This one has me a little confused. If anyone can offer some clarity, I would appreciate it:

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday the state has agreed to buy Helena’s 1960s-era shopping mall as the site for a $40 million history museum, but only if supporters can raise $13 million in private funds by mid-November.

If, and only if, museum supporters can raise 13 million by November, the state will buy the little mall for 6.5 million from a bond approved by the 2005 legislature. The entire project is estimated to cost 40 million dollars, but will be built in phases as money is raised.

If the deal is signed, the state would own the mall for several years, collect rent from its tenants and be responsible for its operation, while a new mall is built for the current businesses. Then, if enough private money is donated, the mall would be razed to build the new museum.

Lets be clear here: I almost always support the idea of museums and liberal arts, but something about this deal just seems off. Am I missing something here? If the museum folks can raise 13 million dollars, why don’t they just buy the mall site themselves? Or, better yet, rather than paying for a huge building that will ultimately be torn down, why don’t they just buy a piece of empty on the outskirts of town?

I have been to the current museum several times, I really like it. It is a very nice building and well laid out. The main complaint by the Historical Society is that they don’t have enough room to display all the artifacts and exhibits. When I have visited I ran out of time/interest before I ran out of stuff to look at. That’s just my opinion and I am positive that others will have different thoughts. If so, please do fill me in on what I am missing. I am open to changing my opinion here but I need some clarity.

Will someone please tell Senator Clinton? The race is run, you did well but it is time that we all move towards winning the Whitehouse in November. It over. Its done.

[Update]: Pete points out in the comments that we can tell her until we are blue in the face and she isn’t going to listen. At Rebels Are We!, Colby points out that the superdelegates are the only ones who can really send the message. Demonstrate some leadership and pick a side.

Unless you don’t follow politics, you know about the McCain/Clinton plan for a gas tax holiday. The basic idea is that to reduce the pain of the annual summer gas price hike these two candidates propose that federal gas taxes be suspended through the summer months. At first, this might seem like a good plan, but then you would talk to an economist or take a few seconds to think about it and realize that it isn’t a plan at all so much as a campaign talking point designed to play on an economically strained public.

I have mentioned my general distrust of economist in the past, so I am not going to spend a lot of time quoting them on why this is a bad idea. Suffice it to say that basically no economist will support the idea as a viable solution. You don’t need an economist to tell you why this is either an extremely poorly thought out policy or simple pandering. You see, gas prices go up in the summer because the refineries can not keep up with demand, which is the same reason that prices are high these days anyway. Gas prices rise and frivolous demand goes down and the available resources are distributed by necessity. Its the economics of scarcity, supply and demand and other sorts of voodoo.

It’s simple, if the 18 cent per gallon federal tax ‘goes on holiday’, the price of gasoline will simply rise to fill the difference. There is precedence for it and it will be done and to suggest otherwise is buffoonery.

This is pandering. The thing is that once again, we are not being asked to sacrifice and work together to find lasting solutions. Instead, we are being offered cheap gimmicks and feel good politics. Times are tough, but we need some perspective on this. The average Montanan uses about 544 gallons of gas per year, so lets assume that usage is distributed evenly throughout the year (I know that it is not), that means we go through about 45.33 gallons per month. At the current rate of $3.70 a gallon for mid grade, we spend around $167.72 a month. Even if the 18.4 cent gas tax holiday did lower the price, the average Montanan would save around $8.15 per month. That is the cost of two cups of coffee at Starbucks, four energy drinks, two packs of cigarettes or 2.2 gallons of gas. Even if it were to work, it really isn’t a lot of help at all.

Look back at that 2.2 gallons of gas though. All of the candidate’s ought to be asking us to sacrifice by dropping 2.2 gallons of gas from our monthly consumption. For the average Montanan, that is cutting 4% of their normal rate. That’s 61.6 miles of city driving in a Toyota Carolla or 26.4 miles in a Dodge Ram 1500. By lowering our consumption, we reduce demand which lowers the supposed purpose of rising prices. Additionally, consider the positive environmental impact. Sure, it might be a little uncomfortable. You might have to carpool, or pool your errands, but have we really come to the point where we are not willing to sacrifice a little? Are we that self focussed really?

We don’t need politicians who pander to us. We don’t need politicians who propose feel good legislation. We need leaders who will put forward lasting solutions to our very real issues. We have all acknowledged that we are facing real problems and as American’s, we should be willing to stand up and fight the good fight. We should be willing to make the sacrifices needed, not cozy up to politicians who promise they will fix everything for us. They can’t and nohing will ever get fixed that way.

I’ve written elsewhere, as have others, that GWBush&Co is still out there stumping to open ANWR for oil drilling. The whole idea is like one of those movie monsters that you can’t kill. It just keeps on coming back. There are no good reasons to drill in the arctic, but they are persistent, and their persistence could yet pay.

I worked for a few years as a door-to-door canvasser, and one of the campaigns I was involved in was the ANWR drilling issue. This was about five or six years ago, but the numbers haven’t changed all that much since.

