"If you're gonna vote in Texas, ya gotta have a photo in your hand"

 Props to anyone who gets the song reference in the title of this post.  Thumbs up and brownie points from me!

If you have stuck with me this long, or have the misfortune of knowing me personally, you know that one of the first things I told all of you when I started this venture was that I was a Texan.  Very Texan.  In my future careers and assignments, I may be asked to move around the country or, perhaps, overseas, but home will always be Fort Worth, Texas, where the West begins and where colder beer and better steaks are served (don't believe that old "Dallas" talk, overrated if you ask me).  Politically, my great state has been...well....hit and miss.  I mean, I love the can-do, we're Texan and so you obviously can't tell us what to do mentality that is everywhere in the state from Corpus to Amarillo.  But we get a lot of flak for Bush...both of them.  We hear endlessly of the corruption in our state politics (mostly by  those outside the great state), and we are always subjected to (most commonly) battles over Congressional redistricting and presumed racial malpractice left over from the Civil War (mind you, a war that was fought over 100 years ago, but I digress).

Just a quick bit of history.  After the Civil War, those states who were once a part of the great Dixie experiment were accused of unnecessary poll taxes, taxes levied (as in money that must be paid to the state by a voter when they vote this is important later...) during elections that affected, mainly, minority, black, newly enfranchised voters.  The states (including Texas) did this in order to (as established history tells us) continue to disenfranchise those black voters who just won the right to do so.  The cry of racism was hollered, and the Supreme Court of the United States actually declared such a tax constitutional in the decision of Breedlove v Suttles in 1937.  As the makeup of the Court changed throughout the 50s and 60s, however, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution was also passed (in 1962), the text of which is as follows: 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

The Court then declared in a 6-3 decision the ruling of Harper v Virginia Board of Electors which made such taxes for state elections unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution ("no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, etc, etc". 

Now, you may be asking yourself, "I am from Colorado, why should I keep reading this dude's rant about Texas?'.  Understandable, but listen to the recent remarks made by Attorney General Eric Holder at the annual NAACP Convention Summit of Empty Heads thingy regarding Texas' new Voter ID Laws, passed by the Texas legislature in 2011:

Mr. Holder is referring to the following process put into place under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, putting it around the same time frame as our legal history I alluded to.  Now, the fifth section he alludes to in his remarks concerns the states shaded in blue to the right here.  These states and highlighted counties and districts must submit any change or addition to their voting qualifications to the Justice Department (of which Mr. Holder is the head...amazingly coincidental) in order to be approved and deemed constitutional.  Instantly noticeable are the states you would expect to be put on the spot and put on watch for racial profiling:  Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi.  Gold ol' Dixie.  Throw in Virginia, parts of Florida, Alaska, and Arizona.  Now, there is a "bail out system" put in place for these states and counties to escape the dark shadow of preclearance in which the state (at the time of the submission of its application to the Justice Department) could not have had any voting legislation shot down by the Justice Department in the preceding 10 years. 

Guess Texas will have to wait another 10 years to no longer have to be watched over by the Feds because, as you heard, Mr. Holder's Justice Department has struck down Texas' 2011 Voter ID Law as unconstitutional and, even more strangely, he calls it a new kind of poll tax.  Mr. Holder makes the statement that

Listen to this, listen to this (yes, Eric, I believe they are listening)...a concealed handgun license is admitted as an acceptable form of ID under their law, but a student ID is not!

A few points I would like to make. The first is with respect to what kinds of ID are required under the Texas law:

• A driver's license 
• DPS Personal ID card 
• Military ID card 
• Citizenship Certificate 
• Concealed Handgun license 
• U.S Passport 
• Election ID card (voter registration card) 

I currently possess four of the seven admitted types of identification.  If you want to be fair and take away the passport because, obviously, minorities cannot possible afford to take lavish vacations, then I possess three of the seven.   The Justice Department continues to point to numbers and statistics (a good summary of which is in the article here) which show that minorities are targeted by these types of ID because they either do not own a driver's license, or do not live in areas with a "close in proximity" DPS office to go to and get a driver's license, thus leading one senator to suggest that Hispanic voter turnout will decrease by as much as 120%.

Easy way to solve this issue with driving long distances and paying large fees for a driving course or for a passport and shoving and stuffing 10% differentials between minorities  into meaningless articles.  Here it is...ya'll ready?

