HOUSE'S CHA-CHA MOVE: A "JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY" ?

In law school we were taught that before a court will entertain a case the parties must present before it a "justiciable controversy." We have heard our esteemed lawmakers use this seemingly esoteric legal concept in the ongoing debate on Charter change, particularly on the issue of whether Congress should vote jointly or separately in proposing amendments to the Constitution.

For those of you who have been closely following the Cha-cha debate, i'm sure you must have heard by now that Congressman Adam Jala of Bohol filed a petition before the Supreme Court to rule on whether Congress should vote jointly or separately. The petition was junked by the Supreme Court for being premature; in short, for lack of a justiciable controversy.

According to Camarines Sur Congessman Luis Villafuerte, the resolution he is circulating in the House to convene Congress into a constituent assembly is intended to create a justiciable controversy so that the Supreme Court may put an end to the debate on joint or separate voting.

Without going into the merits of the congressman's claim, let us try to understand what a justiciable controversy is and find out if the ongoing Cha-cha moves in the House creates such a controversy. In the words of the Supreme Court, a case is said to present a justiciable controversy if there is "a conflict of legal rights, an assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute." This principle of justiciable controversy, which is also called the "case or controversy" requirement, is actually a limitation on the power of the courts. Courts are not allowed to give an advisory opinion; one cannot just go to the courts and ask them to give their legal opinion on a particular issue, unless there is an actual case or controversy.

Corollary to this principle are the concepts of "ripeness" and "mootness." Courts will not entertain claims before they have been developed or before they are "ripe" for adjudication. In other words while they are still premature. An example is the case of a questionable bill passed by Congress that has not yet been signed into law. No matter how legally objectionable the bill is unless it becomes a law, no one can question its legality. Likewise, courts will not try a claim if it has already been resolved or has become moot or academic. In the same example, if the objectionable bill becomes a law but is later on repealed, no case questioning it will be entertained by the courts anymore or any pending case will be dismissed.

At present, Cha-cha proponents in the House are gathering the necessary signatures - at least 196, which is three-fourths of the House and Senate membership - to support the resolution to convene Congress into a constituent assembly. In the wake of a Senate rejection of a constituent assembly approval and adoption of the resolution by the House may probably create a justiciable controversy that will warrant bringing a case before the Supreme Court. There will now be assertion of opposite legal claims, with the House saying Congress has just been transformed into a constituent assembly and that the Senate must join it to consider amendments to the Constitution. Refusal by the Senate, which is expected given its contra-resolution, would give ground for the House to bring the matter to the Supreme Court through a mandamus action (a legal remedy to compel a governmental body to perform an act - join the House in joint session in this case - which the law specifically enjoins as a duty). The House will argue that with the passage of the joint session resolution, the Senate became duty-bound to join it in considering Charter changes.

The Senate, on the other hand, may institute an action for prohibition, which is a legal remedy to prevent a governmental body or official from undertaking a particular course of action alleged to be in violation of law. It will claim that the House's resolution is unconstitutional for violating the bicameral nature of Congress (by convening a constituent assembly without the Senate's consent or participation) and should be enjoined from proceeding with its move to propose amendments to the Constitution.

The House will claim that the Senate is shirking from its constitutional duty, while the Senate will claim that the House overstepped its boundaries and arrogated unto itself the sole authority to propose amendments. This clearly presents a justiciable controversy and it becomes the duty of the Supreme Court to step in and resolve the debate once its jurisdiction is invoked by any interested party.

Right now it is still premature to file any petition before the Supreme Court because everything is still preparatory, atleast in so far as the House is concerned in terms of convening Congress into a constituent assembly. There is as yet to be any official act until the pertinent resolution is filed and adopted. The unanimous Senate resolution rejecting joint session and joint voting will neither create the justiciable controversy, because by itself there is no conflict to speak of until a contrary action is taken by the House in the sense already mentioned.

Even after the recently concluded massive rally against Charter change, it still remains to be seen if the House will dampen down its obsession with amending the constitution. In the meantime let us wait and see what happens in the days to come.

DESPERATE CHA-CHA MOVES

The saying "desperate men make desperate moves" is a fitting description of House administration party members in their hurried attempt to force a Charter change before 2010 via a constituent assembly.

