Amending the Constitution? Some thoughts.

Nevada Rural Democratic Caucus blog has an interesting post up about introduced resolutions to amend the Constitution of the United States. She has her thoughts, here are mine.

HJRES 03

Introduced by Rep. John Fleming [R-LA4], this bill proposes an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution relating to Parental Rights:

• Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
• Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
• Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Wow. So much of a mess here, I don’t quite know where to begin. Section 1 begins with a premise that I think is backassward. What about the fundamental right of the child to be educated to a particular standard?  With regards to Section 2, if a parent thinks their child has no need to learn arithmetic, does the state have to go to court to prove that it is in the interest of the state that the child learn basic math? What about reading? What if a parent belongs to a religious cult that thinks that girls do not need to learn to read? Would John Fleming insist that these parents have the right to refuse to educate their daughters? What happens then? More court cases?

But you know what? Let’s go for it, but here’s the deal: Any parent that chooses to “direct the education” of their child without proving that they have given their child a full and complete education has no claim to any tax dollars. So, no, you don’t have a right to ”educate” your child in a school that claims humans lived along-side dinosaurs and still expect to receive a tax-payer subsidized voucher to send your child to that school. Further, that school will not be eligible for any form of tax break, subsidy, etc.  If you do choose to avail yourself of the public school system, let it be agreed that by sending your child to that school, you are consenting to have your child taught to the standards of that school district. No more court cases demanding that your beliefs about the natural world be taught as science. No more demands that untestable theories be taught alongside testable ones as though they are equally valid. No more harassing teachers who teach facts at odds with your beliefs.   Furthermore, any school district which refuses to teach the basic tenets of science should be denied federal tax dollars as well.  And yeah, your kid will sit through health classes that teach them the basics of human reproduction.

But that other clause:  . . . direct the upbringing . . .

Hooboy - that sends some chills down my spine.  nvrdc says it well:

For example, does that mean that since a parent would have full liberty in the upbringing of a child, that they could, in addition to literally, physically whip a child into submission.  Or, in the case of a female child, does that mean a parent could incestually condition the child to please that incestuous father … or worse, to please any individual the father later farms that female child out to?

Has Rep Fleming actually thought this one through? So, I guess female genital mutilation would be a-okay with Rep Fleming. Will we be bringing back the stoning of misbehaving or disrespectful children outside the city gates? (link)

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. — Deuteronomy 21:18-21

 He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. — Exodus 21:15

 He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. — Exodus 21:17

How about honor killings?

But if this charge is true (that she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father’s house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father’s house.  Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.  (Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB)

I guess the state could prove that their “governmental interest as applied to the person [child] is of the highest order” so I guess stoning your kids would be out of the question, but nvrdc does bring up some interesting points. If we as a society insist that it is not in the child’s interest to engage in sexual behavior (a) before a certain age (b) with one’s relatives or (c) with any adult, does the parent have the “right” to ignore society’s interest in forbidding those actions? According to Rep Fleming, yes, they do.  Just thinking out loud here…

Let’s move on.

HJRES 16

Introduced by Rep. Steve King [R-IA5], this bill proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to repeal the 16th article of amendment.

Abolishing the 16th amendment would remove the right of the federal to levy income taxes. Period. Income taxes are fully 50% of the revenue taken in by the federal government.

Pray tell, how does Rep King plan to pay for the vast military industrial complex? Interstate highways?  The Internet? NASA? A little closer to home, where does he expect those federal corn subsidies to come from? Hell, how does he expect to get paid and pay his staff? 

As an aside, looking at Nevada where our per capita allotment of federal dollars is below what we pay in, the fault lies not with the census, but with ourselves. By being unwilling to ante up in order to receive our full share of tax dollars, we choose to leave money on the table.

For example, in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2008, Washington allocated $51 million to Nevada Check Up, its version of SCHIP. But the program got only $28.8 million because the state’s contribution — $14.2 million — fell $11 million short. If the state had allocated more money, Nevada Check Up would have had a total of $75 million, instead of $43 million.

But it’s not just health programs.

According to testimony last year to the Assembly Health and Human Services Committee, just 30 neighborhoods in Washoe County were being served by a nutrition assistance program, or about 1 percent of the children eligible. That left $57 million in federal funding on the table.

“To be blunt about it,” said Nicholas Johnson, director of state fiscal policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “if Nevada wanted to capture more federal dollars, they should be cutting less and doing more on the revenue side and supporting those programs with a federal match.”

