FOLEY AND DELAY TAG TEAM FOR DEMOCRATS

. . .I'm adding Mark Foley's web site to my watch list as well. This guy is pretty rich. See his press releases on a proposed ban on frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers, and his recent proposal to amend the constitution to make sure that the U.S. stops "giving away citizenship like free AOL hours" (by ditching jus soli as a principle for citizenship). To be honest, I have no real reason to support jus soli; it's a doctrine that has roots in feudalism and doesn't necessarily make all that much sense from the perspective of liberal principles of citizenship. But Foley's reasons for advocating the change are pretty suspicious. There seem to be two: 1) a nativist reason that attacks citizenship requirements that are easy on (undesirable) foreigners, and 2) a war on terrorism reason, especially concerning Hamdi, whose citizenship is a stumbling block for the administration, although not a particularly difficult one for the 4th Circuit to deal with, apparently. As to 1), nativism is deeply at odds with any principle of national allegiance that I find attractive. 2) solves itself, as courts will merely ask "how high?" whenever the administration says to them, "jump for terrorism prosecutions!"

As for the frivolous lawsuit ban, check out the following paragraph:

Under today’s unregulated tort system, a state lawsuit in a single county could destroy the nation’s firearms industry and deny citizens nationwide the ability to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. These lawsuits could potentially shut down interstate commerce in firearms, which Congress has the Constitutional authority to protect.

So, according to Foley, the right to "keep and bear arms" implies the right of gun manufacturers to be free of lawsuits that could shut them down. Wow. I find it hard to believe that someone could advance this argument with a straight face. Plus, we have a beautiful attempt to hack into the meaning of the interstate commerce clause.

I'm all for departmentalist constitutional interpretation. In fact, in recent weeks, I've actually been impressed with some of the stuff I've seen on the floor of Congress, with respect to the "day of fasting and prayer" bill in particular (more on this later). I think that a luxurious culture of assertions of constitutional values and principles, however understood, is a good thing, even when I disagree with the particular notions that any given person advances. But Foley's stretching it a bit. . .

NOTE: "Seen," above, is figurative.