As everybody knows by now, KAMPI solons - led by its leader in the House Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte - are trying to generate the magic 196 votes in support of their resolution that will convene Congress into a constituent assembly. This is based on their distorted view that one of the allowable modes of amending the Constitution, which is upon a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress, could only be done in a constituent assembly with both houses of Congress voting jointly. Under this view 196 would be three fourths of both the Senate and House membership.

The clear intent of this is to outvote the Senate by, in the words of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, drowning it in a sea of House votes. By insisting on a constituent assembly (which is aptly abbreviated as "con-ass" - translated as conning of the Senate and the people by ass#&?% ! . . . you know what I mean) the pro-cha-cha solons are paving the way for a joint session by both houses of Congress and, consequently, joint voting where the Senate will likely lose.

The Senate, of course, will not take things sitting down. Whether you call it ego, institutional pride, or adherance to the rule of law, this time the Senate is well within its right to assert its constitutional authority as participant to a Charter change in passing a unanimous resolution rejecting the House's con-ass caper.

In their desperate quest for a Charter change, administration lawmakers have made a serious miscalculation and grave misreading of constitutional procedures. The ridiculous attempt to ease out the Senate in the decision to convene Congress into a constituent assembly is not only bad for the Senate's pride, it is also a flagrant disregard of the manner by which a bicameral Congress goes about its business.

I find it hard to understand how the House could possibly convene both houses of Congress into a constituent assembly by simply circulating a resolution from its members and obtaining 196 votes or more. Whether this effort will include signatures from sympathetic senators is an assault on understanding simply because a House resolution is a House resolution, that must go through its own channels in the Lower House.

The plan to outvote the Senate in a joint voting scheme will only be possible if the latter is willing to come and join the House in a joint session. For this to happen, someone in the Senate must file a resolution for this purpose or adopt the House's resolution, which will be debated and voted upon by the Senate's whole membership. As it is, the Senate had already formally expressed its unwillingness to convene with the House in joint session.

For a better understanding of the constitutional mechanisms involved, the Constitution provides that it can only be amended by either (1) Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members or (2) a constitutional convention. It is entirely within the discretion of Congress as to what mode to adopt. If it choses a constitutional convention it must pass a law to this effect. If it choses to propose the changes by itself, which is the first mode, the three-fourth vote is required to carry the changes.

The debate now is how will the first mode be carried out. According to Congressman Villafuerte Congress must convene into a constituent assembly. But there is another question to this: how will Congress convene into a constituent assembly? The congressman answers this by filing a resolution to be supported by atleast three-fourths of all the members of both the House and Senate. Take note that this resolution is only for the purpose of convening Congress into a constituent assembly and is not about the actual consideration of amendments yet. As already discussed, this proposition is ridiculous and disregards established legislative procedures.

In addition to what has already been mentioned, the three-fourths vote has nothing to do with the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly as nowhere is this provided in the Constitution. What the Constitution clearly states is that proposed amendments to or revisions of the the Constitution must be approved upon a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress, should Congress undertake the job of proposing the amendments or revisions. The three-fourths vote has nothing to do with the decision to have Congress propose the amendments, but with the voting on the actual amendments or revisions.

As cited in my previous posting, Father Bernas opined that under the first mode of introducing charter change Congress can simply do it in the same fashion it does in enacting ordinary laws, consistent with its bicameral nature. In other words a congressman or senator can simply file a bill proposing amendments to the Constitution, the same will be debated and voted upon in the chamber where it was filed, then if approved will be transmitted to the other chamber for similar consideration. The only difference in this process is that the measure must be approved upon a vote of three-fourths of each chamber's members.

Father Bernas also stated that unlike under the 1935 Constitution Congress is now not required to be in joint session. It is, therefore, entirely up to Congress if it wants to convene jointly or not, but in either case the voting on any amendment will still have to be done separately by each house. Now if the Lower House wants to convene jointly, as is the case right now with its persistent push for a constituent assembly, all it must do is adopt a resolution to this effect in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, then transmit it to the Senate for its consideration and approval.

How the House - the KAMPI members in particular - hopes to accomplish the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly is beyond understanding. Now that the Senate has unequivocally spoken it would be the height of folly to force its hand into a joint assembly by pretending to enact a measure by itself as an act of Congress. By any stretch of the imagination, an act of one house alone cannot be the act of a bicameral Congress.

THE POLITICS OF CHARTER CHANGE

After our bitter experience with deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos, who tinkered with the Constitution to perpetuate himself in power for 20 years, we have since been on the guard against possible attempts by succeeding presidents to stay in power beyond the term of their office.