Citizenship Certificate 

If you are a citizen of this country, either by naturalization or birth, you have been issued a citizenship certificate proving such.  I mean....shouldn't everyone have one of these?  Look in those old cardboard boxes your parents keep...its bound to be in there right?  If not, contact the hospital you were born at (presuming it was this country) or the town hall of your town of birth...they keep records.  The entire argument these people propose falls apart with this one requirement (cue inner monologue):  Okay, you can't afford a driver's license, the DPS is too far 'cause you live in the sticks, you did not serve in the military, you do not own a handgun, you for some reason are not registered to vote (then why are you here in the first place...), and you do not own a passport.  Well, are you a citizen then?

This is a fail safe.  In this day and age documentation is needed for everything we do.  Here's a short list of places where you need a photo ID to conduct business there:

• DMV/DPS
• Airports 
• Hospitals 
• Pharmacies 
• Donating Blood 
• Buying alcohol 
• Banking transactions
• When writing a check 
• Social Security offices 
• Pawn Shops 
• Jails 
• Using a credit card 
• Voting in Union elections (This one I find absolutely hilarious)

And that is just what I could think of off the top of my own head.  Now, I understand, that all of the list I just gave is not "constitutionally protected" like our right to vote is.  But, in my opinion, that it is a right does not bar states from enacting provisions to ensure that such an act or right is carried out and is done legally. 

Secondly, go back and reference the preclearance map I provided.  Here's another (with a different color scheme) to demonstrate my next point:

The states that are in green require a photo ID to vote (Texas, of course, is now in limbo), states in yellow request a photo ID (not required), states in blue require a non photo ID, and grey states demand no kind of ID.  Now, I find it interesting that all of the former Dixie states have current voter ID laws on the books and that, even more shocking, three of them are states which require photo IDs.  

Here is another breakdown:  States who need to be precleared under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are in bold. 

Strict photo ID (voter must show photo ID at polling place): Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin. In addition, South Carolina and Texas have strict photo ID laws that must receive, but have not received, approval from the federal Justice Department; pending such approval, they require non-photo ID.

Photo ID or alternative (voters at polling place must either show photo ID or meet another state-specific requirement, such as answering personal questions correctly or being vouched for by another voter who has voter ID): Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota.

I did some digging and will now break down (by states affected by the Voting Rights Act which require or request voter photo ID), what kinds of IDs are acceptable:

• Georgia: Any state or federally issued photo ID (including a free voter ID card from the county registration office) a Georgia driver's license (even if it is expired), any state of federal employee worker ID, valid US passport, valid military ID, valid tribal photo ID (Indian tribe...) 
• Indiana: I know, Indiana is not affected by the VRA, but its requirement on student IDs was particularly interesting, so I threw it in. Indiana only requires that certain things be on the ID when presented at the polling station: photo, your name which matches the voting record, an expiration date, be state or federally issued.  Note: a state ID from an Indiana state school is only acceptable if it meets the criteria and private school ID cards are not acceptable (sorry Notre Dame).  For the record, my Texas A&M University ID card does not have an expiration date, but meets all other criteria under the Indiana law. 
• Mississippi:  Mississippi's law is also under DOJ scrutiny and has yet ot be passed but merely states that a "government or state photo ID is acceptable".  
• Alabama: Government or state issued photo ID (current or valid), employee identification card, photo ID of Alabama college or university, photo ID from an Alabama professional or technical school (current or valid).  
• Louisiana:  Louisiana driver's license, a Louisiana "special ID card", any other generally recognized photo ID. 
• Florida: The following are only acceptable if they contain your name and photograph: US passport, debit or credit card, military ID, Student ID, retirement center ID card, neighborhood association ID card, public assistance ID card.  

Focusing first on Georgia, the only state susceptible to Section 5 of the VRA that requires photo ID.  The only thing that Texas offers as acceptable that Georgia does not is the handgun license.  It also does not specifically state that student IDs are acceptable.  All other states are admittedly less stringent and also do not require photo IDs but only request them.  But even with this caveat, Georgia's photo ID laws are currently on the books and has been since 2006.  In that intervening time, President Bush reaffirmed the VRA.  If the DOJ was to do a thorough job of evaluating the Texas ID law, it should be judged in the same way Georgia was judged.  In addition, the DOJ should take into account the current immigration issue and the impact it does have on election fraud.

The intent of this law was to decrease the number of voter frauds that occur in the state of Texas.  Due to governmental pressures the state of Texas must constantly submit any change in their voter ID laws to the DOJ which, frankly, does not have a good grasp of the current immigration issue in the South (as the current Arizona debacle is showing).  This opinion by Mr. Holder and the DOJ is just another misunderstanding of a situation that the federal government has no frame of reference over.  The states are trying to do their best to work with the system and (at the same time) crack down on ways to keep state security and processes legal and available only to legal citizens.  In a Catch 22, these actions are seen as racist, purely because of the type of people who are breaking these laws to begin with.

