I've expanded my coverage of the history of civil liberties by addressing interracial marriage laws, the history of the NAACP, the history of the Religious Right, and sex as a civil liberties issue.

In most contexts, civil liberties are protected by precedent and institutional memory. The executive branch respects the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court not because the Supreme Court has its own army with which to enforce them, but because it has historically done so in the past - and because failing to do so would signify instability. The principle of stare decisis governs not only rulings, but also adherence to them.

Activism, too, can benefit from institutional memory. There is perhaps no better illustration of this than politicians' enduring fear of Saul Alinsky, a community organizer who died four decades ago and never held public office. May all of us leave such a noble, and gentle, mark on history.

Like many people who have written about Ron Paul's presidential candidacy over the past two election cycles, I've been so impressed with the consistency and uniqueness of his paleoconservative philosophy that I've often overlooked the fact that, if he became president, his policy agenda would actually be pretty horrifying. I explore this in my new feature on 6 rights a President Ron Paul would take away. I know the Ron Paul movement is very net-savvy, so please do post any corrections that you feel are warranted under "Comments" below.

The increasing complexity of the conservative movement in the Tea Party era means that I need to look more carefully at where the contemporary Republican Party came from. Expect a series of biographies of early figures in the Religious Right, beginning with my short pieces on Paul Weyrich and Jerry Falwell.

I hope all of you have a wonderful 2012.

Benjamin Wittes' excellent article "NDAA: A Guide for the Perplexed" begins: "The volume of sheer, unadulterated nonsense zipping around the internet about the NDAA boggles the mind." It does. (Wittes' article is, I think, a necessary antidote.) But the question of why it's so hard for the blogosphere to get the basic details right cuts to the heart of why civil liberties is becoming an issue in the 2012 election, and in several distinct ways:

1. It reveals Obama's betrayal of his original platform. Barack Obama ran for president in 2008 as somebody who was going to end extraordinary rendition and indefinite detention, shut down the gulag at Guantanamo Bay, reduce immigrant deportations, end raids on medical marijuana dispensaries, and limit the power of the executive branch. He has done none of these things, and it's understandable for some of his supporters to become angry enough about this betrayal that they're likely to read things into the NDAA that aren't actually there. (Glenn Greenwald, who has his own take on NDAA, seems to be reframing his entire career around this.)
2. It provides an opportunity for Republicans. While the Bush administration pioneered unconstitutional post-9/11 antiterrorism policy, GOP candidates can now cite Obama's unwillingness to reverse them as a campaign issue. So far, only Ron Paul has done so--though, as I'll explain in tomorrow's blog entry, Rep. Paul has problems of his own--but the more Obama is associated with post-9/11 indefinite detention policies, the easier it is to present "big government" as an all-encompassing issue involving both fiscal policy and civil liberties.
3. It allows Occupy supporters, and others on the left who are apprehensive about Obama, to clearly distance themselves from the political establishment. This is necessary in order for a broader, independent progressive policy agenda to emerge as a force in 2012--and Obama does need to encounter resistance from within his own party, or NDAA-style concessions will become more frequent and more severe. That's not a slam on Obama in particular; it would be foolish to expect more from a politician.

Some of the best coverage of NDAA has come from Amnesty International's blog, which is well worth bookmarking. They've dealt with these issues globally for decades, and this is a case where the international human rights community can probably bring meaningful pressure to bear on the U.S. government.

Related: A Documentary History of Human Rights

I've added six new historical timelines exploring the history of specific civil liberties issues:

• The Death Penalty
• Freedom of Speech
• Indecency and the FCC
• Marijuana Laws
• Obscenity>
• Sodomy Laws

For more timelines, check out my timelines update from last month.