Myth Taken Politics

Crossing Your Fingers Veto

Clearly there is no pure system, which is what has lead to the phrase, "follow the spirit or the letter of the law." No legal or regulatory system can be perfect in execution. Usually rules lead to loopholes or quirks that can in sometimes undo the original purpose. But when met with fairly unambiguous language in a law that the administration wants to break, they had to create a fake loophole. The constitution and law has allowed some flexibility in legally stopping or knocking out congressional passed laws. There are three forms of vetoes: plain veto which can be overridden, pocket veto which cannot be overridden, but only works on end of session laws, and line item vetoes which are peculiar in usage, practice and legality. This administration has started using a fourth one which is bizarre: signing statements. A better term for this is the "cross your fingers" veto.

A signature is supposed to signify your acceptance of the assertion of the document. In the case of signing a bill as passed and delivered by Congress, the signing (or not signing in the middle of a congressional session) means the bill becomes law. After that point only the courts can overrule the law or another counteracting law can get passed. The current administration is under the delusion that it can counteract the force of the law by writing a statement that indicates the intention of the administration to follow or not follow the law.

This "crossing your fingers" is actually a positive development for this administration, because it helps us anticipate which laws the administration is planning to break. In a sense we can see the fingers being crossed while they sign the bill. Perhaps the courts should interpret this as an actual veto which can be overridden. There is an element of signing documents that depends on intent and the mental condition of the signer (for example, was it under duress).

The irony here is that the law that the president "crossed his fingers" while signing is the anti-torture law. Torture is often the means to get a confession and sometimes ones which is signed. Under current law, the signature is unenforceable. When the president signed the anti-torture bill into law, he was not being tortured or coerced into signing. But he used a similar out  to disembowel the law to protect the lives of people.

Robert Kaiser Goes to Finnishing School

In an opinion piece talking about the Finnish experience with social democracy, Kaiser points out some truths and lessons to learn from them. Finland has created a dynamic society that values the community and has succeeded at enriching it. The Finnish excel at having a much better educated and inquisitive culture than the U.S. according to the stats Kaiser quotes. He points out that education and health care and caring for people are top priorities in Finland. And he points out the acceptance of this social contract that keeps everybody out of poverty at the expense of limiting the ability of the wealthy to opt out of the social contract. I want to thank him for this part of his reportage.

Unfortunately, Kaiser holds back from the real reasons for the difference between the US and Finnish society and instead makes an some odd assertion. Kaiser points out that Finland "is ethnically and religiously homogeneous," as part of his explanation for the differences between US and Finland. Canada which has some of the same attributes as Finland regarding the protection of the society, valuing education and the right to health care has a very heterogeneous population. A better explanation is that Finland (like Canada) made some important decisions a few decades ago that helped establish a successful social democracy and the benefits are now clear to the participants. Those decisions may have been made by a receptive audience back then, but the population size or religion or skin color or ethnic background was likely not a factor. I will not set out to prove this, but I think that Kaiser also should not have asserted the opposite without thinking more deeply on it.

I believe that Kaiser may have held back from some other reasons for fear of appearing to be insulting ("For a patriotic American like me"). But sometimes it is best to be straightforward and risk retaliation. The chance to improve is often based on seeing the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. Today there was a piece on NPR's Weekend Edition about Tennesseans and health care that laid out the fear and despair of citizens unable to keep the health care that keeps them alive. Listening to them hold back their tears was wrenching and tore at my soul. In Finland or Canada they would know that all of us would do what we could as a society to keep them from dying prematurely. Kaiser should go to Tennessee and learn from them what lies they were told about Clinton's plan to create freedom from such privation. Please don't look in their faces and tell them if only we were all the same religion or ethnic background they might not be facing death now (it isn't true). Tell them instead that  we will work together for a better society and point out the lies the powerful tell to protect profits.