"Oh empire wide and glorious, you stand supremely blessed. God bless you, Texas, and keep you brave and strong.  That you may grow in power and worth throughout the ages long". 

Why, yes, indeed, I am in fact still living

Gorgeous reader!  How lovely to see your bright smiling computer generated face after this undeserved separation.  I do hate it when life rips us apart from each other, but I have learned that there is always one constant truth when it comes to our relationship...I just can't quit you.  God love you, Heath Ledger. 

NOW, on we go.  A few things you must know regarding where, in fact, I have been hiding.  I would love to regale you with stories of skiing in the Alps with Martin Sheen, or exploring the wreck of the Titanic with Mark Zuckerberg, or going to Mars and visiting Tupac, but, alas, I have been leading a life of banality.  I tackled a month long summer course at the end of May and through June (hence my absence), during which time useless mathematical dribble was forced into my cerebellum.  I have not completely recovered my sanity.  BUT, "the strife is o'er now" as the old hymn says and I have emerged from the rabbit hole, enlightened.  Mix in taking the GRE in mid June and composing graduate school applications and you will find my life has effectively been sucked away. 

But my GOSH, what a great load of THINGS have happened in this month long hiatus, and I do love a nice thing or two to keep me interested.  Just a quick rundown of the list of nuggets I plan to tackle in this one post:

1.)  The 78904586723th Summit of the European Council to discuss the future of the EU and Euro
2.)  Something called Obamacare...I think the Supreme Court said something?  Its a tax penalty that is also a tax on a penalty taxing a penalty and...a...thing.

....seriously, order a pizza or pour a drink or something.  This one's gonna be a long one.  There may be only two broad topics, but both are of monumental importance. 

The European Council's "Great Compromise"

At the end of last month, the European Council met in Brussels to discuss the (again...and again) the future of the Eurozone and its beloved currency.  For those who are unaware of the institutional bodies of the government of the European Union, the European Council has the distinct honor of doing absolutely nothing.  Ok, maybe that is a bit of an unwarranted jab, but really, the Council is comprised of the heads of state from all the member of states of the EU and is tasked by the Treaty of Lisbon to "provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its development".  Basically a big think tank full of the big wigs.   

See, big wigs:

The main topic on the agenda (as you may have surmised) was the future of the EU in the wake of the Greek elections last month.  In a nutshell, the elections resulted in a victory for the current government who towed the line on the "stay in the EU" argument.  Many foresaw a victory by the opposition party as a precursor to the Greeks exiting the EU.  But, the iceberg was averted, and the EU continued to keep all of its member institutions together as one big happy family.  Whether or not a Greek exit (or Greexit, as it was being monikered) would lead to the dissolution of the EU altogether is debatable, but the fact that the Greeks are staying put for the time being called for a major discussion on how to best avert this same situation occurring, perhaps, with another deficit ridden member (Italy, Spain, Portugal for example). 

The two sides of the debate can be summarized thusly: German Chancellor Angela Merkle has been unshakable in her (and her country's) commitment to austerity measures for those EU member states who have been lent money (German money) to stabilize their economies, meaning, practically nil public sector spending and a huge cut in taxes.  To her credit, she rationalizes this stubborn attitude in experience: the German economic miracle that took place after the great World War Two and, ultimately, after the reunification of Germany following the Soviet Union collapse in 1991 all were results, arguable, of these policies.  What is good for the Germans, the thinking goes, will also be good for all EU members. 

To be expected, the debtor nations do not take kindly to the German government effectively running their country's fiscal and monetary policy.  Italian and Spanish heads of state, Mario Monte and Mariano Rayjoy, have been pushing for a banking union between EU members to drive down the yields on sovereign bonds, and also advocating more freedom with which loaned money can be spent, saved or invested by the respective debtor country.  The Council's meeting green lighted both of these efforts and resulted in the following:  the creation of a single Europe wide bank adviser (appointed and constructed by the European Central Bank), and the injection of bail out funds directly into banks, and not to just governments with austerity measures attached. 

However, there are caveats. Europe’s politicians did not commit themselves to a banking union. There was no agreement to euro-wide deposit insurance or to a common bank-resolution scheme. And although the summit agreed that euro-zone rescue funds could be injected directly into banks, this depends on the single supervisor being in place first (again, to be decided on and appointed by the ECB). 