With the ushering of the 1987 Constitution, that laid down the new structure of government to remove the vestiges of the Marcos regime, not only were the president's powers limited but its term of office as well. As it now stands, the president is limited to a six year term only with no eligibility for reelection, which tempts a president who is unwilling to relinquish power to extend his or her tenancy in Malacañang.

For fear of another Marcosian era - characterized by prolonged stay in power, totalitarian rule, abuse of authority, cronyism and corruption - attempts by a sitting president to amend the Constitution are always met with stiff opposition. Another reason is the desire for fresh leadership, especially if the incumbent has lost the trust and confidence of the people, as in the case of Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo whose popularity has nosedived in greater depths after scandals in her adminstration have exploded one after the other.

Now that amendments to the Constitution or Charter change (Cha-cha) are being pushed again by the administration and seriously considered by the House of Representatives, oppositions thereto have predictably been mounted anew. No matter how hard administration officials and legislators insist that the changes they want to introduce concern only the economic provisions of the Constitution and have nothing to do with term extensions, the opposition does not buy it.

Whatever motives the cha-cha proponents have one thing for sure is looming on the horizon. There will be political and legal battles that will soon be waged from the halls of Congress to the chamber of the Supreme Court. One of the most strategic issues that is already taking form is the manner of introducing changes to the Constitution. Cha-cha proponents seem to favor a Constituent Assembly (Con-ass) where amendments will be made by Congress upon a vote of three-fourth of all its members. Even among proponents of this mode, however, there is disagreement as to the manner of voting, with the president's party mates calling for a joint voting by both houses of Congress while others calling for separate voting.

Administration congressmen's insistence on joint voting, being led by Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte, is understandable from a tactical point. The Lower House's huge membership of 238 could easily outvote that of the Senate, majority of whose members are known to favor a Constitutional Convention. It is reported that Congressman Villafuerte had already gathered 167 votes to support the convening of a Con-ass - which is just 29 votes short of the required 196 votes to meet the three-fourths Constitutional requirement if Congress were to vote jointly.

But constitutional law expert Fr. Joaquin Bernas does not agree with the concept of joint voting. He believes that the Constitution does not prescribe such a procedure because the structure of Congress is bicameral in nature, with its division into a House of Representatives and a Senate. Except when expressly provided by the Constitution, a bicameral legislature does not vote jointly as this is the essence of bicameralism. Father Bernas opines that a Charter change by Congress is not one of the instances where the Constitution allows joint voting.

After all is said and done, however, the issue will ultimately have to be resolved by the Supreme Court. In this battleground not only is the legal aspect seen as the battle to be waged, but the political as well; in fact, Cha-cha proponents may even see this latter aspect as the more important of the two. Enter the Supreme Court appointments.

Without necessarily suggesting that the administration will influence the outcome of voting in the Supreme Court if and when the issue on Cha-cha is brought before it, Cha-cha proponents may wait for a favorable moment in bringing the issue before the High Court. With a chance to fill almost half of the Court's membership next year, President Macapagal-Arroyo might appoint nominees who share the adminstration's view of joint voting. This could become a vetting criterion among possible nominees to the Supreme Court. The Judicial and Bar Council, as the body tasked to recommend nominees to the Supreme Court, could very well become part of the theater of war.

THE PACMAN RULES

I know it has nothing to do about politics or law, but the sensational victory of pound-for-pound champion Manny "Pacman" Pacquiao against famed Golden Boy boxer Oscar Dela Hoya is just a story too hard to resist. As everybody knows by now, Pacquiao forced Dela Hoya to capitulate at the end of 8th round after the latter got a good measure of beating from the Gen-San pugilist.

Once again Pacquiao has proven them all wrong - the boxing analysts, I mean. After the brokered fight between Pacquiao and Dela Hoya was announced, not a few have expressed reservations about a Pacquiao victory. Our very own Recah Trinidad, a well respected sports commentator in the Philippines, opined that Pacquiao should knockout Dela Hoya or the Golden Boy will steal a victory by points. Renowed boxing trainer Angelo Dundee (who has trained boxing greats like Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Leonard, and Geroge Foreman), hired by Dela Hoya as a technical adviser, said before the fight that Dela Hoya has the perfect style to beat Pacquiao.