• The USGS estimated roughly a six month supply of oil at current use rates. That’s based on an estimate of 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil over the life of the project and an annual usage in this country alone of about 7 billion barrels. Do the math.
• It was projected to take anywhere from 7 to 12 years for the first drop to come out of the pipe. 2002 consumption rates would likely be wildly inaccurate by then.
• There were not, nor are there now, any guarantees that the US would even see the oil. It could be sold by the big players in the project anywhere in the world. Wherever they could get the biggest profits.
• Oil prices wouldn’t come down noticeably. It was estimated that the price of a barrel of oil would drop about 30 to 50 cents with the addition of ANWR oil on the market. That was based on the figure of $27/barrel — even allowing for a per barrel price of ten times that in the next ten to fifteen years, that would only be about a 3 to 5 buck difference.

None of this even takes into account the potential environmental devastation this would unleash. This scheme to drill ANWR has been shot down numerous times already. It’s time to bury it for good. At a time when we need to be putting our efforts and our time and our money into alternatives to fossil fuels, we shouldn’t even be considering this foolishness anymore. To sacrifice much of the fragile arctic for a last-gasp effort for quick oil profits speaks poorly of us.

Colby recently posited that super delegates who had been waiting for a reason to come out for Hillary might use the recent AP-Ipsos poll as a reason to come out in support of Clinton:

Super-delegates have been waiting for a chance to fall behind her, and it is looking more and more like they will get their chance; more polls like this one will only fuel Hillary’s argument that she is the stronger candidate.

The notorious Mark T. pointed out in comments here that if that were the case, Pennsylvania was the perfect opportunity. While Colby’s gut feeling hasn’t panned out, with endorsements going to Obama at a rate of 2 to 1 this week, all of this discussion is a little troublesome.

[UPDATE TO THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE: Obama picks up three super delegates in Illinois and a Texas super delegate announced support today]

The point of super delegates is not that they are party insiders per say but rather that they are party leaders. We shouldn’t have to be discussing this in terms of poll watching and public opinion. I have said it before: If we are to maintain the super delegate system, then they must do their jobs as leaders of the party to insure that we exit the convention with a strong Democratic candidate. If they were not in the equation, this race would have been over weeks ago. Since they are in the equation, it is time to make a decision.

Now, I will point you to a letter written by the most recent super delegate to announce his support. Joe Andrew is the former DNC Chair, and his announcement doesn’t just count for a win for Obama, but also as a loss for Hillary. In my opinion, this man showed an amazing blaze of leadership that would be refreshing to see from some of our own leaders:

The hardest decisions in life are not between good and bad or right and wrong, but between two goods or two rights. That is the decision Democrats face today. We have an embarrassment of riches, but as much as we may love our candidates and revel in the political process that has brought Presidential politics to places that have not seen it in a generation, we cannot let our family affair hurt America by helping John McCain.
[snip]
The simple answer is that while the timing is hard for me personally, it is best for America. We simply cannot wait any longer, nor can we let this race fall any lower and still hope to win in November. June or July may be too late. The time to act is now.

The letter, both eloquent and inspiring, explains in detail why he has chosen Obama over Clinton, but that is not my point here. My point is that it is time for our leaders to start acting like leaders and let their vote be known. Every day that this continues is another day that our potential candidate get weaker. Don’t tread the line any longer, don’t fear raising the ire of some of us over doing the right thing. This isn’t the time for vote counting and poll watching. I think that Wulfgar said it best:

Governor Schweitzer and Senator Tester, we are Montanans. Most of us don’t have time for your little power games. If you want Hillary, go with Hillary. If you prefer Barack, then fracking say so. Put an end to this thing … now … before we end up with the inevitable President Gelding McCan’t. And Senator Baucus, you do whatever you think will favor you. Montana expects little else. But would you please just make a choice so that we don’t suffer for your status as a special little snowflake?

Did Osama Bin Ladin crash planes into the World Trade Center himself? No. The word is that he called for it to be done and his followers did it. How is this different than Rush Limbaugh’s call for riots in Denver during the Democratic National Convention? Serioulsy? How is it different?

We’re the only ones in charge of our affairs,” he said. “We don’t farm out our defense, unless we elect Democrats. We don’t farm out our protection against attack and national security, unless we elect Democrats. We don’t farm out our economy and tear it up in the name of a hoax called global warming, unless we elect Democrats. Riots in Denver at the Democrat convention would see to it we don’t elect Democrats – and that’s the best damn thing could happen for this country as far as anything I can think: Don’t elect Democrats!

Now, we will pass on the fact that he said that people on the left like to burn their own houses and cars and kill our own children. I would not expect any better from the hate filled man that spawned this joker. The real issue is that America has become so used to Rush’s mental vomit that a call to riot in Denver goes virtually unnoticed? Will it go unheeded? We don’t know. What the hell is wrong with these people, Hammond and Rush, that would feel them so full of anger and hate?

I think that the notorious Mark T hit the nail square on the head about these guys:

But it serves as a reminder - this is not, nor will it be, a rational debate about policy. We are dealing with extremists and revolutionaries who are convinced they are right about everything and that we know nothing. They will do anything to win. It’s not boxing. It’s street fighting. Don’t play nice with them.