At work, we are encouraged to allot as much to our 401ks as we can to maximize our company’s match. Why is it that Nevada doesn’t see it the same way when it comes to getting federal funding?  But I digress.

Moving on.

HJRES 45

Introduced by Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10], this one is proposes a Marriage Protection Amendment to the US Constitution: “Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

I see. States should be free to do anything they want, except when it does not jibe with one’s moral outlook. Then it is the federal government’s right, nay, obligation (!), to override those state’s laws.  Perhaps Paul Broun should have a chat with this fella…

HJRES 46

Introduced by Rep. John Carter [R-TX31], this is an Amendment to the US Constitution to allow the several States to nullify a law or regulation of the United States:

“Whenever the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States approve resolutions to nullify the same law or executive regulation of the United States, such law or executive regulation shall be null and void and any portion of another law or executive regulation amended by the nullified law or executive regulation shall be deemed to read as if the repealed law or executive regulation had not been enacted.”

I think I’m getting whiplash. Seriously though, can you imagine the chaos? So each state legislature would be allowed to overrule the United States Congress? Rep Carter might want to reread those portions of the Constitution relating to the states (and this time for comprehension).

So which is it? Are we the United States of America where each citizen of our country is free to go from state to state with the understanding that under the U.S. Constitution, they have certain rights and privileges, or are we the loosely aligned States of America where there are no guarantees? 

Why does John Carter hate America?

And finally . . .

HJRES 17

Introduced by Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16], this bill proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution of the United States repealing the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

You know what? I’m all for this. The 22nd Amendment was added after FDR had the audacity to win re-election three times and until the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives are subject to term limits of no more than two terms in each house, I see no reason why the President should be subject to the same restriction.  For some perspective, at the time of his death, FDR had served only 13 years as President – just slightly over the length of two U.S. Senate terms. There are currently 18 U.S. Senators  and 42 U.S. Representatives who have held their current seats longer than FDR was President.

And while we’re at it,  let’s abolish the cap on the number of representatives a state can have.  Let’s go back to pure representation by population in the House of Representatives as was originally required by the Constitution.  That would surely help even things out in the Electoral College as well!  Let’s set a population number that gets a state a representative. 500K gets you one, 750,001 – 1,250,00 gets you two, 1,250,001 – 1,750,000 gets you three, and so forth.  That would truly make the House of Representatives truly “representative.” (click on images for larger resolution)

 I did some math and compared the 2010 U.S. Census figures and congressional representation. Only one state actually lost population, but nine states that grew in population actually lost at least one representative!   If representation were strictly proportional (1 rep per 500K population) look at the change!

That’s it? That’s the change?

I was tipped by the Humboldt Democrats blog that the changes to the DNC Delegate Selection Plan had been hammered out by the Rules and Bylaws Committee, so I went looking for more information.  Nothing at the DNC web site. They’re still talking about the nomination of Elena Kagan and passage of the Health Care “Reform” bill. Not quite current. I found this press release, repeated in a couple of places.

July 10, 2010 – Over the past two days, the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee has worked to make significant progress towards finalizing the Party’s 2012 delegate selection rules.  As part of its efforts, the RBC has voted to recommend to DNC members a plan that would increase by approximately 700 the number of pledged delegates elected from the states, the District of Columbia and territories.  In doing so, the plan would increase the proportional influence of pledged delegates at the 2012 Democratic National Convention from approximately 80 percent in 2008 to approximately 85 percent in 2012. 

That’s it? Adding 700 pledged delegates? Bumping their influence from 80 to 85%? The number of superdelegates remains the same.

The rules included in the proposed plan would also provide for unpledged delegates declaring their Presidential preferences no later than a date certain – which will be shortly after the conclusion of the presidential nominating process in their respective states, territories and in the District of Columbia.

Unpledged delegates (that would be super delegates) must declare their presidential preference by the end of their respective state’s nominating process. That “end” is each state’s state convention, not the primary, as many people think.  For instance, in Nevada, our 2008 caucus was January 18, 2008, but then we had our county conventions in March, followed by our state convention in April. Iowa follows the same sort of plan. As far as declaring one’s Presidential Preference, uncommitted is a viable preference to declare, so I’m not sure how that changes much of anything for superdelegates. Further, superdelegates (as with regular delegates) may “pledge” to a candidate, but they are certainly free to change their minds and/or vote their conscience. Again. No real change here.

DemRulz has done the yeoman’s work on this, covering the RBC’s meetings. Please note, what follows are all just recommendations by the RBC and still need to be adopted by the full DNC in August. We’ll see how that goes.