Some of my friends, self-styled boxing pundits - if you will, expressed fears that a Pacquiao victory hangs on the balance. And it is not a far fetch worry, by the way, considering that Dela Hoya has reach and height advantage, not to mention that Pacquiao had to go up by more than 10 pounds in weight just to qualify for the welterweight category.

But as history would have it, Pacquiao delivered blow after blow to the seemingly befuddled Dela Hoya, vindicating Freddie Roach's claim that the Golden Boy can no longer pull the trigger. Roach really knows his man when he declared that there is no doubt Pacquiao would win the match, just like when he predicted a knockout against Diaz when many were hesistant to make such bold claims given Diaz's sterling record.

The Pacman seemed to have surprised everybody - or is it the other way around, Dela Hoya surprising everybody? - when he once again showed his mettle, ala his fight against Diaz, by surprising his opponent with his speed and power and denying him, save a few well connected punches that had many of us worried for a while, the opportunity to land real big blows that makes one a winner.

The Dela Hoya we saw in his fight against Floyd Mayweather is nowhere to be found as he failed to find a place for his fighting style against Pacquiao. His long reach did not do him any good as Pacquiao unleashed his barrage of jab and hook combinations with lightning speed that caught Dela Hoya flatfooted several times.

To my mind, Dela Hoya didn't want to take the beating that Diaz had and be floored in the end that when asked by his coach if he still wanted to continue the fight, Dela Hoya gave in easily.

Post Script: There may be a political connection after all. Whenever Pacquiao fights the nation comes to a standstill. Crime rates go down and offensives between the military and insurgents temporarily stop as everybody becomes glued to his fight, all cheering as one - whether soldiers, communist rebels, adminstration or opposition politicians, rich or poor, law abiding or not. This may be Pacquiao's lasting legacy: uniting the Filipinos even momentarily.

DIRE ECONOMIC PROGNOSIS

As the US economy - which is now officially in a recession - continues to take a plunge in the wake of the US financial crisis, the outlook for the Philippine economy does not appear very encouraging as well with a grim forecast of a slowdown in the coming year.

Economists predict that the Philippine economy will be hit hard by next year as exports continue to decline and the budget deficit widens. They say that even OFW remittances will decline as more companies are cutting jobs worldwide.

To gain a perspective of what is happening with the world economy, let us take a look at the root of the problem that is rooted in the US financial crisis. For this purpose I am posting my article published in Sunstar Pampanga on October 7 and 9, entitled: Understanding the US Financial Crisis:

We must have heard by now the ongoing financial crisis in the United States with the unfolding drama of once thought to be financially impregnable, multimillion-dollar companies collapsing, such as investment giant Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, government sponsored entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, world’s biggest insurer AIG, Washington Mutual and recently, Wachovia.

To address this growing crisis, U.S. President George W. Bush has just signed a modified bailout plan to the whopping tune of $700 billion which his administration hopes will resuscitate the dying financial market and prevent the U.S. economy from spiraling down.

Reading and listening to the news reports about this crisis could prove very dizzying, what with the complex concepts and jargons of the world of finance that played significant roles in this problem. Terms such as mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, asset backed securities, credit default swaps, etc., could prove very daunting for the unitiated like me to understand.

To understand the undelying issues is to understand the news. This is an attempt to explain the uderlying causes of the U.S. financial crisis – after an excruciating research and study of the financial gobbledygook – which threatens not only the economy of the continental U.S. but of the world as well, given the magnitude of the investments in U.S. dollars of huge and several non-U.S. companies including sovereign investors.

The problem started with the housing bubble in the US where thousands of new homes have been built over a span of a few years and many have acquired housing loans to buy new homes. Lower interest rates and the availability of cheap money have driven the mad rush to build more and more houses which resulted in the supply overwhelming demand.

In a typical housing loan a lender will provide the money that the homebuyer will use to purchase a house. To protect the lender against failure by the homebuyer in paying the loan a contract of mortgage will be created whereby the house will be foreclosed (sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds to go to the lender) in the event the homebuyer is unable to pay the loan.

Lenders have considerably relaxed lending requirements for housing loans and many extended credit even to those with spotty credit history or those with poor record of paying or questionable ability to pay their loans. These loans came to be known as subprime or junk mortgages because of the increased risk creditors face with these type of borrowers – that of not being able to pay their loans or mortgages. MBS have much to do with this practice by lenders. More on this later.