A rational debate about policy, they can not win and don’t even pretend to engage in. Instead of rational debate on the issues, we get calls to riot, anger, hatred, fear and ‘Operation Chaos’ from a bunch of wild eyed fundamentalist.

I understand the claim that arguing over Obama and Hillary online is getting us no where. I also agree that it just might be time that the super delegates step in and do their jobs. While I am no fan of that institution, we have no need for them if they only to bind themselves to the popular vote. Their purpose, as I understand it, is to make sure that we have a strong candidate by coming out of the primary. If that is the case, do your jobs and do it last week.

We have a leader in popular vote, pledged delegates and total delegates. What? You mean that we are supposed to count Michigan and Florida? Even though Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan? Even though all the candidates agreed to skip that primary? So says Terry McAuliffe, Clinton’s campaign chairman:

I’m saying they’ve already voted, let’s count the votes. I’m saying that the state parties in those states need to work with the national party and figure out how we count the votes that have already been voted.

While these types of remarks have been issued repeatedly by the Clinton campaign and statements misstatements of popular vote majority have been left unchallenged in the MSM, there is another side to this story. I was not aware that there is a history behind Michigan and breaking the rules.

Way back in 2000, when the same Terry McAuliffe quoted above was the head of the DNC, Michigan tried to move its primary ahead. Back then, Carl Levin informed McAuliffe that Michigan would move their primary outside the window. McAuliffe answered that he would not allow him to do that, because it would cause ‘the whole system to collapse’

“You won’t deny us seats at the convention,” he said.

“Carl, take it to the bank,” I said. “They will not get a credential. The closest they’ll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules.

If McAuliffe felt so strongly about it when he was head of the DNC, why has he reversed his position when he is the head of the Clinton campaign? Now, it is fun to talk about Sinbad and snipers and so forth, but we are talking about some pretty major reversals in positions from the people around her.

Let’s just put the damn Florida and Michigan questions behind us and move on. Those states did not live within the rules, and as such their voters lost out. It is not the fault of the DNC, it is the fault of the state parties and legislators of those states and they should be held accountable by the voters. The central issue is that the man that Hillary Clinton chose to chair her campaign threw his integrity out the window in her name.

Consider this my second call for the super delegates to step up and do their jobs.

The Helana IR has a piece covering the four Democrats in the OPI primary. For the most part, it is exactly what you would expect, clippings from their websites. The interesting part comes from the manner in which both Raser and Kitzenberg assert that while all the candidates are experienced educators, legislative experience is uber-important too.

“I believe that the superintendent needs to be somebody closely connected to schools,” Raser added. “In the days of school funding and school policy, they also need to be closely connected to the Legislature to be able to accomplish what needs to be accomplished.”

That makes a certain amount of sense. As Kitzenberg himself points out:

“I just think it’s imperative that you have legislative experience and that you build up relationships with legislators from both parties,” he said. “You have to have had some success in the Legislature. You should have gotten some things done, which I have.”

Again, it makes sense. However, I wouldn’t be writing this story if it was that cut and dry. Would I? If one actually thinks about it and puts it into context, as Lee Newspapers seldom does, there is another side to that story. You might remember something Kitzenberg did that cause me to write a post titled “Democrats take the Montana Legislature!” I remember, so will most of the Republican’s in the legislature. You see where I am going with this?

I don’t really know anything about Raser in the legislature, but if she did anything worthwhile then she made a few enemies across the aisle. That’s just how the Montana legislature works. While I am sure that either of these two would make excellent superintendents, I am only presenting the other side of the equatuation as a reminder that Fear And Loathing In Helena is a very real thing. Isn’t it possible that long term political histories can actually be a liability to the OPI?

There has been discussion going on around the Montana Blogosphere regarding the legality of S. 1257 and H.R. 1905 (same bill, different parts of the Congress).

The posts are great, but the real conversation gets going in the comments, I hope you take the time to read not only the posts, but also the comments to them.

It started with Jay, and I missed the post when it first happened, but wrote my own in March. Jay jumped on board, pointing out that I missed the first post, and Colby thought that I was wrong. On April 15, I posted again, asking Montanans to call Baucus, to urge him to vote for House Representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. Colby and I started talking again, and I posted my rebuttal. Here we are today, with this post, a response to a conversation I am having with Colby on my last post. Don’t think I am forgetting Wulfy, he listed it as a reason that he is not voting for Baucus this next November.

This whole conversation illustrates perfectly why I love blogs. This was a story given a couple of paragraphs in a local paper, and it is through examination on the blogs that the real issues are coming forward. Many of us, including me, list it as an example of an issue that we disagree with what Congressman Baucus has done in our name. And that some of us consider it a very vital issue, and reason not to vote for him in November, in fact it is my sole reason. There exist many other reasons not to vote for Baucus, but this is the one that gets me going. My vote is my voice, along with my blog.

*******
Colby:

First off, I think I found out where our disagreement lies. I am not talking about trying to pass legislation making D.C. a state. I am talking about passing legislation through Congress to obtain a voting member in the House of Representatives for the residents of D.C. It won’t completely correct an “over 200 year old wrong”, but it is an important step in the right direction.

