Constitutional Amendment 12

Posted on 2009-06-17 by David

After five presidential elections in which the second choice for president became the vice president, the nation decided to alter the presidential elections with the Twelfth Amendment. Prior to this amendment it was common for the president and the vice president to stand in opposition to each other as the strongest candidates in the election. I suspect that the resulting tension when they were then supposed to work as part of the same administration is why John Adams called the vice presidency:

the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived

Perhaps if the nation had miraculously not developed a party system this amendment would not have been necessary:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States. (strikout portion was altered in the 20th amendment)

No longer was the president chosen and then paired with his strogest rival. Based on this amendment the president and vice president were chosen separately and simultaneously. Our present system of parties creating presidential tickets to specify who they prefer for each position and of presidential candidates generally choosing their running mates with very little interference (although they undoubtedly get lots of advice in the process) is neither mandated nor forbidden by the Constitution.

Posted in General | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

George Washington’s Farewell Address

Posted on 2009-06-16 by David
By wallyg

By wallyg

I have always had great respect for George Washington, but in the cannon of political doctrine his Farewell Address should be considered equal to the doctrine of the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament and the prophecy in the book of Revelation in the New Testament. Washington himself boils down the topics of his address as follows:

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, . . .  I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; (emphasis added)

This was Washington’s final effort to publicly influence the future direction of his beloved country before he could finally retire as he had privately wanted to do for years. He starts by reminding the nation – then and now – of the nature of its birth:

I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection, and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. (emphasis added)

Notice that he does not recommend or propose that we should establish similar constitutions for others, but that we should preserve our own constitution so that others would desire to adopt such a constitution for themselves. Continue reading →

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Why Bob Bennett?

Posted on 2009-06-15 by David

I went to the organizing convention for the Utah Republican Party on Saturday. While I was there in the nidst of hundreds of people campaigning for candidates and causes among the state delegates I made a point to talk to a variety of people sporting Bob Bennett t-shirts. With four primary challengers at present it is easy to see that the discontent with our incumbent is widespread. I believe that the reasons for supporting a challenger are not substantially different between those supporting Mark Shurtleff, James Williams, Cherilyn Eagar,  or Tim Bridgewater (in the order they will have officially announced) – I understand some of those generic reasons for seeking a change. What I wanted to understand was what motivated those who were actively supporting an embattled incumbent. I tried to present the question in a way that would get them to try to sell the candidate to me rather than leaving them feeling as if they (or their candidate) were being attacked.

I have to say that I was not very surprised by the answers that I received. I talked to more than two people and I always talked to them one-on-one so that one person would not influence the answers of another but they offered only two distinct reasons between them.  The first reason was the same one I heard from Senator Bennett back in February at a town hall breakfast meeting – seniority. (Some said experience but it amounts to the same argument.) The other answer I heard – and this would likely be even more disconcerting to many conservatives than seniority – was Bennett’s ability to work with Democrats. Personally I would rather support someone who would drown while trying to swim against the current than support someone who would stay afload by swimming with the current that was swiftly running away from the desired destination. Thankfully I think that we have candidates already in the race who can stay afloat while swimming upstream.

For those who are convinced that seniority is everything we can look to the freshman representative in Utah’s 3rd congressional district. Rep. Chaffetz has done quite a job of defending his positions and even getting bills passed without an ounce of seniority – and he’s earning quite a reputation for standing firm in his convictions which probably helps him to do more than if he were more prone to going along with the crowd. Some would argue that seniority is more important in the Senate than in the House – for those I would point to the example of a freshman senator from New York who was probably more influential in the Republican controlled senate of 2000 than our own two term Republican senator in that same senate. Seniority is not everything – it’s simply useful if you are headed in the right direction.

Posted in State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Economic Contradiction

Posted on 2009-06-12 by David

Paul Krugman and I agree on little politically (I have at times agreed with him when he was arguing that TARP was a bad idea – although we disagreed on the reasons why) and despite the fact that my assumptions about the nature of sound economics differ from his most of the time I recognize that he has a lot of expertise in the field that I can learn from. For example, I have not known enough about economics to be aware of the Setser point that he is looking at. For those like me who are new to the term, the idea is this:

high government borrowing is more than offset by net negative borrowing from the private sector

As far as I can tell, Krugman is among those who believe that the flow of money defines the health of the economy – the more the money moves (borrowing, spending, and creating) the healthier the economy. Krugman and those who believe like him will doubtless argue that when the private sector borrowing declines governments must borrow more to keep the economy healthy. In other words, lower private sector borrowing causes (or rather necessitates) higher government borrowing. Unfortunately for them the numbers appear to paint a different story. If the cause and effect relationship is not simply the reverse of that assertion then the relationship is at least symbiotic with governments trying to manage or compensate for the actions of the private sector causing an opposite, but more than equal, reaction as the private sector tries to outguess the government.