I am dubbing this Council meeting the "Great Compromise" of the EU crisis thus far.  Both sides have claimed a victory in this fight, and both seem pleased with the short term results and accolades of financial firms and commentators.  Unlike the article I linked to, I believe that (seeing that the ECB banking adviser board is done in a bipartisan way) the give on both sides at this Summit is what, ultimately, the citizens of the EU deserve:  compromise between the nations.  And isn't that why this whole experiment began in the first place?  Yes, it is.  

Roberts Rules 

 

I will not rehash what I am sure you already know.  The Affordable Healthcare Act was found constitutional under the taxing power of Congress, with a ruling decision of 5/4 coming down to Chief Justice John Roberts.  In a completely non partisan way, I was floored by the ruling.  Not so much in the substantive consequences of the passage of the law, but in the conundrum legal reasoning used by the Chief Justice.  Throwing out the "landmark" status of the case and constitutional questions it posed and answered, I will remember this case for a particular quote that the Chief Justice used in his opinion. 

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

 Boom.  Headshot.  As the saying goes.  With all the hubbub of the individual mandate and the commerce clause implications and the ideological rhetoric from both sides, this quote cuts through it all.  In effect, Roberts recognizes that the Constitution grants powers to Congress and that Congress, using those powers, may enact legislation that is both constitutional and unpopular.  He, as a Justice, does not assume that every constitutional law will be popular and every unconsitutional law will be blatantly unpopoular.  Is that how it should be?  I think, yes.  Now, do I agree wholeheartedly with CJ's reasoning here?  Perhaps not, but that is not the focus of this particular blog piece.  By now, you have formed your opinion of the ruling, perhaps read as I have the 193 page ruling, and no blog piece I put forth to you will change your opinion. 

Here, though, is where my "pat on the back" of the CJ ends.  What I can do is relay to you what I know to be true of the implications of the ruling.  I have already been notified by my family that our Flex healthcare payment system allotment is to be cut in half because of this ruling.  We are a family four who could barely make due with the allotment as is, and now it is being halved.  That is a real world consequence for you, constant reader, amidst the self aggrandizing and, might I say, absolutely pathetic and altogether stupid comments made by both sides in defending and attacking this issue.  Here is a favorite of mine: 

Gold.  Oh, and this gem as well from the White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew on July 1, 2012 when he was confronted with the question of whether or not the new healthcare tax is an infringement upon the campaign promise of 2008 to not raise taxes on families making $250,000 or less a year:  

Full interview video here...please watch....imbedding for this particular video is being wibbly.

"That's not what the Supreme Court said, what the Supreme Court said was that this is Constitutional, they said that it didn't matter what Congress called it, it is a penalty for the 1% who choose not to buy insurance. Technically, what they said is that Congress has many powers, there's the commerce clause, there's taxing power, and it was Constitutional, that's what they said...it doesn't matter what they call it"

My response, **clears throat**

 

Let's clear something up at the very top of this conversation.  The individual mandate was deemed constitutional under the Article 1, Section 8 power of Congress to levy taxes.  The Court has ruled since then that under this taxing power, Congress can also issue a penalty for not complying with laws on the books as it did in the nuclear waste case of New York v US.  What Mr. Lew is trying, and failing miserably to do, is to defend the health care...ahem....penalty by making the distinction that a "tax" applies to **all** citizens, whilst a "penalty" applies only to a group percentage of the population (here, he and Nancy Pelosi both supply the number of 1%, straight from the Office of Pull the Statistics out of your Butt) who are being "irresponsible" and who are "free riders" and are thus, "making their health care cost a burden to others".   

It is amazing how this rhetoric has changed.  It is amazing that how merely 6 months ago we had to suffer through the lamentations of how families are without health insurance because they cannot afford it and it is for this reason that we must pass this law.  Now, all of a sudden, the mere 1% of the population who do not have health insurance are now demonized as free riders who should "pay their fair share", according to Mr. Lew.  Wait, wasn't I supposed to feel bad for those who could not afford insurance?  And that this act was the only way to save these poor souls?  The millions of poor, uninsured Americans who were not being treated fairly by the system.  Now, apparently, those millions are really only 1%, and they all choose to be mean, horrible, obstructive minded people who refuse to pay for a health insurance plan. 

What is this, amateur hour?  You are the White House Chief of Staff.  Pretty big title, business cards and everything.  And this is the best argument you have.  Really? It seems like he is taking me for an idiot. 

And I am not amused. 

The bottom line is this, you will pay a penalty, you will be taxed if you do not buy health insurance.  Regardless of the amount, the principle of this ruling is broad and unmistakable.  The Congress can penalize inaction of the individual in any sphere with a tax penalty.  