I am going to go out of order on your arguments, because my rebuttal to your last contention, answers many issues with your other arguments.

U.S. Constitution, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1:

If D.C. wanted to go for statehood, absolutely, an amendment would be needed, as you pointed out, pursuant to Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State nor can any State be formed by the Junction of two or more states, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as Congress.”

We have already agreed, haven’t we, that the District is not a state. If it were a state, we wouldn’t be discussing these issues. The District is in the jurisdiction of the Congress, pursuant to “The District Clause”.

I don’t see the part of Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1

“establishes that new states are not to be made out of already existing American soil.”

I see the part that says a new state cannot be formed out of a current state (or District) without the consent of the Legislature of the State and Congress’s permission. In fact new States have been created from existing States: Vermont came from New York (ratified in 1791); Kentucky from Virginia (ratified in 1792); Tennessee from North Carolina (ratified in 1793); Maine from Massachusetts (ratified in 1820); and West Virginia from Virginia (ratified in 1863).

D.C. is not a state, yet other states have been formed out of existing states, from the very Article you said was “most convincing”. So the Constitution, should D.C. decide to go for statehood, as it did in 1980 (defeated in the House in 1993), provides for D.C. to go through the amendment and ratification process. It would need the permission of its legislature, of which it has none ( see Home Rule, following this paragraph), it is in the jurisdiction of Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the “District Clause”. It would also need the vote of Congress, which in the past, has voted down such efforts.

In terms of “Home Rule” or a legislature, the District remains under the control of Congress.

”The District has been a unique political entity in America since its conception – not part of any state and controlled exclusively by Congress and the federal government. Congress’ control is so absolute that for 100 years the District had no elected local government and was run by commissioners appointed by the president and answerable to those on Capitol Hill. In fact, District residents have been allowed to elect their own mayor and City Council only for the past 34 years. And Congress still maintains line item control over city finances, not only for federal funds but locally raised revenues as well, which make up the majority of the budget. Congress also has the power to impose or annul any laws passed by the city government.”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

Congress doesn’t have that kind of power over any state, reaffirming that the District is not a State, at the same time reiterating the powers granted to it by the powerful District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17.

Back to your rebuttal:

After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later because the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 – even though, legally, there were no longer residents [of a state].

”This is probably most likely an issue of transition, being that there has never been an interval since when they were voting, it is pretty safe to call this a hold-over, and using it to argue D.C. voting rights now, after 208 years of constant non-voting”

Of course the voting allowed in the District from 1790 to 1800 was a part of a transitional period. In 1801, when the citizens realized that they wouldn’t be represented in the new government, is when the process of trying to gain representation in the new national legislature.

Americans living abroad, not paying taxes, should not be allowed to vote in American elections.

Regardless of how we personally feel about laws, legislation, the constitution, and precedence, we live under them. Until new laws are passed, or precedence set, it is what it is. Personally, if I were living abroad, not paying taxes, but still a US Citizen, I would want to still be able to vote, it is my right as a citizen. Paying taxes is not a qualification to be able to vote.

My commerce argument stands, having no rebuttal.

In terms of law, I think you might have misunderstood diversity jurisdiction. Diversity Jurisdiction allows citizens of the District to bring a case in Federal Court against a citizen or corporation of another state. Say a DC resident, has a case with a credit card company making a false estate claim of against her mother, trying to collect her mother’s debt from her personally. The credit card company has its base in Delaware. Diversity Jurisdiction. allows those D.C. resident to sue the corporation in federal court, and is an example of how Congress has powers under the District Clause to grant DC residents the same standing as a citizen of a state, even though the Constitution doesn’t provide it. The same thing is true for a Montanan. Even though we aren’t citizens of Delaware, we have the right to sue a corporation (or citizen) with their home offices (or residence) in another state.

The reason I brought up examples of the way that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President have treated D.C. as a state, is to show that there is legislative, judicial and executive precedence for Congress to provide a voting member in the House of Representatives.

”Just because we have passed legislation that allows the residents of D.C. to b treated as if they lived in a state does not mean those laws made D.C. a state.”

Agreed.

I never said that D.C. cannot be treated as a state, just that, as far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not a state. There is a difference between someone being a legal adult versus trying them as an adult”.

Agreed again. Although I point, again, to the District Clause.

So we already agree that there are many (some count over 500) laws that treat D.C. as a state for various purposes, and we agree that D.C. is not a state. I hope we agree that this legislation will not make D.C. a state, instead, only allow them a voting member of the House of Representatives.

Hold onto your seat, I am going to agree with you again:

”First off, the largest problem with a legislative solution is that it would not be very permanent; any congress in the future could modify or change the decision.”

Agreed. (Would conceded be better?)

Now I am going to disagree with you:

“Senators and Representatives represent states . . ”

the Senators and Representatives represent the people of the states. How could SCHIP exist without caring for our littlest charges? After all, they can’t vote yet, but their interests are at the forefront of local and federal legislation. Why would we care about how someone on death row dies, without the people, advocating legislation or legal decisions for them. Why would the rights of an unborn fetus be so contested, as opposed to the rights of its mother? The rights of individuals are argued all the time.

