okay, since the NYT decided to hire Bill Kristol over me, I'll have to restrict my punditication to this space.

You may have noticed that I've had basically squat to say about the presidential campaign. I did point out that of the three Dem contenders, Edwards has the best health care plan, and Obama has the worst, but who cares, really? It's not as if an Edwards presidency -- which seems unlikely at this point anyway -- will result in the legislation he has posted on his web site becoming reality. In the best case, a Democratic president and a somewhat more Democratic congress in 2009 will result in some marginal changes around the edges. Big Pharma and Big Insurance aren't going to get rolled no matter who is elected.

or I didn't make myself clear. I don't have any opinion whatsoever about the validity of Mormon vs., say, Southern Baptist Convention beliefs. My only point is this:

Mitt Romney has called on conservative Christians to join with Mitt and his fellow Mormons in ganging up on me, and excluding my beliefs from the public square, and excluding me and people who agree with me from political office. It's only natural, and perfectly within my rights in that situation, for me to ask people to consider whether Mitt's proposed alliance actually makes any sense, and if they think it does, to be clear about why.

If people want to use a comment thread here to argue about whether Mormons are actually Christians or how compatible or incompatible their doctrines are, go to it. I don't actually take any position on those questions, in fact I think they are nonsensical.

All of the presidential candidates seem to be picking up Barack Obama's theme of change and portraying themselves as agents of change. If things keep going the way they have been, the 2008 election now looks to be as defining a moment as 1932, 1968 or 1980. (If things keep going, that is. A lot can happen in ten months).

If 2008 turns out to be a pivotal election, defining a new political era, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Two key reasons for the change will be the crackup of the coalition of the dominant party of the era, the Republicans, and the almost complete political failure of George W. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Let me begin with the second feature, and move to the first.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jack's analysis of the Romney speech. Indeed, if truth be known, I found myself in relatively rare agreement with David Brooks in his analysis in today's New York Times, which concluded that Romney "asked people to submerge their religious convictions for the sake of solidarity in a culture war without end." It was an insulting and dangerous speech, far more so than the culture-war rantings of Pat Buchanan some years ago, about which Molly Ivins said "they sounded better in the original German." Buchanan was never thought really "respectable" by mainstream Republicans or the press; nobody ever thought that he might actually become President. That's not the case with Romney.

Apologies for not posting yesterday. I wasn't feeling well (which is permitted of bloggers, you know) but more than that, I was just so knocked out by the idiotic state of political discourse in this country that words seemed inadequate. They still do but I'm typing anyway.

The Emperor of Mespotamia is about to go on TV and tell us about his new, strong and resolute plan to win the long-promised Glorious Victory. While there has been concern among the courtiers in both the Pentagon and the corporate media over such problems as the state of military readiness and whether the current policy is Making Us Safer™, they are all pleased to note that the level of violence in Iraq has been dramatically reduced. It is fortunate that when American helicopters and fighter jets fire missiles into residential neighborhoods and kill dozens of people, it is not an example of violence, otherwise that statement might be untrue. Come to think of it, it isn't necessarily true anyway, but it is virtually true by virtue of incessant repetition.

The past few days I've been attending a fascinating conference on antidiscrimination law held in Chengdu sponsored by Sichuan University School of Law and the Yale China Law Center.

Despite the abstract ideology of equality in Communist China, antidiscrimination law in China is still at its earliest stages. Moreover, the key categories of concern in public discussion are quite different than we are used to in the American context.

As in America, sex equality has been a major focus, but the other two most often mentioned forms of discrimination were discrimination against people with Hepatitis B (roughly 100 million people) and discrimination against rural Chinese who have migrated to the large cities.

Sen. McCain says, "Al Qaeda is in Iraq. It’s called ‘Al Qaeda in Iraq.’ My friends, if we left, they wouldn’t be establishing a base. They’d be taking a country, and I’m not going to allow that to happen." He's running largely on the strength of his claimed foreign policy expertise. He says -- and he reiterated yesterday -- that if the United States withdraws from Iraq, al Qaeda will take over the country.