An innovation of lending practice in the US is the adjustable rate mortgage or ARM. Under this scheme the interest rate is not fixed over the life of the loan and adjusts, either higher or lower, depending on the prevailing interest rate, unlike in a fixed mortgage loan where the interest rate is locked-in for the duration of the loan.

Many homebuyers with poor ability to pay have been enticed by lenders to take the ARM type of loans with so-called teaser rates where the introductory interest rate is low, thus resulting in lower monthly payments of their loans. Either these homebuyers did not appreciate the risk of interest rates increasing (which will increase their monthly loan payments) or were banking on the continuing rise of housing values that will enable them to refinance (getting a new loan on the house) to cover them against rate increases.

With rising home values homeowners could get loans against their houses over and above their purchase values. For example, if a homebuyer purchases a house worth $200,000 and gets a loan for this amount to finance the purchase, after a year or two the house might be worth $250,000 for which the homebuyer/homewoner could obtain another loan (refinance) over the same house for such an amount, thereby giving the homebuyer $50,000 in the pocket. This increase in value is what is called an equity.

In essence the ARM type of loan is a gamble on the part of the homebuyer, because he or she is gambling on the possibility of a stabilizing or decreasing interest rate in the future that will maintain or decrease the monthly loan payments, as well as on the increasing value of houses.

What these types of homebuyers did not anticipate, however, is that because the supply of new homes grew to a frenzy pace versus the demand for them home values also declined rapidly. From their peak in 2006 housing values have significantly dropped by 20%.

When interest rates increased known as a reset the monthly payments of ARM homebuyers ballooned. For most American households which are on fixed paychecks such sudden increase in monthly payments could hardly be afforded. What is sad is that these distressed homebuyers could not get their houses refinanced, which is their last hope to get them through the crunch because of the drop in home values. Thus, begins the bubble burst in the housing market.

Now one might be asking, how is this housing problem related to the financial crisis? The answer lies in the structured finance instruments developed by finance-savvy investors.

Let us backtrack on the mortgages originated by lending companies to homebuyers. In the past lending companies retain the risk of non-payment when they extend loans to borrowers. But with the emergence of certain finance instruments, which we will tackle shortly, lenders have learned how to distribute the risk while at the same time generating more money to lend to borrowers.

A lending institution that generated several mortgaged loans could now sell these loans (or the right to receive payments on them) to an investment company. The proceeds from the sale of these loans will then be used by the lending institution in extending more loans to borrowers, such as prospective homebuyers. At the same time the risk of default from the loans it previously originated is passed on to the investors of these loans.

When applied to mortgaged loans on houses these sold loans are called mortgage backed securities or MBS. The investment company that purchased these loans packages them for sale in the form of bonds (debt securities) to prospective investors. Unlike traditional bonds, however, the income from the MBS flows to the investors which come from the mortgage payments of homeowners.

The ability of lending companies to transfer the credit risk to others through the instrumentality of MBS made it palatable for them to extend high risk loans to people with poor credit history, for after all they could easily dispose of these loans to willing investors.

Since holders of MBS rely on payments being made by homeowners to generate profit, the failure or inability of many such homeowners to pay the mortgages on their homes leading to foreclosures – which became a nation-wide phenomenon in the U.S. – brought financial ruin to companies that invested heavily on MBSs.

According to former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, the creation of MBS based on subprime mortgages or high risk mortgages is the leading source of the current U.S. financial crisis. Aside from MBS, however, there are still other species of structured finance that are being blamed for the crisis, such as the more complicated collateralized debt obligations (CDO) and credit default swaps (CDS).

The simplest definition of CDO that I came across the web is that it is an investment that is backed by debt. To better understand CDOs the mechanics of how they work must be understood. Typically an investment company raises money from several investors and issues corresponding bonds (securities) to represent the investors’ interests. The money generated are invested in the purchase of loans, bonds or other assets with collateral, hence the term collateralized. These mixture of debts is called a portfolio.

The payments that the investment company receives from the portfolio is the source of income that is distributed to investors. A lot of CDOs have invested in MBS or securities in which the underlying assets are real estate mortgages.

A credit default swap (CDS), on the other hand, is an insurance against failure by a company in the payment of its obligations. For example, if you buy P100,000 worth of bonds from a company you can purchase a CDS that will pay you P100,000 – after payment of an upfront fee and premiums at set intervals for the duration of the agreement, usually five years – in the event the company that issued the bond fails to pay its obligation in what is called an event of default.