Finally, I am going to address this:

“. . . simply put, there is not constitutional authority to give congressional representatives to any body that is not a state”.

Yes there is. I will quote Zach,

”I am going to quote Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, and that ought to be enough:
“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States”
Key phrase: all Cases whatsoever”

(I’ll skip the “emotional” stuff, and let the fact that it is how we are creating democracies around the world stand as they are, open to interpretation and implication.)

I think the best part of this whole conversation is, that we are closer than we think on the issue.

*******
Jeff, I haven’t forgotten you, thanks for hanging in.

I already said this:

Comment by Cece • Website • |Edit This

2008-04-24

Also, the 23rd amendment implies DC is not a state and makes an explicit exception for voting for President and VP. Since that appears to be more closely related to the question at hand than any of your other examples and an amendment was the resolution, doesn’t that suggest that Congressional representation requires an amendment? I mean, you’ve listed specific exceptions, which deal with genuine holes in the Constitution on this issue, but the 23rd amendment addresses an almost identical question. Shouldn’t we go by that?

[edited for content]

Briefly, under Article I of the Constitution are the “Leglislative” powers and limits. The District Clause is a part of Article I. In Article II deals with the “Executive” powers and limits. The only power under Article II that Congress has, is the power to chose the day that the electors gather to cast their electoral college votes. That’s it.

Because the powers enumerated in Article I, do not give Congress the power to create legislation regarding the election of Presidents, an amendment to the Constitution was required. See Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970).

You wanted to know what Article 1 power I am “citing for legislation giving D.C. representation”. It is known as the District Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States, . . . “

In Loughorough v. Blake , for example, the Supreme Court upheld legislation that imposed direct federal taxes on D.C. residents. Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution stated that “Representative and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several State, which may be included within the Union ”Despite the absence of motion of the District in this clause, the Court held that direct taxation of the District was constitutionally permissible. The Court stated that even if the language in Article I, Section 2 Clause 3 were not read to include the District “[i}f the general language of the constitution should be confined to the States, the [District Clause] gives to Congress the power of exercising “exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever within the district,,” including the power to assess the same in direct tax on the District as it could assess on a state”

from The Authority of Congress to Enact Legislation to Provide the District of Columbia with Voting Representation in the House of Representatives. 

Then, the 14th Amendment said:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States are citizens of the United States . . .”

huh . . .that would include residents of the District now wouldn’t it?

“and residents of the State wherein they reside.”

Well I have already shown that D.C. has been considered repeatedly as a state for legislative, judicial and executive purposes. And the power to do so, lies in that District Clause. More importantly, continuing Amendment 14, Section 1:

”No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of live, liberty or property, without the due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Emphasis mine.

Baucus, in representing us, has an obligation to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And he walked away from that obligation.

Sometimes the Constitution falls in our favor, and when it doesn’t, I am going to quote James Madison from the Federalist 51:

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such divides should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? . . In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to govern itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government . . .”

Colby and Jeff, you guys are my friends, and I really respect your opinions; but I skunked you on this issue. It might be time to concede. If you want to talk more, bring it on.

*I will link to any missing cites in the morning, but right now I am kaput.

I am sorry, but I long ago decided that Andy Hammond is not one to be taken seriously, but after this post, I will always picture him as Butter’s alter ego Professor Chaos!

Let’s look at the idea. Essentially, Andy Butters Professor Chaos is taking a queue from pundit comedian Rush Limbaugh wherein they encourage other Republicans to go to the voting booth and pull the level labeled ‘Hillary’ because they see her as the most beatable in November.

My goal is to continue Operation Chaos in the Montana Democrat Primary. It’s an open primary on June 3 so it will be very easy to just go and vote. It is the last state primary, along with South Dakota, before the National Convention and I am pretty sure Hillary will still be battling so I plan on voting for her. I have also recruited, to date, eight other conservatives to vote for her and plan on recruiting many more.

Like Colby points out, he “sounds like some 14 year old kid starting up a World of Warcraft clan”. While it is funny, in the same sad way that Butter’s is funny when desperation and a search for respect causes him to create the alter ego ‘Professor Chaos’, it is a bit more sinister. Consider this:

In order to do this we need to do whatever we can to ensure we can win. For example, 160,000 Pennsylvania Republicans switched to the Democrat party in order to vote in the Democrat primary. Hillary won by double digits. This was all through the encouragement of Rush and Operation Chaos. The goal is to keep Hillary in the race so her and Obama can keep tearing each other up and exposing each other for the unqualified candidates they are.

There are a few thigs to take from this:

1. Andy Professor Chaos is so vacuous that he can not comprehend why those voters switched from Republican to Democratic. As always, he has a problem with basic facts. Maths are hard Andy Butters, you should leave it to the experts.

Barack Obama won among Democrats who had newly flocked to the party for the day’s showdown

2. Andy Professor Chaos may or may not hate democracy, but it is obvious that he is willing to resort to treachery to make sure that the system is compromised.

I am not sure if Andy Professor Chaos is really as dishonorable as the plan he is putting forward here, he may just be a scared little Butter’s and this is the only way he knows how to cope with the fact that the nation is moving on without him.