Well, we made it through.  Two very, very large topics today that (I hope) make up for my lack of posting this past month.  Stay tuned later htis week for the "under the radar" story regarding the LIBOR.  Juicy, juicy stuff.   

"Keep the faith, stay off the naughtiness". 

 

It's More than Just the Facts, It's More than Just the Numbers

Sorry for the delay in posting, I know I have a lot to catch up on so let me dive right in with a rather lengthy piece which grew out of one particular sound bite:  

“I don’t know how they've been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up. And then they point and say, 'Look how irresponsible they are.' Look at facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job". -President Obama

The quote beginning my article today was spoken yesterday, Wednesday the 23rd, by the President in a campaign fundraising event in Denver.  If you have been reading my articles for some time, now, you know that I approach my field with an unbiased starting point.  Both parties are corrupt, both are wrong (in my opinion) on certain issues, both are correct on certain issues.  But the fact remains that this story and quote caught my eye, not only because it is not true, but it is an admonishment of one the President's key champion "successes" in his first term.  

To begin, the graph above is from the Congressional Budget Office, a bipartisan group who documents the extent to which Congress will spend in the coming and preceding years based on past spending and the President's current submitted budget.  Keep in mind, the group, although bipartisan, is headed by a representative who is the same party as the majority of Congress (in this case, Democrats).  The graph displays the curve at which it is estimated the country's budget will be a percentage of GDP all the way through 2035.  Of course, the main cause of this debt is the expenditure of the government on various initiatives.  Needless to say, the CBO predicts a large increase in this percentage in both scenarios it presents to the administration.  I am letting the numbers speak for themselves.  This is a CBO chart taken from a CBO report which also states the following:   

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path—meaning that federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over  the long run…

CBO’s long-term budget projections raise fundamental  questions about economic sustainability… 

If spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. 

Both parties spend money.  And a lot of money.  All the time.  No party is more "fiscally responsible", they just have different ways in which they spend money.  In the case of the President, spending for various bailout initiatives, social programs, welfare, and other Democratic talking and acting points, which is AWESOME if you believe the government should be spending money on such things.  For the record, I do not, but that is an opinion and you are entitled to your own by all means.  The crisis in 2008-2009 was a failure on behalf of both parties:  the Democratic Clinton Congress in the early to mid 90s, and the Bush presidencies saw an increase in spending on the domestic and foreign fronts.  If anything is a bipartisan venture in Washington, it is spending the tax payer dime.  

They way in which I seek to approach this statement by the President is this:  it is not an issue of whether or not it is "true" that the Democrats are "more fiscally responsible" and must "clean up the mess" of the Republicans.  That is not the issue.  The President, in his calculations, did not include either the cost of the bailouts of the banking and housing industries, or General Motors (American Recovery or Investment Act), nor did he include the costs that would be incurred if the Affordable Healthcare Act is upheld by the Supreme Court in June.  In essence, he removed the spending amounts of the two signature moves of his first term in office.  That is where I must interject.  The following video was taken from a press conference in Denver a year after ARIA was passed:  

"We acted because failure to do so would have needed in catastrophe...to do what is right for the US economy and the American people.  One of the main reasons why the economy...growing...responsible for the jobs of 2 million Americans who would be unemployed".   

It was only a year after the ARIA was passed that the President credited it for saving the economy from slipping into a Depression, and stressing the importance of the "bipartisan...tough political decision" it was.  But:  "We had a responsibility to the US economy and the American people".  It would follow from this quote, that the President reasons that the decision was a tough one, but it was one he suffered political hardship for in order to better serve the American people.  An admirable statement and action, because it was designed to be.  Thats is not a shot at the President, it is good politics.  You want the people to believe you incurred a cost to do them some favor.  

I must then ask, why shun the responsibility for the ARIA now, 4 years later after its passage, by excluding it from the total number of expenditures the administration has incurred?  If you believed, politically, that the stimulus was a bad decision, one taken to avoid making a worse one, done for the greater good of the economy and people of the United States, why shy away from that viewpoint and ostracize the action entirely?  In my opinion , the administration should be less concerned with giving the stimulus up for adoption, but rather with hammering home the idea that the stimulus, although politically hurtful to the President, cause all the recovery we have experienced since the passage of the ARIA.  

Why then has the administration shoved its greatest accomplishment and show of bipartisanship under the rug?  Is it because they know the recovery has not been strong and, therefore, the stimulus must be distanced from their campaign, or are they merely citing the spending done before the stimulus was passed, and that the spending done which led us to pass the act was done (largely) by Republicans?  That is your decision based on your political beliefs.  

