I almost can't believe I'm writing this, but yesterday the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights received a license that allows them to sue the government -- for ordering the assassination of a U.S. citizen, away from the field of combat, without due process of any kind:

“The license issued by OFAC today will allow us to pursue our litigation relating to the government’s asserted authority to engage in targeted killings of American civilians without due process. While we appreciate OFAC’s quick response to our lawsuit, we continue to believe that OFAC’s regulations are unconstitutional because they require lawyers who are providing uncompensated legal representation to seek the government’s permission before challenging the constitutionality of the government’s conduct. Notably, OFAC has indicated that the license issued to us today can be revoked at any time. We will pursue our claim that OFAC’s attorney-licensing regulations are unconstitutional and should be invalidated.”

Glenn Greenwald wrote about this back in January, and specifically about Anwar al-Aulaqi, the U.S. citizen targeted by this order:

Obviously, if U.S. forces are fighting on an actual battlefield, then they (like everyone else) have the right to kill combatants actively fighting against them, including American citizens. That's just the essence of war. That's why it's permissible to kill a combatant engaged on a real battlefield in a war zone but not, say, torture them once they're captured and helplessly detained.

But combat is not what we're talking about here. The people on this "hit list" are likely to be killed while at home, sleeping in their bed, driving in a car with friends or family, or engaged in a whole array of other activities. More critically still, the Obama administration -- like the Bush administration before it -- defines the "battlefield" as the entire world.

So the President claims the power to order U.S. citizens killed anywhere in the world, while engaged even in the most benign activities carried out far away from any actual battlefield, based solely on his say-so and with no judicial oversight or other checks. That's quite a power for an American President to claim for himself.

As we well know from the last eight years, the authoritarians among us in both parties will, by definition, reflexively justify this conduct by insisting that the assassination targets are Terrorists and therefore deserve death. What they actually mean, however, is that the U.S. Government has accused them of being Terrorists, which (except in the mind of an authoritarian) is not the same thing as being a Terrorist. Numerous Guantanamo detainees accused by the U.S. Government of being Terrorists have turned out to be completely innocent, and the vast majority of federal judges who provided habeas review to detainees have found an almost complete lack of evidence to justify the accusations against them, and thus ordered them released. That includes scores of detainees held while the U.S. Government insisted that only the "Worst of the Worst" remained at the camp.

No evidence should be required for rational people to avoid assuming that Government accusations are inherently true, but for those do need it, there is a mountain of evidence proving that. And in this case, Anwar Aulaqi -- who, despite his name and religion, is every bit as much of an American citizen as Scott Brown and his daughters are -- has a family who vigorously denies that he is a Terrorist and is "pleading" with the U.S. Government not to murder their American son:

His anguish apparent, the father of Anwar al-Awlaki told CNN that his son is not a member of al Qaeda and is not hiding out with terrorists in southern Yemen."I am now afraid of what they will do with my son, he's not Osama Bin Laden, they want to make something out of him that he's not," said Dr. Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. . . ."I will do my best to convince my son to do this (surrender), to come back but they are not giving me time, they want to kill my son.

How can the American government kill one of their own citizens? This is a legal issue that needs to be answered," he said."If they give me time I can have some contact with my son but the problem is they are not giving me time," he said.

Who knows what the truth is here? That's why we have what are called "trials" -- or at least some process -- before we assume that government accusations are true and then mete out punishment accordingly. As Marcy Wheeler notes, the U.S. Government has not only repeatedly made false accusations of Terrorism against foreign nationals in the past, but against U.S. citizens as well. She observes: "I guess the tenuousness of those ties don’t really matter, when the President can dial up the assassination of an American citizen."

This isn't a case of bleeding heart liberals being conned; everyone's aware that Anwar Al-Awlaki is a pretty dangerous individual who calls for jihad against Americans. But he's also a U.S. citizen, and deserves at least as much from the legal process as someone who holds up a bank.

That's what's supposed to make us different.

After this morning's ruling from Federal judge Henry Hudson, I took a closer look at him, since his ruling seemed to try to make a record for a valid challenge to existing case law on the constitutionality of the commerce clause. The right wing has long harbored the hope of stacking the Supreme Court with enough conservatives to overturn a huge body of existing case law established when the New Deal was passed, and this ruling plays right into it.

Meet U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson. Via Huffington Post:

But with power comes scrutiny. And as judgment day approaches, a Democratic source sends over judicial disclosure forms Hudson filed that could raise questions about his impartiality. From 2003 through 2008, Hudson has been receiving "dividends" from Campaign Solutions Inc., among other investments. In 2008, he reported income of between $5,000 and $15,000 from the firm. (Data from 2009 was not available at the Judicial Watch database.)

A powerhouse Republican online communications firm, Campaign Solutions, has done work for a host of prominent Republican clients and health care reform critics, including the RNC and NRCC (both of which have called, to varying degrees, for health care reform's repeal). The president of the firm, Becki Donatelli, is the wife of longtime GOP hand Frank Donatelli, and is an adviser to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, among others.

Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.