OK. PA. is over and Clinton has come away with a two to one margin over Obama. The numbers tell us that she will need a lot of numbers ($$$) to win in Indiana. The numbers also tell us that Clinton would now like to add in Florida and Michigan and the voters numbers that voted for her albeit the DNC had already agreed NOT to count those numbers.

My problem? Are not the people who entered the booths in Florida and Michigan “real people” or “real voters”? Sure this would mean that we would be assuming that we are going to change the rules in the middle of the game but in politics nothing is for sure is it?

Oh Florida…Once again the state has (or will) affect the outcome of the popular vote at least as far as the popular vote goes for these Democrats. Rest assured the Republicans are happy to sit by and watch this war go on. It helps them in November.

Both of these individuals will NOT have enough in numbers to win their respective party come convention time. Now enter the “super delegates” who seem to have the power to change the numbers at will. I guess I just don’t get it. Seems that if you do not like the outcome then hey drag in some folks who can change what the voters WANT.

In the end I think the “winner take all” should be the rule of the day. In other words you get the most votes YOU win! It should not come down to a “few” people who decide the final winner. After-all why even vote then? Oh and by the way I am also against the way that we count the winners in the national elections by a so called “college” as a means of picking a winner or loser. Either way you go someone is going to feel cheated along with the rest of US. Like I said, numbers don’t lie but the people who manage them do.

Look at the headlines:

Senate Republicans block unequal pay bill
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate
Republicans block pay discrimination bill

What is happening here? What is it about women and the working class in general that Republicans hate? Even in a session saturated by GOP obstructionism, this one really stands out.

The blocked Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named for an Alabama woman who lost her case in the Supreme Court last year, is backed by women’s and civil rights groups that argue it would give workers a fair chance for justice.
-
It is opposed by the White House and business groups, which warn it would trigger an explosion of lawsuits and allow suits to be filed years and even decades after alleged offenses.
-
On average in the United States, women are paid about 23 percent less than men, while minorities receive even less — despite laws that mandate equal pay for equal work

Opposed by the White House and business groups? Well, by all means, vote it down. Can someone explain why Republican’s are so interested in doing the bidding of business groups instead of looking out for their constituents? What is the idea with that?

Let’s just get this bit out of the way. I am not a lawyer; I am just a person who has the privilege of being a United States citizen, with all the rights and obligations that come with that honor. It is my duty as a citizen to defend the Constitution. Someone whose opinion I value disagrees with me. I am rising to the challenge.

There is an argument afoot, as to the legality of a legislative vs. amendment solution to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. I believe that both a legislative and an amendment path could lead to righting a 200-year-old wrong; my friend believes that there is only an amendment path. That is what this post is about, evidencing the legal legislative path to representation in Congress for DC residents.

First some history. Back when the founding fathers were writing the Constitution in June of 1783, there was a riot outside of the statehouse in Philadelphia, (which was the capitol of the US, at the time). There were some unpaid revolutionary troops, who were demanding pay from the forming federal government, the forming fathers asked Pennsylvania to provide some protection, and Pennsylvania refused. The Congress decided to move to Princeton then to Trenton, New Jersey; to Annapolis, Maryland; and finally, New York City, to settle the Constitution in a more peaceful environment(s).

From this situation, the idea of a “District”, outside of the influence and dependence on a singular state was born. The Framers constructed an idea of a District no more than 10 miles on each side, to hold the nation’s capitol. Alexander Hamilton raised an amendment to the Constitution, in his state, providing that when the federal district reached significant population (reached in 1850), “provision shall be made by Congress for having a District representation in that body”. The Constitution was passed without such amendment in 1789, when everyone lived in a state.

So the idea of the District was created. Virginia and Maryland succeeded lands to create the District, and in 1791, the site was chosen by George Washington. While the District was under construction, the residents were allowed to vote in their former state’s elections (north of the Potomac in Maryland, and south of the Potomac in Virginia). December 1, 1800, the federal government moved to Washington D.C. from Philadelphia. It wasn’t until 1801, when Congress assumed control over the District, that the former residents of Virginia and Maryland were denied the right to vote in elections.

July 9, 1846, Congress passed a law returning Alexandria County and Alexandria to the State of Virginia. After decades of DC resident’s complaints (petitioning as early as 1803), the lands of the District, south of the Potomac, were returned by recession to Virginia, and the residents living in that area had representation on the hill again. You will note that the right to representation in Congress was a primary reason that the District is not 10 miles square today. While I might I don’t agree with their reasoning for wanting the vote (slavery), the fact remains that the citizens demanded representation, and Congress gave the land back, so that they could have representation. The yellow bit is Virginia, and the gray/white part is formerly Maryland and present day Washington, D.C.

Image from Mental Floss.

My friend claims that there is nothing in the Consititution granting the power to Congress to pass a law granting a voting member to the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives. The relevant portion of the Constitution is, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, (hereinafter “The District Clause”):

To exercise exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by Cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States . . .” (Emphasis mine.)

And he would probably cite Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States . . . “

And Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 (as amended by the 17th Amendment):

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof. . . “

Ahh, there’s the rub. Fortunately, I have several instances where Congress has treated Washington, D.C. as a state, by using the District Clause.