Like I said, both parties spend money and both are to blame for the crisis in 2008-2009. 

 And to suggest that one is more responsible is folly.  

Mister Obama and these Women

Monday, the President traveled to give his own commencement address to the Barnard College for women in New York City.  You can see the full address here (the President begins at 15:45).  Just as Mr. Romney used his own address to shed light on his more personal side, so, too, did the President use this opportunity to speak from a personal place.  Indeed, the President was a little more forceful in his rhetoric in support of homosexual marriage and the rights of women, but this is to be expected in such a setting.  Both men this week chose, obviously, "safe" political places to give these addresses:  Romney to a group of evangelicals, and Mr. Obama to a group of women (who, as the most recent Battleground poll suggests, he seeks to pursue heavily).  Ironically, both of these groups are also those, or a part of, groups each candidate knows he must conquer in order to be victorious in November.

Obama spoke well to this younger generation of women, calling to the forefront the political troubles of the country in their era and the lack of faith in our political institutions.  He spoke, however, about hope for the future, touching in the importance of a college level education for all, the investment in new technologies, the development of clean energy, the future control of "bad banks" and "insurance companies...charging women differently than men". In short, women need to be treated equally in all aspects of life, including "the health choices you choose to make".  Obviously, the roll of women and the empowerment of women was spoken about, and rightly so.  I do agree with the President in his statement that,

 "This is the century in which women shape not only their own destiny, but the destiny of the nation and  of this world".   

These few points, however, were the only policy issues he brought to the forefront, urging, instead, for women to "take a seat at the head of the table".  The speech, in short, played the same role of Romney's on Sunday: to strengthen an electorate base by hitting on key issues and the importance of that group and their views in this modern world.  A shrewd move by both politicians and their campaigns, whether or not you agree with them, is up to you.    

Mister Romney Gets Back to the Stump: 

Gov. Romney spoke in Iowa on Tuesday, the first time he spent time in the state (and its crucial electoral college votes) since the Republican caucus in January.  His topic: the national debt and spending.  Again, thanks to C-SPAN for broadcasting the address.   

"A prairie fire of debt is sweeping across Iowa and our nation, and every day we fail to act we feed that fire with our own lack of resolve. This is not a Democratic or Republican problem. That fire could care less if you have a donkey or an elephant in your front lawn, it’s still coming for your house".  

Gov. Romney told his constituents gathered that he would help them put out the fire of this "American nightmare".  He referenced Bill Clinton's statement to his Democratic party back at the end of his campaign in which he advised the party to no longer seek the answer to the country's problems in another program.  He offered, here, a few good jabs at both the Clintons and the Obamas, their administrations, and their policies.  Romney (on the heels of Obama's Barnard address) credited the President's policies with the nation's low number of college graduates able to find a job, and challenged the people of Iowa to vote such a way in November to "can and do better than that".  

Following those points, Romney hit again on the faithful points of the stimulus, its effectiveness, and the unreliability of Obamacare.  

'When you add up all of his policies, he has increased the national debt by 5 trillion dollars.  each household share of government debt has now reached $520,000".   

Romney called such a hike in the debt "morally wrong".  This harkens back to the 2004 quote of the President's in which he called the actions of the Bush administration's hiking of the debt "unpatriotic" and "morally irresponsible".  This was a deliberate quote by Romney and one, obviously, meant to show the hypocrisy of the current administration.  Easily, the Obama camp will counter stressing the enormity of the crisis they inherited in 2008 and the unprecedented nature of such a recession.  Who will you believe?  That us your decision.  

No doubt we will her these arguments from both camps well into the summer and fall, and Romney used his stop in Iowa as a warm up session for his biggest sound bite hits against the President.   

Extra Shots of Espresso:

The battle between the Republican House and the President on the defense budget continues, and may include an eventual veto 

Watch the Nebraska Senatorial race tonight, the trend of Tea Party Express candidates winning republican nominations may continue if AG Bruning can edge out Senator Fischer.   

Ron Paul... concedes?  

At the bar...: 

Coming this week:  

Feature: A look at Ron Paul and his impact on the Republican primary, Presidential race, and Independent movement.  

Your Sunday Constitutional: The Right of the Federal Government to Take Over the Creation of Business Corporations 

Your Sunday Constitutional

Welcome, dear reader... 

 to the first in a series of "regular" posts I hope to create entitled "Your Sunday Constitutional" in which I, by the guidance of the good people at Constitution Center, take an issue of recent debate or interest and see how it matches up against and in context of the Constitution.  For this first installment, we will look at President Obama's recent support of homosexual marriage and what Constitutional actions could be taken place by both the Congress and the President to enforce such an opinion.  The following is based on Lyle Dennison's article on the same topic.  Must give credit where it is due...but I will add a few embellishments and opinion of my own.

