Ralph Klein, the former Alberta premier whose grip on office earned him the sobriquet King Ralph, has gone from reigning to making rain.

The one-time TV reporter and high-school dropout announced yesterday he is joining national law firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP as senior business adviser, just one month after resigning as premier and three days after relinquishing his seat in the Alberta Legislative Assembly.

Although not licensed to practise law, Mr. Klein says he will act as a resource for BLG lawyers working on files of key personal interest, such as energy development, health care reform and the evolution in securities law, among other things -- "although I need to bone up a bit on securities legislation."

Klein will devote about spend two-thirds of his time to the law firm and be based out of its Calgary office.

He is working with former Newfoundland premier Brian Tobin to develop an energy policy for the Fraser Institute and he’s joining another conservative think-tank, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.

Klein will be a guest lecturer in the fall at the prestigious Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C. The former premier also has commitments to be executive in residence at the University of Alberta, and chair of communications at Calgary’s Mount Royal College.

The bill also requires clearer reporting of home state projects, denies pension benefits to those convicted of serious crimes and requires lawmakers to pay the full price fare when traveling on chartered planes. Opponents of the bill complained the measure discouraged free speech by deterring petition drives, but majority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called the measure "the most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country."

In a sharply worded speech directed at the third, and equal, branch of the government, Gonzales outlined some of the qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench. He condemned what he termed activist judges with lifetime appointments who "undermine the right of the people to govern themselves."

In nominating a judge, "we want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments," Gonzales said in the 20-minute speech to American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. "That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country."

Gonzales did not cite any specific activist jurists or give examples of national security cases.

Pressed later for examples, he noted that Congress approved the Military Commissions Act, which authorizes military trials for terrorism suspects, four months after the Supreme Court ruled the trials would violate U.S. and international law.

"I don't think the judiciary is equipped at all to make decisions about what's in the national security interests of our country," Gonzales said. "How would they go about doing that? They don't have embassies around the world to give them that information. They don't have intelligence agencies gathering up intelligence information. ... It was never intended that they would have that role."

Carl Tobias, a constitutional law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said it is inevitable that courts would decide some of the most contentious questions involving national security.

"Some of the most difficult issues are about national security, how to balance national security and civil liberties - especially in the context of domestic surveillance and enemy combatants," Tobias said. "Those are critically important issues that the courts are being asked to resolve."

Gonzales, a former Texas Supreme Court justice, also characterized efforts to retaliate against unpopular rulings as misguided. He mentioned a failed South Dakota proposal to sue or jail judges for making unpopular court decisions.

He also urged Congress to consider increasing the number of federal judges to handle heavy workloads and to offer them higher salaries to lure and keep the best ones on the bench.

The US Senate passed the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 by a 96-2 vote Thursday, but declined to create a Senate Office of Public Integrity to investigate ethics breaches. The bill was the first major initiative taken by the Senate in the new Democrat-dominated session of Congress. The measure regulates lobbying activities by preventing lawmakers from accepting gifts and travel from lobbyists, requiring stricter reporting of lobbying activity, preventing spouses of lawmakers from lobbying the Senate and extending the period a former senator must wait before undertaking lobbying activities to two years. The final text passed by the Senate, however, did not include a provision which would have required disclosure of grass-roots lobbying. Senators voted 55-43 not to include that provision in the bill.

The bill also requires clearer reporting of home state projects, denies pension benefits to those convicted of serious crimes and requires lawmakers to pay the full price fare when traveling on chartered planes. Opponents of the bill complained the measure discouraged free speech by deterring petition drives, but majority leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called the measure "the most significant legislation in ethics and lobbying reform we've had in the history of this country."

"Hopefully this will send a message to other states," said the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that represents the interests of state lawmakers and advocates free-market policies. According to ALEC, five other states - Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi and New York -- have all filed "Fair Share" bills like the one that became law in Maryland. A Wal-Mart defense group -- Working Families for Wal-Mart -- applauded the appeals court ruling.

It is important that the Security Council has decided to establish a special tribunal. The United Nations has concluded agreement with the Lebanese Government. It is a source of concern for me, as Secretary-General, that we are not being able to establish a special tribunal, as was mandated by the Security Council. At the same time, I was encouraged by the willingness of the Lebanese Government to work together for the establishment of a special tribunal, including President Lahoud and Speaker of the Parliament Berri. I will discuss again this matter with the Lebanese leaders when I meet them in Paris.

The Lebanese cabinet approved a draft plan for the tribunal in November despite the resignation of all six pro-Syrian members. In December, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud formally refused to endorse the document, calling on the cabinet to take up the proposal again "when there is a legitimate and constitutional government."

The measure has been approved by the UN but requires backing by both Lahoud and the Lebanese parliament before the tribunal can said to have been formally accepted.