Congress has let Citizens Vote for Congress Even When They Aren’t State Residents: While the language of the Constitution literally requires that House members be elected “by the People of the Several states,” Congress has not always applied this language so literally:

* After Virginia and Maryland gave up lands in 1790 that later became the District of Columbia, Congress let residents keep voting in federal elections in those original states through 1800 - even though, legally, they were no longer residents [of a state].

* The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. Citizens living abroad to vote in Congressional elections in their last state of residence - even if the no longer are citizens there, pay any taxes there, or have any intent to return.

. . .

* Article III provides that courts may hear cases “between citizens of different states” (diversity jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under this language, D.C. residents could not sue residents of other states. But in 1940, Congress began treating D.C. as a state for this purpose - a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer Co. (1949).

* The Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce “among the several states,” which, literally, would exclude D.C. But Congress’ authority to threat D.C. as a “state” for Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. Hennick (1889).

* Similarly, a U.S. Court of Appeals recently treated D.C. as a “state” for purposed of the Second Amendment, in Parker v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 2007).

from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Letter with H.R. 1905 Fact Sheet Including Constitutionality Issues, April 18, 2007 (PDF 93 kb)

* “For instance, the Supreme Court consistently has upheld Congress’ right to treat the District as a state in decisions on federal taxation, regulation of interstate commerce, the right to trial by jury, prohibition and the right to sue citizens of the states in federal courts . . .”

from the CQ Researcher, DC Voting Rights: Should Washington Citizens Have a Vote in Congress? April 11, 2008 (PDF 561 kb)

“Moreover, the United States is the only country in the world that denies the citizens of its capital representation in its national legislature, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).” id.

Ilir Zherka, executive director of the voting-rights advocacy group DC Vote, points out that for decades the U.S. departments of State and Justice have helped other countries write their constitutions “In not one of them has the U.S. proposed to disenfranchise the people of the capital.”, id.

Let’s refer back to the whole “Taxation without Representation” issue. I think it is extremely important here. The Sixteenth Amendment (passed in 1909, ratified in 1913):

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The D.C. is not a State, yet the citizens pay Federal Income Taxes. If my friend’s contention is true, that Congress cannot pass a law giving representation to its citizen’s, because it is unconstitutional based on the frequent use of “the several states” throughout the Constitution; then the fact that D.C. citizens pay taxes on their incomes would be unconstitutional as well.

If my friend’s contention held true, that D.C. cannot be treated as a state under the Constitution, and the powers granted to Congress to provide legislation “exercise[ing] exclusive legislation all cases, whatsoever, over such district“; then the Congress would have done a lot of illegal things over the years.

I posit the Constitution conflicts with itself. It is not a perfect document. All contingencies could not have been foretold. Therefore, the founding fathers put in ways to amend it (thank you Ben Franklin), and ways for Congress to provide for the citizen’s rights, who happened to live in a District, instead of a State.

Continuing a series on reviewing candidates based on their websites, we will be looking at all the candidates who have filed for Montana’s at large congressional seat. The format will be the same as the previous editions and only those candidates listed on the state filing site will be reviewed.

Note: The purpose of this series is based on the notion that a number of voter’s will use candidate websites to help make a decision. The same as with consumers, these voters are apt to only spend a short time period looking for information and this series is an evaluation of how the candidates present themselves and their platforms. In short I am asking the question “Does the candidate’s website serve the purpose of providing easily accessible information to the voter?”

Jim Hunt (D): The very first thing that I noticed about Jim Hunt’s site is the familiarity of the color and atmosphere and soon realized that it put me in mind of a certain other maverick’s site. Overall, the site is inviting, clean, crisp and easily navigable. Hunt’s site is broken down into sections like ‘About Jim’, ‘Contact’, ‘Press Releases’ and the all important ‘Issues’ section.

About Jim: Here the reader gets very quick facts about Mr Hunt. In a few short sentences we learn about his military service, education, affiliation with the NRA and Episcopal church as well as his career as a consumer lawyer. Compact and easily digestible, this section will serve well for those with a short attention span.

In The News: Here the reader gets to see some headlines relating to Hunt’s congressional bid. This type of section can provide extremely useful for voters seeking more information about the candidate. Currently, there are many listings from a variety of sources. From blogs to newspapers, this section will provide the interested voter with a spring board to begin independent candidate research.

Issues: This is the most useful section of any candidate website and is generally the most logical place to see how a candidate’s position lines up with yours. Jim Hunt has a very thorough issues page covering topics like Iraq, Health Care, Public Lands, Veterans, Gun Rights, Privacy and Stem Cell Research. A large picture of himself in his USMC combat gear will score credibility points on topics like Iraq, Veterans and Gun Control. All in all, I was able to easily find information on every topic important to me as a voter with the exception of conservation, which was actually covered under the topic ‘Energy’.

Press Releases: Much like the ‘In The News’ sections, this type of section can provide a very useful place to provide more detailed information for the voter. While this may be used more effectively in the future, Jim Hunt’s site only lists four press releases currently.

Overall Impression: If I were a voter just beginning the process of researching a candidate, I would find Jim Hunt’s site easy to use and effective at giving me the tools to begin making a decision.