To begin, let's look at the actual statement issued by President Obama this last Wednesday during an interview with ABC News:

“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married….I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has…been I didn’t want to nationalize the issue….I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what’s recognized as a marriage.” 

Now, we all know that there is no specifics in the Constitution regarding marriage of any kind, or the processes by which it is to be carried out.  The federal government (specifically, Congress) is not given any enumerated power to affect the action of marriage from a Federal government level (look to Article 1 Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution).  Of course, whether or not it should have that power was already brought to bear in the Courts during the interracial marriage disputes that were brought before the Supreme Court and, ultimately, placed under the purview of the federal government in Loving v Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967).  

Obama's last clause in his statement can lead us to believe that he does not wish to take any federal action regarding homosexual marriage and, therefore, not treat this issue on the same level as interracial marriage was.  Now, given this context, that he wishes to leave such a decision up to the states and their legislatures, he has three options on the table that he could take-if he chose to do so: 

First:  The Constitutional Amendment - This seems the most obvious.  Pass an amendment to the Constitution specifically addressing the institution of marriage and the illegality of the banning of such an act based on race, creed, or gender.  Of course, the problem easily seen with this route is the passage and approval of such an amendment by the States.  We merely need to look to recent state legislative action, most recently my North Carolina, to see that the people of certain states and their legislatures would vote to oppose such an amendment.  Below is a map of states that allow some sort of version of homosexual marriage:  

It is unclear on which side of the fence the "undecided" states would fall, thus it would provide a risky move for the Obama administration to try and push an amendment as the champions of homosexual marriage, only to have it fail on the national level. 

Second: Use the Supreme Court - I will be the first to tell you that the Court has never and should never, ever base their opinions on ideological lines...because we all know that the Court is unbiased in all of its proceedings...because, simply, the justices are not human...yeah right.  The Court is political and ideological on certain issues, do not be fooled.  Therefore, Obama could find the ban on gay marriage in the majority of the States overturned by the Court ruling in favor of a case in which a petitioner claimed that their 14th Amendment rights were violated under the Equal Protections Clause.  When asked if he would consider using the Justice Department to enforce homosexual marriage, Obama did not answer directly (like any good politician), but rather pointed to the Department's argument against the 1966 DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  He alluded to the same conclusion:  that the DOMA violates the 14th Amendment. However, even if the highest Court in the land granted certiorari to hear such a case and declared such a violation to have taken place, the ruling would not necessary strike down specific state legislative acts that are given credibility under the 10th Amendment (such as California's Proposition 8).  To that end, the Court could rule the a constitutional right had been violated, but that would not automatically circumvent the actions of the States due to the arguments in favor of the 10th Amendment.  The Court would have to rule on the 10th Amendment viability of homosexual marriage in its ruling and, by doing so, would rob a lot of power from the legislatures of the States and set a very broad precedent, a decision, I think, they are not quite ready to issue yet, especially given the opinion due out in about a month concerning the viability of the Affordable Health Care Act...maybe you've heard of it...  

Third: Get the Congress to Cooperate - The first time I considered authority with which Congress could pass legislation on this issue, I knew that it would be a minefield of legality.  As I already stated, the Constitution offers no specific power enumerated to the Congress to pass such an act on this issue, nor does it specifically prohibit the passage of such an act (Article 1 Sections 8 and 9).  The first idea that popped into my head concerning how Congress could go about this concerns with the Full Faith and Credit Clause in Article IV which states:   

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the pubic acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State.  And the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved and the effect thereof.   

Quite simply, the legal process of marriage and the "state" of marriage that certain states granted to homosexual couples can, through an act of Congress, be required to be honored in the States which do not provide such a process.  Now, this does not necessarily grant homosexual marriages to get married in ALL the States in the Union, but it could prove to be a useful first step in the process and, at the same time, gives homosexual couples the freedom to move where they wish based upon job, income, etc.  A second act of Congress, which Mr. Dennison brought to my attention, was for it to declare that marriage is a "privilege and immunity" or national citizenship and, therefore, cannot be violated by any state law.  Based on the Supremacy Clause, both of these actions would take precedence before any state law, but, like the Supreme Court's opinion, encounter strong opposition from the 10th Amendment crowd.   