Roolz vs Roolz

Those who wish to disenfranchise the 2.5 million Democrats who came out and voted in their Presidential Primaries in Michigan and Florida keep screaming “but they broke the rules!”

Except the DNC’s own Delegate Selection Rules for the 2008 Democratic National Convention (Section 2.H) also says that the state parties, in states where the election will be on government-run voting machines, are supposed to have a plan for and pursue legislation that would provide all voters with voting machines with verifiable paper trails, preferably optical scan machines. This is what the Florida legislation provided for.

The bill Crist signed also requires a verifiable paper trail for all voting machines throughout Florida. Currently, 15 of Florida’s 67 counties use paperless touch-screen voting machines. The remaining counties use optical scan machines where a voter marks a paper ballot with a pencil and it is electronically scanned.

So, you have to ask, which “rule” takes precedence? The primary date or the voting machines with voter verifiable paper trails? As Uppity over at No Quarter remarked:

Basically, Florida chose not to drown so the party gave them a hanging sentence instead.

Raising campaign cash in Europe?

I had a nice chat with an older woman and her son (who appeared to be about my age) today at Borders in Reno. I kept overhearing him mentioning that Hillary had been in England raising money and he indicated that she was raising foreign money. It piqued my interest and I asked him about it. He said he had heard it on the BBC that Hillary had been in England with, as he put it, “her tin cup out” raising campaign cash. I asked him how that was possible since FEC rules require that cash donated to federal campaigns be from US citizens or resident aliens (green card holders). He insisted that she was working some angle and that the Brits were fully expecting all the other American candidates to do the same.

Well…not so fast. It turns out that the Clinton campaign is planning a fundraising trip to Ireland. But it is to raise money amongst expats there. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “expat” is short for expatriot, in this case meaning an American living abroad (outside the borders of the United States). See Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad.

From the BBC article:

He first came to help bring peace to Northern Ireland, but the next time Bill Clinton visits Ireland will be to help raise the estimated £249m his wife needs for her presidential campaign.

. . .

The Clinton campaign aims to hold a fundraiser targeting Democrat supporters living in Ireland.

Irish-born publisher Niall O’Dowd, who is on the finance committee of the Clinton campaign team, believes Hillary has a lot of support among ex-pats in Ireland.

“I know there is a plan by the Clinton campaign to hold a fundraiser in Ireland for American citizens and green card holders,” he said.

So there you go. No, Hillary hasn’t been to England. They DO plan a fundraiser in Ireland. But it will be Bill going. And it will be perfectly legal money they will be raising.

Man, people have just got to stop, think and examine before they go and believe the worst.

Gotta say though, once we got past this part of the conversation we had quite a nice time discussing the US political scene, campaign finance reform, the lack of civic knowledge amongst the general population, the decline of civil liberties, the trials and tribulations of trying to get a green card for a spouse, etc. Me the Dem, he the Libertarian, and she the Republican. And you know what? We tended to see eye to eye on many of the topics we touched upon. Pretty grand what can happen when we all treat each other with respect.

Republican Strategy: When you can’t win by the rules, change’em

Change the rules, move the goal posts, whatever it takes. And that’s just what’s going on in California right now. Barbara Boxer lays it out over at Huffington Post.

If you haven’t heard already, Republican strategists recently announced plans to begin raising money for a dangerous initiative that would radically change the way California apportions our electoral votes in presidential elections. Rather than awarding all of California’s electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote — the way it works in every single state except the small states of Maine and Nebraska — their scheme would divvy up California’s electoral votes based on thenumber of Congressional districts each candidate wins.

First of all, it’s questionable if this can even be done as the US Constitution says that state legislatures determine the methods for allocating presidential electors. But, hey, when has the Constitution ever stopped this bunch?

So, go ahead, and sign the petition. But really, Californians, we can sign petitions until we are blue in the face, but its going to be up to you to stop this cold.

Barbara says:

If America wants real election reform — and I know I do — we need to elect our President directly by the national popular vote, plain and simple. Then the candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia would be elected President. That’s the fair thing to do.

Now that’s something I could get behind. Once the Constitution was amended to limit the number of Senator and Representatives (hence Electors), we already lost the original intent of the framers and states with large populations saw their votes diluted as even the least populous state is guaranteed three electors, giving smaller states’ votes a proportionally higher level of representation. California is awarded one electoral vote for every 662,865 residents, Wyoming gets one electoral vote for every 171,668 residents. This ballot initiative does nothing to address this disparity. Nor are its proponents calling for it across the country. Just in blue California. It’s an attempt to rig the system in their favor,pure and simple.