What differs a CDS from a real insurance is that one does not need to have an economic stake in the thing insured against (insurable interest) – such as that which a homeowner has over his house in insuring it against fire or other losses. Anybody can insure another’s investment in a company or in other words speculate on that company’s gain or loss. Furthermore, CDSs are unregulated.

The problem with these CDSs is that so many companies invested and speculated on them (there are an estimated $60 trillion – yes in trillion! – worth of unregualted CDSs lying around), and what exacerbated the problem is that these CDSs covered CDOs and MBSs that are based on subprime mortgages. Now if you do the math here you will see that since housing foreclosures have become so widespread the stream of income that is supposed to flow to the holders of these complicated, three-lettered investments (CDS, CDO and MBS) has been severely stemmed.

American International Group (AIG), which is the world’s biggest insurance company, had invested heavily on these CDSs. It sold more than $400 billion worth of CDS which led to its calamitous fate.

These gigantic setbacks suffered by huge financial institutions led to a freeze in the credit markets. Lending companies, including banks, are now holding tight to their money and adamant to lend them – even to each other.

To use a now famous cliché, this seizing of the financial market has trickled down from Wall Street to Main Street (to the common Americans). With banks and other financial institutions not lending money, companies are unable to resupply their inventories that will enable them to produce or sell more with the net result of more people losing their jobs (already, the Department of Labor has reported about 159,000 Americans losing their jobs); investments are being stalled as the lack of capital holds investors from venturing or expanding their businesses; people cannot obtain loans to purchase cars, homes, get equity on their homes, and are holding tight on their cash by reining in on spending resulting in a slowdown of the economy.

Indeed, the scenario for every American has become bleak. Although some experts express reservation on the effectiveness of simply pumping money back into the US economy in reviving its financial market, hopefully the newly-signed bailout plan of the Bush Administration will stem the tide of collapse of the U.S. economy.

As already mentioned the stakes here involve not only the US economy but of the world as well. Just recently in the news, European Union member-countries are working hard to come up with a consensus on how to protect their economies. The U.S. financial or credit crisis has already affected huge banks and financial institutions in Iceland, Germany, and the U.K. Let us hope and pray that a viable solution will soon be found.

OBAMA'S TEAM OF RIVALS

The speculations are over. US President-elect Barack Obama has officially nominated former First Lady, now Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Along with her, Obama also nominated Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates to retain his current post, retired Marine Gen. Jim Jones as National Security Adviser, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief, Eric Holder as attorney general, and Susan Rice as UN ambassador.



For days, the pundits have been speculating whether Obama will give the State Department seat to Clinton, and whether the latter will accept it. Some are raising the concern that Clinton might overshadow Obama or that she might diverge from Obama about her views on foreign policy. Obama, however, laid to rest this fear by saying in no uncertain terms during the presentation of his national security team nominees that he will be the one to call the shots and expects his nominees to toe the line.



Obama's appointments confirmed his resolve to assemble a so-called team of rivals; a sign of his leaning toward bi-partisanship. It takes a great strength of character for a president to appoint people to key administration positions who have once been rivals or belong to different persuasions. Senator Clinton has been Obama's toughest opponent during the democratic primary elections, Robert Gates is Bush's top man in the Iraq war, and Jim Jones is known to have differed with Obama's view of ending the Iraq war.



By being able to draw toward him people who represent different views, Obama once again showed the convincing power and charisma that carried him in the elections. It must've taken really strong and persuasive arguments to convince Robert Gates, who represented and implemented Bush's policy on the Iraq war - policies that are diametrically opposed to those of Obama's - to become the president-elect's defense secretary. The same thing is true of Gen. Jim Jones who previously stated that it is not in the best interest of the US to put a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, which does not agree with Obama's resolve to bring US troops home in 16 months.



It will only be a matter of time before Obama finds out how effective is his team of rivals concept. To be sure, he will not be overshadowed by any of his nominees no matter how assertive and intelligent they may be. He seems to be a man who will listen to all arguments or points of view on a given issue, then will give his final decision on the matter. I do not see the danger of any member of his team taking an independent path and shaping his or her own agenda. The problem that could possibly come out is the falling out of disappointed alter-egos whose positions or views cannot find a place in the president-elect's decisions.