To Conclude - The President has 3 routes he could chose to federally mandate the legality of same sex marriage.  If anything, the ability of all three branches of our government to have the power to grant such an act is a very telling commentary about the viability and special nature of our national government.  However, I think that ultimately, the President has the correct and most reasonable approach to this issue:  he knows that to try and grant the right to marry to homosexual couples on a federal level would be very taxing, requiring both sides of the aisle in Congress to cooperate, stifling the arguments from the 10th Amendment right proponents, or hoping the Supreme Court issues a judgment in his favor without compromising the institution of the Court itself and its neutrality.  The President knows that each of these scenarios is unlikely, especially given the current divisive nature of our politics.  Therefore, the President merely voiced his opinion on the issue to strengthen his base in time for election season, while also hinting at the idea that he may be, in fact, a Federalist on this issue.  

However, this last point could deal as much with expediency than it does with his ideology.   

[edit]

Quite possibly the best, most awesomest poll in the history of everness

In the run up and hubbub hurtling us towards the inevitable national human sacrifice ceremony known as the Presidential election, it is important to keep track of the various degrees with which likely voters approach each candidate.  As I mentioned in my introductory post, the science with which I concern myself is, to me, the most interesting due to its ever evolving and changing nature.  The results from a month ago will mostly likely change due to some unforeseen policy gaffe or campaigning snafu.  This is what makes politics exciting and...dare I utter...fun!  But I digress, I could go on for hours about how much I ADORE this stuff (I mean, I am blogging about it on a Saturday night...during the summer...and I am in college...gosh I must be a bore...).  If you want to have access to what is, in my not so humble opinion, the BEST election season polling data and breakdown, look no further than the Battleground Polling Statistic Project put together by the good people of POLITICO in conjunction with George Washington University, The Terrance Group, and Lake Research Partners.

 Now, maybe I am a little biased due to the fact that I would give an arm, a leg, and two eyeballs to be lucky enough to attend George Washington's Graduate School of Political Management for my Graduate Studies, but even so, this poll and presentation of its statistics is very, very well done by the folks over at the POLITICO.  All the questions are detailed and mapped out very clearly AND (this is my geeky freak out nerd part): you can see how the numbers fluctuate for each past polling session held (usually every 2 months or so).  The poll began tracking data (President Obama's approval rating, issue agreement, etc.) back in the Summer of 2011 in the run up to the Republican primary last fall and into this year.

So, if you are equally politically nerdy (like yours truly), feel free to dig around the old polling results and see how the numbers fared during these times.

I mean, what else are you doing on a Saturday night?

 That's what I thought...

From Mister Romney's Chair

This morning, Gov. Romney gave a commencement speech at Liberty University, a private, Christian university in Virginia.  This was to be the (presumptive) Presidential candidate's first major public address since President Obama announced on Wednesday his official backing and support of homosexual marriage.  I watched the address on C-SPAN this morning, eager to see how Romney would address this very public move by Obama, but was not expecting much seeing as how he was addressing a Christian college.  Any earth shattering admission on his part would not take place in such company, but I was interested nonetheless in seeing how Romney would take this time to use this speech as a personal moment for himself.

You can watch the full address I provided in the link above, but as I expected, the speech was little on the policy side and more on the personal.  Romney has been widely criticized by those on the left of being a sort of wet blanket, an empty suit in all of his public appearances, unable to connect with the electorate at large.  The speech he gave this morning gave, in my opinion, a personal side to the candidate that I had not seen before, including a touching story about a certain chair he presented to Mark DeMoss, the Executive Committee Chairman of Liberty University upon which a plaque was placed, stating "You always have a seat at my table".  Despite whether or not you "buy" this side of Romney, you have to admit he needed some kind of positive public PR in the wake of Obama's recent public surge on the issues.

On the issue of homosexual marriage, Romney stuck to his guns, as he has since the campaign began, by stating:

“Culture, what you believe, what you value, how you live, matters.  As fundamental as these principles are, they may become topics of democratic debate from time to time. So it is today with the enduring institution of marriage. Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman.”.

Shocker.  

But what else can you expect from the Governor, given the location of his speech and his core supporting base on of "anti-Obama".  The time at the podium, however, gave the candidate the chance to reveal a personal side rarely seen on the cable networks.  In my humble opinion, the Romney campaign could do well to have such personal moments, and their effects, more widely broadcasted to the American people who are uncertain about Romney's gravitas.   

In other news....... 

The John Edward's campaign expenditure case will see its day in Court  

Democratic Senators may not heed the President's same sex marriage endorsement 

Senator Harry Reid speaks up for filibuster reform in the Senate