On the other hand, I believe that people in the aggregate (meaning many individuals over a sustained period of time) make economically beneficial decisions (not always the best decisions necessarily, but better than rolling government loaded dice).

What the Setser point tells me is that government borrowing drags the economy down because of the opposite but more than equal principle noted by Sester and Krugman and it prolongs the agony when those in the private sector – for whatever reason – determine that we need to slow the borrowing to set the economy back on a fundamentally sound foundation.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hate Crime

Posted on 2009-06-11 by David

I keep thinking about the tragedy at the Holocaust Museum yesterday. I find it tragic and unfortunate that the security guard is the one who has died while the assailant is still alive. I have heard that authorities are considering whether this was a hate crime. Personally I think that it is painfully obvious that this was a hate crime but has me thinking once again that there is no reason that hate crimes should be treated differently than any other crime.

Imagine if the security officer had been killed in the midst of a robbery. In that case this would not be a hate crime, but the officer would be just as dead as he is now so the incident is no less tragic and the crime no less grievous. In my mind, if the punishments we dole out for a crime ore not severe enough then we should change the punishments for the crime, not reclassify some instances as “hate crimes.”

The only time that I can see any argument for any legislation against the attitudes and beliefs that we try to prosecute with hate crimes legislation is in the case of speech. I believe it might be possible to draw a line where hateful speech is worthy of criminal prosecution where other inflammatory but not “hate” speech would be protected.

Posted in National | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Constitutional Amendment 11

Posted on 2009-06-10 by David

The amendments in the Bill of Rights seem to be viewed by many people as part of the original constitution. It looks to me that later amendments can be categorized as either clarifications of the constitution or alterations to it. The Eleventh Amendment would fall under the category of clarification:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

I don’t believe that the founders ever intended to infringe upon the sovereignty of states simply because a citizen of another state had a grievance against them. The initial intent was probably to have an impartial judge of such cases but they discovered that citizens could abuse that clause. Today we need to find ways to stop Congress from abusing some other clauses of the constitution.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments

Second Amendment Victory

Posted on 2009-06-09 by David

My appreciation for the second amendment just went up another notch. Opponents of gun ownership rights like to argue that guns kill people (for that matter so do hands, cars, T-bone steaks, and many other things) but they never mentioned that gun rights could also kill an illegal house seat for D.C.:

Fights over gun control in Washington, D.C., may have killed for the year a bill that would give Utah a fourth U.S. House seat and give D.C. a House seat with full voting rights.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., delivered that message in his weekly briefing for reporters on Tuesday

Apparently leaders in D.C. would rather keep very strict gun control laws than gain an unconstitutional voting seat in the House. If they want to now pursue a path to full House representation that does not sidestep the Constitution I’ll sign the petition at the first opportunity. Residents of D.C. deserve voting congressional representation as much as anyone else, but that does not justify ignoring the fundamental law of the land.

I still can’t believe that 80% of Utah’s congressional delegation fell for this Washington parlor trick. If the bill comes up again in 2010 I hope they will be smart enough to reject it since Utah would only have 1 possible year of representation before we would get another seat anyway (regardless of what Orrin Hatch would tell you about possibly missing it again).

Posted in National, State | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

Banks Giving Back

Posted on 2009-06-09 by David

While it is good news that 10 banks will be allowed to repay billions in bailout funds I would be much more excited if I didn’t already know what was likely to happen as a result.

The banks were deemed strong enough to leave the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, after months of lobbying and strong performances on recent stress tests. The banks are expected to return about $68.3 billion to the Treasury Department, more than double the administration’s initial estimate of about $25 billion in funds to be returned this year. The timetable is also earlier than government officials originally intended.

. . .

The $68.3 billion represents about a quarter of the TARP money given to banks.

That last figure tells me that we still have over $200 billion illegally given by our government to our banking system.