Campaign Solutions answers thus:

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

Ah, but the Donatelli dynasty isn't simply limited to Campaign Solutions, which is basically a turnkey campaign creator. No, no. The Donatellis are the "go to" people for all sorts of Republican fun.

Let's start with the Young America's Foundation. This is the non-profit organization for the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara. In addition to maintaining the ranch, the Young America's Foundation has training, literature and other good clean fun for indoctrinating America's youth in the ways of the Republican Party. Frank Donatelli is a director and the Secretary/Treasurer of the Young America's Foundation. (2008 Form 990 - PDF) The Foundation's President is Ron Robinson. Ron Robinson is a director of Citizens United.

Then there is Donatelli Group, which includes Campaign Solutions, EDonation.com, and DonationReport.com, in addition to their PR/Direct Mail arm at ConnellDonatelli and Donatelli Avella. Donatelli Avella receives $15,000/month from GOPAC for management and political consulting. Of course, the Donatelli outfit is also closely linked to the Swiftboaters of 2004. Click that link for a list of some current clients, including...Young America's Foundation. Oh, and Citizens United.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words (and links):

(interactive map)

There's some pretty direct linkage between Frank and Rebecca Donatelli and the Koch family, the McCain campaign, and other Republican movers and shakers.

Anyone who spends any time researching campaigns, campaign finance, and the Republican party learns right up front that nothing happens in the Republican party without a Donatelli having a hand in it somewhere. They are everywhere.

So, to have a judge who is one of thirteen private investors in a firm which is one of the primary Republican movers and shakers and which has deep, strong connections to Citizens United, its affiliates and its directors is no small thing. It is a very, very big thing. People who invest money in small, closely held corporations aren't the kind who call up their broker and ask what the hot stock of the day is. They know the ones they're investing in very well, probably have a round of golf or two with them from time to time, and surely have moved beyond the occasional meeting at a fundraiser or dinner party.

Bottom line: Judge Henry Hudson is a well-connected player in the Republican party. Just what the party machine ordered. A well-oiled judge to smooth the way for what is a planned assault on any legislation that benefits people rather than corporations.

Good job, GOP.

Well, we were hoping to hear this news -- and figuring it was likely -- but later this afternoon, it will become official:

Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law

The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.

The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

The Washington Post:

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said.

But the filing is likely to have a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the government has not announced its plans. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.

The law is obviously unconstitutional. But then, if the latest poll numbers are right, a large majority of Arizonans don't care what the Constitution says.

At least, when it says things they don't like. Bet they all love watching those Glenn Beck shows on the Founding Fathers, though.

Kind of funny when the GOP is so extreme, they're pushing NJ Gov. Chris Christie (a real wingnut) to be more of a right-winger!

Gov. Christie says he has not decided whether to sign on to a 20-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the health-care law signed in March by President Obama. That makes New Jersey one of seven Republican-led states that have not joined the largely partisan fight.

Interest groups on both sides of the debate are lobbying the governor, but some of his advisers say he should not join the suit. Capping property taxes and managing a difficult budget have rightly been his top priorities, they say, and New Jersey residents are more open than people in other parts of the country to health-care regulation.

With 16 of 23 states led by GOP governors fighting the new law, at least one national expert said Christie faced the risk of becoming an "outlier through inaction."

"He's going to have to explain why he has stood out among his colleagues in his own party by not doing something they've all done," said Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group in Washington.

Can you imagine? When Christie goes to the men's room, does he have to say "Mother, may I?"

This Supreme Court is usually ready to hand a win to the Republicans, but it seems it would be a bit awkward if they tried to cooperate with the "unconstitutional health-care law" crowd:

Reporting from Washington - Lawsuits from 14 states challenging the constitutionality of the new national healthcare law face an uphill battle, largely due to a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California.

At issue in that case -- just like in the upcoming challenges to the healthcare overhaul -- was the reach of the federal government's power.

Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy joined a 6-3 ruling that said Congress could regulate marijuana that was neither bought nor sold on the market but rather grown at home legally for sick patients.

They said the Constitution gave Congress nearly unlimited power to regulate the marketplace as part of its authority "to regulate commerce."

Even "noneconomic local activity" can come under federal regulation if it is "a necessary part of a more general regulation of interstate commerce," Scalia wrote.

The decision throws up a significant hurdle for the lawsuit filed last week in federal court by 13 state attorneys -- all but one a Republican. The Virginia attorney general filed a similar, but separate suit.

The suits claim that the federal government has no right to force individuals to have health insurance -- a central provision of the new healthcare law.

"By imposing such a mandate, the act exceeds the powers of the United States under Article I of the Constitution," according to the suit from the 13 states.

But this week, Obama administration lawyers pointed to Scalia's opinion as supporting the constitutionality of broad federal regulation of health insurance, and most legal experts agreed.

I was taking a look at Gov. Chris Christie's budget today and then I saw this. Will New Jersey follow in California's footsteps and start governing by mood ring?

A state appeals court today ruled New Jersey’s secretary of state must accept a petition a citizens group filed to recall U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez, but left open the question of whether the removal effort itself is constitutional.