Dennis Rehberg (R): The first thing that I noticed about Dennis Rehberg’s site is that there is a video that starts on autoplay and does not have any visible controls to stop it from playing (after a few minutes, I discovered that I could right click and uncheck the ‘Play’ menu item to make it stop). This will be a major turn off to many voters who are not interested in watching video. Perhaps they are in a library, at work or just watching TV and an auto playing video can cause problems. The next thing I noticed is that the site contains exactly one section: Donate.

Overall Impression:Other than a short letter, there is absolutely no information for the interested voter. In a departure, I am including a screen capture to demonstrate the sparseness of Denny Rehberg’s website. This website is useless for the voter, unless ‘Donate’ is the only information he cares to pass along.

Robert Candee (D): First impressions of Robert’s site is that it is crisp and clean in appearance, with photos that basically shout ‘Agriculture’. The text of the front page actually conveys a lot of useful information on Robert’s background, priorities and qualifications. It doesn’t get much easier to find information than that. In addition, Candee’s site is broken up into useful sections like ‘Personal Background’ , ‘Platform’ and ‘Gallery’.

Personal Background: This is actually the same as the front page, which was a little confusing and caused me to click several times waiting for something new. As I said above though, there is a lot of good information here.

Platform: Much like the images on this front page, his platform screams Agriculture, as it is by far the largest section with charts and graphs. This is positive, as it is most likely the information that he most wants to share with voters. Additional topics covered include Health Care, Immigration, Renewable Energy and Ethics. There is more than enough information here to give the voters a reasonable idea of Candee’s platform.

Gallery: While this section is missing from the other candidate’s sites, galleries are useful sections for letting voters feel a little more like they know the candidate. While it may seem more shallow than textual representations, human’s are visual. Seeing how a candidate interacts with others and the scenes they choose to portray can provide valuable context for the voters while considering candidates. In this case, I am not sure that Candee’s choice of imagery will convey a sense of congressional stature, which could distract from the effectiveness of the page.

Other Interests: Here Robert presents a little more context about himself, his views on alternative energy as well as public service work he has performed.

Overall Impression: Candee’s sight has some formatting issues, but is a good source for getting a broad picture his platform and qualifications. The technical problems with the site lie in the fact that it uses frames, which makes it impossible for me to provide links to the specific sections. Another interesting part is that there is no path to making a donation to Candee’s campaign, which will likely lead voters to question the seriousness of Candee’s campaign.

Mike Fellows (L): The first thing I notice about Mike Fellow’s site is the large banner proclaiming that “The Second Amendment Is Not About Hunting”. The second thing I noticed is that the short paragraphs of text actually do provide a quick and easy overview of Mike’s platform and intentions. The third thing I notice is a picture of Mike standing next to a stunning VW van. The general appearance of the site is pleasing enough but has some formatting issue in the navigation bar. The site does include several useful sections, such as ‘About Us’, ‘The War On Alternative Medicine’ and ‘News’.

About Us: This section might be misnamed, as it is really only about Mike as a singular man. This section give a little information on Mr Fellows and then it gets a little confusing. Under the title ‘Facts’ there is a sentence that says “A rating Gun Owners Of America”, but there is no indication of what that rating might be. There is also some useful information on Mike’s party affiliation.

Reduce Spending: This section provides the potential voter with some information on Mike’s fiscal policy.

Media: It is at this point that the observant voter might make note that this site is simply recycled from Mike’s previous run at the house, noting pictures of Monica Lindeen’s bus. Most of the pictures show Mike holding a sign by himself, very small groups of people and parade entries. As with Robert, I am not sure that this page will display a sense of congressional stature.

The War On Alternative Medicine: A short paragraph on Fellow’s view on alternative medicine.

News: This page provides a list of headlines along with useless links. For instance, there is the headline “Fellows responds to health research” with a link here. A search of that site shows absolutely no results for Mike Fellows. This type of thing will be very distracting to voters looking for real information.

Overall Impression Mike Fellow’s candidate website is laid out differently than one might expect. Instead of an ‘Issues’ section, he has important issues listed as their own sections. Besides being short on content, it is also severely outdated.

In Summary: For general appearance, all the sites are OK and have their relative strengths. For content, Dennis Rehberg’s site is the hands down loser and Jim Hunt’s the hands down winner. Where each of the other candidates site’s will provide useful information for perspective voters, Rehberg’s site will provide none.

I have never had to struggle like I did to watch tonights ABC debate. It was a shameful display of tabloid journalism. For the first half of the debate only Obama talked about the issues. The second half of the debate was about Republican issues: taxes and war. Here is a list of issues that were not discussed:

The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis.
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance

Talk about condescending against voters, that all we would care about are flag pens and 1960’s radicals? Ever wonder why we are bitter? In fact, at least one of the questions came directly from the mouth of Hannity.

The entire debate was lame, discouraging and a disservice to American’s who tuned in to hear the candidates talk about the issues. Shame on ABC news for letting their viewers down. Let’s be clear on this: I does not matter if you are a Clinton or Obama supporter, ABC let you down tonight by putting on a sham of a debate.