My lack of enthusiasm for this news comes from two concerns. First, the administration will use this news as evidence that the bailouts are working better/faster than expected. The truth is that the banks have been working furiously to find a way to get rid of that money ever since they read the regulations that came with it. Second, having that money will be used as a way to help fund other illegal activities by the federal government such as propping up the UAW by buying GM (the money being returned covers everything we’ve put into GM so far) and even worse than that is the possibility that some smart government people might take the news as an excuse to say, “hey, we have $68 billion more than we expected,” and then go on to fund another $58 billion in projects that they did not dare to fund previously. That’s like buying a $500 LCD monitor when you can only afford $100 and then buying an $80 printer when the $100 rebate arrives early.

So the banks are giving back more and earlier – that’s good for them (and “good for them” is what they are paid to do) but that does not mean there’s a chance that the government will start giving back or being financially responsible in any way.

Update @1:20pm: Here are a few words from the president today confirming my claim that the administration would use this to show that the bailouts are working better than planned:

Several financial institutions are set to pay back $68 billion to taxpayers. And while we know that we will not escape the worst financial crisis in decades without some losses to taxpayers, it’s worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these companies the government has actually turned a profit.

. . . We’re restoring funds to the Treasury where they’ll be available to safeguard against continuing risks to financial stability. And as this money is returned, we’ll see our national debt lessened by $68 billion — billions of dollars that this generation will not have to borrow and future generations will not have to repay.

He says that the money is being returned to the treasury, but I’m confident it will find a way to sneak out again like a good rebellious teenager despite the president’s best efforts to keep it at home where it belongs. 😉

Posted in National | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Online Conservative Desert

Posted on 2009-06-08 by David

I understand that it is a commonly held belief that the political left has more influence in online political activity than the political right. Now we have research by Richard Davis that sheds a bit of light on that.

Davis also queried more than 200 journalists to learn how they use blog content in their coverage of political news. Most journalists were aware of influential blogs on both sides of the political spectrum, such as Daily Kos and Talking Points on the left and Michelle Malkin and Instapundit on the right. Despite equal awareness, journalists spend more time reading posts in the liberal blogosphere.

For example, more journalists know about Michelle Malkin than Talking Points. Yet twice as many journalists actually read Talking Points than read Michelle Malkin.

I wish I could find the article that first alerted me to this research because it included another tidbit of information – in the research into political bloggers a much higher percentage of right-leaning bloggers read left-leaning blogs than the number of left-leaning bloggers reading right-leaning blogs.

From my own experience here in the conservative state of Utah I can say that we have at least as many left-leaning political blogs as we do right-leaning political blogs.

My question is, why is this? Why, even where the political right vastly outnumbers the political left on the ground does the political left still hold an edge over the political right online? My suspicion is that part of the answer lies in the fact that the political left was functionally irrelevant in national politics as the world of online commentary was becoming more powerful and widespread. Those who had less of a voice in running the governments might easily have been more anxious to use these new tools to communicate and respond. The result is that in some ways they have a six year head start in online organization and dialog over those who were content to be holding the reins of office. In those six years and without the luxury of turning away all who would challenge their thinking it is reasonable to expect that they might have a more vibrant and interesting dialog in general than their counterparts. It may not be that most members of the media natively prefer liberal positions, it may be that they and even some of those on the right are simply allergic to immature conversation that has not had time to develop as widely without that head start gained in the political wilderness.

I believe that this needs to be rectified. The online conversation should be a more accurate reflection of the various positions held by those on the ground. Perhaps some time in political irrelevance by the political right might serve as an incentive to create some oases online of fertile conservative conversation which could plant the seeds so that our online desert can blossom as a rose, just like the desert we live in has blossomed in the last 162 years.

Posted in State | Tagged , , | 7 Comments

Anti-Slavery Petition of 1790

Posted on 2009-06-06 by David

In my study of our founding documents I found this Petition from the Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, signed by Benjamin Franklin and published in 1790, to be rather interesting. In the Letter the society asks Congress:

that you will be pleased to countenance the Restoration of liberty to {slaves}, that you will devise means for removing this Inconsistency from the Character of the American People, that you will promote mercy and Justice towards this distressed Race, & that you will Step to the very verge of the Powers vested in you for discouraging every Species of Traffick in the Persons of our fellow men. (emphasis added, capitalization original)

I wondered what they expected Congress to do considering the prohibitions on Congress’ power regarding slavery prior to 1808 as stated at the beginning of Article 1 Section 9 of the Constitution:

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

I assume that stepping to the very verge of the powers vested in Congress would mean that they wanted Congress to impose a tax of $10 per slave on the importation of new slaves.

Posted in General | Tagged , | 2 Comments