So, let’s just elect the President by popular vote and get it over with. And not on electronic voting machines. Paper. Hand-tallied. Period.

Election Day Voter Registration

From the New York Times Opinion Page. Though the logistics need to be worked out, and they can be, I’d heartily support this in Nevada. Our voter registration deadlines were created for the comfort of county clerks and candidates, not the electorate.

Never Too Late to Vote
By BEN YSURSA and MATTHEW DUNLAPLAST month, Gov. Chet Culver of Iowa signed a bill authorizing Election Day registration, which allows previously unregistered voters with proper ID the opportunity to cast a ballot that day. This is a powerful tool to promote voting and, as secretaries of state of two states that already have this policy in place, we welcome Iowa in joining our ranks.

With Election Day registration, all qualified voters can participate in the vital American tradition of voting without finding themselves hampered by arbitrary registration deadlines. Seven states — ours, as well as Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming — now use E.D.R., and the evidence is convincing: voter turnout in these states is on average 10 to 12 percentage points higher than in other states.

While opponents are concerned that this option might encourage voter fraud, such crime is exceedingly rare or nonexistent in states that offer Election Day registration. Citizens of Maine, for instance, have benefited from same-day registration since the early 1970s and no case of voter fraud has ever been attributed to the policy. With simple, fair and safe methods to verify voters, and by relying on effective poll-worker training and sophisticated election administration, our states have ensured the integrity of the process while allowing every eligible citizen to cast a ballot.

We also reject the oft-used argument that voters not registered in advance should be effectively barred from voting as punishment for not heeding existing deadlines. While it’s true even E.D.R. states have deadlines in place for registration by mail, we firmly believe that missing a deadline should not prevent interested and engaged parties from being able to register in person on Election Day. We are committed to leaving no voter behind, including first-time voters, newly naturalized citizens and those who may have recently changed addresses.

When it comes especially to voters ages 18 to 25 — a demographic often absent at the polls — a recent study by Demos projected that in Iowa, Election Day registration could result in a 10.7 percent increase in voting among that group.

Other beneficiaries are registered voters inadvertently removed from the rolls, newlyweds who just changed their names and people who, because of whatever mix-up, are asked to cast a provisional ballot instead. In same-day registration states, these folks don’t leave the voting booth wondering if their ballots will count equally alongside their neighbors’.

Legislatures from Hawaii to Massachusetts to North Carolina are taking serious steps toward putting Election Day registration into effect. And the need for this critical reform did not escape the notice of Congressional leaders who recently introduced a proposed Count Every Vote act, with an added provision for Election Day registration nationwide.

Though one of us is a Republican and one is a Democrat, we can attest that political affiliation isn’t relevant here: this is a policy that is good for voters, regardless of party, and good for our democracy. When it comes to elections, America is best served when all eligible voters cast their ballots — even those who missed the registration deadline.

Ben Ysursa and Matthew Dunlap are the secretaries of state for Idaho and Maine, respectively.

 

This is getting ridiculous

Looks like Florida has moved its primary up to January 29, 2008. Honestly, I think it just might take an act of Congress to resolve this. Just as we have a national General Election day, maybe it’s time to switch to a national primary day, perhaps in June? I know, I know, the Constitution leaves conduct of elections to the states, but that need only apply to state and local contests. For federal offices, the Constitution and the federal government makes the rules so why not a national primary for president?

However, I’d prefer we could go with my idea of having regional primaries that rotate every four years.

Either way, this front-loading of primaries cannot be good for us and the decision-making process that we all need to be going through.

On Edit: 8:07 pm – Howard points me to this article in The Onion. You know, these days it’s getting harder to tell parody from real news.

Rhode Island Votes To Move 2008 Primary To Tomorrow

PROVIDENCE, RI—The Rhode Island legislature has passed a law moving the state’s presidential primary to tomorrow, forcing candidates from both parties to hastily revise their schedules and platforms.

“I love Rhode Island, always have—especially the people,” said Sen. John Edwards while being briefed on Rhode Island politics aboard a plane bound for Providence. “Just because it’s a small state doesn’t mean it’s not important. Frankly, I’ve always believed Rhode Island, or the ‘Ocean State,’ as I prefer to call it, should be much bigger—an issue on which my opponents have remained curiously silent.”

Former Gov. Mitt Romney announced his intention to release a 10-point plan addressing the issues that most deeply affect Rhode Islanders, as soon as he and his staff figure out what those issues are.