The pundits and so-called "reporters" who work for the corporate media, including, as in the link above, the New York Times, aren't going to tell you that this is completely nuts. They treat this analysis as credible and therefore, undoubtedly, many people will believe it.

The IntLawGrrls blog has posted a rough transcript of Justice Scalia’s illuminating comments on "so-called" torture in a recent interview with BBC.

BBC: Tell me about the issue of torture. We know that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited under the 8th Amendment. Does that mean that the issue is a kind of, if it comes up before the Court, is a no-brainer?

I don't want to distract our readers from the very important story about the Administration's stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission -- read about the New York Times's essential story and the Zelikow Report here -- but this is very much worth your attention, too:

Continuing his invaluable work, Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe today publishes responses of nine presidential candidates to a series of questions he posed about the topics that have dominated this blog since 2004. I'll add some highlights here shortly -- in the meantime, go read the responses.

No, I'm not talking about Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen. These are three great mysteries that trouble the Enlightenment project -- the quest to understand the universe from the human perspective. These enduring mysteries are among the reasons so many people still cling to irrational beliefs and mysticism. In ascending order of philosophical profundity (in my personal ranking) they are:

The origin of life: This does not in fact present a philosophical challenge to scientific inquiry. It's just a puzzle. We can certainly solve it, in principle, using hard core positivist logic and standard tools of scientific inquiry. The bad news, potentially, is that it happened an awfully long time ago and we just might not ever get a definitive answer. There is a philosophical nugget in there, specifically that there are probably limits to knowledge, there just might be questions that seem very important to us that will always be questions. That may be annoying, or disappointing, but it's not a fundamental challenge to humanism.

As I noted in a previous post, I have been having an exchange with Professor Michael Klarman over at the American Constitutional Society. My last post seems particularly relevant to some concerns of Balkinization, so as either a public servive or, more likely, pathetic self-promotion, I've reproduced an edited version.

Michael Klarman’s work on the constitutional history of race correctly notes that American racial politics have historically been subject to periods of polarization, and that this polarization has had surprising consequences. Every major burst of civil rights activism in the United States has been preceded by an intense period of polarization, marked by increased militant commitments to the racial status quo in the south. To an extent rarely commented on, the Constitution of the United States may be responsible this polarization and may also bias ordinary politics toward more conservative racial views.

A story in today's Times about George W. Bush's encounters with relatives of slain soldiers includes the following description of those meetings: "God is a frequent topic. Robert Lehmiller, also of Salt Lake City, says the president brought religion into the conversation, telling him, “If you truly believe the Scriptures, you will see your son again.” Although I probably should, I can't refrain from placing this comment in the context of the alleged belief of Islamicist suicide bombers that they will reach paradise quickly (and be greeted by 72 virgins). That is, I presume that for most of us that belief is just one more sign of irrational fanaticism. But what should we think of what presumably is the far more common belief in the US that there is indeed an afterlife in which one will be reunited with those one loved?

Following the oral argument in Heller, people have been having a good old time making fun of the Justices and their pretty transparent political motivations. Dahlia Lithwick's amusing account of the oral argument is one of her best.

Although I enjoy making sport of the Justices as much as anyone, the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, including a right to self defense, is not that difficult, at least to me. The framers of the 14th amendment assumed that it was one of the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. And if a right is a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States, it hard for me to conclude that it does not bind the United States as well as the individual states.

Now, as a unreconstructed liberal (I'll show you pictures of my bleeding heart), I don't particularly like this result. But it follows sufficiently strongly from other commitments I have about the Constitution that I must accept it.

That's how I come out on the case, but of course, none of the Justices is likely to reason the way I do. So what do I think of their approaches and rationalizations, which were vividly on display at yesterday morning's oral argument?