The three-judge panel stayed its ruling to give Menendez (D-N.J.) the opportunity to appeal to the state Supreme Court.. The senator has 45 days to file an appeal but did not say today whether he would. He called the recall effort a "political stunt" that won’t distract him from doing his job.

"This an organization trying to undemocratically and unconstitutionally overturn an election in which more than 2 million New Jerseyans voted," said Menendez, whose term expires in 2012. "My focus continues to be on job creation legislation and delivering a successful extension of my local property tax relief bill."

The court found existing New Jersey law and the state’s constitution both allow U.S. senators to be recalled. For that reason, the appeals court said, the removal effort can proceed. But noting the absence of case law and precedent, it left the ultimate question of the constitutionality of the state’s recall law and amendment to a higher court.

"There are a host of genuine arguments and counterarguments that can be articulated and debated about whether or not the Federal Constitution would permit a United States Senator to be recalled by the voters under state law," the appellate judges said.

"I’m pleased," said Dan Silberstein, attorney for the Committee to Recall Senator Menendez, which is backed by the New Jersey chapter of the conservative Tea Party movement. "I think the appellate court made the right decision on where the case is procedurally."

Menendez’s attorney disagreed.

"The U.S. Constitution is clear that a senator’s term is six years and is not subject to recall," said Marc E. Elias. "The state attorney general correctly argued before the court that a recall is unconstitutional and a clear disservice to voters who take part in a petition process that is invalid. We are pleased the court stayed this opinion until the appeals process is completed."

Whoops:

The top prosecutors in seven states are probing the constitutionality of a political deal that cut a funding break for Nebraska in order to pass a federal health care reform bill, South Carolina's attorney general said Tuesday.

Attorney General Henry McMaster said he and his counterparts in Alabama, Colorado, Michigan, North Dakota, Texas and Washington state - all Republicans - are jointly taking a look at the deal they've dubbed the "Nebraska compromise."

"The Nebraska compromise, which permanently exempts Nebraska from paying Medicaid costs that Texas and all other 49 states must pay, may violate the United States Constitution - as well as other provisions of federal law," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said.

McMaster's move comes at the request of Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

In a letter to McMaster, Graham singled out the deal to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson's vote on the massive health care bill the Senate is expected to adopt Thursday. Nelson held out as fellow Democrats worked to get 60 votes to foreclose a GOP filibuster and the bill was amended to shield Nebraska from the expected $45 million annual cost tied to expanding Medicaid programs.

"We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49," Graham and DeMint wrote.

Nebraska wasn't alone in getting Medicaid breaks. Vermont, Louisiana and Massachusetts also got help with their programs.[..]

Also Tuesday, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Republicans need to stop complaining about deals their colleagues made.

"Rather than sitting here and carping about what Nelson got for Nebraska, I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Let's get together and see what we can get for South Carolina," Clyburn said.

Boy, this is a tough one. As much as I don't want to validate the petty obstructionist machinations of Republicans, I kinda wouldn't mind Nelson's sweetheart deal struck down. After all, he thinks we women are second class citizens undeserving of full health coverage.

This is inspiring. Hopefully, we can look forward to the day when civil rights aren't a matter of geography and campaign strategies:

Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, has become the first state to challenge the constitutionality of a federal law that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, saying Congress intruded into a matter that should be left to individual states.

"In enacting DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), Congress overstepped its authority, undermined states' efforts to recognize marriages between same-sex couples, and codified an animus towards gay and lesbian people," the state said in a lawsuit filed today in US District Court in Massachusetts.

The lawsuit said that more than 16,000 same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts since the state Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal in 2004 "and the security and stability of families has been strengthened in important ways throughout the state."

[...] The lawsuit argues that DOMA, which was enacted in 1996, precludes same-sex spouses from a wide range of protections, including federal income tax credits, employment and retirement benefits, health insurance coverage, and Social Security payments.

Consortium News: Commander Codpiece lied in our faces again yesterday. Several times. Perhaps the most egregious was his oft-repeated claim that Saddam “chose to deny the inspectors.” None of the useless Washington press corpse challenged this blatant fabrication, or any of the other whoppers he vomitted up.

Alas, a blog: Do these people really beieve that abortion is?

Bring it On! House Republicans offer stirring defense...of Halliburton

Beggars Can Be Choosers: U.S. ill-prepared for what forecasters say will be another brutal hurricane season

DARE Generation Diary: Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union are now seeking plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law that strips college financial aid from students with drug convictions.

Bring it On! House Republicans offer stirring defense...of Halliburton

Beggars Can Be Choosers: U.S. ill-prepared for what forecasters say will be another brutal hurricane season

DARE Generation Diary: Students for Sensible Drug Policy and the American Civil Liberties Union are now seeking plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law that strips college financial aid from students with drug convictions.

Supreme Court will hear “partial birth” abortion case

"The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will consider the constitutionality of banning a type of late-term abortion, teeing up a contentious issue for a newly-constituted court already in a state of flux over privacy rights...read on

Feministing has more...